The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Mr. Arnaud's 8th. Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist ſince the year 700. till Paſchaſius's time, examined.
THE order of the diſpute requires, that having refuted as I have done the pretended Conſent of all the Eaſtern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Subſtantial Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, I ſhould now apply my ſelf to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themſelves from the 7th. Century till Paſchaſius's time excluſively, that is to ſay, till towards the beginning of the Ninth. And this is the deſign of the greateſt part of his 8th. Book; and which ſhall be the greateſt part of this of mine.
BUT not to amuſe the Reader with fruitleſs matters, 'tis neceſſary to lay aſide the firſt of his Proofs, which is only a Conſequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during thoſe Centuries, whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence ſeeing the Greek Church has held theſe Doctrines as he pretends to have proved. We may reply in general that there can be nothing of ſolidity or certainty concluded from either of theſe Churches, whether we conſider them ſince their ſeparation, or during their Reunion. The Latins believed the proceſſion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and they added the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius, and yet the Churches continued United without diſputing on theſe Articles, as they did afterwards. 'Tis the ſame in reference to ſeveral other points, and had not the intereſt as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair, 'tis likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the ſame ſtate of communion together notwithſtanding all theſe differences. 'Tis then a mere abuſe to eſtabliſh the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one, or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin, whatſoever Union there might have bin betwixt them. He that would be certain of their ſentiments muſt conſider each of 'um apart, and ſearch for the belief of the Weſtern Church in the Weſt, and that of the Eaſtern in the Eaſt. Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of theſe admirable Doctrines of Tranſubſtantiation or the Subſtantial Preſence in the Ages now in queſtion; but becauſe I cannot ſee how there can be reaſonably drawn a Conſequence from the one to the other. And yet ſuppoſing the Conſequence were good, it cannot but be in my favour, having ſhewed ſo clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the ſame belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day.
LET us lay aſide for this time the Greeks, ſeeing we have diſcourſed ſufficiently on them, and come we to the Latins themſelves. I will undertake, Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag, 736.ſay's Mr. Arnaud, poſitively to ſhew from Authors of theſe Centuries, that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Myſtery than that of the real Preſence, and Tranſubſtantiation. I confeſs the undertaking is conſiderable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains, but we muſt ſee how he acquits himſelf therein. For this purpoſe he has a long Chapter of preparatives whoſe title is, ſuppoſing the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation were conſtantly and univerſally believed during the ſeventh, eigth and ninth Century, how men ought to ſpeak of the Myſtery of the Euchariſt according to Reaſon and Nature, and the ordinary way of their expreſſing themſelves. This Chapter is full of long diſcourſes, whoſe drift is to perſwade us that provided we ſuppoſe the Latin Church firmly believed Tranſubſtantiation, there being then no diſpute about this Article we ſhall not be offended at ſeveral expreſſions arſing from Sence which cauſed the Euchariſt to be called Bread and Wine, the Subſtance of Bread and Wine, that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of theſe Ages any Traces of this Language of ſenſe, and that a too great care to avoid it, would not at all agree with the ſtate of thoſe times. Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of thoſe times have explain'd themſelves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Myſtery, and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all thoſe which hear them litterally. That the firm belief which they had of the Reality ſhould only have hindred them from ever propoſing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries. That as to the doubts which ariſe from this Myſtery they have not wholly diſſembled them, but endeavoured to ſatisfie 'um after a prudent manner, in ſaying the Euchariſt is truely and properly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. That this expreſſion explains and determines the ſimple expreſſions which affirm the Euchariſt to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. That they abridged their words and left ſomething to be ſupplyed by the minds of thoſe they ſpake to. That the Myſtery of the Euchariſt being compoſed of two parts, th'one viſible and th'other inviſible, th'one ſenſible, and th'other intelligible, that is to ſay, of the outward vail which is the Sacrament, and of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt covered with this vail, it may be conſidered in three manners. The firſt is to reſpect it directly, and the Body of Jeſus Chriſt indirectly. The ſecond is to reſpect directly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Sacrament indirectly. And the third is to conſider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. That from theſe three ways of conſidering this Myſtery there ariſe ſeveral different expreſſions; for according to the firſt it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Myſtery of the Body of Jeſus Christ, the Figure of the Body; and according to the ſecond be ſaid that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is contained in the Myſtery, in the Sacrament, under the Figure of Bread and Wine, and according to the third that the Euchariſt is both the Reality and the Figure. That 'tis Natural for a mans mind to apply it ſelf to one of theſe particulars without denying the other. In fine, that as this Myſtery comprehends ſeveral Relations, Cuſtoms, Benefits, and Senſes which are ingraved and repreſented in the Symbols, it muſt needs be very common with Authors of thoſe times to apply themſelves to the ſhewing the faithful theſe myſterious Significations, without concerning themſelves about the explanation of the eſſential part of the myſtery ſeeing 'twas known of all the World.
AND this is the ſum of this confuſed heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has ſtuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book. 'Tis evident he deſign'd by theſe Circuits propofed with ſuch a prodigious Perplexity of Words, to throw himſelf into a Labyrinth, and draw inſenſibly his Readers after him. For to what end is this heap of Suppoſitions, Propoſitions, Reflections, Diſtinctions, different Reſpects, Ways of Expreſſion &c. with which this Chapter is crammed? Is Tranſubſtantiation ſo deep ſunk into the 7th and following Centuries, that we cannot get at it unleſs we paſs thro as many Turnings and Windings, as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jeruſalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary? Methinks this alone is ſufficient to prejudice ones Mind againſt Mr. Arnaud's Cauſe; for had the Latin Church then believed the Converſion of the Subſtances, would ſhe not have clearly explain'd her ſelf? ſhould we not have ſeen it appear in the Expreſſions of its Doctors, without giving a mans ſelf all this trouble to find it?
MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud deſire a man, before he judges of his Reaſonings, and the Expreſſions of Authors in queſtion, to ſuppoſe the Church then believed conſtantly and univerſally the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, altho ſhe never had ſeen any Controverſy to ariſe touching theſe Articles? Is it fitting for thoſe who are to decide a Queſtion to prepoſſeſs themſelves with Prejudices by Suppoſitions which do in themſelves determine the Difference, or which at leaſt muſt byaſs a mans Judgment towards thoſe things which are afterwards offered? If I for my ſhare deſired a man to ſuppoſe a Church which never heard any mention of the Subſtantial Preſence, nor Converſion of Subſtances; that never believed theſe Doctrines, and were ignorant of all the Subtilties of the Schools on that point, my requeſt would be more reaſonable than that of Mr. Arnaud's: for till we are ſhew'd Tranſubſtantiation has bin receiv'd in a Church, we may ſuppoſe this Church in a ſtate of Nature in this reſpect. Now we know 'tis contrary to Nature to believe it. I know Mr. Arnaud would not fail to tell me we muſt not thus fill mens Minds with Prejudices, but leave 'um at liberty to judge of things alledged on both ſides. This Suppoſition then which Mr. Arnaud would have us make is captious, far from being ſincere, and tending to ſurprize mens minds, by making 'um take a part beforehand, without any ground or reaſon, that being thus prejudic'd, they may ſee what is not, and not ſee what is. For it is certain according to theſe two different Suppoſitions, the one, that a Church believed Tranſubstantiation, but never diſputed about it. Th'other that a Church did not believe Tranſubſtantiation, nor ever heard it, a man ſhall differently judge of the ſame Expreſſions. Upon one of theſe Prejudices a man will ſay, here's one of theſe defective Expreſſions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud, which leaves ſomething to be ſupplyed by the Hearer; and on the other, a man will ſay, here's an Expreſſion which comprehends the whole Faith of the Myſtery. In effect, hence proceed the different Judgments which the Catholicks and Proteſtants make on ſeveral Paſſages of the ancient Fathers, the one, believe they ſee Tranſubstantiation in 'um, becauſe they read the Paſſages with this Prejudice, that the ancient Church held it, and the places conſidered in this reſpect confirm them in the thoughts which they have already entertain'd; the others do not find it in 'um, becauſe they conſider the ſame Paſſages with this contrary Prejudice, that the ancient Church did not believe it, and theſe Paſſages conſidered in this regard make no Impreſſion upon them. On the other hand there are Paſſages which appear very conſiderable for the Proteſtants againſt the Converſion of Subſtances, and which yet appear but weak and inconſiderable to the Roman Catholicks.
TO deal fairly in a matter of this Importance, it ſeems to me a man ought to compare theſe two Prejudices one with the other, and examine ſolidly which of the two is moſt juſt and reaſonable. For this effect we muſt conſider the Church, either as a Society of men, or as a Society of Chriſtians. In the firſt reſpect it will be the greateſt Abſurdity imaginable to attribute to it the belief of Tranſubſtantiation. If ſhe held it, it would be in the ſecond reſpect, I would ſay inaſmuch as ſhe is a Chriſtian Society that has ſuch Articles of Divine Faith, and particular Sentiments touching Religion which Nature do's not give. Now in this quality a man cannot reaſonably prejudicate that the Church of the 7th. and following Centuries believed the Subſtantial Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation but by one of theſe two motives, either becauſe he ſees theſe Doctrines contain'd in the firſt and fundamental Rule of Chriſtian Religion, which is the Word of God, or ſees 'um already eſtabliſhed in the preceding Centuries. If then Mr. Arnaud would eſtabliſh his Suppoſition, he muſt begin by Inquiries into the Scriptures, and Tradition of the firſt Six Centuries, and ſhew therein the Doctrines in queſtion; which done, he ſhould deſcend to the Seventh and Eighth Ages, and make his Diſcuſſion on this Principle, that the Church at that time was in Poſſeſſion of believing the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation. But he do's neither the one nor the other of theſe things. He begins his Diſcuſſion from the Seventh Century, and would have his Reader Judge beforehand from thence that the Church at that time held the Doctrines now in diſpute. This is a plain Deviation and Illuſion. For till ſuch time as the contrary appears to us, we muſt always predetermine on Natures ſide. Now the order of Nature is neither to believe the Subſtantial Preſence, nor the Converſion of the Subſtance of Bread, ſo that unleſs the eſtabliſhment of theſe Doctrines in the Church appears elſewhere, we cannot but ſuppoſe the Church, in what time and place ſoever we conſider it, in a State purely Natural in this reſpect.
WEE can never, reaſonably predetermine, without ſome conſiderable motive, contrary to that common Light which regulates the judgments of men, nor contrary to Univerſal Notions, and general Cuſtoms. Now 'tis certain that theſe three things oppoſe the Doctrines in queſtion. For our Senſes give in their Teſtimony againſt them, and Reaſon carry us rather away from 'um than to 'um. Univerſal Notions give us quite different idea's than thoſe which theſe Doctrines conſtrain us to have, and the common Cuſtom is to judge of ſenſible things according to their Natural Characters.
WEE ought never to prejudicate, without exceeding great reaſon, againſt an example, I mean againſt the uſual manner of proceeding, acting, thinking, or ſpeaking, in ſuch like matters as is this in queſtion. Now the Example of all People and eſpecially of Chriſtians ſhews, they conceive the Myſteries or Sacraments, without imagining any Converſion of Subſtance in 'um, that they give to ſigns the names of the things which they repreſent, to diſtinguiſh Myſteries from Miracles properly ſo called, not to offer Miracles wrought on ſenſible things, and which are yet not only imperceptible to the Senſes, but alſo contrary to their Depoſition.
WHEN the Queſtion concerns a particular Doctrine which goes to the making up of a part of the Body of a Religion, a man ought never to prejudicate lightly againſt that which we call the Analogy, that is to ſay, the Relation, Coherence and juſt Proportion which ought to be Naturally between the Doctrines, Maxims, and Cuſtoms of the ſame Religion. For 'tis with Religion as with the ſeveral Parts of a Building, or Aedifices of the ſame City, or Members of the ſame Body, or if you will, as with Children of the ſame Family. They are known by one another, becauſe they all do in ſome ſort reſemble each other; now if we conſider the Chriſtian Religion in the State wherein it was in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, we ſhall find it full of Explications and Myſtical Expreſſions; for this is the true Character of the Divinity of thoſe Days. We ſhall find perpetual Diſcourſes of that Spiritual Communion which we have with Jeſus Chriſt, and immediate Manducation of his fleſh as an Act of the Soul, and of a thing that belongs only to the Faithful. We ſhall not find they conſidered any more than two States in our Saviour Chriſt, to wit, that of his Abaſement, and that of his Exaltation, without ever mentioning this third State call'd Sacramental.
WE ſhall not find 'um applying to the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, ſeveral Paſſages of the Old Teſtament, which might be eaſily made to point at it, and which ſeveral Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Tranſubſtantiation. It will not be found they have taken ſeveral Terms in the Sence wherein they muſt be taken upon the Suppoſition of Species; for Accidents without a Subject, of Spiritually to denote an Exiſtence after the manner of a Spirit, of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to ſignifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, of Corporeal Preſence, for a Preſence after the manner of a Body, by Oppoſition to the Preſence of this ſame Body after the manner of a Spirit. It is plainly ſeen they have forced and exaggerated the Expreſſions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptiſm, the Church, the Poor, the Goſpel, at leaſt as vehem ently as thoſe that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Euchariſt. We ſhall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Diſtinctions, Obſervations or Queſtions, which Perſons prepoſſeſſed with the belief of the Converſion of Subſtances ought neceſſarily to have made, without being obliged thereunto by Diſputes. Nor, in a word, the proper and inſeparable Conſequences of this Doctrine, but on the contrary ſeveral things exactly contrary to it. Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another, and againſt which I ſay 'tis not Rational to prejudicate.
'TIS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate againſt all theſe things, but on the contrary predetermine in their favour, ſeeing the prejudice which all theſe things form is ſo ſtrong that we muſt have on the other ſide a very great Evidence to ſurmount it. Eſpecially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the ſeventh, whereunto likewiſe may be applied the ſame Obſervations which I now made, whence ariſe the like Prejudices in reſpect of thoſe Ages, and this Pejudice joyning it ſelf to that which we have eſtabliſhed touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more.
TO all which we may add that there is, to ſpeak morally, a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Suppoſition. He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Preſence and Converſion of Subſtances, altho theſe Doctrines were never diſputed of therein, nor ſo much as queſtioned. But 'tis very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years without any Conteſt touching this Article, ſuppoſing ſhe held it. There have bin in this Interval of time ſeveral Controverſies touching the principal Points of the Chriſtian Religion, on Articles againſt which Nature do's leſs riſe than againſt that of which we ſpeak, and which moreover are found clearly eſtabliſhed in the Word of God. How comes it to paſs there has bin none on this? There have bin even ſeveral Diſputes in which there has bin occaſion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Preſence and Tranſubstantiation, which could not be without ſome Conteſt on this Subject. Such were the Controverſies of the Valentinians, Marcionites, Manichees, Millenaries, Encratites, Arians, Originiſts, Eutychiens, Aſcodrupites, and of I know not how many others, which muſt unavoidably produce Debates on the Euchariſt had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Chriſtianity. It being then certain as it is, that the Church was in peace in this reſpect during all theſe Centuries, 'tis a token that the Doctrines in queſtion were therein unknown, and this very Conſideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice, and confirms ours.
MR. Arnaud will ſay, without doubt, we muſt ſuppoſe the Church of the ſeventh and eighth Centuries to be in the ſame Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh, which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger. But beſides, that there are ſeveral things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation, it not being true then men believed constantly and univerſally Tranſubſtantiation, nor the real Preſence, as may be juſtified by ſeveral Inductions, there being no likelyhood in the firſt Condemnations of Berenger, Tranſubſtantiation was eſtabliſhed, ſeeing 'twas eſtabliſhed in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time, according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament, as we have already obſerved; 'tis an apparent Illuſion to deſign the grounding of any Prejudication on this, ſeeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Conteſt which aroſe on this Subject; and that even this makes the principal Point of ou… Difference, to wit, whether there has hapned any change therein. Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to ſerve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the ſeventh and eigth, the Queſtion concerning the Change muſt be firſt decided, for whilſt we be in this Conteſt, there can be no Conſequence drawn hence. It would be a very pleaſant thing for a man to prejudicate againſt the Change which we pretend, by the ſeventh and eighth Century as believing Tranſubſtantiation, and at the ſame time to prejudicate for Tranſubſtantiation in the ſeventh and eighth Centuries, becauſe 'twas believed in the eleventh, which is to ſay, to draw the Principle from the Concluſion, and then the Concluſion from the Principle, in ſaying on one hand that Tranſubſtantiation was believed in the eleventh Century, becauſe 'twas believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth, and on the other that 'twas believed in the ſeventh and in the eighth, becauſe 'twas believed in the Eleventh.
LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleaſes make another Syſtem, for all this great preparation of Obſervations and Propoſitious falls to the ground aſſoon as ever we deny him the Suppoſition he made, and ſhewed him the injuſtice and unreaſonableneſs of it. As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith, 'tis a thing we have already confuted. Should our Senſes take upon 'um to tell us the Euchariſt was only Bread and Wine, or mere Bread and Wine, our Faith would not bear this Language. This is not the Language of the Church. But when our Senſes only tell us 'tis Bread and Wine, this Language is in truth different from that of Faith, which tells us 'tis the Body of Jeſus Christ, but 'tis not contrary to it; for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senſes conceive it, which is to ſay, 'tis real Bread and real Wine in a litteral ſence, and without a figure. That which you have ſeen on the Altar, ſay's St. Augustin, and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and Auguſ. ſerm. ad Infunt.Wine, and this your Eyes tell you, but the inſtruction which your Faith requires is, that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt and the Cup his Blood. So that here, we have the two Languages both of Senſe and of Faith, but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Senſe, on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Senſe without Explication and Figure. For whoſoever ſay's the Euchariſt is Bread and Wine, which our Eyes likewiſe ſhew us, means 'tis real Bread and Wine in Subſtance, for this our Eyes ſhew us in a moſt proper and litteral ſenſe. If St. Augustin and Bede find ſome Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Senſe, which bears 'tis Bread, and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the difficulty lyes not in the Teſtimony of Senſe, as if we need call its truth in queſtion, but in the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which being Fleſh aſſumed of the Virgin, which ſuffered the Death of the Croſs, and was exalted up into Heaven, that Bread ſhould be ſay'd to be this Body. This thought may ariſe, ſay's St. Auguſtin, and Bede after him, in the mind of ſome Perſons, we know whence our Lord Jeſus Chriſt has taken his Fleſh, to wit, of the Virgin Mary, we know he was ſuckled in his Infancy, educated, grew up in years, ſuffered the Perſecution of the Jews, was nayl'd to the Croſs, put to Death, Buried, roſe the third Day, and Aſcended into Heaven when he pleaſed, whence he is to Deſcend to judge both the living and dead, and that he is now ſat down at the right hand of the Father. How then is the Bread his Body, and the Cup his Blood? They do not ſay, how ſhall we not believe what our Senſes aſſure us? Shall we doubt of the truth of their Teſtimony? On the contrary they ſuppoſe this Teſtimony to be certain, and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which cannot be Bread. The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propoſitions are not built on the Error of the ſenſes, nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language, in ſaying the Euchariſt is called Bread becauſe it appears to be ſo, or becauſe 'twas Bread before its Conſecration. But from the Nature of the Sacraments, wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true, the one of our Senſes, and the other of our Underſtanding. My Brethren, ſay they, theſe things are called Sacraments becauſe we ſee therein one thing, and underſtand another. That which we ſee, has a Corporeal Species, that which we underſtand, has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had ſay'd, as to what concerns our Eyeſight 'tis really Bread and Wine, but in reſpect of our Underſtanding 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. So that if there muſt be any thing figurative in either of the two Propoſitions, it muſt be in the Language of Faith, and not in that of Senſe, which bears neither Difficulty nor Expoſition.
ALL that we can expect from them, ſay's Mr. Arnaud (that is to ſay, from Authors of the ſeventh and eighth Century,) is that, when they ſpeak of this Myſtery according to Faith and Truth, they ſhould explain themſelves Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739.according to thoſe Terms which plainly and naturally expreſs it, and which imprint the Idea of it in all thoſe which hear them litterally. That which may be expected from Perſons believing and teaching the Converſion of the Subſtance of Bread, whether it has bin diſputed on or no, is, that they declare it in preciſe and formal Terms. Which I have already ſhew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reaſon, that the Doctrine of the Converſion of Subſtances determins the general Sence of theſe Expreſſions, the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Bread is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it gives them a particular Senſe, and forms of it ſelf a diſtinct, and preciſe Idea; whence it follows that when the queſtion is about teaching of it, and a man has directly this Intention, he cannot but expreſs it in clear and plain Terms, which anſwer the Idea he has of it, and makes thence the ſame to ſpring up in the Minds of the Hearers. It cannot be denyed but this Converſion, and Subſtantial Preſence are of themſelves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed, becauſe all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um, and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to eſtabliſh 'um. How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um, or deſigns to Preach 'um to its People, do's not explain it ſelf about 'um at leaſt in preciſe and formal Expreſſions? Reaſon forces us to ſay ſhe ought to endeavor to eſtabliſh them by the ſtrongeſt Proofs ſhe was able; for ſuppoſing the Schools had never diſputed concerning 'um, and no Perſon had ever declared againſt 'um, yet Nature itſelf which is common to all men, do's ſufficiently enough oppoſe them to oblige the Church, he ſpeaks of, to defend them from their Attacks, and fortify them againſt their Oppoſitions. But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the ſeventh and eighth Centuries were in this reſpect extremely negligent; who can imagine they really intended to teach the Subſtance of Bread was really converted into the Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, when they expreſs themſelves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need ſo many Commentaries and Supplements?
BUT, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, we have reaſon to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations, they had that alſo of abridging their Ch. 2. p. 742.Words, and leaving ſomething to be ſupplyed by them to whom they ſpake. I know ſeveral People of a contrary Humour, and yet are men, as appears by other Humours they have. But this Propoſition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination. He offers it without any Proof, and I may reject it without farther examining it. Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Myſteries of Religion, Men are not wont to uſe theſe half Sentences, unleſs when they treat of a Point indirectly and occaſionally, and not when they expreſly and deſignedly fall upon the explaining of what we muſt know and believe. What ſtrange kind of ways then had they in thoſe Times, to expreſs themſelves only in half Sentences, when they deſign'd to explain the Myſtery of the Euchariſt? This Cuſtom laſted a great while, ſeeing it was ſo for near two hundred years; and who told Mr. Arnaud the Miniſters were not now and then tempted to aſſert things clearly and ſpeak what they thought, or at leaſt that the People were not wearyed with continual ſupplying what was wanting in the Expreſſions of their Miniſters, or in fine that none of theſe Cuſtoms were loſt? Mr. Arnaud complains we make uſe of Raillery ſometimes to refute him, but why do's he not then tell us things leſs ridiculous? For to ſpeak ſoberly, to undertake to prove Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence by the ſilence of him that teaches on one ſide, and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational. Yet to this paſs may be reduced his manner of arguing ſhould his Maxim take place, the Fathers of the ſeventh and eigth Centuries have ſay'd ſuch and ſuch a thing with Reticency. Now the People have underſtood them in ſuch and ſuch a manner by a ſupplement. Therefore they taught and believed the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation. How can a man conſider this ſeriouſly? Mr. Arnaud will tell us there's nothing more common in Humane Speech than to uſe half Sentences; nor any thing more uſual than to ſupply what is wanting to 'um. We are wont to ſay, a Man, a Houſe, a City, the Air, the Earth, the Sun, and not the Subſtance of a Man, the Subſtance of a Houſe, &c. But here is a great deal of difference. For here we uſe theſe Expreſſions becauſe we ſuppoſe thoſe to whom we ſpeak have eyes and the uſe of their reaſon, and that theſe eaſily ſupply what is wanting in words. Nay when we uſe theſe terms even in a figurative ſenſe, we do not explain them, becauſe we know that ſenſe and reaſon which are common lights to thoſe that ſpeak, and hear, will ſufficiently explain them. But 'tis not the ſame in reference to the Euchariſt, for ſuppoſing there's made in it a real Converſion of the inward Subſtance of the Bread into the inward Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, Senſe and Reaſon lead us not to underſtand this Change, ſeeing 'tis imperceptible, and contrary to the order of Nature; and we cannot ſupply by their means what is imperfect in the Words. Neither can this Suppliment come from the Word of God, for it is pretended theſe terms which our Saviour uſed in the inſtitution of the Sacrament have themſelves need of being explained and determined by that which is called the ſence of the Church. Neither can it come from the Tradition of the preceding Ages, for beſides that the People have little knowledge of this Tradition, we ſhall not find any thing more preciſe in the inſtructions of the firſt Six Ages, than in thoſe of the ſeventh and eighth. Whence then muſt this Suppliment come? Muſt we here ſuppoſe ſecret and immediate Inſpirations, or imagine there were certain ſhort forms of ſpeech then in uſe, and which ſerved as a key for the underſtanding of the Publick teachings? Unleſs 'twere ſo I cannot ſee how Mr. Arnaud's Syſtem can hold. For to ſay that by a Prophetick Spirit they of the ſeventh and eighth Centuries knew what would be determin'd in the eleventh, and ſupplyed what was wanting by means of this Preſcience, this is ſomething hard to be believed, and I know not whether Mr. Arnaud is willing to go ſo far; 'tis then clear that this pretended Suppliment is a mere Whimſy, and as ill contrived and maintained as ever any thing was.
AS to thoſe two parts which compoſe the Myſtery of the Euchariſt, the one the external Vail which is the Sacrament, and th'other the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is covered with this Vail, this is not a place for a thro-examination of this Hypotheſis. Yet methinks Mr. Arnaud advances ſomething ſingular enough when he adds, that 'tis fruitleſs to enquire into the Chap. 2. pag. 743.Nature of this vail, it being ſufficient to know that it is Bread and Wine according to Appearance, which is to ſay, if I be not miſtaken, that 'tis needleſs to enquire whether this Appearance of Bread which covers the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is a mere Phantaſm, a pure Illuſion which our Senſes ſuffer, or whether they be really the Accidents of Bread which ſubſiſt ſeparate from their Subſtance. Let the Gentlemen of the Roman Church determine whether this Doctrine be according to their Councils, eſpecially that of Conſtance. As to my part I ſhall only tell Mr. Arnaud he will not find this Appearance of Bread and Wine, in what ſort p. 743.ſoever he Underſtands it, in the Fathers of the ſeventh and eighth Centuries, nor that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is hid under the Vail of this Appearance. The inſtance he gives us of a Man that is compoſed of Body and Soul, is vaſtly different; the Soul is not an inviſible and impalpable Body, 'tis a real Spirit; and the Body is not an appearance of a Body, that has nothing of reality in it; it is a Body in Propriety of Nature and Subſtance. When then we ſay of a Man that he is an immortal and ſpiritual Being in reſpect of his Soul, or that he is a mortal and corporeal Being, in reſpect of his Body; or that he is mortal and immortal, conſidering him as a Body and Soul joyned together, this Language is Natural and eaſie to be underſtood without any Explication; becauſe the Principles on which it is eſtabliſhed, are obvious to Reaſon; and we may well ſuppoſe that thoſe to whom we direct our Diſcourſe are not Ignorant of them. But if Mr. Arnaud will have the Expreſſions of the Fathers of the ſeventh or eighth Centuries to be grounded on theſe Principles of the Apperance of Bread, which in truth is not Bread and the Body of Jeſus Chriſt concealed inviſibly under this Vail, he muſt without any more ado ſhew us that theſe Principles were known to the People; for it cannot be ſuppoſed they knew 'um Naturally. And thus his Inſtance is not at all to the purpoſe.