The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 6

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part · Book 6 · Chapter 6

p. 172CHAP. VI.

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

MR. ARNAƲD will not ſuffer me to ſay in my Anſwer to the Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, Part 2. chap. 7.Author of the Perpetuity, That Error does not inſinuate it ſelf by way of oppoſition, or a formal contradiction of the truth, but by way of addition, explication, and confirmation, and that it endeavours to ally it ſelf with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate oppoſition. And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification, which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter. The inventions, ſays he, of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch. 5. page 899.uſually attended with very conſiderable defects. To which I have no more to ſay but this, that the pretenſions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high, but generally very ill grounded; well offer'd, but ill defended.

'TIS falſe, ſays he, that Paſchaſus did not teach his Doctrin, by expreſly condemning thoſe that were of a contrary Opinion. Mr. Arnaud hides himſelf under a thin vail, pretending not to underſtand what he does very well. We do not ſay that Paſchaſus did not propoſe his Doctrin by condemning thoſe of a contrary Opinion. This is not the point in queſtion. The queſtion is, Whether he did not propoſe his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church, which was not ſufficiently underſtood, and which he therefore more clearly explain'd? Now Paſchaſus himſelf decides this difference, as I have ſhewed in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity. For ſpeaking in the beginning of his Book touching his deſign, he ſays, That all the Faithful ought to underſtand the Lib. De Corpore & Sang. Dom. cap. 2.Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood, which is every day celebrated in the Church, and what they ought to believe and know of it. That we muſt ſeek the virtue of it, and inſtruct our Faith under the Diſcipline of Jeſus Chriſt, leſt we be eſteem'd unworthy, if we do not diſcern it enough, not underſtanding what is the dignity, and the virtue of the myſtical Body and Blood of our Saviour. And leſt it ſhould be imagin'd this was only a way of ſpeaking to excite the Faithful to inſtruct themſelves in this Myſtery (yet without ſuppoſing that in effect they were ignorant of the expoſition he was going to make of it) we need only call to mind what he ſays in his Letter to Frudegard, wherein ſpeaking of the ſucceſs his Book met with, I am informed, ſays he, that I have moved ſeveral to underſtand this myſtery, which ſhews, Epiſt. ad Frud.that according to him his Book was a more clear and expreſs expoſition of the Churches ſentiment, and that he had actually brought over ſeveral perſons from an obſcure, to a clear knowledg of this Myſtery. But without going any further, we need only read a paſſage of Odon Abbot of Clugny, which Mr. Arnaud himſelf has produc'd; for it expreſly juſtifies what I ſay, Paſchaſus, ſays he, has wrote theſe things, and ſeveral others to learn us Book 9. ch. 6. page 913.the reverence we owe to this myſtery, and make us know the majeſty of it: and if thoſe who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book, they will find ſuch great things in it, as will make 'em acknowledg they underſtood little of this myſtery before. After this teſtimony of one of Paſchaſus his principal Diſciples, who lived in the 10th. Century, I think it cannot be deny'd that Paſchaſus propoſed his Doctrin by way of explication. He p. 173wrote, ſays he, to teach us what reverence we owe to this myſtery, and to make us know the majeſty of it. He will have alſo the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this myſtery, and ſeeing he is pleaſed the learned ſhould be no better qualified, I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a ſtronger reaſon.

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

IT is not poſſible, ſays Mr. Arnaud, that a Doctrin ſhould be approv'd of Book 9. ch. 5. page 900.immediately by all thoſe to whom it was propoſed. There muſt certainly be ſome who reject it, and warn others againſt it. I grant it, but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed, that my pretenſion is impoſſible, is what I deny, and that with reaſon; for a man may well propoſe a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith, and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction againſt adverſaries who reject it, and reſpect it as a novelty.

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

BUT, ſays moreover Mr. Arnaud, others muſt be ſurpriz'd in a contrary Page 901.manner, they muſt needs deride the abſurdity of this new Doctrin. They muſt be aſtoniſh'd at the boldneſs of Paſchaſus and his Diſciples propoſing of it as the Faith of the Church. They muſt be mightily offended at their being accuſed of ignorance, and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe. Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect ſeveral in Paſchaſus his time, who had theſe kind of ſentiments touching his Opinion. Paſcaſus himſelf acknowledges that ſeveral called in queſtion his Doctrin, he ſays he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong ſenſe; he endeavours to anſwer ſome of their objections, ſeems to intimate he was p. 174accuſed for writing his Book by an Enthuſiaſtic raſhneſs and pretended Revelation. And in effect John Scot, Raban, and Bertram wrote againſt his novelties and oppoſed them. But this does not hinder its being true, that he propoſed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith, and that this way might procure him many followers. And ſo far concerning the Machins of Mollification.

I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution. Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I ſometimes make the Real Preſence to be eſtabliſhed by the noiſe of Diſputes, and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Diſpute in the 10th. Century, wherein I pretend this was effected: I think, Book 9. ch. 6. page 902.ſays he, we had beſt leave him to his choice, and that by chooſing one of theſe chimerical means, he may acknowledg he has raſhly and falſly offer'd the other. Were Mr. Arnaud's requeſt reaſonable, we would not ſtick to grant it, notwithſtanding the ſharpneſs of his expreſſions. But 'tis unjuſt and unwarrantable: for 'tis certain that the change in queſtion has hapned, and that with and without Diſputes. There was a conteſt in the 9th. Century during the time wherein Paſchaſus lived, as I now ſaid. We do not find there was any in the 10th. but in the 11th 'twas very hot. So that any man may ſee there is no contradiction in what I offered, let Mr. Arnaud ſay what he pleaſes. Which I hope he will grant me, when he conſiders, Firſt, That what I ſaid concerning the ſenſes that were attackt by the noiſe of the Diſpute, and th' Authority of the Court of Rome, muſt be referred to the 11th, Century, and that 'twill not be found I attributed it to the 10th. Secondly, That when I ſpoke preciſely of the 10th. I did not ſuppoſe any Diſputes in it, but on the contrary a groſs ignorance, which hindred 'em from diſputing.

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

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

p. 175THIS is the Point to be diſpatched, for what ſignifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th. Century. What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus, or that of S. Godart, or S. Remacle? We do not ſee, ſays Mr. Arnaud, in any of theſe Book 9. ch. 6. page 907.lives that either of 'em buſied himſelf to inſtruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Preſence, and to refute the contrary opinion. Were this obſervation true what good would redound from it? Did theſe Hiſtorians deſign to learn the world the ſentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion, or to inform us what was the ſubject of their Sermons and inſtructions which they gave their people? Moreover, who ſuppoſes all theſe Biſhops were Preachers of the Real Preſence? It is ſufficient there were ſome that have authoris'd this Doctrin, William of Malmsbury, as Mr. Arnaud himſelf acknowledges, relates of Odon th' Arch-biſhop of Canterbury, That he confirm'd ſeveral in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords Ibidem.Body, having ſhewed them by a miracle, the Bread of the Altar changed into Fleſh, and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood. Whether theſe doubters were the Diſciples of John Scot, or not, 'tis not neceſſary to enquire; 'tis ſufficient that this relation ſhews us there were ſeveral perſons that withſtood the Doctrin of the Real Preſence, and that theſe perſons were neither inconſiderable for their number, nor fame; ſeeing a Primate of England, th' Arch-biſhop of Canterbury was forced to make uſe of a Miracle for their Converſion. Mr. Arnaud likewiſe tells us from the Life of S. Dunſtan Page 9 8.that he preached the Real Preſence; and we have ſeen already what he himſelf alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny, who exhorted thoſe that thought themſelves learned to read Paſchaſus his Book, telling 'em they might learn ſuch great things in it, as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but ſmall knowledg of the myſtery of the Euchariſt. This methinks is ſufficient to ſhew there were endeavours in the 10th. Century to eſtabliſh the Real Preſence. For what could theſe great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of, and in which they were to be inſtructed by Paſchaſus his Book, but the myſteries of the Real Preſence? 'Twould be abſurd to ſay, that by theſe great things we muſt underſtand only the Devotion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament. For 'tis to be ſuppoſed, theſe Learned folks, mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jeſus Chriſt is on the Altar by the proper ſubſtance of his Body, neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Reſpect and Devotion we are able; and therefore there was no need to ſend 'em to Paſchaſus his Book to diſcover therein this conſequence, ſeeing it diſcovers it ſelf ſufficiently enough by the bare idea which the Goſpel gives us of Jeſus Chriſt.

MOREOVER, he that deſires to ſee the ſtrange effects of prejudice, need but read the 7th. Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th. Book. He pretends to ſhew therein, as the title of the Chapter bears, That the mixture of the Page 914.two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th. Century, is a thing the moſt contrary imaginable to common ſenſe. He exerts all his parts, to ſhew this mixture is impoſſible, he cannot endure there ſhould be therein either ignorant or prophane perſons, nor Paſchaſiſts, nor Bertramiſts, and argues thereupon till he has loſt both himſelf and his Readers.

YET is this a real matter of fact againſt which all Mr, Arnaud's ſubtilties will not prevail, That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century. I already proved it in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to ſuppreſs my proofs, and paſs 'em over in ſilence, to make p. 176way for his reaſonings. But let him argue as long as he will, he cannot hinder its being true, that in the 10th. Century th'Engliſh were taught this Doctrin, that as we conſider two things in the ſame creature, as for inſtance in the Lib. Catholicor. Serm. ad Bed. Hiſt. l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Veloci.water of Baptiſm, the one that it is naturally true 'tis corruptible Water; and th'other that according to the ſpiritual myſtery, it has a ſaving virtue; ſo likewiſe if we conſider th' Euchariſt according to our natural underſtanding, we ſee it to be a corporeal and elementary creature; but if we regard the ſpiritual virtue, then we underſtand there is life in it, and that 'twill give immortality to thoſe that ſhall partake of it with Faith. That there is a great deal of difference between the inviſible virtue of this holy Euchariſt, and the viſible ſpecies of nature; that in reſpect of its nature it is corruptible Bread, and corruptible Wine, and that by the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Chriſt, yet not corporeally, but ſpiritually. That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jeſus Chriſt has ſuffered, and that Body which is Conſecrated in the Euchariſt: For the Body with which our Saviour has ſuffered was born of the Virgin, has Blood, Bones, Skin, Sinews, and is indued with a reaſonable Soul. But his ſpiritual Body which we call the Euchariſt is compoſed of ſeveral grains, without Blood, Bones, Members, and Soul; and therefore we muſt not underſtand any thing of it corporeally, but ſpiritually.

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

III. Mr. ARNAƲD muſt be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund. Voloc.Malm…ſbury, and who was afterwards (as 'tis thought) Arch-biſhop of Canterbury, and lived in the ſame time, wrote, That the Euchariſt is not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt corporally, but ſpiritually; not the Body in which Jeſus Chriſt has ſuffered, but the Body in which he ſpake the night before his Paſſion, when he Conſecrated the Bread and Wine, and ſaid of the Conſecrated Bread, This is my Body, and of the Conſecrated Wine, This is my Blood, which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins.—The Lord who before his Paſſion Conſecrated the Euchariſt, and ſaid, the Bread was his Body, and the Wine p. 177truly his Blood, does himſelf every day Conſecrate by the hands of the Prieſt the Bread into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood, by a ſpiritual myſtery, as we find it written. This enlivening Bread is not in any ſort the ſame Body in which our Lord ſuffered, and the Conſecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord, which was ſhed as to the corporeal matter, but it is as to the ſpiritual. The Bread was his Body, and the Wine his Blood, as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nouriſhed during forty years, and the water which ran from the Rock in the Deſart was his Blood, as ſays the Apoſtle in one of his Epiſtles, they ate of the ſame ſpiritual food, and drank of the ſame ſpiritual drink. The Apoſtle does not ſay corporally but ſpiritually. For Jeſus Chriſt was not then born, nor his Blood ſpilt, when the people ate of this food, and drank of this Rock.

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

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

VI. He muſt know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script. Eccleſ. cap. 137. de Ceſt. Abb. Lob. tom. 6. Spicil. p. 591.Liege, publickly condemned Paſchaſus his Doctrin as new, and contrary to the Faith of the Church. Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs; for both of 'em ſay, That he produc'd againſt Rabbert a great many paſſages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord.

VIII. Mr. ARNAƲD himſelf confeſſes that John Scot, who withdrew Book 9. ch. 6. p. 909.into England about the end of the preceding Century, made perhaps ſome Diſciples of his Doctrin. 'Tis true he would have theſe Diſciples to be ſecret. But why ſecret? John Scot kept not himſelf private, Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private, Thoſe that diſliked Paſchaſus his Novelties hid not themſelves in the 9th. Century. Why then muſt the Diſciples of John Scot lie ſecret in the 10th. wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paſchaſus publickly read? Beſides, as I have already ſaid, there's no likelihood that Odon Arch-biſhop of Canterbury ſhould think himſelf oblig'd to have recourſe to ſuch a famous p. 178miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury, to confute thoſe that durſt not ſhew themſelves.

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

'TIS moreover very ſtrange that Mr. Arnaud ſhould endeavour to perſuade us 'twas not poſſible there could be in this Century ignorant people that had no other than a confuſed knowledg of Goſpel Myſteries; after the teſtimonies we have brought him of ſo many Authors who unanimouſly depoſe the contrary. Does he expect we will believe him ſooner than William of Tyr an Hiſtorian of the 12th. Century, who tells us, ſpeaking of the 10th. and 11th. That the Chriſtian Faith was decayed amongſt thoſe who William of Tyr. lib. 1. cap. 8.called themſelves Chriſtians, that there were therein no more juſtice, equity, or any other virtue, that the world ſeem'd to draw towards an end, and was about returning to its former Chaos, that the lives of Church-men were no better than the peoples, for the Biſhops grew negligent of their charge, were dumb dogs that could not bark. Does he hope we ſhall give a greater deference to his reaſons than to the teſtimony of Hérivé Arch biſhop of Rheims, an Author of the 10th. Century, who aſſures us, that Chriſtian Religion was nigh decayed, Pr…f. ad Concilium Troſl.and ſtanding as it were on the edg of a precipice. We have, ſays he, in the Council of Troſly, ſcarcely any good order obſerved amongſt us, the whole ſtate of the Church is overthrown and corrupted, and not to ſpare our ſelves, we that ought to correct the faults of others, are as bad as the reſt; we are called Biſhops, but do we do the office of a Biſhop? We leave off Preaching, we behold thoſe committed to us forſake God, and plunge themſelves in all manner of lewdneſs, and yet are ſilent; we reach not forth to 'em the hand of correction. If at any time we tell 'em that which does not pleaſe 'em, they anſwer us in the words of our Saviour, the Scribes and Phariſees ſit in Moſes his ſeat, &c. So that in this manner are we ſtruck dumb, and the Lords flock is loſt, are drowned in vices, and expoſed to the cruel teeth of wolves. There being no body to ſhew 'em the way of life, how can it be but they muſt wander into the paths of error? Thus in them is accompliſhed what is ſaid by the Prophet, This ignorant people ſhall be ſtruck with jealouſie; and again, My people are gone into captivity, becauſe they had no knowledg. Where are they who are converted by our Preaching and have brought forth fruits worthy of repentance? Who is the man that by hearing us has left his luxury, covetouſneſs, or pride?

This good Biſhop who deſerves without doubt for his zeal not to be Concilium Troſl. cap. 3.comprehended amongſt the number of others, deſcribing in a decretal of his Council aſſembled at Troſly the condition of the Monaſteries of his time, ſays, That as well the Monks as the Nuns lived without Rule, and Diſcipline, applying themſelves to worldly affairs; that ſome of 'em were conſtrained by neceſſity to return into the world again, that the Monaſteries were poſſeſs'd by Lay-Abbots who lived therein with their Wives, Children, Soldiers and Dogs; that the Abbots were not in a capacity t'examine the Rules of their Convents, to read, or underſtand 'em; and if at any time the Book was offered 'em, their reply was, Neſcio literas. He afterwards repreſents the violence of thoſe p. 179that raviſh'd the goods of the Church, perſecuted, and put to death the Prieſts, forcibly took away their Neighbors Eſtates, laying ſnares for the innocent, putting 'em to death and plundering their houſes, and ſays the number of theſe latter was infinite, and that they imagin'd 'twas a gentile thing to live by Rapine. Afterwards he turns his diſcourſe to the Raviſhers of Virgins, and Women, and thoſe that contracted clandeſtine and inceſtuous Marriages, and ſhews the number of theſe was not ſmall. Thence he comes to the ſcandalous converſation of Prieſts with Women, to perjured Perſons, Quarrels, Murthers; and in fine, concludes by an exhortation to the Biſhops his Suffragans to do henceforward their duty. Alas, ſays he, Ibid. in Epil.alas! thro our negligence, and ignorance, and by the neglect and ignorance of our Predeceſſors, and that of our Brethren who are ſtill living, ſeveral do periſh in their Vices, and at this time there are an infinite number of people of both Sexes, Ages, and Conditions, ignorant of the Faith, know not their Creed, or Pater noſter. How can theſe people, ſuppoſing they were of honeſt converſation, do good Works, having not the foundation of Faith? And what excuſe can we make for our ſelves? when they die they enter not into life, for they are unacquainted with it, but they enter into eternal death, which they cannot avoid, being without Faith; for the juſt live by Faith. We are then, as Gregory ſays, the murtherers of theſe people that periſh, whereas we ſhould be their guides to ſave them. For 'tis for our ſins this multitude are degenerated, becauſe we careleſly neglect the giving them the inſtructions of life. Will Mr. Arnaud now perſuade us 'twas impoſſible there ſhould be perſons in the 10th. Century that had only a confuſed knowledg of Chriſtianity?

THE ignorance, ſays he, of the myſtery of the Euchariſt cannot ſubſiſt with Book 9. ch. 7. pag. 915.a million of Preachers of the Real Preſence, and a million of people that rejected it. When Mr. Arnaud is in his Cloſet, a million of Preachers coſts him no more than thirty; and his Commiſſion is as ſoon given to a great number as a ſmall. But what is moſt admirable, is, that when we come to count theſe Preachers of the Real Preſence, we do not find 'em to be above four or five at moſt; one of which, as I already obſerved, plainly tells us, that thoſe of his time that perſonated learned men had ſmall knowledg of this myſtery, till they read Paſchaſus his Book, which muſt be according to him the fountain of their light. 'Tis moreover to be obſerved that what I now alledged of Hérivé in the Council of Troſly, is of the year 909 that is to ſay, in the beginning of the 10th. Century. Now it is certain the darkneſs waxed greater after this Century, but we ſee to what degree it arrived then. Moſt of the Abbats knew not how to read. The Paſtors left off Preaching to and inſtructing of the people; and an infinite number of people of either Sex, both young and old, could not ſay their Creed, nor the Lords Prayer during their whole lives. Methinks it cannot be well concluded hence there were at that time in the Church neither ignorant nor prophane perſons; much leſs can it be concluded hence, there were then but three ſorts of perſons, the Paſchaſiſts, the Bertramiſts, and thoſe that paſs'd from one opinion to another. 'Tis ſufficient, ſays Mr. Arnaud, to tell Page 916.Mr. Claude in a word, that to act as he muſt ſuppoſe they have done, they muſt not have been men, but ſome other kind of Animals, and ſuch creatures as we never heard of. To which I anſwer, that if he will not allow 'em to be Men, he ſhall make Satyrs, or Centaurs of 'em if he will: for as to my part I muſt ſuppoſe 'em to be what they are. If he does not find the Paſchaſiſts had zeal enough for the Real Preſence, he ought to impart more to 'em if he can. And if the Bertramiſts have not well diſcharged their duty, p. 180we for our ſhare muſt deplore their ſtupidity, ſeeing we cannot help it. But howſoever 'tis certain there were Paſchaſiſts, and that there were Bertramiſts; and 'tis likewiſe as certain that the Paſtors careleſſneſs, and the People ignorance were both very great. Theſe are matters of fact, againſt which 'tis in vain to diſpute. All that can be rationally ſaid, is, that the ignorance of the one, and the careleſſneſs of the others made 'em agree in the ſubject of the Real Preſence. I mean they diſputed not about it, becauſe they wanted ability to do it, as well as zeal and induſtry.

Mr. ARNAƲD endeavours in vain to perſuade us that the diſorders Book 9. ch. 9. page 957.of the 10th. Century were no greater than thoſe of the others, and that the ſtate of the Church in this world is to include in the ſame external Society both living and dead Members, Stubble and Wheat; 'tis a neceſſary conſeſequence of this ſtate, that a man may reproach every Age with ſeveral diſorders, and that each time of the Church may be reſpected as having two different faces, according as a man caſts his eyes upon the good that credit it, or the wicked that diſhonour it.

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

'TIS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to ſay again, 'twas an Age of Zeal, Fervour, Book 9. ch. 7. page 947.Converſions, Reformations in Princes, in Princeſſes, in Biſhops, in Religious Perſons, and in the People. For firſt, 'tis certain that in reſpect of thoſe which Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks of, that their Zeal, their Fervour, their Converſions, their Reformations, ſuch as they were had not that prevalency as to make 'em diſpute amongſt themſelves of the Real Preſence. On one hand was taught, as we have already obſerved, That there's a great difference between this Body in which Jeſus Chriſt ſuffered, and that which is Conſecrated in the Euchariſt; that the one is born of the Virgin, has Blood, Bones, Skin, Nerves, and is endued with a reaſonable Soul; but that the other which is his ſpiritual Body conſiſts of ſeveral grains, without Blood, Bones, Members, and Soul. That as in the Water of Baptiſm there are two things to be conſidered, one that according to nature 'tis corruptible water, and the other according p. 181to the ſpiritual myſtery, this water has a ſalutary virtue; ſo the Euchariſt according to the natural underſtanding is a corporeal and corruptive creature, and according to the ſpiritual virtue, life is in it, it gives immortality to the Faithful. 'Twas taught, that the Bread and Wine are ſpiritually changed into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, as the Manna was changed into his Fleſh, and the water of the Rock into his Blood. That the Bread is not in any wiſe the ſame Body in which our Saviour ſuffered, nor the Wine the Blood which he ſhed for us, but his Body and Blood ſpiritually. In this Age were ſeveral paſſages of the Fathers collected and urged againſt Paſchaſus touching the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. On the other hand the Paſtors were exhorted to come and learn in Paſchaſus his Book what they were as yet ignorant of. Miracles were likewiſe wrought to confirm thoſe that doubted of the Real Preſence; but we do not find they diſputed about it one againſt another. If the reaſon which I offer from the ignorance, and negligence of the one and the other does not well reliſh with Mr. Arnaud, let him give a better, I'll gladly receive it, provided he denies not certain matters of fact, againſt which no arguments muſt be offered.

THE Zeal, Fervour, Converſions and Reformations which he attributes to the 10th. Century, hinder not the truth of what we obſerved concerning the Religious living without Rule, their Abbots being married and Lay-men, the Biſhops neglecting to inſtruct their Flocks, and an infinite number of either Sex and all Ages, being ignorant of the Creed and Lords Prayer, and living and dying in this ignorance. This is a matter of fact atteſted by Witneſſes of that very Age. This does not hinder but the Roman Church was for this whole Century in a fearful diſorder, as ſpeaks the Author of the Perpetuity, and Baronius too when he tells us, Our Saviour Bayon. annal. Eccleſ. Tom 10. ad ann. 612.Chriſt ſlept then in his Ship. He ſlept and made as tho he ſaw not theſe things, he let them alone, he aroſe not to take vengeance; and that which was worſe, there were no Diſciples who by their ſhrieks ſhould awake the Lord ſleeping, for they were all aſleep themſelves. What think you were the Cardinals, Prieſts, and Deacons that were elected by theſe Monſters, ſeeing there's nothing more natural than for every thing to produce its like. Who doubts but they conſented to all which they did who had choſen 'em, but that they imitated 'em and trod in their footſteps, but that they all deſired our Saviour ſhould ſleep on, and never riſe to judg them, nor awake to call 'em to account for their wicked deeds. Luitprand produces a Letter of John the XIIth. to the Council, which the Emperor Otton aſſembled at Rome to depoſe him, which ſhews us how admirable the Popes were for Learning in thoſe days. Joannes Epiſcopus ſervus ſervorum Dei omnibus Epiſcopis. Nos audivimus dicere quod vos vultis alium Papam facere, ſi hoc feceritis, Excommunico vos de Deo omnipotenti, ut non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare & miſſam celebrare. The Councils anſwer is as elegant. Eſt veſtris in literis ſcriptum quod non Epiſcopum ſed puerilem ineptiam ſcribere deceret, excommunicaſtis enim omnes ut non habeamus licentiam canendi miſſam, ordinandi Eccleſiaſticas diſpoſitiones, ſi al…um Romanoe Sedi conſtitueremus Epiſcopum. It a enim ſcriptum erat, non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare. Nunc uſque putavimus, immo credimus duo negativa unum facere dedicativum, niſi veſtra autoritas priſcorum ſententias infirmaret autorum.

THE Zeal, Fervour, frequent Converſions, and Reformations of thoſe days could not hinder but that Symony was very frequent, as I proved in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity by the teſtimonies of Luitprand, and Glaber, p. 182and by the very confeſſion of the Author of the Perpetuity himſelf, which might be further made to appear were it neceſſary. Now judg I pray you what ſcience and zeal there could be in a Church where the miniſterial Office was upon ſale to him that offered moſt. And moreover, the Arch-biſhopricks, and Biſhopricks commonly beſtowed on Children uncapable of diſcharging thoſe great truſts; which Baronius expreſly aſſerts: for having told Baron. ad ann. 925.us from the teſtimony of Frodoart that Heribert Earl of Guyenne and Süelphus Arch-biſhop of Rhemes were agreed, that after the death of Süelphus the Arch-biſhoprick ſhould come to Heribert's Son, he ſays, that Heribert to make quick work cauſed Süelphus to be poiſoned, and his Son to be choſen in his place, who was not above five years old; that the news of the Election being brought to the King, he confirm'd it, which was alſo done by Pope John the Xth. To which Baronius adds, That this example was quickly followed by ſeveral Princes, who promoted their own or relations Children to the Epiſcopal Seats as oft as they became vacant, which, ſays he, was likewiſe done in Rome it ſelf in thoſe days, Conſtantinople, and other great Cities. And would to God, adds he, this cuſtom had went no farther than thoſe days, and that ſo deteſtable a wickedneſs againſt the Churches Canons were unknown to the following Ages. Let Mr. Arnaud himſelf judg whether ignorance and careleſneſs are not the natural effects of ſuch diſorders.

WHEREUNTO we may add the Tumults and continual Wars with which the Weſt was afflicted during this whole Century; for 'tis certain that from the beginning to the end of it all Europe reſounded with the noiſe of them. France was therein troubled by the League of Robert, and the dreadful conſequences hapning thereupon, by the Wars againſt the Normans, Danes, and Germans, and by thoſe which hapned upon the rejection of Charles Duke of Lorrain, and th' Election of Hugo Capet. England was therein diſturb'd by divers Civil Wars, and the frequent Incurſions of the Danes, Scotch, Iriſh, and other people ſtill profeſſing Paganiſm. Spain was alſo moleſted by the Moors, Arabians, and Saracens, by the Invaſions of the Normans, and by the dreadful Diviſions of the Chriſtians.

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

I CONFESS there were in this Age ſome endeavours after a Reformation; bu beſides that they were but mere eſſays that proved ineffectual, I deny they were ſtrong enough, ſuppoſing they could have had a wiſhed for ſucceſs, to ſtir men up to ſearch into the Controverſie of Chriſts Real Preſence in the Sacrament. The moſt conſiderable were thoſe made p. 183in the Council of Troſly already mention'd by us, and it will not be amiſs to make ſome remarks on what was reſolved therein. Let us endeavour, Concil. Troſt. n Epilog….ſay theſe Fathers which were not above twelve) by our own means and by the Prieſts under us, to avoid as much as in us lies, this terrible damnation, which we have drawn down upon our ſelves and the people committed to our charge. Let us inſtruct 'em both by our Doctrin and Example. Let us behave our ſelves as the Miniſters of Chriſt, that our Office be not diſhonored, and it be ſaid of us, the Prieſts are without knowledg, thoſe to whom the Law is committed have not known me, and leſt we fall into the fault of Ely who corrected not the faults of his Sons. Firſt then let every Chriſtian ground himſelf well in the Chriſtian Religion, which is the Catholick Faith, without which a man cannot be called a Chriſtian. Let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one only true God, three perſons in unity of ſubſtance. But yet know that the Son alone took on him our Fleſh to ſave us, and thus ſuffered Death, roſe again, aſcended up into Heaven, and will come in the ſame Fleſh to judg both quick and dead. Let him believe in the Holy Ghoſt, and that by him we have the remiſſion of ſins in our Baptiſm, and that thro his Grace our ſins are continually pardon'd by the penitence and miniſtery of the Prieſts. Let him believe alſo a real and general Reſurrection of the Fleſh at the coming of Jeſus Chriſt. This is the true foundation of Faith which muſt be adorned by Good Works; for as 'tis impoſſible without Faith to pleaſe God, ſo Faith cannot be perſect if it ſhews not it ſelf by Charity, for if it be void of works it's become dead in it ſelf. They afterwards proceed to the rules of morality, recommending Hope, Charity, Humility, Chaſtity, Temperance, Sobriety, and condemn Pride, Envy, Hatred, Variance, Drunkenneſs, Calumny, Magick, Divinations, &c.

HERE we have without queſtion very commendable endeavours, but they reach no farther than the inſtructing of the people in the Articles of the Creed and the principal points of morality. Theſe Fathers in their greateſt zeal to reform both themſelves and others, make no mention of the Real Preſence. 'Twas not then above fifty years when the Diſpute was very hot on this ſubject, and Books were wrote on both ſides. Yet it ſeems they took no notice of it, much leſs determin to inſtruct the people in what they ought to hold of it. All their care was to remove that ignorance of the Fundamentals wherein the people lay, and correct that fearful corruption of manners wherein the greateſt parr ſpent their lives. Now this ſhews us that Mr. Arnaud can draw no advantage from theſe eſſays of a Reformation, for ſuppoſing they had their whole effect, they extended not ſo far as the queſtion of the Real Preſence, becauſe they ſuppoſe either that the people were not ignorant of it, or that the Paſtors were themſelves ſo perſuaded of it, that twas needleſs to inſtruct them in it, or exhort them to inſtruct their Flocks in it. But what likelihood is there that this in numerable multitude of people of both Sexes, and of all Ages and conditions of life, that knew not their Creed, nor the Lords Prayer, and lived without any knowledg of the Principles of Chriſtian Religion ſhould know the Doctrin of the Real Preſence. Were they all in thoſe days born imbued with this Doctrin? What likelihood is there thoſe Abbots that knew not the Statutes of their Monaſteries, and who to excuſe themſelves from reading 'em when offered to them, were forced to ſay, neſcimus literas, were not likewiſe greatly ignorant of the Myſtery of the Euchariſt? What reaſon is there to ſay the Paſtors themſelves were commonly inſtructed in it, ſeeing Odon. Abbot of Clugny, as we have already ſeen, teſtifies that thoſe who p. 184pretended to be learned yet had little knowledg of the Sacrament till they read Paſchaſus his Book.

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

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

LET the Reader then joyn all theſe things together, and judg which of us two has moſt reaſon, Mr. Arnaud who maintains it to be impoſſible that the belief of the Real Preſence, ſuppoſing 'twere a novelty in the Church, could make any progreſs therein in the 10th. Century without Diſputes and Commotions, or I who maintain that theſe progreſſes were not only poſſible, but eaſie to be conceiv'd, Firſt, There were Diſputes on this ſubject in the 9th. Century, which is a matter of fact not to be denied. Secondly, Altho the queſtion was therein agitated, yet was it not decided by any Council, nor by the Church of Rome, nor by any other publick Authority. Thirdly, Thoſe of the 10th. Century fell into a very confuſed knowledg of the Myſtery of Chriſtian Religion, in general, the People, the Religious, and the greateſt part of the Prieſts and Biſhops, lived in very groſs ignorance, and in a prodigious neglect of the chief Offices of their Charge, as we have fully proved. Fourthly, Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline was wholly laid aſide in this Age, and the temporal ſtate of the Church lay in a perpetual and general confuſion. Fifthly, It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram which was contrary to the Real Preſence was therein preached in ſeveral p. 185places. Sixthly, It alſo appears that that of Paſchaſus was ſo too, and was endeavour'd to be under-propt by Miracles, and Paſtors exhorted to read Paſchaſus his Book to be inſtructed in the Myſtery of the Euchariſt. Seventhly, To which we may add, that the perſons that taught the Real Preſence in this Century were people of great credit and authority. Odon that confirm'd it by Miracles was Archbiſhop of Canterbury, and was in great reputation. Th'other Odon who had ſuch an eſteem for Paſchaſus his Book was an Abbot of Clugny, a reſtorer and reformer of ſeveral Monaſteries, of whom Baronius ſays, That he was choſen by God as another Jeremiah Baron. ad an. 938.to pluck up, deſtroy, ſcatte…, plant and build in that wretched Age.

ALL theſe matters of fact being clearly proved as they are, what impoſſibility is there that the Doctrin of Paſchaſus (which he taught in the 9th. Century, as an explication of the true Doctrin of the Church, confirming it as much as he could by ſeveral paſſages of the Fathers taken in a wrong ſenſe, no publick Authority having condemn'd it) ſhould have followers in the 10th. That theſe his Diſciples finding 'emſelves credited and authoris'd by their Offices and Employs in a Church wherein ignorance, careleſneſs, and confuſion reign'd, have themſelves communicated and diſpers'd it in the minds of ſeveral, without reſiſtance; and thus this Doctrin has made in the ſpace of theſe hundred years inſenſible progreſſes, eſtabliſhing it ſelf by little and little under the name and title of the Churches Faith, till having been at length directly and formally contradicted in the 11th. as an innovation, this Doctrin found it ſelf the ſtrongeſt, and triumph'd over the contrary Doctrin. What difficulty can be rais'd againſt this Hypotheſis, which may not be caſily ſolved? If it be ſaid that Paſchaſus did not propoſe any thing but what all the faithful already diſtinctly knew and believed, Paſchaſus himſelf will anſwer for me, that he has moved ſeveral perſons to the underſtanding of this Myſtery, which ſuppoſes that before his time 'twas not ſufficiently known, and that he diſcovered things of which the people were ignorant. Odon will anſwer for me that the moſt learned had but little knowledg of the myſtery of the Euchariſt if they had not read Paſchaſus his Book. If it be ſaid his Doctrin met with no contradiction, Paſchaſus himſelf will tell you that ſome blamed him for attributing more to the word of Chriſt than the truth it ſelf has promiſed us, and 'tis hereon he diſputes againſt his Adverſaries. Should a man deny that the two Doctrins, that of Paſchaſus, and that of his Adverſaries were both taught in the 10th. Century, he will (I think) be convinced of the contrary by the proofs I have given; and in effect there's no great likelihood that the Doctrin of John Scot, and Bertram, who wrote by the command of King Charles the Bald of France, and that of Raban, three perſons of great note in the Church, ſhould be thus extinct in ſo ſhort a time, without any Councils condemning it, without the Court of Romes concerning her ſelf with it, without the interpoſition of temporal Princes, and that there ſhould, I ſay, remain no trace of it in the 10th. Century. He that ſhall think it ſtrange that the people of the 10th. Century have taken for the Faith of the Church that which was in effect an innovation, need only call to mind the ignorance wherein the people lived; for when a man does not know what the Church believes, 'tis no hard matter for him to be deceived, and to take that which ſhe does not believe for what ſhe does. That man that queſtions this ignorance need only for his conviction to read the proofs I have given of it. Should any man alledg it to be ſtrange ſuch men as an Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury and an Abbot of Clugny ſhould be deceived, 'tis eaſie p. 186to ſhew the weakneſs of this objection by th' example of ſeveral that are men of better parts than thoſe now in queſtion, who now take for the Doctrin of the Church what is not ſo. The Diſciples of Paſchaſus found in his Book ſuch ſpecious Arguments as deceiv'd 'em, and 'tis a thing ordinary enough to be ſurprized by falſe colours. Should it be ſaid to be impoſſible but that the Diſciples of Paſchaſus (knowing Bertram's Doctrin was taught in ſeveral places) have openly condemned it and diſputed againſt thoſe that held it. Firſt, I anſwer, I do not know whether we may abſolutely ſay there was no diſpute about it, for there may be diſputes and we not know of 'em; but ſuppoſing there were not? I anſwer, that ſeeing 'tis no Miracle that diſputation ſhould ceaſe ſometimes in an enlightned Age, amongſt learned and zealous men, without any Converſions on either ſide, 'tis much leſs one in a dark and troubleſom Age wherein perſons thought of nothing leſs than diſputing. The Diſciples of Paſchaſus thought they were oblig'd to be contented in recommending the reading of Paſchaſus his Book to all perſons, and in confirming their Opinion by Miracles. If it be likewiſe ſaid that thoſe that followed the Doctrin of Bertram ought to diſpute againſt thoſe that follow'd that of Paſchaſus, I muſt ſay ſo too, but that men do not do always what they are obliged to do, becauſe they have not always that zeal, knowledg, or induſtry which they ought to have. How ſhould they diſpute one againſt another, who left for the moſt part their Flocks without Paſture, without Inſtruction, without Preaching. Howſoever, this is as I ſaid a thing certain, that there were perſons in this Century, who held the Doctrin of Paſchaſus, and others that of Bertram. Whether they diſputed or no, it concerns me not to know; 'tis ſufficient for me that this Age held both theſe Doctrins, which I think cannot be denied. When two oppoſite Doctrins are taught, and both as the true Faith of the Church in an Age of Ignorance, to ſpeak after the manner of men, and according to the terms of our Diſpute, 'tis equally impoſſible either of them ſhould get the upper hand; becauſe they want that underſtanding which is requiſite to to make aright judgment: and moreover, if the one be aſſerted by perſons of Authority and great Reputation, it is almoſt impoſſible but this will carry it away from the other. Whence it follows the progreſs of the Real Preſence in the 10th. Century has been not only poſſible, but eaſie, and even unavoidable. To which, if we add another matter of fact, which is that we do not find there were Diſputes in this Century on this ſubject; whence we will conclude that theſe progreſſes we ſpeak of have been made in an inſenſible manner, at leaſt in our reſpect, which is to ſay, that if there were any noiſe or conteſts, the knowledg of 'em never came to us, which ſuffices to decide the queſtion between us two.

AND this is what I had to ſay touching the ſtate of the 10th. Century in reſpect of Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence. I take no notice of thoſe violent accuſations which Mr. Arnaud brings againſt our Morals, under pretence we do not reckon Piety to conſiſt in affected Penances, and outward Mortifications, which for the moſt part have more ſhew than ſubſtance. We praiſe and recommend as earneſtly as we can the practice of Faſting, but believe it better to abſtain from Vice than Meats; the uſe of which God has given us with ſobriety. We believe every man ought to be content with the condition wherein God has placed him, to make good uſe of his Eſtate, and endure Poverty without envy, murmurings, and repinings; to live holily in Caelibacy, and chaſtly in Marriage; to carry our ſelves juſtly to our Inferiors, and obediently to Superiors. But we do not p. 187approve of mens withdrawing themſelves out of that rank and order wherein providence has placed them, nor making of particular rules, and binding men to th' obſervance of 'em by Vows, nor that the Rich ſhould ranſom their ſins by great offerings to Eccleſiaſtical perſons who have no need of 'em, …or of Voluntary Poverty, much leſs that men ſhould imagin to ſatiſfie the Almighty for their ſins, and merit any thing of him by theſe kind of obſervances, 'Tis not from Seneca we have learn'd this Divinity, but S. Paul. This great Doctor would not have us to be concerned for theſe things, which he calls Commandments and Doctrins of men, which ſays he, have ſome appearance of wiſdom in a voluntary devotion and humility of ſpirit, and in that they ſpare not in any kind the fleſh. Let Mr. Arnaud extol as much as he pleaſes the glory of the 10th. Century by theſe mortifications, he ſhall never perſuade reaſonable people that an age wherein appears on one hand an almoſt univerſal ignorance of all that is good, a prodigious neglect of the myſteries of Religion, an almoſt univerſal corruption of manners, a ſtrange kind of Devotion to all manner of Vices, a deplorable relaxation of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline; and on the other ſeveral Monaſteries founded, and outward auſterity practis'd, that this could be an Age of Benediction and Grace.

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

IT is ſaid that Dunſtan Excommunicated him, becauſe he had violated the reſpect due to a Monaſtery, and drew out thence a Woman who wore the Habit of a Religious, altho ſhe was none, and abuſed her. It's certain, Guilliel. Malm. lib. 2. c. 8.ſays he, that Wulfritte (for this was the Maids name) was not a Nun but a Laick, who fearing the King, had taken the Vail, which the King ſnatching from her abuſed her. At which Dunſtan being offended in that he dared to luſt, after a perſon that had only the Ʋmbra of Religion, made uſe of his Pontifical power againſt him. Now as we muſt judg of the zeal of Dunſtan from the Hiſtorians own words; ſo we cannot but ſay there was a great deal of hypocriſie in this action; for is it not an horrible hypocriſie to have leſs regard to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, an Ordinance inſtituted by God himhimſelf, than to this human inſtitution. William of Malmsbury repreſents Dunſtan diſplaying all his Pontificial Power to revenge the outrage offer'd to the ſhadow of Religion, Ʋnde offenſum, ſays he, beatum Dunſtanum quod illam concupiſſet quoe vel umbraticè ſanctimonialis fuiſſet, vigorem pontificalem in eum egiſſe, of the Conſecration of Baptiſm, or the enormity of the action p. 188he ſays never a word. Let not Mr. Arnaud take it ill that I call this hypocriſie. He ſays my cenſure is unjuſt, becauſe this Maid was Baptiz'd, and ſo Edgar had violated in her the character and the conſecration of Baptiſm as well as in the others. But what ſignifies this remark? This Maid was Baptiz'd without doubt; and for that reaſon we eſteem it ill that Dunſtan grounded his ſeverity, and his Epiſcopal fury on a bare ſhadow of Religion without any notice of her Baptiſm.

AS to the quarrel of the Eccleſiaſticks and Monks in England, I have ſaid nothing but what is grounded on the teſtimony of Polydor Virgil, as appears by what I related in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity. The Hiſtorian lays it upon the inſatiable covetouſneſs of the Monks, neither does he excuſe Polydor. Virg. Hiſt. Ang l. 6.the Prieſts from the ſame charge; and as to the image of the Crucifix that ſpake, he ſays expreſly there were ſeveral people of good report that believed 'twas rather an Oracle of Phaebus, than an Oracle of God; which is to ſay, that this voice was uttered not by the will of God, but by the fraud of men. What I alſo ſaid that their diſputations were not concerning the Goſpel, that they were all agreed to let that reſt without underſtanding it, without preaching it, and without reading it is grounded on the teſtimony of Elfric Archbiſhop of Canterbury, who lived at the ſame time, for he was Primate of England in the year 989, a year after the death of Dunſtan, according to the report of Matthew of Weſtminſter. In theſe days, ſays Elfric, the Prieſts Elfric Ser. ad Sacerd. Miſſ. in Bibl. Colleg. S. Bened. Cant.and Biſhops are become ſo careleſs and idle, who ought to be the Pillars of the Church, that they regard not the holy Scriptures, nor inſtruct Diſciples that may become their Succeſſors: as we find ſeveral Holy men did who left behind 'em ſeveral good Diſciples. Their minds are more taken up with worldly Honors, Concupiſence and Covetouſneſs than the Laicks: and what a ſad example do they give their Flocks, not daring to ſpeak of Juſtice, becauſe they neither love it, nor obſerve it.