The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 1 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
The ſix laſt Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined.
MR Arnaud's laſt ſix Chapters of his firſt Book being only as looſe Pieces, which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity, nor our Proofs of Fact; and the greateſt part of them conſiſting in fruitleſs Digreſſions, which have no connexion with the Subject of the Euchariſt: it ſeems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book, and as a means to tire his readers Patience. Which will oblige me to make only a ſuccinct Anſwer, it being unreaſonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects, and charge my ſelf with unneceſſary matters: but howſoever conciſe my Anſwer may be, yet will it manifeſt the weakneſs and folly of all theſe tedious and troubleſom Diſcourſes of Mr. Arnaud.
HIS ſeventh Chapter reſpects an Objection I made againſt the Author of the Perpetuity, concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People; which he grounds on this, that People naturally will not ſuffer their Opinions to be ſnatched from them, nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion; for I had intimated that this would oppoſe the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils. The remaining part of the firſt Book is ſpent in treating on ſome other Innovations, which we ſuppoſe to have inſenſibly crept in, as that in the Eſtabliſhment of Epiſcopacy, praying for the Dead, the invocation of Saints, and prohibition of certain Meats. Theſe are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter. That I may proceed orderly, I ſhall firſt examine this pretended popular Infallibility, by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils, for we muſt ſee whether I had not reaſon to make againſt the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface. This Queſtion will be ſoon ended, if it be conſidered that I have alleaged ſome Examples of the Inſenſible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church, in ſeveral Points, as Perpetuity of the Faith, Part 2. C. 7.well Practical as Speculative, and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himſelf but by proteſting. That he has not offered in general this Maxim, that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change, in the uſe of Ceremonies, or in Opinions which are no ways Popular, but Speculative, that he has bin cautious of propoſing of it in this generality, and therefore has reſtrained it to capital Myſteries, which are known to all the Faithful, by a diſtinct Faith. To anſwer after this manner, what is it but to confeſs a Change has hapned in Points, which are not popular. Which Confeſſion abſolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome.
IT is to no purpoſe that Mr. Arnaud diſtinguiſhes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7.of Grace or Priviledge, and a humane and popular Infallibility, and to aſſert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wiſe pretend to diſavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils, as it reſpects all kind of Myſteries, whether Popular or others. For theſe Examples I produced, do equally oppoſe all manner of Infallibility, and to acknowledg it in any kind, would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge. I will ſuppoſe the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular, yet are they Innovations nevertheleſs, and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility, yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace, ſeeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion. Whence it follows, that a man who believes them to be true, cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome, which is, that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible, and that Mr. Arnauds Diſtinction is a meer Illuſion: for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular, ſhe is not then Infallible in reſpect of theſe Points. 'Tis certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about ſome of the Examples I produced, pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered, altho the Practice of it has bin ſo; but he does not oppoſe what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace, which is not a Point of Practice but Belief, contenting himſelf only with ſaying, That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith. Part 2. C. 7.never bin popular in all the Conſequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology, and that 'tis falſe, they are not ſtill the ſame in principal and eſſential Points. But is not this ſtill to acknowledg that in reſpect of Points not Popular, and which are neither principal, nor eſſential, in the matter of Grace, there has hap'ned a Change. Now theſe Points whatſoever they be, whether principal or not, great or ſmall, are Doctrinal Points which cannot be altered, without paſſing over from Truth to Error, or from Error to Truth. If then it be true, as I have already ſaid, and as the Author of the Perpetuity has not denyed, that the Church has bin ſeveral times of contrary Opinions, upon which account it is impoſſible, but ſhe has bin in Error, and conſequently ſhe is not Infallible in this Infallibility of Grace, and Priviledg attributed unto her. The Author of the Perpetuity's Anſwer doth evidently ſuppoſe the actual reality of this Change; it has then given me juſt Occaſion to make this Objection I have made, and Mr. Arnaud's Diſtinction comes too late.
IT is in vain, he aſſures us, that the Author of the Perpetuity never had the leaſt thought of denying this Infallibility of Priviledg and Grace; The Queſtion here is not to know abſolutely what that Author believed, or not believed, what he thought, or did not think; when this ſhall be queſtioned, we ſhall always be ready to hear Mr. Arnaud's Relation of that matter; but here it concerns us to enquire into the Conſequences which may be drawn from his Terms, and whether he hath given me a juſt occaſion to make that Objection againſt him in my Preface. It will not be ſufficient to make Declarations on this Matter, it muſt be ſhewed that the Conſequence is not true.
Mr. Arnaud imagins, he has ſufficiently juſtified his Friend, in aſſerting, he made not uſe of the Infallibility of Priviledg, becauſe 'tis a Priviledg to be proved, and not ſuppoſed, and the Calviniſts denying it, it is thence clear, that to make an advantagious uſe of it, it ſhould have bin eſtabliſhed before, which is to ſay, there ought to have bin an intire Treatiſe made of the Churches Infallibility, before it could be made uſe of in this Diſpute. But, ſaith he, to conclude from thence, he hath denyed it, and doth not acknowledg it, is one of the moſt raſh Conſequences as ever was drawn, altho that Mr. Claude hath done this in the Preface of his Book.
AND this is Mr. Arnaud's true Character, that he is never more fierce, than when he is Gravelled, or alleageth things wholly beſides the Purpoſe. We have not grounded our preſent Objection on the Author of the Perpetuity's not uſing the Infallibility of Priviledg for his Principle, this is a wilful miſtake. For it has bin grounded on this, that the terms of his Anſwers to the inſtances of a Change, which I had affirmed, do oppoſe this Infallibility which the Church of Rome pretends to, and acknowledg no other but that of the People. Now 'tis to this he ſhould apply himſelf, and not continually entertain us with impertinent Digreſſions.
MOREOVER, what ſignifies his telling us, that the Infallibility of Priviledge is a Principle to be proved, and not ſuppoſed, and that the Reaſon diſſwading the Author of the Perpetuity from making uſe of it, is becauſe we deny it. We no leſs deny the pretended popular Infallibility, which is a Principle needs proving, as much as the other. He himſelf tells us, in the beginning of his eighth Chapter; that the Principle of inſenſible Alterations, which is directly oppoſite to that of popular Infallibility, is a neceſſary Foundation to the Calviniſts, whereon to build the greateſt part of their Doctrines, and that all this great Machine of the pretended Reformation, conſiſting of ſo many different Opinions, has almoſt need upon all Occaſions of this Suppoſition, That the contrary Opinion which it undertakes to overthrow, has bin inſenſibly Introduced into the Church. And thus does he ſpeak, when he would have us deny him his Principle; but when he would have us grant it him, he then holds another Language. The Author of the Perpetuity, Lib. 1. c. 7.ſais he, does not deſign to attribute to the People any other Infallibility than that which all the World allows them, and which Mr. Claude doth himſelf grant. Never any Perſon diſpoſed more freely of other mens Thoughts then Mr. Arnaud. We Deny, we Confeſs, according as he pleaſes, he brings us on his Stage as often as he liſt; making us ſay ſometimes one thing, and ſometimes another, and is not this to Diſpute ſucceſsfully? But whether we Confeſs or Deny this his popular Infallibility, it is all one to me, for here the Queſtion is not about this, but to know whether the Author of the Perpetuity has not oppoſed the Infallibility, attributed to the Pope and Councils; this is the true State of the Controverſy, and Mr. Arnaud is at a loſs how to defend himſelf from it.
WHAT ſignifies his telling us, that there are an infinite number of things, Lib. 1. C. 7.wherein not only the whole Church, and all the People of the Univerſe, but a particular number of People, a Province, a City, a Borough, a particular Perſon, is Infallible, that is to ſay wherein it cannot happen he ſhould be deceived himſelf, nor would deceive others? Wherefore muſt we have the Gazetier brought in for an Inſtance of this, who is Infallible, when he tells us any conſiderable News, ſuch as is the Kings going into the low Countries, the taking of Cities in Flanders, the Canonization of St. Francis de Sales, the Death of Pope Alexander the ſeventh, and the Election of Clement the ninth; If he relates this News only, to advertize us, he began his Book after the Kings Victories in the low Countries, every man may believe as much as he thinks fitting, for we know it is no hard matter to add a Period or two to the beginning of a Book, altho 'tis already far advanced; but be it as it will, I dare ſay, that Mr. Arnaud's Victories will not be ſo certain as thoſe of our Monarch. If in effect he hath not mentioned this to us, but to confirm by Examples his popular Infallibility, I have reaſon to tell him, that theſe Inſtances are beſides the matter in hand, for there muſt be a diſtinction made, betwixt an Infallibility grounded on the Teſtimony of a ſingle Perſon, or a particular ſort of People, and that which is grounded on a whole Body of People. I would call the firſt if you will an Infallibility of Teſtimony, and the ſecond, an Infallibility of Perſeverance in one and the ſame State. There is a Difference betwen theſe two. The firſt of theſe may be attributed to a People, a Church, a Province, a City, or a particular Perſon, without the ſecond. I will grant likewiſe 'tis impoſſible, in certain Caſes, for the whole Body of a People to be miſtaken in the News it relates, tho to ſpeak the truth even this happens not ſeldom, there being nothing more uſually falſe than popular News. But tho I grant this is Impoſſible in ſome Caſes, yet this is far enough from acknowledging, that a People governed by certain Perſons, may not inſenſibly without any Noiſe, alter their Sentiments, and paſs over into an Opinion which they knew not before. For to make ſuch a kind of Change as this is, there needs only the Concurrence of two or three great Perſons in Authority, to whom all Buſineſſes are referred. We have ſeen that the face of things in the Church of Rome, hath bin changed not long ago, and which hath bin ſurprizing to ſeveral Perſons; Mr. Arnaud himſelf has bin intereſſed in ſome of theſe Changes, and I ſuppoſe he would be ſorry if the Infallibility of Perſeverance in the ſame State, ſhould have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander. But after all, this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has oppoſed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to.
AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud, had he done me the Honour he mentions, which is, to have conferred with me about my Objection, and perhaps my Anſwers would have ſatisfied him. I would have added two Obſervations, which would have made him better comprehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace, or Priviledge. The firſt of theſe Obſervations is, that popular Myſteries being only neceſſary to Salvation, if ſufficiently preſerved by natural means, that is to ſay, by the inviolable Inclinations of the People, there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace; which will be at fartheſt, only neceſſary to the Doctrines which are not popular, that is, to the Queſtions of the Schools, which the Church may well be without, and which are but (as ſpeaks the Author of the Perpetuity,) Theological Conſequences. The ſecond is, that the Reaſon wherefore he ſaith the Author of the Perpetuity choſe rather the popular Infallibility for his Principle, than that of Grace, ſuppoſeth that this latter is abſolutely leſs evident, and harder to be proved than the firſt. This Infallibility of the Church, ſaies he, being denied by the Hereticks, cannot be made uſe Lib. 1. C. 7.of as a Principle againſt them, unleſs we eſtabliſh it by ſeparate Proofs. For the Calviniſts without doubt would not take themſelves to be ſufficiently refuted, upon the Subject of the Euchariſt, if we only contented our ſelves with bringing theſe Arguments againſt them. All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are falſe: But the Belief of the Calviniſts on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church, which is Infallible: Therefore it is falſe. Not but this Reaſoning is good: but the minor Propoſition which ſaith that the Catholick Church is Infallible, being a controverted Point, it is thence plain, that before it can be made uſe of, it muſt be proved, that is to ſay, there ought to be made an intire Treatiſe touching the Churches Infallibility, before this Point could be uſed. For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in it ſelfs ſeeing it wholly depends on the Will of God, reavealed in Scripture, The Church not being naturally Infallible, 'tis then by the Principles of Faith, or by a long Train of Arguments, that it muſt be proved ſhe is ſupernaturally ſo. Now to make this Argument good, we muſt ſuppoſe that this Infallibility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty, whatſoever Courſe is taken, whether by Scripture or Reaſon, for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture, Mr. Arnaud's Excuſe would be vain, for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it, ſeeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expreſſes it ſelf. His reaſoning then to be concluſive, muſt ſuppoſe 'tis impoſſible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibility of Grace, without engaging himſelf in Prolixities and Difficulties. Whence it plainly appears, that this is not a proper Principle for the Unlearned, who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Diſcuſſion. It is of no uſe to them, according to Mr. Arnaud, and that ſo much the rather, that he himſelf hath told us that ſhort and eaſy ways are needful to ſuch, whereby they may diſcern the true Church; Ways, ſaith he, which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17.free men from thoſe painful Dicuſſions, which Ignorance, dulneſs of Apprehenſion, and the Exigences of Life, do make ſo many Perſons uncapable of. So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility, being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty, will be only ſerviceable to the Learned, and of which in effect they have no great need, ſeeing they can of themſelves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines, without the help of Authority. And to this is reduced, thro Mr. Arnaud's means, this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledge, which has made ſuch a noiſe in the Romiſh Communion.
THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book, treats, as I already ſaid, on ſeveral other Alterations, which we pretend, have inſenſible crept into the Church. But ſeeing theſe are Points which do not at all belong to the Euchariſt, and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them, Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty, of ſaying what he pleaſes concerning them, for I think my ſelf no ways bound to anſwer him. When he ſhall aſſault the Books of Mr. Saumaiſe, Blondel, or Daillé, after the manner he ought, he will not perhaps want an Anſwer. It is an eaſy matter, to joyn three or four Paſſages together, on any Controverſy, and thereupon make Declamations. For this is the common courſe of the World. People uſually begin where they will, and end when they pleaſe: but were one of theſe Books I mentioned, examined to the Bottom, and every particular undertaken, I am ſure this would not be ſuch an eaſy Task.
THE ſuppoſition of inſenſible Alterations, is a Principle the Holy Scripture eſtabliſhes, which right Reaſon alloweth and Experience confirmeth. St. Paul tells us of a Myſtery of Iniquity, which began to appear in his time, and which would, in the end, produce this great effect, he calls a Revolt, or Apoſtaſy; which has all the Characters of an inſenſible Change, ſeeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time, and at length theſe myſterious Projects ſhould come to their Perfection. Our Reaſon likewiſe tells us, that important Alterations which happen in Societies, are never introduced all of 'em at one time, but are brought in gradually; and that it is eaſier to joyn ſuccesfully together ſeveral particular Innovations, each one of which apart ſeems inconſiderable, and to make thereby a great Alteration, than if this ſhould be undertaken all at once. This is a Maxim amongſt all Politicians, and Perſons who are capable of proſecuting any Enterprize, but this many times happens of it ſelf without any Deſign. Experience it ſelf confirms this by ſundry Examples; for 'tis after this manner ſeveral Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection: Languages and Cuſtoms of Countries are altered; 'Tis after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreaſed or diminiſhed; and not to ſeek for Inſtances of this kind, any farther than in the Church, and Chriſtian Religion, by this means hath the Authority of the Romiſh Prelacy arrived through ſeveral Ages to that Degree wherein we now ſee it. Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm abrogated, and other new ones adopted in their places. Thus has the Opinion of the abſolute neceſſity of the Euchariſt to the Salvation of little Children, bin aboliſhed, and we have paſſed over into a contrary Opinion. Null us, ſaith St. Auſtin, Qui ſe meminit Catholicae Epiſt. 106.fidei Chriſtianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Chriſto, ſine cibo carnis ejus & ſanguinis potu non habere in ſe vitam, ac per hoc poenae ſempiternae obnoxios. There is no Chriſtian who holds the Catholick Faith, that either denys, or doubts but that little Children, who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jeſus Chriſt, nor participated of the Nouriſhment of his Fleſh and Blood, are deprived of everlaſting Life, and conſequently lyable to eternal Damnation.
LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed. St. Auſtin tells us that 'tis an Article of the Catholick Faith, he aſſures us there is no Chriſtian who doubts of it, that is, it was a popular Opinion: And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome: how comes this Change? We might produce ſeveral other Inſtances, if they were neceſſary: but at preſent one Example is ſufficient, to overthrow this falſe Principle of Mr. Arnaud's, and to eſtabliſh that which appears to him to be ſo Unreaſonable.
YET to ſpeak a word, on each of theſe Points he has handled, does he think, that on the Subject of Epiſcopacy, his Diſcourſes will carry it away from St. Jerom, who tells us, That before there were partialities in Religion, Hier. Com. in Epiſt. ad Tit. C. 1.and that the People cryed out I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Prieſts, but ſince, every one eſteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him, and not to Chriſt, it was ordained throughout the whole World, that one alone choſen from amongſt the Prieſts, ſhould be ſet up above the reſt, and have the Charge of the Church committed to him, to take away thereby all Occaſions of Schiſme.
DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead, we will abandon the Doctrine of St. Paul, who tells us in his ſecond Epiſtle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly Houſe of this Tabernacle were diſſolved, we have a Building of God, an Houſe not made with Hands, eternal in the Heavens. Theſe Words do not ſuffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jeſus Chriſt do enjoy his glorious Preſence in Heaven, whence it follows they have no need of our Prayers. That if the Antients have mentioned the deceaſed in their Prayers, it is certain they never deſigned thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to ſatisfy for their Sins, which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day propoſe in its Prayers. We Celebrate, (ſaith an antient Author in his Commentaries Com. in Job L. 3.on Job, which are thought to be Origens) Not the Day of our Birth, but that of our Death; for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations; but that of Death is on the contrary, the end of Sorrows, and a Freedom from all Temptations. We commemorate then the Day of Death, becauſe they who ſeem to dye, do not ſo. And for this reaſon we celebrate the memory of the Saints, and devoutly commemorate our Fathers, or Friends who have departed in the Faith, as well to refreſh our ſelves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy, as alſo to deſire of God, that we may continue in the ſame Faith.
DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints: that we ſhould believe him rather than Origen, who ſpeaks in the Name of all the Chriſtians in his time, in his Diſpute againſt Celſus, who would have them to worſhip the Sun, Moon and Stars, ſeeing they are Celeſtial Angels. We believe ſaith he, we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5.to pray unto Creatures, who do themſelves pray unto God, eſpecially conſidering, they had rather we ſhould offer up our Petitions to him, whom they likewiſe ſerve, than to them, not being willing we ſhould after any ſort ſhare our Devotions.
AND as to the abſtaining from certain kind of Meats, Tertullian who was a Montaniſt, will ſhew us better than Mr. Arnaud can, the Judgment Tertul. de jejun. C. 1.of the Catholicks in his time. Arguunt nos, ſaith he, quod jejunia propria cuſtodiamus, quod ſtationes plerumque in veſperam producamus, quod etiam Xerophagias obſervemus, ſiccantes cibum ab omni carne, & omni jurulentia, & uvidioribus quibuſque pomis, ne quid vinoſitatis vel edamus vel potemus. They cenſure us becauſe we obſerve particular Faſts, that we make them laſt till the Evening, that we obſerve Xerophagies, uſing dry Meats without Fleſh, and Juice, and in that we abſtain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them, to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine. And a little farther, as to Xerophagies, they ſay, that 'tis the new Name of C. …an affected Devotion, and which comes near the Heatheniſh Superſtitions, ſuch as the Mortifications of Iſis, Apis, and the Mother of the Gods, which purify by abſtinence from certain Meats. And this is in few Words what I had to ſay on thoſe four Particulars.
WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controverſy, we need not proceed to any farther Examination of the reſt of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn, which may be ſaid, without breach of Charity, equally to offend both in its quantity and quality. For having ſhewed, as I have done, that the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected, upon the only conſideration of its Method, it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece, Muſcovia, Perſia, Syria, Egypt, Aethiopia, and the Indias. Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact, what need has he of travelling thro all theſe Countries? Neither the Greeks nor other Chriſtian Nations, conſidered from the eleventh Century, or from the ſeventh, will decide the Queſtion touching what has bin believed in the antient Church, to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Teſtimony. Yet ſhall I make him an exact Anſwer, not out of any Neceſſity, but only out of Condeſcenſion, and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this firſt Book theſe following Particulars.
I. That his Cenſure touching what I ſaid concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book, is grounded on an extravagant Fancy; That it cannot bear a rational Interpretation; nor is made with any kind of Sincerity; that it ſuppoſeth a great Miſtake; that we may conclude thence a Prevarication againſt the Church of Rome; and in fine, may be refuted by Mr. Arnaud's own Example. Which is the Summary of the firſt Chapter.
II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method is Indirect, and contrary to Nature, ſeeing he would decide Queſtions of Right by Matters of Fact, and Queſtions of Fact by Proofs drawn from Arguments: which is ſuch a diſorderly way of Proceeding, as makes his Method juſtly ſuſpected to be artificial and deceitful.
III. That the Author of the Perpetuity has openly aſſaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that after an indirect and artificial Manner, which lies as a Prejudication againſt him. Which is the Summary of the ſecond Chapter.
IV. That the Deſign of the Author of the Perpetuity, being to deſtroy the Impreſſion which the Proofs of Fact, or the Paſſages out of the Fathers have made on our Minds, does nothing leſs than this, whence it follows that his Treatiſe is wholly Uſeleſs. Which are the Contents of the third Chapter.
V. That Mr. Arnaud contradicts the Author of the Perpetuity, in pretending to defend him, and ruins the whole Deſign of his Treatiſe.
VI. That theſe Methods of Preſcription, which Mr. Arnaud ſo much glories in, are vain and ineffectual, and that the Courſe we take to confirm People in the Doctrines of our Church is ſhort, certain, and eaſy to the meaneſt Capacities: whereas thoſe Mr. Arnaud offers, are tedious, difficult, uncertain, and unintelligible to ordinary Apprehenſions: Whence it follows they cannot with a ſafe Conſcience remain in the Communion of the Church of Rome.
VII. That the Abridgment of our Proofs of Fact, which I offer'd in my firſt Anſwer, has bin regular; and that the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity is but a mear Chaos of Confuſion. Theſe three laſt Particulars are contained in the fourth Chapter.
VIII. That all thoſe pretended Advantages Mr. Arnaud hopes to obtain by means of the Perpetuity, in relation to the Learned and Unlearned, and to thoſe he terms the Obſtinate; are groundleſs Imaginations, which in fine do only manifeſt the Unprofitableneſs of that Treatiſe. Which is the Subject of the fifth and ſixth Chapters.
IX, And laſtly, that he cannot excuſe the Author of the Perpetuity, nor himſelf from the Charge of Contradicting and Oppoſing the Infallibility of Popes and Councils, it being an avowed Doctrine of the Church of Rome; Which is the Contents of this ſeventh Chapter.
BOOK II.
Wherein is ſhown, that when it ſhould be true, that thoſe which are called the Schiſmatical Churches believed Tranſubſtantiation; yet would it not thence follow, that this Doctrine was always held by theſe Chriſtians.