Reader
The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Jean Claude

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 9

CHAP. IX.

Proofs that Paſchaſus was an Innovator.

I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the beſt way to be informed whether Paſchaſus has been an Innovator, was to ſearch whether thoſe that went before him, and wrote on the ſame ſubject, have, or have not taught the ſame thing as he has done, I repeat it here, to the end it may be conſidered whether after the diſcuſſion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients, and what I have wrote alſo thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity, or Father Noüet, or Mr. Arnaud, we have not right to ſuppoſe, and to ſuppoſe as we do with confidence, that no body before Paſchaſus taught the converſion of the ſubſtances of Bread and Wine, or ſubſtantial Preſence of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt. Whence it follows he was the firſt that brought this new Doctrin into the world.

BUT beſides this proof which is an eſſential and fundamental one, we ſhall offer ſeveral others, taken from the circumſtances of this Hiſtory which do much illuſtrate this truth. The firſt of this rank is taken from Paſchaſus himſelf's acknowledging he moved ſeveral perſons to underſtand this myſtery. Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader's peruſal in my Book Epiſt. ad Frud.which I dedicated cuilibet puero (I had rendred theſe words to a young man, becauſe that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus. Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people, this is no great matter) yet am I inform'd that I have excited ſeveral perſons to underſtand this myſtery. Now this ſhews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown, whereunto we may alſo add the paſſages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this myſtery, as we have already obſerv'd.

TO judg rightly of the ſtrength of this proof, and to defend it againſt Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we ſhould firſt ſhew what kind of ignorance, and intelligence Paſchaſus here means. For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful diſtinctions on this ſubject. Ought not Mr. Claude to know, ſays he, that beſides Book 8. ch. 10. p. 860.this knowledg common to all Chriſtians which makes 'em believe the myſteries without much reflection, there is another clearer one, and which is often denoted in S. Auſtin by the word intelligence, which does not precede, but follows Faith, as being the fruit and recompence of it, ſic accipite, ſic credite, ſays this Father, Ʋt mereamini intelligere, fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut ſit intellectus fidei proemium. As then all Chriſtians believe the myſteries, they believed likewiſe all of 'em the Euchariſt in Paſchaſus his time in the ſame manner as we believe it, (which is to ſay that they all believ'd the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation) but they had not all of 'em an underſtanding of it, that is to ſay, they had not all conſidered this adorable Sacrament, with the application which it deſerves, That they did not all know the myſteries contained in the ſymbols, the relations of the Euchariſt with the Sacraments of the ancient Law, the ends which God had in appointing them, thoſe that have right to partake of 'em, the diſpoſitions with which a man ought to approach to 'em, the greatneſs of their crime who profane the Lords Body, and the reſt of thoſe things which are explained in Paſchaſus his Book. All this is contained under the word intelligence, and he comprehends it therein himſelf in explaining afterwards what he means by this term, and by making an abridgment of his whole Book without marking in particular the Real Preſence. The queſtion then is, whether in Paſchaſus his ſenſe the ignorance, and conſequently the intelligence he ſpeaks of do not extend as far as the Real Preſence. Now this is what will be ſoon decided if we examin the paſſages themſelves of this Author without ſuffering our ſelves to be blinded by Mr. Arnaud's illuſions. At the entrance of his ſecond Chapter, wherein he declares his deſign to diſſipate this ignorance, and remedy the evils it cauſed, he deſcribes it in this manner, Sacramentum Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis quod quotidie in Eccleſia celebratur, nemo ſidelium ignorare debet, nemo neſcire quid ad fidem, quidve ad ſcientiam in eo pertineat. Will you then know what kind of ignorance this was, Paſchaſus tells you immediately, Neſcire quid ad fidem Paſchaſ. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. cap. 2.quidve ad ſcientiam pertineat. Here are preciſely the two parts of Mr, Arnaud's diſtinction contained in the definition which Paſchaſus gives of it. For neſcire quid ad fidem pertineat, is not to have this knowledg which makes me believe the myſteries without much reflection, and neſcire quid ad ſcientiam, is not to have this other clearer knowledg which Mr. Arnaud calls particularly intelligence. So that Paſchaſus and his Commentatator are not at all agreed. Paſchaſus extends the ignorance he ſpeaks of to the things which relate to Faith, which is to ſay, according to him, the Real Preſence, and Mr. Arnaud reſtrains it to other things. But let us hear Paſchaſus further, Fides, ſays he, eſt erudienda ne forte ob hoc cenſeamur indigni, ſi non ſatis diſcernimus illud; nec intelligimus myſticum Chriſti Corpus & ſanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute. We muſt inſtruct our Faith, leſt for want of doing it we be reputed unworthy in not ſufficiently diſcerning this Sacrament, and underſtanding the excellent virtue and dignity of it. Can any man explain himſelf more clearly? The ignorance conſiſts in not well underſtanding the great dignity of the myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which in his ſenſe ſignifies not to know, that 'tis the proper ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin, and th' intelligence on the contrary conſiſts in knowing it. But to take away from Mr. Arnaud all pretence of the validity of his diſtinction, obſerve here what Paſchaſus adds afterwards. He receives the Sacrament ignorantly who is wholly ignorant of its virtue and dignity, and knows not the circumſtance of it, and does not truly know that 'tis the Body and Blood of our Lord, according to truth, altho it be taken in the Sacrament by Faith. Mr. Arnaud will not deny that in the ſtile of Paſchaſus to be the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth, is to be it ſubſtantially and really. Now the ignorance conſiſts in the not knowing this, and by the reaſon of contraries the intelligence conſiſts in knowing it according to Paſchaſus.

Mr. ARNAƲD will ſay without doubt that Paſchaſus in all this whole ſecond Chapter, intended only to ſhew the neceſſity there is of inſtructing perſons before they come to receive the Communion, but that he does not ſuppoſe this ignorance was actually in the Church; and that on the contrary, this neceſſity of inſtruction, in the manner which he exaggerates, denotes that they took a great care in thoſe days to teach the Communicants the Doctrin of the Real Preſence. But this evaſion will not ſerve turn. For beſides that Paſchaſus ſays expreſly, That he receives the Sacrament ignorantly that knows not 'tis the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth; which is an expreſſion of a man which acknowledges there are actually perſons that thus receive the Sacrament: Beſides this a man needs only read the paſſages of his Letter to Frudegard, where it cannot be denied but he ſpeaks of ignorant perſons which were then actually in the Church; I ſay, there needs no more than the reading 'em to find he underſtands this ſame ignorance which he had deſcrib'd in the ſecond Chapter of his Book. For having immediately propoſed, as from the part of Frudegard, the objection taken from a paſſage of S. Auſtin, That the Sacrament is called the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt by a figurative locution, Quod tropica locutio ſit ut Corpus Chriſti & Sanguis eſſe dicatur, which reſpects as Epiſt. ad Frud.every one ſees the Article of the Real Preſence; and having endeavoured to ſatisfie it, he paſſes over to another objection, which reſpects the ſame Real Preſence. Multi, ſays he, ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet, & hoc Corpus Chriſti & Sanguis eſſe poſſit. Several doubt becauſe they cannot comprehend how Jeſus Chriſt remains entire, and yet the Sacrament to be his Body and Blood. He anſwers this Objection as well as he can, then immediately adds, Here you have, dear Brother, what came into my thoughts at preſent, and becauſe you are one part of my ſelf, I believe I ought not to conceal any thing from you, altho I cannot expreſs my mind in this particular as 'tis neceſſary. As to your ſelf, I deſire you would read over again my Book touching this matter, which you ſay you have heretofore read, and if you find therein any thing reprehenſible or doubtful, refuſe not the labor of reading it again. For altho I have not written any thing worth the Readers pains in a Book which I dedicated to young people, yet am I inform'd that I have ſtirred up ſeveral perſons to the underſtanding of this myſtery. Who ſees not that in all this his whole ſcope is the Real Preſence. His whole preceding diſpute was on this Article, and theſe terms, If you find in my Book any thing reprehenſible or doubtful, can only relate to the ſame Article, for there was no queſtion of any thing elſe. When then he adds, That he has ſtirr'd up ſeveral perſons to the underſtanding of this myſtery, 'tis clear that he has reſpect to the ſame thing, and means he has reſcued ſeveral from th' ignorance wherein they lay touching the Doctrin of the Real Preſence.

BUT to leave no room for contradiction and cavil, I need only repreſent what he writes towards the end of this ſame Letter, where having ſaid he has confirm'd his Doctrin by the teſtimonies of Pope Gregory, the Council of Epheſus, S. Jerom and ſome others, he adds, Et ideo quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen eſt, &c. Altho ſome do err thro ignorance in this point. What can be ſaid to this? Here we have formally an actual ignorance on the Article of the Real Preſence, on the ſame Article which was diſputed him by his Adverſaries, on the ſame Article on which he produc'd the words of Jeſus Chriſt, This is my Body, and the clauſe of the Liturgy, Ʋt fiat Corpus & Sanguis, dilectiſſimi filii tui Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti, on the ſame Article whereon he had alledged ſeveral paſſages of the Fathers, Quamvis, ſays he, ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent.

DOES any man deſire another expreſs and formal teſtimony of Paſchaſus, I need only produce theſe words of his Commentary on the 26th. of S. Matthew to ſatisfie him. I have been more large on this ſubject of our Lords Supper than the brevity of … Commentary permits, becauſe there are ſeveral that have another ſentiment touching theſe myſtical things, and ſeveral are ſo blind as to think the Bread and Wine are nothing elſe but what we ſee with our eyes, and taſt with our mouths. Here we have then actually perſons that did not believe the Real Preſence, and thoſe not inconſiderable for their number, ſeeing he denotes them by the term of ſeveral, and which he expreſſes ſo clearly that Mr. Arnaud will be at a loſs what to anſwer.

Mr. ARNAƲD who well perceived he might be oppoſed on the firſt anſwer, bethought himſelf of giving us another, in which, contrary to his uſual manner, he relaxes ſomething of what he advanced. Not but that, ſays Book 8. ch. 10. p. 852.he, this word intelligence may likewiſe reſpect the Real Preſence, not as a new truth, but as a truth which might be fuller comprehended, and in a manner which penetrates more lively the heart, for there are ſeveral degrees of growing in the knowledg of a myſtery which one believes already by Faith. He would ſay there might be people who knew leſs ſtrongly, and livelily the Real Preſence, and that in this reſpect they might acquire the intelligence of it, but that there were none that were wholly ignorant of it, or to whom Paſchaſus his Book gave the intelligence of it as of a new truth. But Paſchaſus himſelf refutes this gloſs, Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent. This is an ignorance which according to him extends ſo far as the making 'em err in the Article of the Real Preſence. To err in an Article thro ignorance, is it not a not believing of it at all, as having never heard it mentioned? Is not this a knowing nothing of it, a having no knowledg, and conſequently no Faith in it? Now ſuch were Paſchaſus his ignorant perſons, who were far different from thoſe of Mr. Arnaud. In a word, they were people who thought the Bread and Wine were nothing elſe in reſpect of their ſubſtance, than what they appear to our eyes and taſt, as Paſchaſus now ſpake.

THIS Principle being well eſtabliſh'd, as I believe it is at preſent, 'twill be no hard matter to ſee the conſequence of it. The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr.Arnaud affirm as an undoubted truth that all the faithful Communicants have ever had a diſtinct knowledg either of the Real Preſence, or Real Abſence; of the Preſence, if it were taught in the Church, of the Abſence, if the Preſence were not therein taught. Whereupon I raiſe this Argument. There cannot be any perſon in a Church wherein the Real Preſence is commonly taught, but knows diſtinctly the Real Preſence. Now in the Church of the 9th. Century, at which time Paſchaſus lived, there were people that were ignorant of the Real Preſence, and erred in this Article thro ignorance. Therefore in the Church of the 9th. Century the Real Preſence was not commonly taught. The firſt propoſition is of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud, without diſtinction or reſtriction; the ſecond is of Paſchaſus himſelf: the concluſion of it I think then is inevitable.

'TWILL be reply'd that this Argument is one of thoſe called, ad hominem, which does indeed preſs an adverſary by his own proper Principles, but which are not always abſolutely concluſive, becauſe it may happen that the Principles of an Adverſary on which they are grounded be falſe and imprudently offered. This Argument then may be convictive againſt the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud. But the Principle of Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity may be falſe, and conſequently the concluſion I draw thence.

TO ſolve this difficulty, beſides that 'tis a great advantage for the cauſe which I defend, that as able Doctors as theſe Gentlemen remain convict by their own proper Principles. 'Tis to be obſerv'd that theirs being alternative, muſt be diſtinguiſh'd into two propoſitions; one of which is, All the Communicants have had a diſtinct knowledg of the Real Preſence if the Church of their time taught it. And the other, All the Communicants have had a diſtinct knowledg of the Real Abſence, if the Church of their time did not teach the Real Preſence. In reſpect of this ſecond propoſition the Principle is falſe, as I have ſhew'd in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, and in the beginning of his 6th. Book, in I think an unanſwerable manner. But in reſpect of the firſt the Principle is true, and muſt be granted, for in effect it is not conceivable that a Church ſhould believe and teach commonly that what we receive in the Communion is the proper ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and yet let perſons of age Communicate without inſtructing them in it; That ſhe ſhould believe and teach a man muſt adore this Sacrament which we receive, publickly practiſe this ſupreme Adoration, and yet one part of the Communicants know nothing of it, and in this reſpect err thro ignorance. It is then clear that my argument is not barely one of thoſe term'd ad hominem, ſeeing 'tis not grounded on the ſecond propoſition of theſe Gentlemens Principle, which is in conteſt, but on the firſt in which both ſides are agreed: ſo that my concluſion has all the ſtrength and truth that can be deſired in every reſpect.

NEVERTHELESS we muſt anſwer two of Mr. Arnaud's minute objections. Paſchaſus ſays, That he dedicated his Book to young People. 'Tis Book 8. ch. 10. p. 859.then, ſays he, unlikely, that Paſchaſus deſign'd to inſtruct the whole world in a truth of which he believ'd both the learned and unlearn'd were ignorant. I anſwer, 'twas not indeed likely that he had immediately ſo vaſt a deſign. 'Tis more likely he propoſed his Doctrin as he himſelf ſays, petentibus, to hir Scholars who pray'd him to ſhew them his ſentiment in this matter; but this does not hinder his Doctrin from being new. He ſays, ſays Mr. Arnaud again, That he had not written any thing worth his Readers pains. Now no man who diſcovers a myſtery of this importance uſes ſuch humble expreſſions which ſuppoſe he ſays nothing but what's vulgarly known. Mr. Arnaud deceives himſelf; for beſides what I intimated in ſeveral places, that thoſe who introduce new Opinions by way of addition, or explication of the ancient ones do not openly declare 'em to be new, but on the contrary endeavour to make 'em ſlip in by means of received expreſſions; beſides this, I ſay, this humility of Paſchaſus relates not to the things themſelves which he wrote, nor his ſentiment; for he could not term them ſcarcely worth his Readers peruſal, whether they were new, or not. But this relates to the manner of writing 'em, according to what he ſays to Frudegard, Celare non debui quoe loqui ut oportuit minime potui.

BUT paſs we on to the ſecond proof, which ſhews Paſchaſus to be an Innovator. 'Tis taken from the effect which his Doctrin produced in ſeveral perſons minds, which was, that they oppoſed him. I have diſcourſed, Comment in Matth. 26.ſays he, of theſe things more at large, becauſe I am informed ſome people have blamed me, as if (in the Book which I publiſh'd of the Sacraments of Chriſt, I would give more to his words than they will bear, or eſtabliſh ſomething elſe than the truth promiſes. Theſe cenſurers proceed further, for they oppoſed a contrary Doctrin againſt that of Paſchaſus, to wit, that 'twas the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in figure, in Sacrament, in virtue. Which Paſchaſus himſelf tells us. Let thoſe, ſays he, that will extenuate this term of Body hear, Ibid.They that tell us 'tis not the true Fleſh of Chriſt which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church, nor his true Blood. They tell us, or rather feign I know not what, as if 'twere a certain virtue of the Fleſh and Blood. He afterwards repeats two or three times the ſame thing. They proceeded ſo far as to accuſe Paſchaſus of Enthuſiaſm, twitting him with having a young mans viſion, as we remark'd in the foregoing Chapter. For this is what may be juſtly collected from theſe words to Frudegard. You have at Epiſt. ad Frud.the end of this Book the ſentiments of the Catholick Fathers which I briefly marked, that you may know that 'tis not thro an Enthuſiaſm of raſhneſs that I have had theſe Viſions, being as yet a young man. Suppoſing Paſchaſus taught nothing but what the whole Church believ'd and commonly taught the Faithful, whence I pray you came theſe Cenſurers? The whole world lived peaceably during eight hundred years in the belief of the Real Preſence; all the Preachers taught it, all Books contain'd it, all the Faithful believ'd it and diſtinctly knew it; there not having been any body yet that dared contradict it: and yet there appear perſons who preciſely oppoſe it as ſoon as Paſchaſus appeared in the world. But who ſo well and quickly furniſh'd 'em with the Keys of figure and virtue which Mr. Arnaud would have had all the world to be ignorant of, and th' invention of which he attributes to the Miniſters. Why if we will believe him they were people that dared not appear openly, that whiſpered ſecretly in mens ears, and yet were ſo well inſtructed that they knew the principal diſtinctions of the Calviniſts and all the ſubtilties of their School. But moreover, what fury poſſeſſed them to attack thus particularly Paſchaſus who ſaid nothing but what all the world knew, even the meaneſt Chriſtian, and what all the world believ'd, and who moreover had no particular conteſt with them? They could not be ignorant that the whole Church was of this opinion, ſuppoſing ſhe really did hold it; for as I already ſaid, the Doctrin of the Real Preſence is a popular Doctrin. It is not one of thoſe Doctrins which lie hid in Books or the Schools, which the learned can only know. 'Tis a Doctrin which each particular perſon knows if he knows any thing. Why then muſt Paſchaſus be thus teas'd? If they had a deſign to trouble the peace of the Church, why did they not attack its Doctrin, or in general thoſe that held it, which is to ſay, according to Mr. Arnaud, the whole world. Why again muſt Paſchaſus be rather ſet upon than any body elſe? Does Mr. Arnaud believe this to be very natural? Are people wont to ſet upon a particular perſon, to the excluſion of all others, when he has ſaid no more than what others have ſaid, and what is taught and held by every body? Is ſuch a one liable to reproaches and cenſures? Are we wont to charge ſuch a one with Enthuſiaſtical raſhneſs and pretence to Viſions? It is clear people do not deal thus but with perſons that have gone out of the beaten road, and would introduce novelties in the Church. 'Tis ſuch as theſe whom we are wont to accuſe, to cenſure and call Enthuſiaſts and Viſionaries, and not thoſe that neither vary from the common terms or ſentiments.

TO elude the force of this proof Mr. Arnaud has recourſe to his Chronology. Lib. 8. Ch. 10. p. 861, 862.He ſays that the laſt eight Books of Paſchaſus his Commentaries on S. Matthew were not written till thirty years after his Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini. That he ſpeaks therein of his Cenſures as perſons that reprehended him at the very time he wrote this Commentary, Miror quid volunt nunc quidam dicere, and that it does not appear he was reprehended before; ſeeing he did not attempt to defend himſelf. Whence he concludes, That this Book which Mr. Claude ſays offended the whole world as ſoon as 'twas made, was publiſh'd near thirty years before 'twas cenſur'd by any body.

I have already replied to this Chronology of Mr. Arnaud. Suppoſing there were in effect thirty years between Paſchaſus his Book, and the Cenſures of his Adverſaries, 'twill not hence follow that his Doctrin received a general approbation during theſe thirty years, for perhaps this Book was not known, or conſidered by thoſe that were better able to judg of it than others. Printing which now immediately renders a Book publick, was not in uſe in thoſe times; and 'tis likely Tranſcribers were not in any great haſt to multiply the Book of a young Religious of Corbie, which he at firſt intended only for his particular friends. Suppoſing this Book was known, it might be neglected thro contempt, or ſome other conſideration, as it oft happens in theſe caſes, altho a Book may contain ſeveral abſured and extraordinary Opinions; becauſe it may not be thought fitting to make 'em publick, till it afterwards appears there are perſons who be deceiv'd by it, and that 'tis neceſſary to undeceive them. Moreover, what reaſon is there to ſay, that the cenſures of theſe people hapned not before the time wherein Paſchaſus wrote his Commentary on S. Matthew? 'Tis becauſe, ſays Mr. Arnaud, he ſays, Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere. But this reaſon is void, for this term nunc according to the common ſtile of Authors does refer it ſelf rather in general to the time in which Paſchaſus lived, than preciſely to that in which he wrote his Commentary. And as to what Mr. Arnaud adds, That it does not appear he was reprehended before, ſeeing he did not attempt to defend himſelf. This concludes nothing, unleſs we ſuppoſe that Paſchaſus was in a capacity, and in humor, to defend himſelf as ſoon as he knew he was cenſured. Now this ſuppoſition muſt be proved before it be offered as a thing certain, for this ſuppoſition does not eſtabliſh it ſelf. How many perſons are there who having ſet forth ſingular opinions, do for a long time patiently undergo all cenſures and reprehenſions without replies, in expectation of a convenient time to defend themſelves. Paſchaſus had begun his Commentary on S. Matthew a great while before he became Abbot; 'tis probable he was willing to ſtay till the explication of theſe words, This is my Body, which he believed ſo advantageous to his cauſe ſhould furniſh him with an occaſion to ſpeak of his ſentiment, and to defend it againſt the attacks of oppoſers. So that Mr. Arnaud's Chronology for this time will ſtand him in no ſtead.

WHO has given this liberty, adds he, to Mr. Claude to give the name of Page 868.world to theſe unknown perſons, of whom Paſchaſus only heard ſome mention, but who never contradicted him to his face, nor ever wrote againſt him? This term cannot be reaſonably uſed but to denote the greateſt part of Chriſtians, or at leaſt thoſe who had read Paſchaſus his Book. Now it is exceeding falſe in this ſenſe that the world was aſtoniſh'd at Paſchaſus his Book, ſeeing none of his Friends, none of his Society, none of thoſe with whom he met in Eccleſiaſtick Aſſemblies and Councils, have formally reprehended him for it.

BUT who has given Mr. Arnaud Authority to attribute the name of unknown perſons to Paſchaſus his Adverſaries, and to ſay thereupon what he ſays, ſeeing he has no grounds for it, as I have already ſhew'd? Who told him that John Scot, Bertram and Raban, who were not obſcure perſons in the Church of the 9th. Century, have ſtaid till Paſchaſus his death before they declared themſelves againſt his Opinion, ſuppoſing 'twere true they did not write till after his Death, which is very uncertain? Who has given him power to conclude, That the world was not aſtoniſh'd at Paſchaſus his Book, under pretence it does not appear, That he was formally reprehended about it, neither amongſt his own Society, nor in the Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, nor Councils, ſeeing it does no more appear, that Bertram and Raban, when they taught a contrary Doctrin to that of Paſchaſus, have been formally reprchended for it, either by any one of their Order, or in the publick Aſſemblies, or Councils wherein they aſſiſted? Who has given him right to ſay, as he does, that the world of whom I ſpeak conſiſts of ſome ſmall number of raſh and troubleſom Diſputers, who privately blamed what they dared not contradict in publick? I ſhall not here repeat what I have already obſerved, That 'tis abſurd to endeavour to make us conceive the Adverſaries of Paſchaſus his Doctrin as perſons that blamed in ſecret what they dared not contradict in publick; ſeeing the Gentlemen of the Roman Church are forced to acknowledg, at leaſt that after the death of Paſchaſus, there were publick Writings againſt this very Doctrin, and of which writings the Authors being famous men, did not at all conceal their names; as if the reaſon of this pretended fear depended not on the Doctrin, but perſon of Paſchaſus, who muſt have been at this rate the terror of Eccleſiaſtical Writers, whilſt he liv'd. I ſhall only ſay that Mr. Arnaud has no reaſon to reduce Paſchaſus his Adverſaries, that is to ſay, thoſe who would not receive his Doctrin to a ſmall number. One may in truth reaſonably ſuppoſe, that amongſt thoſe that rejected this novelty, there were ſome that made head, or appeared more than the reſt; and in this ſenſe Paſchaſus might ſay that he underſtood ſome reprehended him. But to conclude hence that theſe were the only perſons of their party, and that all the reſt of the Church follow'd the ſentiment of Paſchaſus, is a groundleſs fancy. Raban ſpeaking of Paſchaſus his party, calls 'em formally Poenitent. Rab. cap. 33.ſome, Quidam, ſays he, nuper de ipſo Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Domini non rite ſentientes dixerunt hoc ipſum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum eſt. And the anonymous Author which Cellot the Jeſuit has cauſed to be Printed expreſſes himſelf in the ſame manner on this ſubject. Some, ſays he, ſay that what is received from the Altar is the ſame thing as that which was born of the Virgin. Others deny it and ſay 'tis another thing. Paſchaſus himſelf formally acknowledges, that thoſe who were not of his opinion, were not a ſmall number; for he deſcribes them under the name of ſeveral or many: Ideo, ſays he, in hac coena Chriſti prolixius elaboravi quam brevitas poſcat tractatoris quia in his myſticis rebus plures aliud ſapiunt.

AS oft, ſays Mr. Arnaud, as a difficult myſtery is propoſed, altho believ'd univerſally by the Faithful, in a manner which cauſes a greater application of Spirit, thoſe mens minds which are not ſufficiently humble, are likely to be diſmayed at it, and to endeavour by their reaſon to find out ways whereby to avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear. And thereupon they often ſet upon, the perſon who has propoſed it to 'em endeavouring to diſtinguiſh him from the reſt of the faithful. Even ſometimes theſe ill opinions be already formed. For there are found too oft perſons in the very boſom of the Church, who giving too great liberty to their thoughts and reflections, conceive ideas of myſteries different enough from thoſe which the other faithful have of 'em, in turning to their ſenſe moſt of the common expreſſions. And hence it happens, that if any one elſe in following the common notions uſes any term which they alſo cannot reduce to their particular ſenſe, they charge this perſon with boldneſs and raſhneſs. And this is properly what we have reaſon to believe hapned in Paſchaſus his time.

DOES Mr. Arnaud think to eſcape by theſe circuits and artifices: A difficult myſtery, ſays he, believed univerſally by the Faithful is propoſed in ſuch a manner as makes people apply themſelves the more to it. Does he pretend Paſchaſus had ſaid any thing which is new in his Book concerning the Real Preſence to make men conſider more that point, ſuppoſing it believ'd univerſally by the Faithful? Does Paſchaſus examin the conſequences of it, or exaggerate the miraculouſneſs of it, or offer ſeveral objections on the contrary? He does nothing of all this. But only ſays 'tis the ſame Fleſh of Chriſt which was born of the Virgin and roſe again: That the ſubſtance of Bread is converted into the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, altho the colour and ſavour of Bread remains: That the ſubſtance of Chriſts Body enters into our fleſh. Now this is what all the Faithful univerſally believed and held diſtinctly according to Mr. Arnaud. As all Chriſtians believe the myſteries, ſaid he, three pages before, ſo they likewiſe all believ'd the Euchariſt in Paſchaſus his time in the ſame manner as we believe it. They all then believ'd that 'tis the ſame ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which he aſſum'd of the Virgin, and which is now in Heaven, and that the ſubſtance of the Bread is converted into it; yet without any change either in the taſt, or colour of the Bread. What has Paſchaſus done to make 'em more mind it? Thoſe mens minds, adds Mr. Arnaud, which are not ſufficiently humble are apt to ſtartle, and endeavour by their reaſon to find out ways whereby to ſhun the difficulties which they cannot bear. Whence ſhould this ſtartling come, ſuppoſing they believed of the Euchariſt what is commonly believed at this day of it in the Church of Rome? Did they never hear ſay before that they received in the Communion the proper ſubſtance of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, born of the Virgin, dead and buried, nor that the ſubſtance of Bread is converted into this ſubſtance? If 'twere a novelty, as to them, they did not then believe Tranſubſtantiation, nor the Real Preſence; for 'tis preciſely in theſe ideas wherein theſe Doctrins do conſiſt; and if it be this particular manner of propoſing the myſtery which affrights them, it muſt be neceſſarily acknowledg'd either that they were ſtrangers to theſe ideas before, or that they had been till that time very ſtupid and drowſie, ſeeing they felt not the leaſt trouble about it, altho they had 'em always before their eyes; whereas now a ſimple propoſal of the ſame things, without any objection, without exaggeration, affrights, and conſtrains them to find out by their reaſon ways whereby t'avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear. And then they commonly ſet upon him who propoſed it to 'em, endeavouring to diſtinguiſh him from the reſt of the faithful. Which is to ſay, that they then loſe their ſenſes. For 'tis mere madneſs to ſet particularly upon Paſchaſus, who only propoſed to 'em in a manner the moſt ſimple imaginable, if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, without either Preface, ſays he, artificial method, or diſguiſe, what the whole Church believ'd, and what they believe themſelves. Even ſometimes theſe ill opinions are already formed. Here Mr. Arnaud acknowledges one part of the truth. For the truth is, that theſe people here mention'd never heard of the novelties of Paſchaſus. They knew only that the Euchariſt was the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in Figure, in Sacrament, and in Virtue, as they themſelves explain'd their ſenſe about it; and this was the true cauſe of their aſtoniſhment, and the only reaſon for which they accus'd Paſchaſus of Enthuſiaſms and Viſions. But let Mr. Arnaud explain, if he pleaſes, in what manner according to him theſe perſons lived in the Communion of the Church. They turn'd to their own ſenſe, ſays he, moſt of the common expreſſions. How happens it Mr. Arnaud, who but the laſt moment could not ſuffer me to ſay Paſchaſus abuſed an expreſſion of the Church, and turn'd it to another ſenſe, now comprehended well enough, that this whole Party turn'd to their ſenſe moſt of the common expreſſions? He that told us that Paſchaſus would be a mad man ſhould he make uſe of this expreſſion had he known the Church underſtood it in another ſenſe, will grant at preſent that theſe perſons accommodated the greateſt part of the Churches expreſſions to their ſenſe, without troubling 'emſelves with the ſenſe wherein the Church underſtood them? Mr. Arnaud's Argument is like Ariſtotle's prima materia, capable of any form at divers times. Does his intereſt require the Churches expreſſions to be abuſed? This may be done, there are reaſons for it. Does the ſame intereſt require that it be a ſenſleſs thing to abuſe 'em: This cannot be, and the reaſons on the contrary are not wanting. For in fine, either theſe people were ignorant of the true ſenſe in which the Church underſtood theſe expreſſions, or they were not. If they were ignorant of it, Paſchaſus might be as well ignorant of it as they. If they were not ignorant of it, and yet abuſed it, Paſchaſus might as well do the ſame, contrary to his own knowledg. They turn'd to their ſenſe moſt of the uſual expreſſions. It ſeems that Mr. Arnaud by this ſuppoſes there were ſome of theſe expreſſions which might be turn'd by them. Yet he adds; And hence it happens that if any other perſon in following the ordinary notions makes uſe of any terms which they cannot in the ſame manner reduce to their particular ſenſe, they charge this perſon with raſhneſs. This diſcourſe thus couch'd has no coherence, for if amongſt the ordinary expreſſions there remain'd ſtill ſome of 'em, which they could not reduce to their ſenſe, why muſt they ſet upon Paſchaſus in particular, who not only follow'd the ſenſe of the Church, but alſo her expreſſions, to wit, thoſe which were too plain and full to be perverted? Why muſt he then be accuſed of raſhneſs? 'Tis evident Mr. Arnaud ſtood upon Thorns, when he wrote this Anſwer. A reaſon muſt be given why theſe perſons before us reprehended Paſchaſus in particular, and accuſed him of being a raſh perſon. Now there cannot be naturally any other but this, That Paſchaſus had propoſed a new Doctrin in the Church which was never before heard of; having aſſerted the Euchariſt to be the ſame Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin, dead and riſen again. Mr. Arnaud to avoid the making of this Confeſſion, ſuppoſes there were a party in the Church that did not believe the Real Preſence; he will have theſe perſons turn to their ſenſe the common expreſſions; but not being able to do the ſame with that of Paſchaſus, this was the reaſon why they ſet upon him in particular, and accuſed him of raſhneſs. To make this anſwer paſs currant, it muſt be neceſſarily ſuppoſed that the expreſſions of Paſchaſus were peculiarly of this nature, that they could not be turn'd to the ſenſe of theſe people, and that this was their particular character which diſtinguiſh'd them from all the common expreſſions, for a reaſon muſt be found why they ſet particularly upon Paſchaſus as a raſh perſon, and this reaſon muſt be ſomething that was ſingular in Paſchaſus, But to acknowledg this frankly and clearly Mr. Arnaud muſt engage himſelf in terrible ill conveniencies, for this would be an acknowledging there was not any thing in the common expreſſions of the Church at that time which was expreſly for the Real Preſence, and which might not be turn'd to another ſenſe; which is to ſay, that all the common expreſſions were general, equivocal, and ambiguous. By this means he would have expoſed himſelf to abundance of queſtions, as amongſt others to theſe, Whence Paſchaſus could know the Church believ'd the Real Preſence, ſeeing all her expreſſions were capable of another ſenſe. Whence he knew the Church underſtood theſe expreſſions in one ſenſe rather than in another, ſeeing ſhe never expreſs'd her ſelf about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted. Who has given liberty to Paſchaſus to determin what the Church did not determin, and t' expreſs in particular terms what the Church only expreſs'd in general ones? Mr. Arnaud who plainly foreſaw theſe inconveniencies, has thought beſt to expeſs himſelf in an aenigmatical manner, as thoſe generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and ſequel of their own arguing, but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of ſaying too much. They pervert, ſays he, to their ſenſe moſt of the common expreſſions, And hence it happens, that if any body elſe in following the common notions, makes uſe of any term which they cannot in the ſame manner reduce to their particular ſenſe, they accuſe this perſon of raſhneſs. This is exactly what we have reaſon to believe hapned in Paſchaſus his time. Here's exactly the deſcription of a man that flies, but fears to be taken in flying, and therefore provides for himſelf another evaſion againſt all occaſions.

MY third proof is taken from Paſchaſus his propoſing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which muſt raviſh the world with admiration. Altho theſe things, ſays he, have the figure of Bread and Wine, yet muſt we Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.believe that they are nothing elſe after Conſecration than the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. And therefore the truth it ſelf ſaid to his Diſciples, This is my Fleſh for the life of the world. And to explain my ſelf in a more wonderful manner. Et ut mirabilius loquar, 'tis entirely nothing elſe but the Fleſh which was born of the Virgin and ſuffered on the Croſs, and is riſen from the Sepulchre. Theſe terms ut mirabilius loquar, are the expreſſion of one that pretends to ſay ſomething extraordinary and ſurprizing.

Mr. ARNAƲD anſwers, That all Miracles are not Paradoxes: I grant Book 8. ch. 10. p. 865.it, and therefore they are not all expreſs'd in this manner, ut mirabilius loquar. Did S. Chryſoſtom, adds he, offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expreſſion concerning the Euchariſt, O wonderful! he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Prieſts? I anſwer, that in effect this diſcourſe of Chryſoſtom is a true Paradox, a Paradox of an Orator, which ſeems at firſt to contradict common ſenſe, altho that in effect being rightly underſtood it does not; but that of Paſchaſus is a falſe Paradox, becauſe it oppoſed in effect and at bottom not only common ſenſe, but likewiſe truth. As to what remains, I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have theſe terms tranſlated, ut mirabilius loquar, by theſe. The better to explain to you this marvail. The Rules of Grammar muſt be changed to favour this Tranſlation, ut mirabilius loquar, naturally ſignifies, to ſpeak, or explain my ſelf in a more admirable manner, or at moſt, to ſay ſomething more admirable, which is to ſay, that the expreſſion which he was going to uſe, or the thing it ſelf which he was about to ſpeak, was extraordinary and ſurprizing. Now this ſhews he acknowledg'd at leaſt that his expreſſions or conceptions were new, whence 'tis not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expreſſions.

WE may make another conjecture from his ſubmitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard, and intreating him to ſee what is reprehenſible in it. He tells him he ſends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew, and adds, Ʋt ex ipſo conſiderare queas, quid intelligibilius credendum ſit, vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate, To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed, or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed. Mr. Arnaud is miſtaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paſchaſus had for Frudegard. We know that wiſe Authors are wont to acknowledg themſelves liable to miſtakes, and ſubmit themſelves to the cenſures of their friends. 'Tis not this. Here is ſomething more particular which I deſire may be conſidered. Paſchaſus declares in his Letter that he was cenſured for teaching the Real Preſence, and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong ſenſe. Even Frudegard himſelf propoſes to him an objection againſt his Doctrin, he defends himſelf the beſt he can, he deſires Frudegard to read his Book over often, he ſends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew, wherein he treats of the ſame thing, and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment, to ſee what may be more rationally believ'd, or what may be charitably reprehended in him, Quid intelligibilius credendum ſit, vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate. Who ſees not the queſtion is only of the Real Preſence, and that what he ſubmits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is moſt reaſonable, either to believe it, or not to believe it; to know whether it be, or be not worthy of reprehenſion to have offer'd it. But who does not likewiſe ſee that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed; for people do not thus ſubmit the Faith of the whole Church, and ſuch a clear, certain, and undeniable Faith, as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes this was, to the judgment of a particular perſon, leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds moſt reaſonable, and that of reprehending him, that is to ſay of cenſuring him, provided he does it with charity.

Mr. ARNAƲD reckons for my 6th. proof this, That Paſchaſus does Page 868.never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church. This remark conſiſts in a fact which we have already diſcuſs'd, and found to be true. I need only add, that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer, and without heſitation, the formal conſent of the Church of his time, and to proteſt he had ſaid nothing but what all the Biſhops, and Religious of his time ſpake in conformity with him, and what all the Faithful made profeſſion to believe with him, 'twas Paſchaſus. He was ſet upon in particular, he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Chriſt, his Doctrin was oppoſed by a contrary Doctrin, he was accuſed for being a raſh perſon, a viſionary. Now how could he after all this neglect the ſhelt'ring himſelf from all theſe inſultings, and making 'em return with confuſion upon his Adverſaries by ſaying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time, whether Paſtors or others ſpake no otherwiſe than he did, and that his Adverſaries were faln into the utmoſt exceſs of impudence? But inſtead of this he has recourſe to ſome paſſages which he perverts as well as he can to his ſenſe, and to a clauſe of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Chriſti.

PASCHASƲS furniſhes us likewiſe with another conjecture from the manner in which he explains his ſentiments on this ſubject of the Euchariſt. For he keeps as much as he can the Sacramental expreſſions, endeavouring to accommodate them to his ſenſe, and proceeds ſometimes ſo far that he ſeems to conſerve the ſubſtance of Bread; which appears by ſeveral paſſages which I remark'd in my anſwer to the Perpetuity, and which is not neceſſary to repeat here. Mr. Arnaud anſwers, That the only concluſion which reaſon draws from hence is, that theſe Sacramental Page 866.expreſſions do perfectly agree with the Faith of the Real Preſence. But if they do agree 'tis by conſtraint, and in doing violence to the nature and ſignification of the terms. When Paſchaſus ſays for example, In pane & vino ſine ulla decoloratione ſubſtancioe hoc myſterium interius vi & poteſtate divina peragitur. What violence muſt not be offered theſe terms to accommodate them to the change of the ſubſtance of Bread? For to ſay that the ſubſtance of Bread loſes not his colour, is an expreſſion which naturally includes this ſenſe, that the ſubſtance remains with its colour. What violence muſt not be offered theſe other terms. Caro & Sanguis per Spiritum Sanctum conſecratur, alioqui mihi nec caro eſt nec ſanguis eſt, ſed judicium quod percipio, quia ſine donante ſpiritu nullum male proeſumentibus donum ex Deo proeſtatur. What violence I ſay muſt not be offered them to accommodate 'em to the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation? For naturally theſe terms ſignifie, that 'tis the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Faithful, which makes the Bread and Wine be to 'em the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, for which reaſon the Wicked who have not the Holy Spirit do not receive this Fleſh and Blood. This language then of conſtraint ſhews that Paſchaſus ſtrove ſtill to conſerve the common expreſſions, altho that in effect they were contrary to him, whence we may eaſily conclude that he was an Innovator.

A ſeventh proof may be taken from the teſtimonies of Bellarmin and Sirmond both Jeſuits, which I have already mention'd in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity. The one ſays that Paſchaſus was the firſt Author that wrote ſeriouſly and at large of the truth of the Body and Blood of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, and the other aſſures us, that he was the firſt that explain'd the true ſentiment of the Catholick Church, in ſuch a manner that he has opened the way to others. The firſt idea which theſe words preſent us with is, that Paſchaſus was the firſt Author that propoſed the Doctrin of the Real Preſence clearly, and in plain and preciſe terms; for this is what is meant by the Serio of Bellarmin, and eſpecially the Explicuit of Sirmond. And 'twill ſignifie nothing to anſwer as Mr. Arnaud does, that theſe paſſages mean only that Paſchaſus was the firſt who collected into one Book what lay ſcattered in Book 8 ch. 10. page 867.ſeveral of the Fathers Writings, according as Athanaſius was the firſt who wrote expreſly Treatiſes on the Trinity, and S. Cyril the firſt who largely wrote of the Incarnation and Ʋnity of perſons in our Lord and Saviour, as S. Auguſtin is the firſt who has largely and ſeriouſly treated of Original Sin, and that as Paſchaſus had good ſucceſs in this labor, and in effect well collected the true ſentiments of the Fathers, ſo he has been follow'd by all that came after him. This anſwer is an illuſion, for 'tis far from completely anſwering Sirmond's words, Genuinum, ſays he, Eccleſioe Catholicoe ſenſum ita primus explicuit, Invita paſch.ut viam coeteris aperuit, qui de eodem argumento multa poſtea ſcripſere. He means not that Paſchaſus was the firſt who collected in one Book what lay here and there in the Writings of the Fathers, but that he firſt explain'd the true ſenſe of the Catholick Church. Before him, according to Sirmond, this true ſentiment, which is to ſay, the Doctrin of the Real Preſence, for this is what he means, was a confuſed and hidden matter. Paſchaſus was the firſt who brought it to light, and he did it in ſuch manner that he opened the way to all that came after him. Till his time this way lay hid, he found it, firſt entred into it, and by his example moved others to do the ſame, Now this is the honeſteſt confeſſion imaginable, that Paſchaſus was the firſt Author of this Doctrin; for in fine this explication of the true ſentiment of the Church, and this way, are nothing elſe but the Real Preſence, and he was the firſt diſcoverer of it. There cannot be any thing ſaid like this of S. Athanaſius in reſpect of the Trinity, nor of S. Cyril in reſpect of the Incarnation, nor of S. Auguſtin in reſpect of Original Sin. It may be indeed ſaid that they have treated more amply of theſe matters than what was done before, that they have more firmly grounded them by diſengaging them from the objections of Hereticks; but it can never be ſaid they were the firſt that explain'd the true ſentiment of the Catholick Church, for it was explain'd, and diſtinctly known before them. The Church worſhip'd before Athanaſius his time three diſtinct perſons in the Godhead, acknowledged two Natures, and one only perſon in Jeſus Chriſt before S. Cyril's time, and S. Auſtin's, and alſo believ'd that all the Children of Adam came into the world infected with his corruption.

THESE are the ſeven proofs of Paſchaſus his Innovation, which Mr. Arnaud has cited from me, and which he has endeavoured to anſwer. But, beſides theſe, there are alſo ſome others which he has paſt over in ſilence, and of which 'twill not be amiſs to put him in mind. I draw then an eighth from the teſtimony of Berenger, which makes Paſchaſus preciſely as we do, the Author of the Opinion which aſſerts the real converſion of the ſubſtances of Bread and Wine. Sententia, ſays he, imo vecordia vulgi, Paſchaſi Apud Lanfranc. lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.atque Lanfranci minime ſupereſſe in altari poſt conſecrationem ſubſtantiam panis & vini. The opinion, or rather folly of the Vulgar, of Paſchaſus and Lanfranc, that the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine remains not after the Conſecration. Lanfrac who cites theſe words, ſays a little after, that when the Letters of Berenger were read at Rome, 'twas known that he exalted John Scot and condemned Paſchaſus, intellecto quod Joannem Scotum extolleres Paſchaſium damnares. This moreover appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard, injuſtiſſime damnatum Scotum Joannem, injuſtiſſime nihilo minus aſſertum Paſchaſium in Concilio Vercellenſi. And his Letter to Aſcelin, You are, Tom. 2. Spic. in not. advitam Lanfran. ad Luc. D' Actery.ſays he, of a contrary opinion to all the laws of Nature, contrary to the Goſpel, contrary to the ſentiment of the Apoſtle, if you are of Paſchaſus his opinion in what he ALONE has fancied or forged in his imagination, that the ſubſtance of Bread does no more ſubſiſt in the Sacrament of our Lords Body. Sapis contra omnes naturoe rationes, contra Evangelicam & Apoſtolicam ſententiam, ſi cum Paſchaſio ſapis, in eo quod SOLƲS ſibi confingit Sacramento Dominici Corporis decedere panis omnino ſubſtantiam. Now on one hand this ſhews Mr. Arnaud's injuſtice, which attributes to the modern Miniſters th' invention of this Hiſtory which makes Paſchaſus the firſt Author of the opinion of the Real Preſence; and on the other this gives a great preſumption that what the Miniſters ſay touching Paſchaſus is true, ſeeing in the 11th. Century when the Diſpute about the Euchariſt grew hot, people ſaid the ſame thing then we do now. We ſee Paſchaſus in the 9th. Century charg'd with Enthuſiaſms and Viſions; in the 11th. reſpected as the Father of Tranſubſtantiation, as he that drew it only from his own fancy, theſe two matters of fact are moreover confirm'd by I know not how many other conſiderable matters hereunto relating. And Mr. Arnaud comes telling us confidently, that he marvails we ſhould dare ſtill attribute this Innovation to Paſchaſus, and that our proofs are mere ſophiſms and conjectures not worth the minding.

THE anonymous Author which Cellot the Jeſuit has publiſh'd furniſhes us with a 9th. proof in his way of defending Paſchaſus. For having ſaid, That ſome aſſert what we receeive from the Altar is the ſame as that which is Cellot in append. ad Hiſt. Cotteſch.born of the Virgin, and that others deny it, and ſay that 'tis another thing, he adds a little after. Now for thoſe which ſay 'tis the ſame thing as that which was born of the Virgin, or ſay 'tis another thing, we ſhall relate the ſeveral opinions of the Holy Fathers which do indeed appear to be different, but yet be ſatisfactory enough were they fully underſtood with diſcretion. Now I ſpeak of Paſchaſus Ratbert, Abbot of Corby, who whether he was required, or provoked, for 'tis uncertain which, has wrote on this matter a Book of about an hundred Chapters, which he has fill'd with ſeveral Authorities of the Fathers, and under the name of S. Ambroſe has therein eſtabliſh'd that what we receive from the Altar is entirely the ſame Fleſh which was born of the Virgin, ſuffered on the Croſs, riſen from the Sepulchre, and is at this day oſſered for the life of the world. Raban in his Epiſtle to the Abbot Egilon, and one Ratram in a Book dedicated to King Charles, argue ſufficiently againſt him, ſaying, that 'tis not this ſame Fleſh; which they prove by the teſtimony of S. Hierom, which ſays, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt may be ſaid to be in two manners, and by the Authority of S. Auguſtin, which ſays, that this term may be taken three ways. And becauſe they maintain that in S. Ambroſe's Books we do not find it exactly thus, we ſhall relate not only the paſſage of S. Ambroſe without any alteration, but alſo thoſe of S. Auguſtin, S. Hierom, and others in the manner we found 'em, to the end that having conſidered them it may appear to thoſe to whom it ſhall pleaſe God to reveal it, that theſe great men did not differ one from another in opinion, and that in the Catholick Church we muſt all have the ſame mind without the leaſt Schiſm. Hitherto we do not find that this defender of Paſchaſus has recourſe to the publick Belief of the Church of his time, or proteſts that Paſchaſus has offered nothing but what all Chriſtians did generally agree to, except ſome ſmall number of troubleſom Diſputers, who denied in ſecret what they dared not contradict in publick, as Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks.. We find on the contrary that he denotes thoſe which held the Doctrin of Paſchaſus under the name of ſome, and the oppoſite party under the name of others. Dicentibus quibuſdam idem eſſe quod ſumitur de altari, quod & illud quod natum eſt ex Virgine, aliis autem negantibus. This is not the language of one who was perſuaded the whole Church ſpake like Paſchaſus. But this will ſtill further appear if we conſider what this ſame Author adds afterwards, for having alledged ſome paſſages of the Fathers which he believ'd favour'd Paſchaſus, Hoec ideo, ſays he, poſita ſunt ſi forte per ea ſimplicitas Paſchaſi Ratberti poſſit excuſari, unde maxime ab obloquentibus Rabano & Ratramno ſugillari videtur, quid dixerat eandem eſſe carnem quoe de Altari ſumitur & de virgine generatur, & quoe quotidie adhuc pro mundi ſalute immolatur. I have brought theſe paſſages to ſee whether one could not excuſe the ſimplicity of Paſchaſus Ratbert, eſpecially in reſpect of that particular for which he is blamed by his Adverſaries, Raban and Ratram, for ſaying that what we receive from the Altar is the ſame Fleſh which was born of the Virgin, and is ſtill every day immolated for the ſalvation of the world. Now let any man ſeriouſly tell me, whether people are wont to defend after this manner one who has the whole Church on his ſide, excepting ſome troubleſom raſh Diſputers? Is ſuch a ones ſimplicity endeavoured to be excuſed by any body? Do we ſay in ſuch a caſe, if perhaps it may be excuſable? Do people place on one hand irreconcilable Adverſaries who defame him, and on the other ſimple excuſes, and excuſes offered in a fearful and doubtful manner, Si forte ſimplicitas Paſchaſii poſſit excuſari? Let Mr. Arnaud ſay what he pleaſes, the diſcourſe of this anonymous Author offers ſuch an idea of the Adverſaries of Paſchaſus as of perſons that delivered themſelves openly in the Church, who had then advantage over Paſchaſus, even to the defaming him for teaching the Real Preſence, and furniſhes us at the ſame time with the idea of Paſchaſus, as of a man who muſt be excuſed upon the account of his ſimplicity, but yet his expreſſions may be defended by ſome paſſages of the Fathers. Now theſe two ideas plainly enough ſhew that Paſchaſus was an Innovator.

THERE are other proofs in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity which I do not think neceſſary to repeat here, having nothing more to add to 'em. We will paſs then to Authors who were Contemporaries with Paſchaſus, to know of them whether they taught the ſame Doctrin as he did.