The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 12

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part · Book 6 · Chapter 12

p. 259CHAP. XII.

Of Perſonal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his Eleventh Book.

HAving ſatisfied whatſoever reſpects the matter of this Diſpute, my deſign wherein I am engaged of returning an exact anſwer to Mr. Arnaud's volume ſeems to require, I ſhould now paſs to the diſcuſſion of his eleventh Book which he has entituled perſonal differences between the Author of the Perpetuity and me. The intereſt alſo of my defence againſt Mr. Arnaud's injuſtices obliges me to this. Yet can I not wholly keep within this Province, for there are ſeveral reaſons hindering me, which I hope judicious perſons will not diſallow.

FIRST, theſe perſonal differences are handled in ſo ſharp and hot a manner, ſo full of animoſities that 'twere better a thouſand times to paſs 'em over in ſilence, and offer 'em as a Sacrifice to Piety, Patience, and Chriſtian Charity, than to endeavour to treat of 'em exactly, and repel Mr. Arnaud's outrages, which cannot be well done without ſometimes exceeding the bounds of Chriſtian moderation.

MOREOVER, altho I do not doubt but Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity have reaſon to believe that the publick will take part with what reſpects their perſons, yet I cannot pretend 'tis the ſame with me. Theſe Gentlemen have made a noiſe in the world, they have drawn upon 'em the expectations of all France, Spain, and Italy. Whereas I am perſon obſcure enough, and whoſe name is only known by my intereſt in this Diſpute; ſo that 'twill be a preſumption in me to believe the publick will concern it ſelf in my reſpect. Should I then here begin with a long diſcuſſion of our complaints, and reciprocal defences, the readers might well ſay to one another that they have nothing to do with this, and that 'tis an abuſe of their patience after a long diſcourſe of things which relate to the cauſe, to engage them further in a tireſom diſcourſe of Perſonal Differences.

IN the third place Mr. Arnaud has introduced amongſt his Perſonal Differences ſeveral things to which 'tis impoſſible to anſwer without engaging in tedious prolixities in matters which of 'emſelves have no coherence with that of the Euchariſt. I place in this rank the defence which he makes of a cruel invective of the Author of the Perpetuity againſt the firſt Reformers, which yet Mr. Arnaud maintains in a more fierce manner, grounding it on Facts, and Principles, ſome of which are falſe, others taken in a wrong ſenſe, and others invidiouſly perverted. How can we handle in a few words ſo important a ſubject when the queſtion concerns the juſtifying the innocency of ſeveral great men, and to ſhew at the ſame time the juſtice and neceſſity of our ſeparation from the Roman Church? 'Tis plain this cannot be done in one or two Chapters, and that this is matter for a great Volume. I reduce under this head theſe paſſionate expreſſions which begin the 9th. Chapter of this 11th Book, and which I deſign to relate here, that the world may judg of 'em. We demand juſtice, ſays Mr. Arnaud, ſpeaking of me, for the exceſſes of which he has been guilty contrary to all rules of honeſty and p. 260truth, which even Pagans would bluſh to violate. We would gladly know of him whether his morals will give him this licenſe. We are already ſatisfied that the Maxims of their new Divinity promiſe impunity to all manner of crimes, provided they be of the faithful Calviniſts who commit them; and we do not queſtion him whether he fears to be damn'd by calumniating his Adverſaries. We know the ſolutions of his Doctors deliver him from this fear, contrary to what S. Paul ſays, who tells us, that ſlanderers ſhall not enter into the Kingdom of God. But that which we deſire to know is, whether they have of late taken away from Crimes, the name of Crimes, and ſtript them of the general infamy which accompanies 'em, whether the name of a Slanderer be no longer odious amongſt Calviniſts, and whether they have ſanctified this name, which is ſo horrible amongſt men that they could not find a blacker, to ſhew their deteſtation of it, than to call ſuch Devils. I deſign not to repel theſe diſcourſes to be met with ſcattered throughout his whole Book, any otherwiſe than by reciting 'em, or at moſt by cenſuring 'em as exceſſes, which do not at all become a perſon, who pretends to correct our morals, and teach us virtue and moderation. I ſhall not retort upon him ſeveral things in my turn, which a juſt and natural defence ſeems to permit, and enjoyn me to tell him. But I pretend to juſtifie ſo well our Morals as will make Mr. Arnaud bluſh for ſhame that he has attackt them with ſuch an outragious and malicious air. And this we cannot do here tranſiently, nor by way of anſwer to ten or twelve hot periods, which like lightning have more fire than matter. 'Tis neceſſary for this purpoſe to be diſengaged from all other ſubjects; for there needs more time to remedy an evil than to do it, to cure a wound than to make it.

AND theſe are the reaſons which withhold me from entring into an exact diſcuſſion of Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Book. But becauſe there are in theſe Perſonal Differences ſome Articles which I cannot wholly paſs over in ſilence, having too near a relation to the things which we treat of, the Readers I hope will not take it ill, if I deſign this whole Chapter to anſwer them. This Book conſiſts either of paſſionate invectives againſt me, or defences againſt ſome of my Complaints, or accuſations againſt me. As to the paſſionate expreſſions I concern not my ſelf with 'em, I leave 'em to the publick judgment, and Mr. Arnaud's private conſcience. It belongs to him to look whether he has form'd his ſtile according to the lovely idea which he himſelf has given us of the true Eloquence, which is, ſays he, diſcreet, modeſt, Book 11. ch. 8. page 1128.judicious, ſincere, true, which ſerves to diſentangle things, and not to confound 'em, which clears truth, and offers it in ſuch a manner as is proper to introduce it into the mind and heart, which inſpires motions that are juſt, reaſonable, proportionable to the things which we handle, which has no other luſtre but what ſerves to diſcover truth, no ſtrength but what is borrowed from her. He will examin, I hope, at his leiſure, whether he has obſerved all theſe grave characters, and whether his eagerneſs to overcome has not tranſported him ſometimes into ſuch ſtrange convulſions as are wholly contrary to all morality and decency.

AS to his defences, I can with confidence affirm there are none of 'em which be juſt and warrantable; but to the end it may not be ſaid I deſire to be believed on my own bare word, let a man judg of 'em by theſe examples. The Author of the Perpetuity to prove that Bertram was not clearly of our opinion, alledged this reaſon, that Trithemus praiſed this Author. To this I anſwered, that he praiſed him becauſe in effect he deſerved it, and that p. 261this only increaſed his authority. My ſenſe is plainly that he prais'd him becauſe he knew his reputation was great in the 9th. Century, that his Book was therein well entertain'd, and his memory honored in the following Ages. For this is what muſt be underſtood by being in effect praiſe-worthy, and this is likewiſe what the terms of my anſwer inſinuate, having added that this only increaſed his authority, which is to ſay, that this teſtimony of Trithemus ſhewed that Bertram was authoris'd in the Church of his time. Whereupon the Author of the Perpetuity concealing this true ſenſe of my words, imputes to me another, which is that I ſaid, Trithemus, who believed the Real Preſence, praiſed Bertram for oppoſing it, which is a ridiculous ſenſe, and infinitely diſtant from mine. This is the ſubject of my complaint, and here is the defence of Mr. Arnaud, What is, ſays he, the ſenſe of theſe words, Book 11. ch. 3. p. 1105, 1106.Trithemus praiſed Bertram, becauſe he was indeed praiſe-worthy? Do they ſignifie that he praiſed him from his own knowledg, or from the opinion of others? It is clear they have only the firſt ſenſe, and not the ſecond. All is clear which Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks, but let us ſee how he proves it. To commend any one from the teſtimony of another, is not to commend him becauſe he is in effect praiſe-worthy, ſeeing there are ſeveral people which we do not in effect judg to be praiſe-worthy, altho thought worthy of praiſe by others. To commend a man becauſe he is in effect worthy of commendations, is proceeding on a juſt and true ground, and on the reality of things, and not on reports, and popular opinions. This is a pitiful defence, for 'tis certain there are people who are not judged to be praiſe-worthy altho they be praiſed by others: but I ſay that there are others which are deemed praiſe-worthy in effect, only becauſe we find 'em generally commended in the Age wherein they lived, and in the following ones, without being blamed by any body. Do not moſt people thus believe S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and S. Auguſtin praiſe-worthy, not for having read their Books, nor examin'd their Doctrins, but as knowing they were eſteem'd by their own and following Ages, and that their memory was never withered in the Church? Now this is what I ſay, that Trithemus might know of Bertram without examining his Book, to wit, that he had the eſteem of his Age, and that his memory was reſpected in the following ones.

IT ſignifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to ſay, that I ought not to ſuppoſe without proving it that ſuch an Author as Trithemus, who writes a Catalogue of Eccleſiaſtical Writers, and gives particular praiſes to an Author, does it barely from the relation of others, and that the preſumption is on the contrary, that he has read his Book and ſpeaks of it from his own proper knowledg. This I ſay is to no purpoſe, for it belongs to the Author of the Perpetuity that argues, and would draw a concluſion from the praiſes of Trithemus, to eſtabliſh well his Principle, to prove that Trithemus has praiſed Bertram after he had read and examin'd his Book, De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, and not to me who anſwer, to prove that he has praiſed him, becauſe he acknowledges his Fame was great in the 9th. Century. Were a man to judg hereof by preſumptions, they would be rather for my ſuppoſition than for that of the Author of the Perpetuity; for we know very well that thoſe who make Catalogues of Eccleſiaſtical Authors do not always take the pains to read exactly all the Books they mention. The Commendations of Ratram, whom we affirm to be Bertram, could not be unknown to Trithemus, and we have right to ſuppoſe that Trithemus has not diſtinguiſh'd Bertram and Ratram as two different perſons, till the Author of the Perpetuity has ſhewed us the contrary.

p. 262THE ſecond complaint whereon Mr. Arnaud endeavours to defend the Author of the Perpetuity, reſpects Mr. Blondel, whom this Author impertinently accuſes to have fallen into contradiction in that he ſuppoſes on one hand that Amalarius was a Calviniſt, and on the other that the Synod of Creſſy, which condemned Amalarius was of the ſame mind; which according to the Author of the Perpetuity is a manifeſt contradiction. Obſerve here his words. Uſher an Engliſh Proteſtant, ſuppoſes that Amalarius held Perpetuity of the Faith, ſect. 2 p. 80.the Doctrin of the Catholicks, and therefore would have it thought that 'twas the Doctrin of the Real Preſence which was condemned in Amalarius, by the Synod of Creſſy, and by Florus Deacon of Lyons. And a little lower, Blondel ſuffering himſelf to be deceived by the deſire which he had to raiſe up adverſaries againſt Paſchaſus, fell on this ſubject into one of the moſt palpable contradictions imaginable: For finding on one hand advantage from Uſher's Page 82.opinion, who makes the whole Synod of Creſſy who condemned Amalarius to conſiſt of Calviniſts, he takes this part, and ſuppoſes with him that the Council of Creſſy held the Calviniſts Doctrin, and were contrary to Paſchaſus. But finding elſewhere in the epitomiz'd Manuſcript of the Book of Divine Offices of William of Malmsbury, that Amalarius, Raban, and Heribald wrote againſt Paſchaſus, not conſidering that this ſuppoſition was contrary to that of Vſher, he makes Amalarius again an adverſary to Paſchaſus; ſo that by a manifeſt contradiction, he pretends that the Council which condemned Amalarius, and Amalarius who was condemned by the Council, were of one mind, and equally contrary to the Doctrin of Paſchaſus on the ſubject of the Euchariſt. So far is what the Author of the Perpetuity ſays.

TO anſwer this accuſation, I ſaid that this pretended contradiction was Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, part 3. ch. 1.a fable, That Mr. Blondel did not ſo much as think of Biſhop Uſher, and that the part which the Author of the Perpetuity gives to this Biſhop in this adventure, was a mere Romantick whimſie. That in the main, there was no contradiction in what Mr. Blondel ſaid; for aſſerting on one hand that Amalarius was cenſured by the Synod of Creſſy for writing that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt was triform and tripartite, and on the other that Amalarius had been one of thoſe that contradicted the novelties of Paſchaſus, and in fine that he does not ſeparate the Fathers of Creſſy from the number of theſe Opponents, theſe three things were very conſiſtent together, becauſe it did not follow from the Synod of Creſſy's condemning the triform and tripartite Body that they adopted for this all Paſchaſus his Fancies touching the Real Preſence.

LET us now ſee Mr. Arnaud's defence. He aſſures us that what the Author Book 11. ch. 4. p. 1108, 1109.of the Perpetuity has aſſerted touching Biſhop Ʋſher is a very likely conjecture, that if it be a Romantick whimſie 'tis not an impoſſible one. For 'tis more than probable that Blondel, who was a man of great reading, writing on a matter, was not ignorant of the opinion of a perſon ſo much eſteemed by his own Party, as Biſhop Uſher deſervedly was: that moreover 'tis a Romance that tends only to excuſe Blondel, and not to criminate him; for it being certain that he has contradicted himſelf, 'tis always better that this has been done with ſome appearance of reaſon, as is that of following the opinion of a famous Author, than without any probability.

IS not this a mere mockery of us, or of the Author of the Perpetuity, to defend him after this rate? This Author relates to us as a matter of fact, that Ʋſher believ'd ſuch and ſuch a thing, that Blondel finding advantage in p. 263the opinion of Ʋſher, has taken part of it, that he has joyn'd this part with what he likewiſe found in the Epitomy of William of Malmsbury not conſidering that the one was contrary to the other. Now we demand of him where he found this fine Hiſtory, ſeeing there appears nothing of it in Blondel's Book. And Mr. Arnaud anſwers that 'tis a conjecture very likely, that if it be a Romance, 'tis a Romance that is poſſible to be true, and one which tends to excuſe Blondel, becauſe 'tis better he be deceived with ſome pretext than without any.

LET Mr. Arnaud tell us, if he pleaſes, in what Morals he has found 'twas permitted the Author of the Perpetuity to pay us with his conjectures, and his poſſible Romances, inſtead of true Hiſtories, and to tell ſtories at random to render Mr. Blondel ridiculous, becauſe 'tis better he ſhould be ridiculous for ſome reaſon than for none. We thank him for his Charity, but 'tis exceſſive, and unneceſſary; for what need was there he ſhould charge his Conſcience with this pious fraud to extenuate a chimerical diſhonor, ſeeing the pretended contradiction of Mr. Blondel is but a mere imagination.

SƲPPOSING, ſays Mr. Arnaud, we have no other ground to prove Page 1110.that the Council of Creſſy were Calviniſts, but their condemning of Amalarius, to ſuppoſe hereupon Amalarius was a Calviniſt, this is a contradicting of a man's ſelf, and this is what Blondel does. How ill does Mr. Arnaud defend his Friend. 'Tis not true that Blondel grounded himſelf on what he ſays of the Synod of Creſſy, in that this Synod has condemned Amalarius. We ſhall find nothing of this in his Book. And ſuppoſing he did ground himſelf on it, he might do it without falling into contradiction, and without giving occaſion to the accuſation of the Author of the Perpetuity; for he might draw a negative argument thence in this ſenſe. That this Synod which could not be ignorant what was the Doctrin of Amalarius touching the Real Preſence contented themſelves with cenſuring in him ſome expreſſions, as that of Corpus triforme & tripartitum, without handling his Doctrin at bottom; which is a mark that in this reſpect they were agreed with him, and conſequently that they rejected the Real Preſence as well as Amalarius. Now in this caſe one might well diſpute the force of this proof, but there is no likelihood of making a contradiction of it. But in fine to decide clearly this queſtion, and to ſhew Mr. Arnaud how dangerous it is for a man to give himſelf over to too great deſires of finding fault, and to decry Authors, I need only ſay that when Mr. Blondel reckons the Synod of Creſſy amongſt the number of thoſe that have followed Paſchaſus, he does not ſpeak of that Synod which condemned Amalarius, but of another that was held ten years after. In effect he formally diſtinguiſhes theſe two Synods, ſaying of one, That this conception of Amalarius, that the Body of Illucidations on the Euchariſt, ch. 18. p. 421, 422. Ibid. p. 427.Jeſus Chriſt was triform and tripartite, was improved in the year 848. by the Council of Creſſy; and on the other, that ſeveral contradicted Paſchaſus, as Amalarius, Raban, Heribald, Bertram, or Ratram. John ſurnam'd Erigenus, from whom, ſays he, I do not ſeparate Walafridus Strabo, Abbot of Richeneau, nor Florus a Divine of Lyons, nor the Body of the Biſhops aſſembled in the year 858. at Creſſy. Theſe are then two different Synods, the one held in the year 848. and the other in the year 858. Of the one he ſays that it condemned the Corpus triforme & tripartitum of Amalarius, of the other that he does not ſeparate them from thoſe who contradicted Paſchaſus: what contradiction is here? Had theſe Gentlemen, who have faln no leſs than three times on this affair of Mr. Blondel, taken the pains p. 264to read over the place of his Book here in queſtion, they would have found what I now tell 'em touching the diſtinction of theſe Synods, and deſiſted from maintaining their fabulous Hiſtory, and imaginary contradiction.

THESE two examples ſuffice to ſhew the weakneſs of Mr. Arnaud's defences. We muſt now come to his complaints and accuſations, and diſcover the injuſtice and unreaſonableneſs of 'em in few words, which will be no hard matter to do.

FIRST, he complains that I offered ſome leſſening expreſſions in reference to the Author of the Perpetuity on the ſubject of Bertram, or Ratram, that I oppoſed the praiſes which the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers gives this perſon, and thereupon remark'd that theſe Gentlemen praiſe or diſpraiſe people, raiſe or depreſs 'em, according as their intereſts and deſigns require, according as they oppoſe or favour their Opinions. Firſt, Mr. Arnaud aſſures us that I falſified the words of the Author of the Chap. 6.Perpetuity. Secondly, He ſays I expounded his intentions according to my own fancy. Thirdly, He will not allow I had any reaſon to draw from his words compared with theſe of the Apology for the Holy Fathers, the concluſion which I drew thence. We muſt ſatisfie him in theſe three points.

AS to the pretended falſification, obſerve here in what manner I related in ſhort the diſcourſe of the Author of the Perpetuity. He ſays that 'twas Anſwer to the ſecond Tome, part 3. ch. 1.one call'd Ratram, or Bertram, an obſcure and intricate Divine, who adjoyn'd his reaſonings to the ordinary expreſſions of the Church, and expounded them according to his fancy, that as he was a Divine, he might argue as he pleaſed on this Faith, and that we can eaſily conceive a Divine may fall into frivolous reaſonings. There needs only the reading of the Author of the Perpetuity's diſcourſe to acknowledg this to be a juſt abridgment of it. Mr. Arnaud does not gain-ſay it, but he ſays, I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram a frivolous and paſſionate Reaſoner, and for having Book 11. ch. 6. p. 116.ſaid abſolutely of him that one may well conceive that a Divine might eaſily fall upon frivolous reaſonings, whereas he ſaid this only conditionally, to wit, ſuppoſing 'twere granted he was effectually in an error: and this is what he calls a manifeſt falſity. But Mr. Arnaud complains impertinently: For I did not ſay that the Author of the Perpetuity has thus ſpoken of Bertram abſolutely, and this Mr. Arnaud acknowledges, to wit, that ſuppoſing 'twere granted that Bertram had effectually erred, this would not at all hurt the Church, that 'tis no wonder that one man has erred, that a Divine ſhould fall into frivolous reaſonings. This I ſay is ſufficient for my deſign. For what ſignifies this but that in caſe Bertram cannot be brought over to them and made to ſpeak for the Real Preſence, he muſt then be a frivolous Divine, one who has faln into frivolous reaſonings. Now this is preciſely what I ſaid, that theſe Gentlemen praiſe, or diſpraiſe Authors according to their intereſts. If Bertram be for 'em all is well, they find no fault in him; but if it muſt be granted he is againſt 'em, then one may eaſily conceive that a Divine may fall into frivolous reaſonings. And thus Mr. Arnaud's illuſtration only confirms my remark. 'Tis the ſame in reſpect of what he adds that I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram an obſcure and intritate Divine, which is not thus ſet down in his Book, and that there is only that the greateſt advantage which the Calviniſts can pretend to touching this Author is, that he be ſet aſide as a perplext and intricate p. 265Author which can be profitable neither to one ſide nor the other. I deſire no more; for this is almoſt in ſo many words to ſay, that if they cannot have Bertram on their ſide, he muſt be put by as an obſcure and intricate Divine whom both Parties endeavour to explain in their favour, but who at bottom favours neither by reaſon of his perplexity: If he be for them all is well, if he be not he ſhall be laid aſide for a myſtical Divine. This falſification then which Mr. Arnaud imputes to me is groundleſs, ſeeing he himſelf juſtifies me from it, and he confirms himſelf the truth of my reflection.

NEITHER has he more reaſon in what he ſays afterwards, that I Page 1117.explain the intentions of others according to my own fancy, and raiſe up trophies to my ſelf on imaginary conjectures. Theſe are angry expreſſions, I pretend not to dive into the intentions of the Author of the Perpetuity, neither do I think of raiſing trophies to my ſelf at his coſt. My way of proceeding is frank, natural, and ſimple, and if I commit faults, I can ſincerely proteſt 'tis againſt my will. I have ſaid nothing concerning the Author of the Perpetuity, which I have not proved, not by making conjectures on his hidden thoughts, but arguing on his Writing, which is a kind of conjecturing very lawful in diſputes.

BUT in fine Mr. Arnaud will not allow I had reaſon in comparing the words of the Author of the Perpetuity touching Bertram, which thoſe of the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers to draw thence the concluſion which I drew. He ſays my arguing ſuppoſes that theſe two Authors Page 1118.are but one and the ſame perſon. For if they be two different Authors, what wonder can it be they have had different ſentiments on another Author. I anſwer, my reaſoning ſuppoſes only that the Author of the Perpetuity is one of the friends of the Author of the Apology, and that what's ſaid abroad in the world of theſe Gentlemen is true, that they publiſh nothing but what has been ſeen and approved of commonly amongſt 'em, which being ſo, I had right to draw my concluſion from the compariſon of the words of theſe two Authors, as nearly as if they were but one and the ſame perſon.

'TIS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to ſay that an Author may be praiſe-worthy in one piece, and blameable in another. I grant it, but I ſay that when one praiſes, or blames an Author, to raiſe up or depreſs any of his works, 'tis abſurd to ſay that one praiſes him, or blames him in this work. for we praiſe or blame abſolutely his perſon, to give hence afterwards more or leſs Authority to the work in queſtion. When we depreſs or extol the perſon for the work ſake, then we praiſe or blame a man in his work: but when on the contrary we depreſs or extol the work by the perſon, then his praiſe or blame reſpects abſolutely the perſon, and then we draw this conſequence, that the work in queſtion is, or is not conſiderable. Now we are in this laſt circumſtance, the Author of the Apology commends Ratram to give the greater weight to his Books of Predeſtination, and the Author of the Perpetuity depreſſes him to take away all authority from his Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, ſo that their praiſe and diſpraiſe reſpect directly his perſon.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud remarks that the Author of the Perpetuity did not ſuppoſe the Book which goes under the name of Bertram p. 266Page 1119.was Ratram's a Religious of Corby Author of the Books of Predeſtination, and of the refutation of the errors of the Greeks. That ſeeing he teſtifies on the contrary to incline to the opinion of Mr. Marca, who will have this Book of Bertram and that of John Scot to be the ſame. That it appears at leaſt from his Book that he had no fixt ſentiment that Ratram was the Author of it. This is nothing but powder thrown into the Readers eyes; for ſuppoſing 'twere true that the Author of the Perpetuity were of the opinion of Mr. De Marca, which is, that this Book which bears the name of Bertram is John Scot's, and not Ratram's; yet 'tis certain what he ſays of the perſon of this Bertram, or Ratram (for he proves that theſe two names are but one and the ſame name) is on our ſuppoſition that 'twas the Religious of Corby. Whether he admits our ſuppoſition as believing it, in effect to be true, or whether he admits it merely thro condeſcention, 'tis needleſs to inquire: for ſuppoſing he admitted it only thro mere condeſcention, the leaſt his words could ſignifie will be that ſuppoſing he held our ſuppoſition to be true, which he does not, he will have theſe objections or reproaches to offer againſt the perſon of this Author, to wit, that he is a Divine who departs from the common belief of the Church by vain Speculations, a Divine who falls into frivolous reaſonings, which ſuffices to juſtifie the contradiction between him and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers.

Mr. ARNAƲD's ſecond complaint is, that I ridicul'd the Author of the Perpetuity on the means he propoſed whereby to make Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece, which is to change the Objections of it into Proofs, and his Proofs into Objections. Mr. Arnaud who has been toucht to the quick with it, thought he was oblig'd to defend himſelf by heaping up of words, intermixing ſeveral common places of raillery, alledging inſtances which have no relation to the point in queſtion, to diſtinguiſh and argue in mood and figure, and thereupon conclude with authority the ſentiment of the Perpetuity is moſt juſt and reaſonable.

WERE it worth our while 'twould be eaſie to ſhew he deceives himſelf in whatſoever he offers. But it being unjuſt to hold the Readers any longer on trifles, we ſhall only ſay, if either he, or the Author of the Perpetuity have been offended at a very innocent raillery, it does not follow that others have been ſo too. We may tell him that his way of changing Proofs into Objections, and Objections into Proofs, is a conception ſo rare and well expreſs'd, that 'tis hard to hear it offered without finding in it matter of laughter. Moreover, there's a great deal of difference between ſaying that to diſcover the falſities of a Book, we need only to confront the paſſages of it with the Originals, and to ſay that to make of Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece in the ſenſe of the Catholicks, there need only be changed the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs. The confrontation of paſſages, is the juſter means, the moſt natural and moſt ordinary to diſcover falſities: but the change of Proofs into Objections, and Objections into proofs, is a kind of world turn'd upſide down. We may anſwer him that were his pretended method receiv'd, 'twould be applicable to all ſorts of Books of Controverſie on either ſide, there being few of them but what conſiſt of Proofs and Objections, and each Party pretending ſtill there is more light in his Proofs than in the Proofs of his Adverſary, which are called Objections. We may tell him in fine that Mr. Aubertin's Book conſiſts not only of Proofs and Objections, but alſo of Inſtances or Replies againſt the ordinary Anſwers which are made to Proofs, and of Anſwers to Objections; p. 267and this is what cannot be changed, ſo that when a man ſhould turn the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs, yet would he be perplexed by theſe inſtances, and anſwers, and conſequently muſt acknowledg he has loſt his time and pains, and that the Author of the Perpetuity has abuſed him.

Mr. ARNAƲD's third complaint is an accuſation couch'd under this title, A bitter Calumny againſt the Author of the Perpetuity. He propoſes it in his 9th. Chapter with an impetuoſity beyond example, and which ſhews he wrote it in the moſt cholerick temper imaginable. He aſcends his tribunal, and thence, pronounces this ſentence againſt me, that I am guilty Ch. 9. p. 1130, 1131.of an heinous crime, ſuch a one as obliges me both by the Laws of God and men to publick ſatisfaction. I is, ſays he again, a deteſtable calumny, an abominable crime, the moſt baſe and unjuſt proceeding a man can be capable of. Let not Mr. Claude marvel at theſe reproaches, this is no jeſting matter. He muſt not abuſe perſons of Honor for to fill up a ſentence. If he has expreſs'd himſelf thus thro incogitancy, I cannot but affirm him to be the moſt imprudent man in the world, and if he has done this with mature deliberation, I muſt declare him one of the boldeſt Calumniators as ever was, and am certain there's no honeſt man of his Communion but will grant what I ſay of him and condemn this his proceeding.

I proteſt before God with a ſincere heart, that I am in no wiſe concern'd at what Mr. Arnaud tells me. I have anſwer'd his Book, and am therewith content. But I am troubled he ſhould ſpoil this Diſpute, which the publick of either ſide might read perhaps with profit and pleaſure, and having diſcrediied it, I ſay, with paſſionate and violent expreſſions which cannot but diſguſt every man, he ſhould moreover finiſh it with raſh tranſports wholly unbeſeeming him. What reaſon has he for ſuch a paſſion? I wrote theſe words in my Book, God will one day ſhew, who they are that wrong his Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, part 2. ch 3. at the end of the Chapter.Church, the light of his judgment will diſcover all things, yea, and I hope before this comes to paſs men will break thro this ignorance, and then 'twill be no longer neceſſary to write in favour of Tranſubſtantiation. There will be no need of this courſe for a Reconciliation with Rome, and regaining peoples favour; for when the face of things ſhall be changed, this worlds wiſdom will be uſeleſs. Here is my crime, this the ſpark that has ſet all on fire. We Book 11. ch. 9. page 1131.underſtand, ſays he, this language, and Mr. Claude knows well enough what he has ſaid himſelf, and what interpretation his words will bear. He means then the Author of the Perpetuity wrote not of Tranſubſtantiation by perſuaſion, but out of policy, and for worldly reſpects. For when a Catholick Divine defends the Church to which he is united, if he believes what he ſays, we muſt not ſearch for other reaſons of his undertaking the common cauſe of the Church in whoſe truth he places his hope of Salvation deſerves ſufficiently to be defended. So that to charge the Author of the Perpetuity to write only out of political and worldly reſpects, is to charge him with not believing what he writes, and to give this account of it.

THIS paſſion is a ſtrange thing. Had Mr. Arnaud conſidered theſe words with leſs heat, he would have found nothing in 'em of what he ſaw at firſt. I confeſs they may be underſtood in this ſenſe that this affair was politically manag'd, and with reſpect to the obtaining the favour of the Court of Rome, and regain the peoples good will, and that this is a worldly wiſdom: But 'twill not be found in 'em, That the Author of the Perpetuity p. 268did not write by perſuaſion, but only thro policy, as Mr. Arnaud imagin'd. This he will not find. Why then does he extend my words beyond their natural ſignification, and why does he wrong a man ſo ſcandalouſly on the imagination he ſaid what he did not? We underſtand, ſays he, The Book entituled, The Port Royal and Geneva of Intelligence againſt the moſt holy Sacrament of the Altar.this language. He ſhews plainly he does not underſtand it, ſeeing he charges me with ſaying what I did not, and draws his Commentary only from himſelf, and not from my words. Had I reproach'd Mr. Arnaud with the publick Writings printed againſt him, wherein he is accuſed for formally oppoſing the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence by a propoſition to be met with in his Book of the frequent Communion? Had I told him that of late his opinion on the Euchariſt has been publickly in a Letter treated as ſuſpicious, that he has been told, That if he be unwilling, Anſwer to the requeſt preſented to the King, &c. Book 2. ch. 6. p. 187.together with his friends to be of intelligence with Geneva, he muſt change the act of the adoration which they perform aſſiſting at the Maſs to the Elevation of the Hoſt; for they ſay only, I adore thee raiſed on the Croſs, at the general judgment, and at the right hand of the Father, without any mention of adoring him being preſent in the Church. Had I ſeverely applied my ſelf to what he ſays ſomewhere in his Book, on the Principles of Des Cartes his Philoſophy, That God ſees in the matter, in the figures and forms only a different order of parts, to conclude thence that this propoſition overthrows the exiſtence of accidents without a ſubject in the Euchariſt, and conſequently that 'tis contrary to the common Doctrin of the Church of Rome, as it has been obſerv'd in a Letter Printed not long ſince, what tempeſts muſt I not have expected, ſeeing for having only hinted that there might be ſome policy in the Author of the Perpetuity's works I have raiſed ſuch a great diſturbance?

Mr. ARNAƲD proteſts he will never for my ſake diſpenſe with the Book 11. ch. 9. p. 1132.rules of Juſtice, that he will never devine my ſecret intentions. Let him not then pretend to read in my heart, nor attribute to me a myſtical ſenſe which I never intended, nor is contained in my words. All thoſe that believe Tranſubſtantiation are not in a capacity of writing in its favour. Amongſt thoſe that are, how many do betake themſelves to other matters? Is it not then a very likely matter that a perſon who is at liberty to write on any ſubject, but pitches upon Tranſubſtantiation, is it not, I ſay, very likely his choice of this point is grounded on ſome worldly policy and carnal conſiderations? In attributing this to him we do nothing but what is very juſt and innocent. And this is all that my words ſignifie, to pretend to know more of my mind, is to attempt a thing which is poſſible only to God, and yet this Mr. Arnaud would do, that he might have ſome colour for his paſſion.

Mr. ARNAƲD I hope will ſuffer me likewiſe to tell him that what I ſaid touching ſome words of the Author of the Perpetuity, which I believed were not very advantageous to the common myſteries of our Religion, do neither reſpect his perſon nor the main of his ſentiments which I never pretended to handle, but only his expreſſions which I judged, and ſtill do judg to be too rough and vehement on points to which we cannot ſhew enough reſpect. We ought all of us to be very circumſpect in our ways of ſpeaking, to give no oecaſion to the open enemies of the Goſpel truths which we joyntly profeſs. This is my opinion, and my words will not admit fairly of any other explication. Can Mr. Arnaud wonder we ſhould be offended to hear theſe queſtions, Why are the immortality of p. 269the ſoul, and everlaſting bliſs ſo hidden, and as it were ſo buried in the Books Perpetuity of the Faith refuted, part 1.of the Old Teſtament which are receiv'd into the Canon of the Jews? Why did not Jeſus Chriſt declare his Divinity in ſuch clear and preciſe terms that 'twere impoſſible to elude them? What may the Pagans ſay on what the Church teaches concerning Original Sin, and this inconceivable tranſmiſſion of a crime, which is a ſpiritual and voluntary action, to all the Sons of him that committed it, altho they could not have any part in his action, and of this dreadful condemnation of all humane nature for the fault of one man? Can he think it ſtrange we have been troubled to hear the difficulties which the myſtery of the Trinity contains called dreadful difficulties, and to find 'em exaggerated in this manner: Were a man in this point to be guided by his reaſon, he muſt needs ſtart back at theſe inconceivable verities. Should he pretend to make uſe of its lights to penetrate them, ſhe will only furniſh him with arms to combat them. Who can but be offended at the propoſitions which are in this laſt work of Mr. Arnaud on the ſubject of proofs which I alledged out of the Book 10. ch. 6. p. 1042.Holy Scripture for the Trinity. That this will be very rational in the mouth of a Catholick, becauſe he accompanies theſe proofs with the publick intelligence of the whole Church and of all tradition. But that theſe ſame proofs are infinitely weak in the mouth of a Calviniſt without authority, without poſſeſſion, and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority. That Mr. Claude, Page 1043.(who alledges the beſt part of what there is in the Scripture concerning the Trinity and Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt) overthrows the Socinians beyond all remedy, yet in ſuch a manner as is more likely to make 'em laugh than to convert 'em. I do not believe theſe queſtions or propoſitions are juſtifiable, take 'em how we we will; but ſuppoſing they were, it muſt be granted they are conceiv'd in ſuch rough, dangerous, and exceſſive terms, that 'tis for the publick edification to avoid 'em, yea and to cenſure 'em.

BUT in fine, we muſt leave theſe Perſonal Differences which cannot but be diſpleaſing. And therefore we will come to the Preface of my Anſwer to Father Noüet, which ſeems to have much incenſed Mr. Arnaud, and ſeeing he ſeems to be much concerned at it, we will endeavour to ſatisfie him about it. What then does this Preface contain which is ſo troubleſom and grievous? I confeſs we have mention'd a matter of fact in it wherein theſe Gentlemen have been concern'd; to wit, that their Book was refuſed an Approbation: but this was a point which ſhew'd the reaſon why this Anſwer was publiſh'd againſt Father Noüet, a fact moreover that was true and known by every body. We have drawn thence a conſequence which was not advantageous to Mr. Arnaud, 'tis true; but a conſequence which is very natural: for that Gentleman whoſe approbation was ſought for to this laſt work of Mr. Arnaud, and who refuſed it, is a publick perſon who gives not his Approbations as a private man, but as holding a rank and very conſiderable employ in one of the moſt famous Univerſities in Europe. If the face of things has been ſince altered, Mr. Arnaud knows the reaſon of it; and we too. We have uſed ſome expreſſions of raillery, and this perhaps has moſt troubled Mr. Arnaud; but who ever told him that raillery ought to be wholly baniſh'd from a Diſpute. Not to fetch examples elſewhere, we know very well that theſe Gentlemen have oft uſed it in their Writings, and not without ſucceſs; and not to go further, Mr. Arnaud himſelf has not abſtain'd from it in this laſt Book he wrote againſt me. I do not take it ill, for I had rather at any time ſee him merry than angry.

p. 270I complain'd in this Preface of my being brought in impertinently into the abuſes and nullities againſt the order of the Arch-Biſhop of Paris. But I believe 'twill be now acknowledg'd that I had reaſon to admire what was ſaid therein of me, in charging me with inconceivable boldneſs in denying the moſt evident matters, and maintaining the moſt falſe ones. This has occaſion'd my making a more general complaint, which is, that theſe Gentlemen omit no occaſion of teſtifying their averſion to us in a very ſharp and ſevere manner, and many times without any pretence or cauſe. To ſay hereupon, as Mr. Arnaud does, that they never ſpeak otherwiſe than truly and Chap. 11. p. 1162.juſtly, and herein only obſerve the Principles of their Religion, this is to teſtifie further his paſſion, and aſſert a thing the leaſt favourable imaginable to the Church of Rome. For here the queſtion is not concerning the main of our Controverſies, nor whether we have reaſon or not. This is a matter which we do not pretend to meddle with in a Preface, and when this ſhall be the point we ſhall be able to ſhew that 'tis neither with truth, nor reaſon that theſe Gentlemen ſpeak of us as they do. The queſtion here is touching the manner after which they ſpeak, ever rending us with injurious expreſſions? To ſay that 'tis their Religion which inſpires them with theſe motions, and perſuades them this way of proceeding is juſt and reaſonable, is to impute to their Religion a thing which will render it odious, and of which I believe 'tis no wiſe guilty; for how many perſons do we ſee who are no leſs Roman Catholicks than theſe Gentlemen, who ſpeak and write as well as they, and yet do not uſe their way of proceeding. If I have attributed their affected animoſity to the deſire they have of freeing themſelves from all ſuſpicions that they held intelligence with us, what is there in all this which may juſtly offend them. Have not theſe ſuſpicions been made publick, and have we not ſeen Books Printed whoſe Titles declared more than bare ſuſpicions? This is a thing which I did not invent at leiſure, neither one of my conjectures, nor a poſſible Romance, nor a particular ſecret which I have imprudently divulged, but a matter of fact which others beſides my ſelf have publiſh'd, and which is known by every body. Is Mr. Arnaud offended at my imputing to him the deſire of clearing himſelf from this ſuſpicion? I wiſh with all my heart this were the occaſion of his wrath, neither would I complain in this caſe, to be its ſacrifice. But I am afraid that in turning things on this ſide, I ſhall pull on my ſelf a new quarrel more terrible than the firſt. What reaſon has he then to be angry? We are the only ſufferers in all this, we ſuffer in the ſuſpicion, we ſuffer in the juſtification, we ſuffer in the manner of the juſtification. But God give us grace to ſuffer patiently, and we hope he will not refuſe us that of perſevering in our duty to him, and purſuing to the laſt truth with love, till we arrive at his Kingdom, where we ſhall find reſt after our labors, and where our reproach will be turn'd into glory.

AND here I ſhall finiſh this Chapter and Book, and intreat Mr. Arnaud not to take any thing ill which I have ſaid to him, and to conſider that I maintain my Cauſe, a Cauſe of whoſe Goodneſs and Juſtice I cannot in the leaſt doubt. Let him not think I have been ſet on work by a ſpirit of contention, I naturally hate it, and ſeveral perſons of Honor and Probity know I engaged in this Controverſie much againſt my will, my temper inclining me rather to live retired and quiet. Neither let him think I thought of diminiſhing in any ſort the Reputation which he has acquired in the world. I take it as a great honor to be found in the liſts with him; and as p. 271to his perſon, whatſoever ſharpneſs he has uſed towards me, he ſhall always find me reſpecting his ingenious qualifications. If he be diſpleaſed to find himſelf deceived in the great hopes which he conceiv'd touching the Greeks, Armenians, and other Eaſtern Churches, this will ſhew him he muſt not always judg of things from their firſt appearances. That which deceived him is, that he has taken for the true Greek Church a Party of Greeks which has been a long time a forming and which the reſt call foreign, which is to ſay, thoſe who are in their hearts and opinions Latins, altho outwardly profeſſors of the Greek Rites, and live amongſt the reſt in the ſame Communion. 'Twas this Party who for ſo long a time oppoſed Meletus the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Cyril his Succeſſor, afterwards Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and who in fine o'rewhelm'd Cyril by the aſſiſtance of the Court of Rome, as I have elſewhere ſaid that Allatius himſelf has acknowledged, and as I proved in the 12th. Chapter of the ſaid Book. Since this great Victory which was follow'd by the promotion of Cyril of Beroe the Jeſuits Diſciple, and a great favorer of the Latins, to the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople, I do not doubt but this Party has mightily ſtrengthen'd it ſelf, and that ſeveral amongſt 'em have declared themſelves more loudly and openly than they did before. In effect 'twas about this time that a certain Greek of this Party called Meletus Syrigus wrote a Catechiſm which was ſign'd in the two pretended condemnations of Cyril Lucar, the one under Cyril of Beroe, and the other under Parthenius, with this Title foreign, which is to ſay, An Orthodox Confeſſion of the Catholick Apoſtolical and Eaſtern Church, in which he aſſerts the converſion of the ſubſtances of Bread and Wine into thoſe of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, with the ſubſiſtence of accidents without a ſubject, and uſes the very term of foreign. If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the perſons of that Party, I have already declared to him, and again tell him that I have not diſputed againſt him. We do not pretend to diſpute the Conqueſts of the Miſſions and Seminaries, let him peaceably enjoy 'em, we mean only the true Greeks, who retain the Doctrin and ancient expreſſions of their Church. And as to thoſe, we are certain of two things, the one that they hold not the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins, which I believe I have clearly proved; and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church, altho the contrary Party were the moſt prevalent, and poſſeſſed the Patriarchates. Mr. Arnaud himſelf has told us that theſe Seats are diſpoſed of by the ſovereign authority of the Turks to thoſe that have moſt money, and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to eſtabliſh the Roman Doctrins in theſe Countries, thro the Neglect and Ignorance of the Prelates, Monks, and People, whether by inſtructing their Children, or gaining the Biſhops, or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries, and other like means which I have deſcrib'd at large in my ſecond Book. Mr. Arnaud perhaps will anſwer that he likewiſe maintains on his ſide, that this Party which teaches Tranſubſtantiation is the true Greek Church, and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Diſciples. I anſwer, that to decide this queſtion, we need only examin which of theſe two Parties retains the Doctrin and Expreſſions of the ancient Greeks; for that which has this Character muſt be eſteem'd the true Greek Church, and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers. Now we have clearly ſhew'd that the converſion of Subſtances, Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence, are Doctrins and Expreſſions, of which the Greeks of former Ages have had no knowledg; whence it follows that the Party which p. 272admits theſe Doctrins and Expreſſions, are a parcel of Innovators which muſt not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church. Let Mr. Arnaud, and thoſe who read this Diſpute, always remember that the firſt Propoſition of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th. Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation, the Greeks held the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, that this is the time which he choſe, and term'd his fix'd point, to prove from hence that theſe Doctrins were of the firſt eſtabliſhment of Religion; and conſequently perpetual in the Church. Which I deſire may be carefully obſerved to prevent another illuſion, which may be offered us, by transferring the queſtion of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this, and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it ſhall happen that the Miſſions and Seminaries, and all the reſt of the intrigues which are made uſe of ſhall devour the whole Land of Greece. For in this caſe the advantage drawn hence againſt us will be of no value; 'twill neither hence follow, that the Doctrins in queſtion have been perplex'd in the Church, nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation; and what I ſay touching the Greeks, I ſay likewiſe touching the other Eaſtern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Miſſions and Care as well as the Greeks.

AS to what remains, let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refutation of his Book in general, I have every where ſhewed the little juſtice and ſolidity of his reaſonings, and eſpecially in the refutation of his firſt, ſixth, and tenth Book. I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit, Elegancy, and polite Language, and attribute to the defect of his ſubject, whatſoever I have noted to be amiſs, either in his Proofs, or Anſwers: but 'tis very true, the world never ſaw ſo many illuſions and ſuch great weakneſs, in a work of this nature; and all that I could do was to uſe great condeſcentions, in following him every where to ſet him ſtrait. I have only now to beſeech Almighty God to bleſs this my Labor, and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finiſh it, ſo he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification. AMEN.

AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book, Touching the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Publiſh'd under the name of BERTRAM, AND OF THE Authority of John Scot, or Erigenus.

LONDON: Printed by M. C. for Richard Royſton, Bookſeller to the King's moſt Excellent Majeſty. 1683.