The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 1 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suſpected to be deceitful, and that his manner of aſſaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Diſingenuous.
THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes uſe of to make us confeſs, as he ſays; that the Doctrine of the Roman Church, touching the Euchariſt, is the ſame with that of all Antiquity, hath appeared ſo ſtrange and irregular to me, that I have made theſe following Reflexions thereupon.
I. That it may be juſtly ſuſpected of Artifice and Illuſion.
II. That this way of Aſſaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Diſingenious and Indirect.
III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to ſhew the Invalidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at moſt do amount but to mere Conjectures.
IV. That to confute at once all theſe Arguments, we need but oppoſe againſt them theſe ſame Proofs of matters of Fact, and by gathering them into an Abridgment, to give a general view of them.
Mr. Arnaud confeſſes that I were not to be blamed for having in my Anſwer Lib. 1. ch. 1. P. 1.fall'n firſt upon the Faults which I pretend to diſcover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, provided, ſaith he, that I maintained Equity and Truth; It may be, I think, then ſuppoſed I have ſo far done nothing contrary to Rule, it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Reflections.
I ſhall not inſiſt long upon the firſt of theſe, becauſe Mr. Arnaud hath alledged The firſt Obſervation juſtified.nothing againſt it, appearing undenyable in it ſelf. It is grounded on this, That when the Queſtion concerns what we ought to believe touching the Euchariſt, the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Queſtion decided, not by the word of God, but the Churches Conſent in all Ages, and Depoſitions of the Fathers, and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Conſent of the Church, he would have this ſecond Queſtion reſolved not by Paſſages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers, but by Arguments. Now this is certainly a moſt tedious and prepoſterous Courſe; it being a Principle of common Senſe, that Queſtions in matters of Right ought to be naturally decided by the Rule of Right, then when the Rule determining that Right is diſtinct and ſeparated from matters of Fact, and that again naturally the Queſtions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Conſideration of the Facts themſelves, or by Witneſſes who can make a lawful Depoſition.
Seeing then the Chriſtian Religion offers us a diſtinct Rule, and that too as it lies ſeparate from matters of Fact; (which is that holy Scripture, wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will;) it is in it we muſt ſearch for what we ought to believe, and not in the conſent of the Church in all Ages. For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures, ſo likewiſe we, who have the ſame Faith with them, ought to ground our Faith on the ſame Principle. The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehenſions of the Myſteries of Religion, but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at fartheſt, than an Example for us to Imitate, and an Example too ſubmitted to the ſame Rule, which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that; ſo that to decide Queſtions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages, is to pervert the natural Order and Deſign of things.
IT will be to no purpoſe to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith, ſeeing it likewiſe taketh in Tradition. Yet this Anſwer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I ſhall charge him: For when a man lays down a Method in a Controverſie, and propoſes it as ſufficient to convince thoſe who are not of his own Opinion, he muſt ground this Method on Principles granted by both Parties; for if his Poſitions are ſuch as may be queſtioned, he is then obliged to a ſolid Proof of them, before he can ſuppoſe them. For if he take not this Courſe, he will quickly be at a loſs, and his whole Work ſoon rendred ineffectual. Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done, for he has not proved that the Conſent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith. 'Tis true he has told us of the ill Conſequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers, and that we ſhould do, if we ſuppoſe them guilty of an Idolatrous Worſhip. But this reaches not our Queſtion: for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith, neither in the matter of our preſent Debate, nor in any other: For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Religion, by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyneth us to believe, without becoming a Rule themſelves and without arrogating this ſupreme Authority over mens Conſciences, which ought to decide all Queſtions of this Nature.
But perhaps it will be replyed that, provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning ſo important a Subject as that of the Euchariſt, what need we matter, by what means we obtain it, whether by means of the holy Scripture, or by Conſent of the antient Church? If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith, let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate. To which I anſwer, That the cauſe which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main loſe nothing, though we ſhould take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours, ſo that this doth not at all trouble us.
BUT be it as it will, we muſt not forſake the Word of God, nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but thoſe which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures. Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be, that is to ſay, A Divine Faith, were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers. This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us, without having any fixed Principle, is certainly of very dangerous Conſequence. For 'twould happen at length after ſome Ages, that the laſt would have no reſemblance with the former, becauſe that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themſelves in ſuch an Imitation, would never be wanting to diſorder and corrupt it, as is commonly ſeen in the drawing of a Picture, Draughts of which being taken one from the other, become ſtill every time leſs Perfect, as they are fartheſt diſtant from their Original.
THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excuſed for his perverting the order of the Diſpute with which I charge him, that he would decide this Queſtion of Right by matters of Fact; Neither is he leſs inexcuſable when he would have the Queſtion of matter of Fact, to depend on the force of his Reaſoning. The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Euchariſt, and he pretends to decide this Queſtion not by the Teſtimony of the Fathers themſelves, but by certain Impoſſibilities he imagines in the change which we ſuppoſe. I know very well that there are ſometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact, the Truth of which cannot be atteſted by any Witneſs, and I confeſs in this caſe, no man can be blamed for having recourſe to Reaſonings, becauſe there being no other Evidence to help us in our Search, even Neceſſity warranteth this way of Proceeding, altho it be indirect. But we are not in theſe Circumſtances, ſeeing we have the Writings of the Antients, and thoſe no leſs conſiderable for their Number than for the many clear Paſſages they contain touching the Euchariſt; which if we will apply our ſelves unto, we ſhall ſoon diſcover their Opinions about it. What need is there then, for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers, to hearken to the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments? May we not now juſtly complain of him, and anſwer him, this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it ſelf hath preſcribed us, and comparing theſe two ways, the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain. From whence it immediately follows, That his manner of proceeding, may well be ſuſpected as artificial and deceitful, for it is uſual with us to ſuſpect that Perſon who leaves the common Road, to walk in by-Paths.
MY ſecond Obſervation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, reſpects The ſecond Obſervation juſtified, Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4.the manner of his Aſſaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book. And ſeeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falſity, for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occaſioned this Controverſie, and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath ſet upon it after an indirect manner. I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my juſtification under two Heads. I ſhall firſt then make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin aſſaulted, and hath bin the firſt occaſion of this Debate. Secondly, that his Book has bin Aſſaulted after an unjuſt manner.
THE firſt of theſe Particulars ſhall be diſpatched in two Words, for on one hand I have no more to do, but only deſire the Reader himſelf to peruſe the ſecond Section of the firſt Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, where he ſhall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains, his whole deſign is only to refute Mr, Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Tranſubſtantiation: And on the other, I have no more to do but declare to the World, That from the firſt Moment of our Debate, which was preciſely then when I began to anſwer this Treatiſe, I propoſed to my ſelf not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account, but defend in general the whole Book, againſt the indirect attempts of that Treatiſe. Now if this may not be called the firſt occaſion of this Conteſt, I know not any longer how to name things. For what is there which maketh a Book the firſt occaſion of a Debate, which is not here? Muſt a Book be aſſaulted? this hath bin ſo. Muſt it be defended? this hath bin ſo. Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it, to do it with a deſign of keeping up its Credit? This hath bin likewiſe my Deſign, becauſe its Intereſts have appeared to me to be the ſame with thoſe of the Truth. Where then is this notorious Falſity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me?
THE Author of the Perpetuity, ſaith he, never pretended his Treatiſe was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4.a refutation of that Miniſters Book, and in a matter as this is, which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living, it were ſufficient to convince Mr. Claude of raſhneſs to tell him, as from him, he is mistaken, and that this Author never deſigned what he charges him with. Moreover he adds, That this Treatiſe was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the bleſſed Sacrament: and that we ſeldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio, in a Preface: That he handleth the Queſtion of the Impoſſibility of an Innovation: That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way, who had impoſed fabulous Relations on the World: And that he directly indeed argueth againſt Mr. Aubertin's pretended Innovation, but medleth farther with no other part of his Book.
Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me, if I affirm that there's not one word of Truth in all this. For, to ſpeak properly, the occaſion of this Conteſt can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Diſpute, ſeeing our Debate began but from that time I interpoſed. For had I not ſtept in between, the Author had talked only to himſelf, and when a man does ſo, we are not wont to ſay, ſuch a one is in a Diſpute. To find then the real Occaſion, Mr. Arnaud ſhould have ſought it in the cauſes moving me to interpoſe, and not in the Author of the Perpetuity's Intention. Mr. Arnaud hath not conſidered there is a Difference between the Occaſion of a Debate, and whether the Subject of it be real or imaginary. For to decide the latter of theſe Particulars, we muſt look back to the Author of the Perpetuity, and conſider what he has done, and what he would do, but to be aſcertained in the firſt of them, I ought thereupon to be conſulted: and when it ſhall appear I was deceived by a groundleſs Imagination that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin aſſaulted, then it might be truly affirmed I raiſed a Quarrel to no purpoſe, ſeeing the occaſion of it only ſprang out of my own Fancy, but yet what I have ſaid ſince cannot be charged with notorious Falſity, viz. That this Book was the firſt occaſion of the Debate betwixt us, ſeeing that in effect I only engaged in this Controverſie to defend it.
THERE is moreover in Mr. Arnaud's Diſcourſe a falſe Suppoſition in the Term of Refuting, for he ſuppoſeth I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with a deſign of formally and directly refuting Mr. Aubertin's whole Book, and 'tis thereupon he tells us, that ſeldom any man undertakes to refute a large Folio in a Preface. But he does not conſider, that I did not for this reaſon uſe the Term of Refuting, but Aſſaulting, and that far from charging the Author of the Perpetuity with this Deſign of a Refutation, my complaint hath bin on the contrary, that he has not refuted this Book, and which hath been grounded on the Neceſſity urging him to have done it, as I ſhall ſhew hereafter. Now to juſtifie what I ſaid, that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath been the firſt Occaſion of this Debate, and at the ſame time, that this is not an ill grounded Suppoſition, I need not repeat that the Author of the Treatiſe deſigned to refute that whole Book, it appears to me ſufficient he hath aſſaulted the laſt part of it, and undertaken to anſwer it throughout the ſecond Section of his Treatiſe. It ſufficeth me that his firſt Section tendeth to render incredible Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation. It ſufficeth me, the drift of his whole Work is to make Mr. Aubertin's Proofs of matters of Fact altogether uſeleſs to us. And this is more than need to be ſaid to refute this fierce Accuſation of notorious Falſity, with which Charge Mr. Arnaud hath begun his Book. Now this is apparently true, and a man needs but his Eyes and common Sence to be ſatisfied in it.
Mr. Arnaud may tell us what he pleaſes concerning the Author of the Perpetuity's real Deſign. Yet ſhall I anſwer him, that when men judge of a Work, their Judgment is guided by what appears in the Work it ſelf, and not by the ſecret Intentions of its Author. For mens Deſigns many times lye hid, but the drift of their Work lies open. I do not pretend to penetrate into mens Hearts, yet cannot I be withheld from judging of the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, becauſe 'tis before my Eyes.
THAT this Treatiſe was at firſt, but a ſimple Preface, or that it was not, it avails me little to know, for I am not uſually ſo much in Love with Rarities, as to extend my Curioſity into the Author of the Perpetuity's diſavowed Deſigns. If this Work hath been heretofore but a Preface, and that it hath been ſince raiſed to the dignity of a Treatiſe, there hath been reaſon perhaps for its ennobling, its Deſert hath made it worthy of this Honour; and they are at this day to blame who have reproached it with the meanneſs of its former Condition, in an occaſion, which called for the eſtabliſhment of its Glory. But be it what it will, Preface, or Treatiſe, it is all one to me, it aſſaulteth never the leſs for this Mr. Aubertin's Book.
BUT ſaith Mr. Arnaud, he refutes it by the way. By the way, of four ſcore and eight Pages which it contains, there are one and fifty of them imployed in a formal Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation, and the drift of the reſt, as I have already ſaid, is to ſhew that this Account is incredible, becauſe tis impoſſible, and indirectly to overthrow the whole Work. So that here I think the charge of our firſt notorious Falſity, appears to be untrue. Let us ſee the ſecond, which is that I affirmed, The Author of the Perpetuity hath aſſaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book after an indirect manner. But to apprehend throughly the truth of this Obſervation, Mr. Aubertin's whole Book muſt be granted to be a Diſcourſe only touching the Euchariſt, and which is divided into three Parts. In the firſt he handleth this Subject by Arguments drawn from Scripture, and humane Reaſon. He produceth the Paſſages thereof, and Arguments fetched from thence, and refutes the Anſwers made thereunto, nay he near upon anſwereth whatſoever Controvertiſts have ſtated hitherto conſiderable on this Subject. In the ſecond, he examines the Churches Belief, during ſix Centuries, by an exact Diſcuſſion of all Paſſages produced on either ſide, makes it plainly appear that Tranſubſtantiation, and the real Preſence are Doctrines which have bin unknown during all that time. And in the third, he gives an account after what manner their Doctrines have been introduced.
THE firſt part treateth of the Queſtion of Right, ſhewing the true Rules of it, and ſerves as a Foundation to the ſecond. The ſecond Part handleth the Queſtion of matter of Fact, by a faithful depoſition of Witneſſes, that is to ſay, by the Fathers from Age to Age, and ſerves as a Foundation to the third. And the third Part ſhews the Degrees of this Innovation, the Time when it begun, its Authors, and the Oppoſition which it hath met with.
THIS being ſo, I ſay, it is an indirect Proceeding, to ſingle out this laſt Part from the ſecond, and attempt the refuting of it alone, as the Author of the Perpetuity hath done. And the Reaſon is manifeſt, becauſe the only Foundation on which the laſt Part is built, and which communicateth to it all its force of Perſwaſion conſiſteth in its ſecond. For wherefore do we believe, for Example, what it ſaith concerning the Innovation which Anaſtaſius Sinaite hath introduced, in reference to Expreſſions, he having bin the firſt that rejected the Terms of Type or Figure on the Subject of the Euchariſt? It is becauſe he ſhews us in his ſecond Part, that the Fathers who preceded Anaſtaſius, ever made uſe of this manner of Expreſſion, for we find not any one of them who rejected them. Wherefore do we take Paſchaſius to be the firſt who ever thought of the real Preſence? The Reaſon, is becauſe we never meet with any before his time, who thus deliver themſelves. So that the ſecond Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does neceſſarily prepare the Reader for the third. In the ſecond Part he ſheweth the State of the Church, for the ſix firſt Ages, to be quite different from what is ſeen at preſent in the Church of Rome: The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation, and ſuppoſes it to be not only poſſible, but that it hath actually hap'ned, ſo that it only remains to know, when, by whom, and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced, and this is ſufficiently ſet forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be ſingled out from the ſecond to be oppoſed alone, without the greateſt Injuſtice and Diſingenuity; for this is to ſtrip it of all its Strength, and to deal with it, as the Philiſtims did with Samſon, cut off his Hair before they ſet upon him.
Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a neceſſary Premonition to receive it; Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it conſidered and examined with an unprepared Mind, or rather, to ſpeak better, with a Mind fill'd with contrary Diſpoſitions. Now this is not fair Dealing. For to proceed orderly, he ought to have begun with theſe firſt Preparations; and made it appear (if he could) that they were fallacious, and ſo diſcover the unjuſtice, falſity, or weakneſs of them, and afterwards ſet upon the Account he gives us. Had he taken this Courſe, we ſhould have had nothing to charge him with, touching his Method; but to ſtifle theſe Preparations, and cut 'em off from the Diſpute, and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation, is that which will ever deſerve the name of indirect Dealing.
AND if we conſider likewiſe the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account, it will be found his Proceedings are in this Reſpect as diſingenious as in the former. As for Inſtance, Mr. Aubertin obſerves that Anaſtaſius Sinaite hath bin the firſt who varied from the common Expreſſions of the Antients, in ſaying, The Euchariſt is not an Antitype but the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Now to refute directly this Hiſtorical Paſſage, (being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anaſtaſius) there ought to have bin the like Paſſages produced of them who preceded him, and to have made it thence appear he was not the firſt who thus expreſſed himſelf. But inſtead of this, the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Courſe, for he demands, how this can be, That Perpetuity of the Faith, P. 50. 51. &c.Anaſtaſius, who could not be ignorant of the Churches. Belief in his time, ſhould offer an Opinion which would be formally oppoſed, and this without acknowledging, he propoſed a contrary Opinion? He indeavours to ſhew this Innovation could not overſpread either Eaſt or Weſt, and that Anaſtaſius's real meaning, and that of them who ſpake like him in this particular, could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin ſeems to charge them. And the ſame doth he, in reſpect of Paſchaſius, whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the firſt Author of the Real Preſence, for inſtead of ſhewing others held the ſame Opinion, and that he did not teach a new Doctrine, he ſets himſelf upon ſhewing, that if Paſchaſius had bin an Innovator, he would have bin taken notice of in ſome one of the Councils held in his time, that he would have bin oppoſed, and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church, as he has done. I will not now enquire into the ſtrength of his Arguments, neither will I ſay they ought to be rejected for this Reaſon alone, that they are indirect, The Queſtion is here whether this courſe of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable, and it muſt be granted, it is not; for the chief deſign of this his Account being only to demonſtrate, that Anaſtaſius, and Paſchaſius introduced Innovations; Now to make it appear they were not Innovators, there ought to have bin produced ſeveral Paſſages out of the Writings of thoſe who preceded them, which ſhould come near the ſame Expreſſions, or at leaſt amounted to the ſame Sence as that of theirs, which the Author of the Perpetuity hath not done.
LET Mr. Arnaud conſider again then, if he pleaſes, the Queſtion, and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths, the one, that Mr. Aubertin's Book was the firſt occaſion of this Conteſt, the other, that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner. Now to the end I may have from him a ſecond Sentence more favourable than the former; it will not be amiſs to anſwer his Objections, and ſhew him firſt, That I pretendnot to hinder any Perſon from chooſing thoſe Points or Matters for which he hath the greateſt Inclination: for, provided he handles them in a regular manner, he will thereby oblige the publick. Secondly I do not ſo much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book, and leaving the other, provided this Part may be well refuted alone, and there be no cauſe to complain that the force of the Arguments is ſpoiled by ſuch a ſeparation. Thirdly, Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetuity to account about his employing himſelf, and require of him two Volums in Folio. For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult, and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book.
AND as to what he tells us, that we cannot reaſonably require more from Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7.a Perſon who handleth any Subject, than that he ſuppoſe nothing which is Falſe, or Obſcure, and draw not from thence ill Conſequences, ſeeing the truth and clearneſs of Principles, and the juſtneſs of their Conſequences are in themſelves ſufficient, to aſſure us of the Truth, and gives us a clear and perfect notion thereof. To which I anſwer, This is true, when Perſons are agreed to treat on this Subject, and do take this courſe to decide the principal Queſtion of it, for in this caſe, only the Principles and their Conſequences ought to be examined. But if this be not conſented to, but on the contrary there are general Obſervations made upon the Method, then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are diſputable or not, nor Whether their Conſequences are true or falſe, for this follows afterwards. The Method of handling the Subject is only conſidered, without regard to the Principles or Concluſions; That is to ſay, Whether 'tis direct or diſorderly, natural or againſt Nature, ſufficient to perſwade, and end the Controverſie or not, and on this account, it may be juſtly expected from a Perſon that he take a right Method rather than a wrong, one which is a Natural, rather than that which is not ſo. For ſuch a one may well be told, He ſpends his time to no purpoſe, that takes not a right way to obtain the end of what he deſigns. Now this is exactly what we have to alledge againſt the Author of the Perpetuity, as will appear in the following Chapter. We have reaſon to wonder that Mr. Arnaud ſhould deny us the liberty of making theſe general Reflexions, he I ſay, who confeſſed in the ſecond Period of his firſt Chapter, that I am not to blame for having grounded my chief Accuſations againſt the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, upon the Defects I found therein, provided I eſtabliſh Truth and Reaſon. But this doth not well agree with what he ſaies here. That there cannot be any thing juſtly required of a man who treateth on any Subject, but only this, That he lay down good Principles, and draw thence true Concluſions. For the falſity of Principles, or Conſequences, proceeds rather from a defect in the Matter, or Form of an Argument in Particular, than in a Method in General.