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

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 10

CHAP. X.

Of Authors in the Ninth Century, Walafridus, Strabo, Florus, Remy of Auxerre, Chſtriian Drutmar.

WE may now ſay (I hope (with ſome kind of confidence, notwithſtanding Mr. Arnaud's inſultings, that Paſchaſus was an Innovator. This is a truth ſufficiently clear'd by what I have already done in the two preceding Chapters. But to make this (if poſſible) more plain, we muſt make ſome few reflections on the Authors which were of the ſame Century as Paſchaſus, beſides what I already ſaid of 'em in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity. For if it appears that theſe Authors have not held the ſame language as he did; if it appears on the contrary that they have expreſs'd themſelves on the Euchariſt quite otherwiſe than he has done; if one party of 'em have formally declared themſelves againſt his Doctrin, I ſee no reaſon why any man ſhould ſtill obſtinately maintain that Paſchaſus has ſaid or wrote nothing but what the Church of his time believed and taught with him.

FIRST 'tis certain we ſhall not find the Authors of that Century, altho they were not inconſiderable for their number, and almoſt all of 'em wrote ſomething on the Euchariſt, have delivered themſelves on ſo great a ſubject in the manner Paſchaſus has done, neither in reſpect of the ſenſe, nor terms. Let any man ſhew us for example they have aſſerted that the ſubſtance of the Bread is converted into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in ſuch a manner that it does not any longer remain, altho the ſavour and colour ſtill remain, or taught that the ſubſtance of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt enters into our Body, that what we receive from the Altar is nothing elſe but the ſame Fleſh which was born of the Virgin, which died and was buried, and that 'tis this Fleſh in propriety of nature; or have ſaid that this Fleſh of the word pullule (this is the expreſſion Paſchaſus uſes) which is to ſay, that it multiplies it ſelf, and that this multiplication is made in the Sacrament, and yet the ſame Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, and that yet he remains wholly entire. Let any one ſhew us any thing like this in theſe Authors. Mr. Arnaud ought to have employed himſelf in this, inſtead of expatiating as he has done upon vain arguments. Twenty whole Chapters will not ſo well ſatisfie rational perſons, as twelve clear paſſages out of Authors of the 9tth. Century, did they contain the ſame Doctrin which Paſchaſus has ſet down in his Writings; for this would ſhew the conformity there was between him and his Contemporaries, and at the ſame time diſcharge him from the accuſation of novelty, which we lay againſt him. But there is no danger of Mr. Arnaud's taking upon him this task, becauſe he knows 'tis impoſſible to acquit himſelf well of it.

IN the ſecond place 'tis certain theſe Authors have not only not ſpoke of the Euchariſt as Paſchaſus has done, but on the contrary, have ſpoke of it in a very different manner from his: whence we may eaſily collect that his Doctrin agreed in no ſort with theirs. I ſhall begin with Walafridus Strabo, whoſe words may be ſeen more at length in my anſwer to the Perpetuity. We ſhall find him thus ſpeaking, That Jeſus Chriſt has eſtabliſh'd Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, part 3. ch. 2.the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine. That our Saviour has choſen the Bread and Wine, to wit, the ſame ſpecies which Melchiſedec offered, to be the myſtery of his Body and Blood: That inſtead of this great diverſity of Sacrifices which were in uſe under the Law, the Faithful muſt be contented with the ſimple Oblation of Bread and Wine. Mr. Arnaud may talk as long as he pleaſes, that theſe are expreſſions which do naturally link themſelves with the belief of the Real Preſence. Which is what we deny him. Theſe expreſſions do naturally ſignifie nothing elſe, but that the Sacrament is real Bread and real Wine, and if any uſe theſe kind of expreſſions in the Church of Rome, they do it merely by conſtraint to accommodate themſelves in ſome ſort to the expreſſions of the Ancients. Mr. Arnaud again tells us that Walafridus ſays, That the myſteries be really the Body and Blood of our Lord. But we have already ſeveral times told him that Walafridus explains himſelf in the ſame place, and refers this really to the virtue, not the ſubſtance of Chriſts Body, which alſo appears from the title of his Chapter, which is, De virtute Sacramentorum.

FLORƲS, an Author of the ſame Century, who has wrote a kind of Florus magiſter in Expoſit. Miſſae.Commentary on the Liturgy, ſays, That the Oblation altho taken from the ſimple fruits of the Earth is made to the Faithful, fidelibus, the Body and Blood of the only Son of God. After which, borrowing the words of S. Auguſtin, he ſays, That the Conſecration makes us this Body and this myſtical Blood. And the better to explicate what he means by this Body and this myſtical Blood, he adds, That the Creature of Bread is made the Sacrament of the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis eaten Sacramentally, that it remains wholly entire in Heaven, and is ſo in our hearts. And again a little further, Whatſoever is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is a myſtery. We ſee therein one thing, and underſtand another; what we ſee has a corporal ſpecies, what we underſtand has a ſpiritual fruit. What he ſays of this myſtical Body and Blood which he explains afterwards by the Sacrament of the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, in referring to this alone the effect of the Conſecration ſufficiently denotes he had not in his view either change of ſubſtance, or any Real Preſence. The oppoſition likewiſe which he makes of Jeſus Chriſt eaten in parts in the Sacrament, to himſelf who remains entire in Heaven, and who enters entire into our hearts does no leſs denote it; for to what purpoſe is this diſtinction? If our Saviour Chriſt be really in the Sacrament, is he not eaten entire in the ſame manner in our hearts, and wholly entire in Heaven? The former words, that whatſoever is done in the Euchariſt is a myſtery wherein we ſoe one thing, and underſtand another, teſtifie the ſame thing; for what is this thing which we ſee, but the Bread and Wine, and what is this other which we underſtand but the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, which are the object of our underſtanding? He explains himſelf immediately afterwards, The myſtery, ſays he, of our Redemption was Wine, according to what our Saviour himſelf ſays. I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine. And again, Our Lord recommends to us this myſtery, ſaying, Do this in remembrance of me, which the Apoſtle explaining, ſays, As often as yee eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, yee ſhew forth the Lords Death till he comes: The Oblation then of this Bread, and this Cup is the Commemoration, and annunciation of the Death of Jeſus Chriſt. That which is moſt conſiderable is his making this Commentary on the very words of the Conſecration, without adjoyning a word either of the converſion of ſubſtances, or ſubſtantial Preſence of the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Mr. ARNAƲD, who oft loſes his time in vain conteſts, leaves all theſe principal paſſages which I come now from relating, and ſets himſelf only againſt the tranſlation of theſe words, Oblatio quamvis de ſimplicibus terroe frugibus ſumpta, divinoe benedictionis ineffabili potentia efficitur fidelibus Corpus & Sanguis. I ſaid that this fidelibus muſt be rendred, to the Faithful, and not for the Faithful; and for this I alledged ſome reaſons. This is a thing, ſays Mr. Arnaud, which I could willingly grant him, did he ask it with a better meen: for either tranſlation is indifferent to me. But ſeeing he's reſolv'd to carry it away by force, I think I'm oblig'd to tell him that he is unjuſt. So that here Mr. Arnaud has a quarrel with me for my carriage.

Si natura negat facit indignatio verſum.

Truly I'm ſorry I cannot make my ſelf agreeable to him, I do what I can, as much as reaſon and truth will permit; but there are ſome perſons ſo unhappy that they cannot give content do what they can.

I am to Mr. Arnaud, what Sabidus was to Martial. I cannot help it. But had he been pleaſed to take his eyes off my perſon, and conſidered the reaſon, he had ſeen, that theſe two tranſlations are not in effect indifferent, becauſe that which ſays, for the Faithful, ſeems ſimply to denote that the Euchariſt is naturally deſign'd for the uſe of the Faithful, and not for that of the wicked; whereas the other denotes that 'tis the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, only to the Faithful, and not to the wicked; which is wholly different. Secondly. That that which ſays, to the Faithful, is more conformable to the Rules of Grammar, according to which commonly, fidelibus ſignifies, to the Faithful, and pro fidelibus, for the Faithful. Thirdly, That the ſequel of Florus his diſcourſe denotes his ſenſe to be that the Euchariſt is not the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, but only to the Faithful, becauſe he immediately adds, that as we eat Jeſus Chriſt by pieces in the Sacrament, he is wholly entire in our heart, which can only reſpect the Faithful to the excluſion of the wicked; and becauſe he ſays, that we ſee in the Sacrament one thing, and underſtand by it another which has a ſpiritual fruit, which moreover appertains only to the Faithful. What he alledges from Remy of Auxerre, who explains this clauſe, Ʋt nobis Corpus & Sanguis fiat dilectiſſimi filii tui, by theſe words, id eſt ad noſtram ſalutem fiat Corpus & Sanguis, is invalid, becauſe we may tell him, that had Florus deſign'd to ſay the ſame thing as Remus, he would have explain'd himſelf like to Remus; which he has not done; beſides that the explication of Remus is not contrary to that of Florus: for it does not follow from the Sacraments being made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt for our Salvation, that it be made his Body and Blood to the Wicked. All the difference there is between theſe two Expoſitions is, that that of Florus is more clear and expreſs than the other. We can conclude very clearly from that of Florus that the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt only to the Faithful, but not to the wicked, but one cannot draw this conſequence from that of Remus, neither can one draw a contrary one.

THIS concluſion which I draw from the paſſage of Florus offends Mr. Arnaud; By the like argument, ſays he, he will prove that Paſchaſus did Book 8. ch. 7. p. 822.not believe the Real Preſence, for this Author ſays as well as Florus that Jeſus Chriſt grants us by his grace, that the Euchariſt be to us his Body and Blood. He will prove, adds he, That all the Catholick Prieſts do no more believe Tranſubſtantiation, ſeeing they ſay this Prayer, in the Canon of the Maſs. Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quoeſumus adſcriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque: facere digneris, ut nobis Corpus & Sanguis fiat dilectiſſimi tui filii Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti. I anſwer there is a great deal of difference between Florus and Paſchaſus. Paſchaſus formally teaches the Doctrin of the Real Preſence and converſion of ſubſtances. Florus does not do any thing like this. When then we judg of Florus his expreſſion, reaſon requires us to judg of it according to the ſenſe which it naturally has; but when we judg of that of Paſchaſus, we muſt judg of it according to the forced and violent ſenſe which is given to this expreſſion to make it agree with Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence, becauſe it appears to us elſewhere that Paſchaſus believed theſe Doctrins. When Paſchaſus ſpeaks of what the Wicked receive in the Euchariſt, he ſpeaks of it in a manner ſo intricate and confuſed, that it viſibly appears he affects to be obſcure. Explaining theſe words, He that eats my Fleſh, and drinks my Blood Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. cap. 6.dwells in me and I in him, he introduces our Saviour ſaying, If he does not firſt dwell in me and I in him, he cannot eat my Fleſh nor drink my Blood. And what then is it which men do eat: Do not all indifferently take the Sacraments of the Altar? They take 'em without doubt, but one eats ſpiritually the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, and drinks his Blood, and the other not, altho he ſeems to take the morſel from the Prieſts hand. And what does he then receive, there being but one Conſecration, if he does not receive the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt? Truly becauſe the Wicked receive unworthily, they eat and drink their own damnation, acccording to the ſaying of the Apoſtle; for they do not try themſelves before they come, nor diſcern the Lords Body. And this is what the Wicked eat and drink. They do not profitably receive the Fleſh and Blood, but their own damnation. This plainly appears to be the diſcourſe of a man that hides himſelf, and durſt not ſay openly the wicked receive the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and ſeems to inſinuate the contrary; but yet ſtill contains himſelf within theſe terms of ſpiritually and profitably that he may ſave himſelf by diſtinctions. Paſchaſus then is not to be offered as an inſtance. As to what Mr. Arnaud alledges out of the Canon of the Maſs, I acknowledg it cannot be concluded thence that the Prieſts of the Roman Church in our times do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe as I have already ſaid, it clearly appearing elſewhere that they believe it, we muſt not judg of the terms of the Canon according to their natural ſenſe. But a man may conclude thence that thoſe who at firſt made this Liturgy, had not the ſame belief with thoſe at this day; for they ſpake then naturally, and according to the common belief of their Church: Now it is certain that on the Principle of Tranſubſtantiation one muſt deſire of God not that the Bread be made to us the Body of his Son, but that it be made the Body of his Son abſolutely. There is a great deal of difference between theſe two, for if the Bread be tranſubſtantiated it is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in it ſelf, to all reſpects, and beyond all reſpects; but if it be only made to us the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, it is made ſo only in our reſpect, which is to ſay that 'tis to us inſtead of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it. 'Tis in this ſenſe that the Faithful ſay in the 84. Pſalm, That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield. And David in the 119. Pſalm, That the Statutes of God have been to him as ſo many muſical ſongs. And in the 41. Pſalm, according to the vulgar Tranſlation, Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte. This way of ſpeaking is very uſual amongſt the Latins, as appears by theſe examples of Virgil, Erit iſta mihi genetrix, eris mihi magnus Apollo, erit ille mihi ſemper Deus, Mens ſua cuique Deus, Dextra mihi Deus. And ſo far concerning Florus.

WE muſt now paſs on to Remy of Auxerre, to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch. 7. page 824.ſays, is attributed not only the Expoſition of the Maſs which goes under his name, but alſo the Commentary of S. Paul, which others refer to Haymus Biſhop of Alberſtat. They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author, not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud, but in the paſſages themſelves, wherein 'tis found explain'd, will ſoon find that he held the Opinion of Damaſcen and the Greeks, which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity, and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that by means of this union, or conjunction, the Bread becomes the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and is made one and the ſame Body with him. Which does manifeſtly appear by what I have related of it in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity. The Fleſh, ſays he, which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment. in 1 Cor. 10.in unity of perſon, and the Bread which is conſecrated in the Church, are the ſame Body of Chriſt. For as this Fleſh is the Body of Chriſt, ſo this Bread paſſes to the Body of Chriſt, and theſe are not two Bodies, but one Body. For the fulneſs of the Divinity which was in that Body, fills likewiſe this Bread, and the ſame Divinity of the Word which is in them, fills the Body of Chriſt which is conſecrated by the Miniſtry of ſeveral Prieſts throughout the whole world, and makes it one only Body of Chriſt. He does not ſay as Paſchaſus, that 'tis entirely the ſame Fleſh born of the Virgin, dead and riſen, nor that 'tis the ſame Fleſh, becauſe it pullules, or multiplies: But he makes of this Fleſh, and Bread, the ſame Body by an unity of union; becauſe that the ſame Divinity which fills the Fleſh, fills likewiſe this Bread. And elſewhere, Altho this Bread be broken in pieces, and Conſecrated all over the world, yet Ibid. in c. 11.the Divinity which fills all things, fills it alſo, and makes it become one only Body of Chriſt. It lying upon him to give a reaſon why ſeveral parts of the ſame Bread, and ſeveral loaves conſecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jeſus Chriſt, there was nothing more eaſie than to ſay on the hypotheſis of Tranſubſtantiation that 'twas one and the ſame numerical ſubſtance, exiſting wholly entire under the ſpecies in each part, and on every Altar where the Conſecration is perform'd. But inſtead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reaſon of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars, and all the parts of a Loaf. Again in another place, As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one, ſo altho In Expoſit. Can.this Body be Conſecrated in ſeveral places, and at infinitely different times, yet is not this ſeveral Bodies, nor ſeveral Bloods, but one only Body, and one only Blood, with that which he took from the Virgin, and which he gave to the Apoſtles. For the Divinity fills it, and JOYNS it to it ſelf, AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE, SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST, and is one only Body of Chriſt in truth. To ſay ſtill after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe 'tis joyn'd with it, and that 'tis joyn'd with it, becauſe one and the ſame Divinity fills them, this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himſelf, ſeeing Remus ſays it in ſo many words. He teaches the ſame thing a little further in another place, As the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation, ſo the Bread which Jeſus Chriſt gave to his Diſciples, and to all the Elect, and which the Prieſts Conſecrate every day in the Church, with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it, is the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and this Fleſh which he has taken, and this Bread are not two Bodies, but make but one only Body of Chriſt. We may find the ſame Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th. Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews. This Hoſt, ſays he, ſpeaking of the Euchariſt, is one and not many, as were the ancient ones. But how is it one and not many, ſeeing 'tis offered both by ſeveral perſons, and in ſeveral places, and at ſeveral times. A perſon that had the hypotheſis of Tranſubſtantiation in his mind, would not have ſtuck to ſay, that it is in all places and at all times one and the ſame numerical ſubſtance, the ſame Body which pullutes, or multiplies it ſelf, as Paſchaſus ſpeaks. Whereas Remy betakes himſelf to another courſe without mentioning a word, either of this unity of ſubſtance, or this pullulation. We muſt, ſays he, carefully remark that 'tis the Divinity of the Word, which being one, filling all things, and being every where, cauſes theſe to be not ſeveral Sacrifices, but one, altho it be offered by many; and is one only Body of Chriſt with that which he took of the Virgin, and not ſeveral Bodies.

IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by way of conjunction, and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other, got ſome footing in the Latin Church, even ſince Damaſcen's time. We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falſly attributed to Alcuinus, almoſt in the ſame terms wherein we have ſeen it in Remus; ſo that it ſeems that one of theſe Authors only copied out from the other. As the Divinity of the Word, ſays this ſuppoſed Alcuinus, is one, who fills the whole world, ſo, altho this Body be Conſecrated Cap. 40.in ſeveral places, and at an infinite number of times, yet are not theſe ſeveral Bodies of Chriſt, nor ſeveral Cups, but one only Body of Chriſt, and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin, and which he gave to his Apoſtles. For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where (which is to ſay, that which is Conſecrated in ſeveral places) and makes, that as it is one, it be alſo joyn'd to the Body of Chriſt, and that it be but one only Body in truth.

WE find this ſame opinion in another Book of Divine Offices, which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin. Off. cap. 2.ſome attribute to Rupert, and others to Walramus, This Body which is taken from the Altar, and that which is taken from the Virgin, are not ſaid to be, nor indeed are, two Bodies, becauſe one and the ſame Word is on high in the Fleſh, and here below in the Bread.

IT is likewiſe very likely, that in the 11th. Century during the greateſt heats of the Diſpute of Lanfranc againſt Berenger, there were ſeveral adverſaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion. Which may be manifeſtly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in theſe terms: If the Bread be changed into the true Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, Lanfran. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.either the Bread muſt be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Fleſh of Chriſt, or the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt muſt deſcend on the Earth, to the end that the Bread may be changed into it. Now neither of theſe is done. This Argument neceſſarily ſuppoſes that the Berengarians did ſet themſelves againſt perſons, who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by way of union and conjunction, or as ſpeaks Damaſcen, by way of addition, as the food is changed into our body. On this Hypotheſis they had ſome reaſon to ſay, that either the Body which is above muſt come down here below, or that the Bread which is here below muſt be carried above; for it does not ſeem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwiſe: But they could not have the leaſt reaſon, or likelihood of reaſon to form this objection againſt the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome underſtands it. For if the ſubſtance of Bread be converted into the ſame numerical ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is in Heaven, the diſtance, or proximity of this Bread, and of this Body, make not this converſion, either more eaſie, or more difficult. Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven, tho the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is above in Heaven deſcends here below on Earth, this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other. For the converſion of one ſubſtance into another, ſpeaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion, as is that of aſcending or deſcending. It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians oppoſed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by way of union.

WE may moreover juſtifie the ſame thing by a paſſage of Aſcelinus, one of Berenger's adverſaries; for obſerve here in what manner he explains his ſentiment in his Letter to Berenger himſelf, Neque vero mirari, vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr.debemus Deum facere poſſe ut hoc quod in Altari conſecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti, & miniſterio Sacerdotis, uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noſter aſſumpſit, quippe utrumque ſubſtantia corporea, utrumque viſibile, ſi reminiſcimur nos ipſos ex corporea, & incorporea, ex mortali, & immortali ſubſtantia eſſe compactos, ſi denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam conveniſſe perſonam. 'Tis neither a matter of admiration, nor of doubt for God to make that which is conſecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit, and miniſtry of the Prieſt to be ƲNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin. Both one and the other being a corporeal ſubſtance, both one and the other viſible, if we conſider that we our ſelves are compoſed of a corporeal ſubſtance, and of another that is incorporeal, of a mortal ſubſtance, and of another that is incorporeal, of a mortal ſubſtance, and of another that is incorporeal; and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures, the Divine and Humane, are joyn'd together in unity of perſon.

IT is neceſſary to relate theſe paſſages to ſhew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would perſuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, by means of the ſame Divinity which fills them, is a chimera of the Miniſters invention. It appears on the contrary that 'tis a ſentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church, not to mention here that 'tis the Doctrin of Damaſcen and the Greeks which have followed him. And this is the firſt concluſion which can be drawn hence; but from hence alſo follow ſeveral other moſt important matters. For firſt, by this we ſee that the ſentiment of Paſchaſus was not that of the Church of his time, as ſome would perſuade us, ſeeing thoſe very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour, and who ſeem to come the neareſt to Paſchaſus his expreſſions, are at bottom, and in effect infinitely diſtant from his Doctrin. Secondly, Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Tranſubſtantiation, neither in the 11th. nor 12th. Century, ſeeing conſiderable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Euchariſt in a manner which ſuffers the Bread and Wine to ſubſiſt in their firſt ſubſtance. In the third place, from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud, who ſuppoſe it as a thing certain, that in the time when Berenger was firſt condemned, that is to ſay in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Preſence, and Tranſubſtantiation, ſeeing the contrary may be juſtifi'd, as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians, as by the paſſage of Aſcelinus. In fine, it may be ſeen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be, who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th. Century Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe they did not take Berengarius his part, nor diſputed on this Article againſt the Latins. For if Tranſubſtantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church, if one might therein make a free profeſſion to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, by means of the Divinity, as appears from the example of Aſcelinus, Berenger's great Adverſary, what reaſon could the Greeks have to diſpute and make oppoſitions?

IT ſignifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raiſe objections againſt the ſentiments of theſe Authors whom I laſt mention'd; and to ſay, that if the habitation Book 8. ch. 7. p. 828.of the Divinity in the Body of Jeſus Chriſt remaining in Heaven, and in the Bread remaining on Earth, and conſerving its nature, and the application of this Bread to ſerve for an inſtrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, rendred the Bread the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; the ſame habitation of the Divinity in the Water of Baptiſm, and the uſe which God makes of it to communicate his graces, would render it likewiſe the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and give occaſion to ſay, that altho there be different Waters to Baptize in, yet theſe Waters make but one and the ſame Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that they are changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that they paſs into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that altho they appear to be Water, yet in truth they are the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Beſides that it does not follow that Authors have not had a ſentiment, that one may form objections to the contrary, there being no opinion ſo clear againſt which we may not raiſe difficulties. One may moreover anſwer him from the part of Remy and others, that the habitation of the Divinity does not always produce this effect in all the material things which it makes uſe of whereby to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to unite them to the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and to make them become this Body by way of conjunction and addition. 'Tis an habitation and a particular union of the Divinity to the Bread of the Euchariſt which produces in it alone this effect, which muſt not be extended to other things which Jeſus Chriſt did not ſay were his Body, as he ſaid of the Bread. All that can be hence concluded then is that according to theſe Authors there muſt be ſome difference allowed between the habitation of the Divinity in the Bread, and the habitation of this ſame Divinity in other things, as there is between the habitation of the Divinity in the Faithful and Saints; and the habitation of this ſame Divinity in the human nature of Jeſus Chriſt, ſeeing this difference appears in the difference of the effects which they produce. Now this is a thing which theſe Authors would gladly allow. One may ſay the ſame thing touching the Soul and Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which are filled with the ſame virtue of the Divinity, and yet of which it cannot be ſaid that one is the other. For altho the ſame Divinity dwells in the Body, and Soul of Jeſus Chriſt, yet this is another kind of habitation, deſign'd to produce not the above-mention'd effect, but another. The Divinity dwells in all things, and fills them with its virtue, but in a different manner, and this difference diſcovers it ſelf only by the difference of the effects which it produces in the things themſelves.

THIS is near what theſe Authors would have anſwer'd had any body offered them theſe objections. But I am perſuaded they would never have approved of this new Philoſophy, by which Mr. Arnaud endeavours to accommodate their expreſſions to the ſenſe of the Roman Tranſubſtantiation. Remy, ſays he, tells us that the Divinity which is in the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, P. 832.and in the Bread joyns them together, but not by a ſimple habitation; for it would thus joyn all the creatures where it reſides, but by a true operation which renders them not diſtant, but immediately united. And this union does not determin it ſelf to a ſimple conjunction, but makes that the Bread paſſes into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it becomes the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as wax becomes fire, according to the compariſon of S. Chryſoſtom and as the Bread eaten by Jeſus Chriſt became the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, according to the compariſon of other Fathers. This union then is only the way to Tranſubſtantiation. Remy and other Authors who have followed this opinion, explain the manner how the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and they ſay that 'tis inaſmuch as 'tis joyn'd to this Body. 'Tis, ſays Remy, one only Body and Blood with that which he took of the Virgin, for the Divinity fills it, and joyns it to it ſelf, and makes that as it is one, ſo it muſt be joyn'd to the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and be one Body of Jeſus Chriſt in truth. The Divinity of the Word (ſays the pretended Alcuinus) fills this Body which is every where, (which is to ſay, that which is Conſecrated in an infinite of places) adding it to ſelf, and makes that as it is one, it be alſo joyn'd to the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and be one only Body in truth. Theſe words do not put us upon imagining they thought of laying open a certain way to Tranſubſtantiation, nor a preambulatory or preparative union to the converſion, as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe. This is a mere illuſion. 'Tis clear they teach in what manner the Bread is the ſame Body with that which he took of the Virgin, and ſettle here, to wit, inaſmuch as 'tis joyn'd to it by the link of the ſame Divinity, which fills both the one and the other. Which is what appears from the bare reading of their paſſages, and eſpecially that of Aſcelinus. Berenger had told him, that if he follow'd the opinion of Paſchaſus, he went contrary to all the laws of nature. And Aſcelinus anſwers him that 'tis neither a ſubject of admiration, nor a ſubject of doubt that God can make that which is Conſecrated on the Altar to be united to this Body which our Saviour took of the Virgin; which ſhews he made the ground of his ſentiment to conſiſt in this union; and that he reſpected it not as a way to Tranſubſtantiation, but as that which formally made the Bread the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. The examples which he adds of the Soul and Body which are joyned together and of the two natures united in Jeſus Chriſt confirm the ſame thing; for the union of the ſoul and body, and the union of the two natures are not in any wiſe ways, and preparations to any Tranſubſtantiation; they are on the contrary unions, wherein the two things united ſubſiſt, and on which the mind ſettles. What Mr. Arnaud ſays, that this union does not terminate it ſelf to a ſimple conjunction, but makes the Bread paſs into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, is equivocal. For if he means that the formal effect of this union is, that the Bread remaining what it was, becomes the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, we will grant him, that this was in effect the ſentiment of theſe Authors; but if he'll have the Bread, ceaſing to be what it was, to become really the ſame numerical ſubſtance which was the Body of Chriſt before this change, we deny that theſe Authors have taken it in this ſort. The compariſons which he alledges of Wax which becomes Fire, and Bread eaten by Chriſt which became his Body do contradict this laſt ſenſe; for the Wax devoured by the Fire becomes not the ſame ſubſtance of Fire in number that it was before; and the Bread which our Saviour aet became not likewiſe ſo properly the ſame ſubſtance in number, which was before his Body. So what he ſays afterwards, That to joyn the Bread to the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, p. 842.and to make it to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and paſs into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſignifies to tranſubſtantiate in all the languages of the world, is a matter ill offered and evidently unjuſtifiable. For if the Bread becomes the Body of Jeſus Chriſt formally by reaſon of the union, as the ſenſe of theſe Authors is, in the ſame manner as the food we receive becomes our body by the union which it has with it, it is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, not by any real converſion into this ſame ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which was before, but it becomes it by way of addition to this ſubſtance, or according to the preciſe explication which Damaſcen gives of it by way of augmentation and growth of the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as we have already ſeen in the third Book, when we treated of the opinion of the Greeks.

THIS being thus clear'd up, 'tis no hard matter to anſwer the paſſages of Remy, which Mr. Arnaud alledges with ſo great confidence, Seeing that a Page 832. Book 8. ch. 7.myſtery, ſays he, is that which ſignifies another thing, if it be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in truth, why call we it a myſtery, 'Tis becauſe that after the Conſecration it is one thing, and it appears another. It appears to be Bread and Wine, but 'tis in truth the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. For God accommodating himſelf to our weakneſs, ſeeing we are not uſed to eat raw Fleſh, and drink Blood, makes theſe gifts remain in their firſt form, altho they be in truth the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. I anſwer that Remy means that the gifts appear to be after the Conſecration what they were before; to wit, ſimple Bread and Wine, that the change which they have received, being become the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, by their union with the natural Body, is an inviſible thing, and that this union does not change any thing of their firſt form, altho it ſeems it ſhould do it ſeeing the Bread which our Saviour aet, and which became likewiſe his Body by union, took the form of Fleſh. That God deals otherwiſe in the Euchariſt by way of condeſcention to our weakneſs, becauſe we cannot ſuffer this form of Fleſh, but yet the union ceaſes not to be true, and conſequently the Bread is in truth the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, altho it does not appear to be ſo. This is the true ſenſe of Remy grounded on his own Hypotheſis, and not that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him.

THE ſecond paſſage as Mr. Arnaud alledges it, is conceived in theſe terms, As the Divinity of the Word is one which fills all the world, ſo altho the Body be conſecrated in ſeveral places, and at infinitely different times, yet this is not ſeveral Bodies of Jeſus Chriſt, nor ſeveral Cups, but the ſame Body and the ſame Blood, with that which he took in the Virgins Womb; and which he gave to his Apoſtles. And therefore we muſt obſerve that whether we take more, or leſs, all do equally receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt entire. But firſt I demand of Mr. Arnaud who gave him that liberty to retrench from this paſſage a whole ſentence, to alledg what goes before, and what follows, and leave out a whole period in the middle, without any other reaſon than that it ſolves the difficulty, and clearly ſhews Remy's ſenſe? Is it fairly done in theſe kind of diſputes to maim paſſages of Authors which do not make for us? Moreover were it ſome words either before or after, we might perhaps ſuppoſe in his favour, that 'twere only an omiſſion, or neglect, and that he did not mind that what he left out belonged to the ſame paſſage, but to retrench a whole ſentence from the middle of a diſcourſe, is I think a thing without example. Here then is what Remy ſays, 'Tis one and the ſame Body, and the ſame Blood with that which he took in the Womb of the Virgin, and which he gave to his Apoſtles. FOR THE DIVINITY FILLS IT, AND JOINS IT TO IT SELF, AND MAKES, THAT AS IT IS ONE, IT BE LIKEWISE JOIN'D TO THE BODY OF JESƲS CHRIST, AND THAT IT BE ONE ONLY BODY IN THE TRƲTH. This period eclips'd leaves all the reſt of the paſſage favourable to Mr. Arnaud, and therefore he has thought fitting to lay it aſide according to the liberty which he allows himſelf of removing whatſoever offends him; but this ſame period re-eſtabliſh'd ſhews clearly the ſenſe of Remy, which is, that all the Loaves conſecrated in ſeveral places are one and the ſame Body of Jeſus Chriſt with that which he took of the Virgin, not becauſe they are tranſubſtantiated into it, but becauſe they are joyn'd with it by means of the Divinity which is one in all theſe Loaves.

THE third paſſage has theſe words, That as the Fleſh which Jeſus Chriſt has taken in the Womb of the Virgin, is his true Body crucified for our ſalvation, ſo this Bread which Jeſus Chriſt has given to his Diſciples and to all thoſe which are predeſtinated to eternal life, and which the Prieſts conſecrate every day in the Church, WITH THE VIRTUE OF THE DIVINITY WHICH FILLS THIS BREAD, is the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt. And this Fleſh which he has taken, and this Bread are not two Bodies, but make one only true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſo that when this Bread is broken and eaten, Jeſus Chriſt is ſacrificed and eaten, and yet remains entire and living. And as this Body which he depoſed on the Croſs was offered for our Redemption, ſo this Bread is offered every day to God for our Salvation and Redemption, which altho it appears to be Bread, is yet the Body of Chriſt. For our Redeemer having regard to our weakneſs, and ſeeing us ſubject to ſin, has given us this Sacrament, to the end that being now incapable of dying, altho we ſin every day, we may have a true Sacrifice by which our iniquities may be expiated. And becauſe all theſe Loaves make but one Body of Jeſus Chriſt and are offered for our Redemption, he has ſaid, This is my Body which ſhall be given for you, and added, do this, which is to ſay, Conſecrate this Body, in remembrance of me, to wit, of my Paſſion, and your Redemption, for I have redeemed you by my Blood. Our Lord leaving this bleſſed Sacrament to all his faithful ſervants to engrave it in their hearts and memories has done like a man who drawing near the time of his death, ſends to his friends a great preſent for a remembrance of him, ſaying, Receive this gift, my dear friend, and keep it carefully for my ſake, to the end that every time you ſee it, you may think on me. There is nothing in all this but what may very well agree with the Hypotheſis of Remy, that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by way of union and conjunction with the natural Body. This Bread with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it, is the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe an addition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body. And theſe are not two Bodies but one only Body, becauſe that according to the argument of Damaſcen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another, but the ſame Body. When this Bread is broken and eaten, Jeſus Chriſt is immolated and eaten, to wit, in this Bread which is joyn'd to him, and yet he remains entire and living, to wit, in his natural Body. This Bread is offered for our Redemption, inaſmuch as 'tis a commemoration of it, and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Croſs. And in this ſenſe 'tis a true Sacrifice which expiates us becauſe it does repreſent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Croſs of Jeſus Chriſt, as Remy thereupon formally explains himſelf in theſe words, Do this, that is to ſay, Conſecrate this Body in remembrance of me, to wit, of my Paſſion and your Redemption, for I have redeemed you by my Blood. Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy, let any one judg whether he has had reaſon to make ſuch a buſtle with this Author and ſay, That it appears ſtrange any man ſhould queſtion the ſentiment of an Author which ſpeaks in this ſort. For in fine; a body would think the licenſe of contradicting every thing ſhould have its bounds. 'Twere well if Mr. Arnaud would accuſtom himſelf to judg of things with leſs prejudice.

WE muſt now paſs on to Chriſtian Drutmar, of whom I had alledged a very conſiderable paſſage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew, that is to ſay, from an explication which he makes preciſely of th' inſtitution of the Holy Sacrament. The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this paſſage as much as 'tis poſſible, ſometimes ſaying that the tranſlation which I made of it was not faithful, ſometimes that the Text it ſelf was corrupted, ſometimes that the words of which it conſiſts had no coherence, ſometimes that the paſſage was queſtion'd by Sixtus of Sienne, and that there was a Manuſcript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which inſtead of this explication, Hoc eſt Corpus meum. Id eſt in Sacramento, contain'd theſe words, Hoc eſt Corpus meum. Hoc eſt in Sacramento vere ſubſiſtens, And I know not how many other frivolous evaſions which may be ſeen fully refuted in my anſwer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud did Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, part 3. ch. 2.not think it neceſſary again to engage himſelf in this diſpute. He only tells us that 'tis the direct attention to the Sacrament, and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain theſe words; Hoc eſt Corpus meum, by theſe, id eſt in Sacramento. For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament, and that Book 8. ch. 4. p. 797.which ſtrikes our ſenſes, one cannot ſay ſtrictly that 'tis the Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt. It is apparent Bread, 'tis the ſign, the ſimilitude, the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt only in Sacrament, as Drutmar ſays. This is not the point in queſtion. But the queſtion is to know in what ſort the people of thoſe days believed the Body of Jeſus Chriſt was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail. 'Tis by this we muſt ſupply Drutmar's expreſſion; for nothing can be more unjuſt than to judg of his ſentiment by a word which he ſpake curſorily, and by an abridged expreſſion.

IT muſt be acknowledg'd no eaſie matter to ſound the bottom of theſe Gentlemens minds; who ever could imagin that after ſo many attempts to elude the paſſage of Drutmar, Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain ſhould betake himſelf to the direction of attention? Drutmar writes an expreſs Commentary on the inſtitution of the Euchariſt. He explains theſe words of our Saviour, This is my Body, in this ſenſe, that is to ſay Sacramentally. And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Chriſt; as if Drutmar did not deſign to give the true ſenſe of our Saviour in the explication of theſe words, or as if our Saviour meant only by theſe words that the appearances of Bread ſignifie his Body; or as if a Commentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal, natural and eſſential ſenſe of the words he explains, without falling into forein and fantaſtical ſenſes which no body could imagin but himſelf. For I do not believe it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that theſe terms, This is my Body, ſignifie, that the accidents of Bread, or the vail of the appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Jeſus Chriſt are this Body only in ſign and Sacrament. Neither muſt Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar ſpake tranſiently and for brevity ſake; for 'tis an expreſs and formal explication of our Saviours words. Suppoſing people commonly believed Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence, as Mr. Arnaud would have it, what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant, that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the perſon of Paſchaſus, that Drutmar (who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie, which is to ſay of the ſame Convent as Paſchaſus was Abbot of) would deceive the world, betray the publick Faith of the Church, favour thoſe that oppoſed it, ſcandalize his own proper party, and give way to an heretical explication of Chriſts words, and this by the rule of direct attention, and by the means of abbreviated expreſſions. In truth Mr. Arnaud ſhews what kind of opinion he has of us, when he ſuppoſes ſuch kind of anſwers as theſe will ſatisfie us.