The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 11

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part · Book 6 · Chapter 11

p. 242CHAP. XI.

Of other Authors in the Ninth Century, Amalarius, Heribald, Raban, Bertram, and John Scot.

AFter Drutmar, we muſt examin Amalarius. If we believe what Andrew du Val the Sorboniſt Doctor ſays of him in his Notes on the Treatiſe of the Church of Lyons, entituled, De tribus Epiſtolis, the queſtion will be ſoon decided. For having related on the teſtimony of Florus a paſſage of Amalarius he concludes in theſe terms, Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium iſtum una cum Joanne Scoto fuiſſe Berengarii praecurſores & veluti ante ſignanos, Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius, with John Scot were Berenger's fore-runners. If we believe M. the Preſident Maugin, Amalarius was only a Stercoraniſt, of whom we ſhall ſpeak hereafter. If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity, Amalarius was Paſchaſus his Adverſary; for he ſtrongly aſſures us, That Biſhop Uſher was Perpetuity of the Faith, page 83.miſtaken when he thought Amalarius's error conſiſted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks, not only becauſe this ſuppoſition is without any ground, but alſo becauſe the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amalarius with Heribald and Raban who were Paſchaſus his Adverſaries. But in ſhort, if we will conſult Mr. Arnaud, he will tell us on the contrary, Book 8. ch. 11. Page 870.that Amalarius and Heribald were in no wiſe adverſaries to Paſchaſus. That the Author of the Perpetuity granted it becauſe he believed William of Malmsbury ſaid it, but that this does not appear to be true. That Amalarius indeed was a Sterconariſt, but yet never any body taught more expreſly the Real Preſence. Thus theſe Gentlemen, who ſo greatly inſult over us, when they find any difference amongſt us Miniſters in the leaſt point of Hiſtory, or conjecture, do not always agree among themſelves, one ſays, Amalarius was the fore-runner of Berenger, the other maintains that never any man taught more formally the Real Preſence; the one makes him together with Heribald and Raban a bitter enemy to Paſchaſus, and th'other proteſts 'tis not likely to be true.

TO clear up this confuſion, we muſt have recourſe to the paſſages of Amalarius, and judg of his Doctrin from it ſelf. He tells us then firſt, That thoſe things which are done in the celebration of the Maſs, are tranſacted Praeſat. ad lib. de Offic. Eccl.as in a Sacrament of our Lords Paſſion, as he himſelf commands us, ſaying, Every time you do this, do it in remembrance of me; and therefore the Prieſt who immolates the Bread and Wine, is in Sacrament of Chriſt, the Bread, the Wine and Water and Wine are for Sacraments of the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt. The Sacraments muſt have ſome reſemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments. Let the Prieſt then be like our Saviour Chriſt, as the Bread, the Wine and Liquors are like the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. It appears from theſe words, that in the ſtile of Amalarius, to be a Sacrament of a thing is to repreſent it, and hold the place of it, for this is preciſely what theſe terms ſignifie, The things of the Maſs are done IN SACRAMENT of our Lords Paſſion, and theſe other terms, the Prieſt is in Sacrament of Chriſt. When then he adds, that the Bread, the Wine and Water are in SACRAMENT of the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, it is clear he means they ſtand in ſtead of it, and repreſent them, and this reſemblance which p. 243he inſerts afterwards between the Bread, the Wine and the Water, and the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they are the Sacraments of 'em, confirm the ſame thing, and at the ſame time formally diſtinguiſhes them from the Body and Blood themſelves.

Mr. ARNAƲD anſwers that Amalarius has follow'd the language of Book 8. ch. 4. p. 783.ſenſe, and that the queſtion here was not to explain the nature of the Euchariſt, but the myſterious references which God would engrave in the ſymbols which he has choſen in this myſtery. But what reaſon has Mr. Arnaud to make Amalarius to have follow'd the language of ſenſe in oppoſition to that of Faith, ſeeing Amalarius does not mention any thing that leads to this diſtinction, and that on the contrary it appears by the terms which he makes uſe of, that he honeſtly meant the Euchariſt was real Bread and Wine in ſubſtance. Who told Mr. Arnaud that Amalarius made not the nature of the Euchariſt to conſiſt in the whole action's being a Sacrament of our Lords Paſſion, that the Prieſt immolates the Bread and Wine, that he repreſents therein our Saviour Chriſt, and that the Bread and Wine ſtand for his Body and Blood? We muſt judg of Amalarius his Doctrin by his expreſſions. To be in Sacrament, according to him, is to repreſent and ſtand for, the Bread and Wine are in Sacrament of the Body and Blood, as the Prieſt is in Sacrament of Jeſus Chriſt, they are not then really this Body and Blood.

AMALARIƲS himſelf does clearly explain his mind in another Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 25. Book …. ch. 7. page 834.place, ſaying, That the Prieſt bows himſelf, and recommends to God what is immolated in the ſtead of Jeſus Chriſt. Hoc quod vice Chriſti immolatum eſt Deo patri commendat. Mr. Arnaud ſays this is not an expreſſion contrary to the Real Preſence, becauſe Agapius has made uſe of it, and that in effect this expreſſion is grounded on the different ſtate wherein Jeſus Chriſt is in the Euchariſt, and that wherein he has been in his Paſſion, and that wherein he now is in Heaven. For this diverſity diſtinguiſhing him to our ſenſes, it makes one diſtinguiſh him likewiſe in the expreſſions, But all this is but a mere evaſion, Amalarius does not ſay that Jeſus Chriſt in one ſtate, holds the place of himſelf in another ſtate. He ingenuouſly ſays, that which is immolated in the ſtead of Jeſus Chriſt; and if you would know what he means by what is immolated in the place of Jeſus Chriſt, he has already told you that 'tis Bread and Wine which are immolated, and which are in Sacrament of the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt.

HE ſays moreover the ſame thing elſewhere, The Oblation and the Cup Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 26.ſignifie our Lords Body, and when Jeſus Chriſt has ſaid, This is the Cup of my Blood, he meant his Blood which was in his Body, as the Wine was in the Cup. And a little further, By this particle of the Oblation which the Prieſt puts in the Cup, he repreſents the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which is riſen from the dead, by that which the Prieſt or the People eat, is repreſented this Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which is ſtill on the Earth (to wit his Church) and by that which remains on the Altar, is repreſented this other Body which is ſtill lying in the Sepulchre (to wit, the faithful dead.)

IT is in vain that Mr. Arnaud oppoſes to theſe paſſages what the ſame Amalarius ſays, That the Church believes this Sacrament ought to be eaten by Book 8. ch. 4. p. 785.men, becauſe ſhe believes 'tis our Lords Body and Blood, and that in eating it the Souls of the Faithful are fill'd with benediction. For 'tis true that the reaſon for which the Church recommends to the Faithful the eating of the p. 244Euchariſt, is becauſe 'tis the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, this is not a matter in conteſt, the queſtion is only to know in what manner this is.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud urges theſe other words, Credimus Ibid.naturam ſimplicem panis & vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem, ſcilicet Corporis & Sanguinis Chriſti. We believe that the ſimple nature of Bread and Wine is changed into a reaſonable nature, to wit, of the Body and Blood of Chriſt. For his ſenſe is not that there's made a real converſion of one nature into another, but that there's made a myſtical converſion by which 'tis no longer mere Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, or as himſelf ſays elſewhere ſeveral times the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt.

'TIS alſo no leſs in vain that Mr. Arnaud endeavours to make advantage of ſome terms of Amalarius his Letter to Guntard, which may be ſeen in Spicilege's ſeventh Volume. Guntard was a young man that was ſcandaliz'd at his ſeeing Amalarius ſpitting without any ſcruple immediately after his receiving the Communion, Amalarius anſwers him that this was a thing natural and neceſſary to the preſervation of health, and that he thought he did nothing herein which caſt any diſhonor on the Body of Chriſt, that if he imagin'd he caſt out, in ſpitting, the Body of Chriſt, he was deceived. That he would ſay to him touching the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which we receive, what the Emperor Valentinian ſaid to his Army. 'Twas in your power to chooſe me Emperor, but now 'tis in mine to chooſe whom I pleaſe for my Collegue. 'Tis the ſame here, for 'tis your part to have a pure heart, and to beſeech God to give it you; but 'tis his to diſperſe his Body throughout our members, and veins, for our ſalvation. For 'tis he who in giving the Bread to his Apoſtles has ſaid, This is my Body which ſhall be given for you. His Body was on the Earth when he would, and it is there when he pleaſes; yea, after his Aſcenſion he has not diſdain'd to ſhew himſelf to S. Paul in the Temple of Jeruſalem which was on earth. His ſenſe is, that we ought not to trouble our ſelves about what becomes of the myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt which we receive in the Euchariſt, that 'tis our part to purifie our hearts, and his to give us his Body in the manner which he thinks fitting; becauſe 'twas he that ſaid of the Bread of the Euchariſt, that 'twas his Body. What he adds concerning his Body being on the Earth, &c. he ſays it not with reſpect to the Real Preſence, as Mr. Arnaud imagins, but in reference to the right which our Saviour has to make his Euchariſtical Body what he pleaſes. For 'tis an argument à pari (as we call it) by which he undertakes to prove that Jeſus Chriſt is the maſter of his Euchariſtical Body, as well as the maſter of his natural Body, having left it on Earth as long as he thought fitting, and after his Aſcenſion was not ſo taken up with his abode in Heaven, as not to ſhew himſelf to his Apoſtle in the Temple of Jeruſalem. And this appears from the ſequel of his diſcourſe. I ſay this, ſays he, to the end that if thro ignorance, or without my conſent there ſhould proceed out of my mouth any part of the Lords Body, you may not believe preſently hereupon that I am void of Religion, and that I deſpiſe my Lords Body, or that this Body be carried into any place where he would not have it come. Our Soul lives by this Body, as the Lord himſelf ſays, If you eat not the Fleſh of the Son of Man, nor drink his Blood, you have no life in you. If then this Body be our life, it will not loſe being ſeparated from us what it has in it ſelf, and what we receive from it. My Son, deſire your Prieſts to take heed they loſe not out of their hearts any of thoſe words which the Lord has ſpoken in the p. 245Goſpel, for they are likewiſe our Life, as well as the Conſecrated Bread. He means, that altho he caſts out of his mouth in ſpitting ſome part of the Euchariſtical Body, yet we muſt not believe this Body is carried to any place where our Saviour would not have it, or this Body being in this place lies ſtript of the advantage which it has to be the life of our ſouls, no more than the words of the Goſpel, which altho neglected, be yet alſo our life. What ſignifies this to the Real Preſence? Will not his diſcourſe be every whit as coherent and as well followed if we ſuppoſe that the conſecrated Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in Sacrament as he teaches elſewhere, as if we ſuppoſe it to be ſo in propriety of ſubſtance, which we believe that Amalarius never taught.

THE concluſion which he draws from all this is yet (if you will) leſs favourable to Mr. Arnaud. Thus, ſays he, having taken with an honeſt and faithful heart the Lords Body, I have nothing to do to diſpute whether it be inviſibly carried up into Heaven, or reſerved in our Body till the day of Judgment, or whether exhaled up in the Air, or whether it flows from our Body with the Blood when our Veins be opened, or iſſues out thro the Pores, the Lord ſaying, Whatſoever enters by the mouth into the belly goes into Excrement. Which is to ſay, that it belongs not to us to make all theſe queſtions about the Sacrament, becauſe our Saviour does with it what he pleaſes. As to our parts, adds he, we ought only to have a care leſt we receive it with a Judas's heart, leſt we deſpiſe it; but on the contrary diſcern it ſalutarily from other common aliments. I confeſs Mr. Arnaud has ſome reaſon to conjecture hence that Amalarius was of the number of thoſe which they call Stercoraniſts, but on what ſide ſoever he turns himſelf, he cannot conclude he held the Real Preſence, and this very thing that Mr. Arnaud believes Amalarius was a Stercoraniſt ought to convince him on the contrary that this Author did not believe the change or converſion of the ſubſtance in the Euchariſt.

HAD Mr. Arnaud conſulted the Letter of the ſame Amalarius to Rangar, which is within two pages of that which he wrote to Gruntard, he had ſeen that Amalarius expounds theſe words of Jeſus Chriſt, This is the Cup of the New Teſtament in my Blood which is ſhed for you, in this manner, This Cup is a figure of my Body, in which is the Blood which ſhall iſſue from my ſide to accompliſh the ancient Law, and when 'tis ſpilt it ſhall be the New Teſtament, becauſe 'tis a new and innocent Blood, the Blood of the Man without Sin, which ſhall be ſpilt for the Redemption of Mankind. Explaining aftetwards what is ſaid in the Liturgy, Myſterium fidei: This Blood, ſays he, is called the myſtery of Faith, becauſe it profits to the Salvation and Eternal Life of him that believes himſelf Redeemed by this Blood, and makes himſelf an imitator of our Lords Paſſion. And therefore the Lord ſays, If yee eat not the Fleſh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, yee will have no life in you. Which is to ſay, if ye partake not of my Paſſion, nor believe that I died for your ſalvation, yee will have no life in you. The myſtery is Faith, as S. Auguſtin teaches in his Epiſtle to Boniface, as in ſome manner the Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Sacrament of the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt is the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, ſo the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. 'Tis plainly ſeen this is not the ſtile of a man that believed the Real Preſence.

BUT before we leave Amalarius, we muſt joyn him to Heribald and Raban, for they ſtand all three accuſed by ſeveral Authors with Stercoraniſm, p. 246which is to ſay, they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacrament, is digeſted and ſubject to the neceſſity of other food which paſſes into Excrements. William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuſcript, as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges, attributes to all three of 'em this opinion. The Preſident Maugin affirms the ſame thing of Amalarius, and Mr. Arnaud ſays his proofs be good. And the anonymous Author publiſh'd by Cellot the Jeſuit, attributes the ſame ſentiment to Heribald, and Raban, without any mention of Amalarius, Et his quidem, ſays he, qui dixerunt ſeceſſui obnoxium (quid nunquam antea auditum eſt) id eſt, Heribaldo Antiſiodorenſi Epiſcopo qui turpiter propoſuit, & Rabano Moguntino qui turpius aſſumpſit, turpiſſime vero concluſit, ſuus ad reſpondendum locus ſervetur. Thomas Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874.Waldenſis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban, Heribaldus, ſays he, Altiſiodorenſis Epiſcopus & Rabanus Moguntinus poſuerunt Euchaririſtoe Sacramentum obnoxium eſſe ſeceſſui. Mr. Arnaud endeavours to ſubſtract Raban from this number, The ſingle teſtimony, ſays he, of an Author ſo little judicious as this anonymous, is not ſufficient to impute this ſentiment to Raban, there being elſewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good ſenſe. But has he ſo ſoon forgotten what he himſelf wrote eight lines above. Raban is accuſed of the error of the Stercoraniſts by an anonymous Author, and by William of Malmsbury. This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this teſtimony, William of Malmsbury aſſerts the ſame: why then does Mr. Arnaud ſay eight lines after, The ſingle teſtimony of this anonymous Author is not enough? If his ſingle teſtimony be not ſufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it; and if theſe two be not ſufficient, Thomas Waldenſis will give 'em his ſuffrage as I now mention'd. Even Raban himſelf ſufficiently explains his own ſentiment, without any need of other witneſſes; for obſerve here what he writes in his fifth Book, De naturis rerum; The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful, and ſerve 'em for food (in paſtum eorum redigi, others read in partem eorum redigi) to the end this viſible effect ſhould repreſent the inviſible effect. For as material food nouriſhes and ſtrengthens the Body, ſo the Word of God inwardly nouriſhes our ſouls. And in his Book of the inſtruction of Eccleſiaſticks, he formally In inſtit. Cleric. c. 31.teaches, that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth, reduced into nouriſhment for our Bodies, and converted or changed in us when we eat it. There is no explication can ſhift the force and conſequence of theſe terms.

THE queſtion is now whether the opinion of theſe perſons, who have been ſince odiouſly called by way of reproach Stercoraniſts, be conſiſtent with the Real Preſence, or whether it ſuppoſes that the ſubſtance of Bread remains in the Euchariſt. If we conſult Durand of Troarn to know what theſe Stercoraniſts were, he will tell us that in his time they were accounted the ſame perſons who maintain'd that the ſubſtances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Conſecration. They ſay, ſays he, that the gifts of Bread Durand. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. part. 1.and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Conſecration what they were before, and are yet in ſome ſort the true Body and true Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, not naturally, but in figure, And that the ſubſtances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digeſted with other meats. He ſays the ſame thing afterwards in two or three ſeveral places, and calls theſe people Stercoraniſts, without mentioning ſeveral kinds of 'em, as that ſome of 'em are for having the ſubſtance it ſelf of Chriſt's Body to be ſubject to theſe accidents, and others who underſtood it of the ſubſtance of Bread.

p. 247IT alſo appears from the Diſpute of Guitmond, that this was the ſentiment of Berenger and his followers, for he introduces 'em thus arguing, 'Tis abſurd t' expoſe the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to the neceſſity of Excrements. Guitmund. de verb. Euchar. lib. 2.Yet whatſoever enters into the mouth, as our Saviour ſays, deſcends into the ſtomach, and is caſt into the draught. From this viſible and corporeal manducation in the Sacrament, ſays Algerus, has ſprung the filthy Hereſie of the Alger. de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7.Stercoraniſts. For they ſay that ſo great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewiſe ſubject to Excrements. Which they endeavour to ſtrengthen by ſeveral arguments, and eſpecially by the words of Jeſus Chriſt, who ſays in the Goſpel, Whatſoever enters into the mouth, deſcends into the ſtomach, and is caſt forth into the draught.

'TWILL be ſaid it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoraniſts, ſeeing they believ'd that the ſubſtance of Bread remain'd after the Conſecration, but that it does not hence follow that all the Stercoraniſts, and eſpecially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the ſubſiſtence of the Bread and Wine. I anſwer, It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to ſhew us that there were two ſorts of Stercoraniſts, the one who held the Real Preſence, and others that did not believe it. For why muſt we be led by his authority? we ſhow that thoſe who were accuſed of Stercoraniſm are the ſame as were oppoſed for not believing Tranſubſtantiation. If Mr. Arnaud will needs have that there were two ſorts, 'tis his part to prove it, for as long as he ſuppoſes this without proof, we have right to deny it him. Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this ſame Stercoraniſm which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban, is nothing elſe than the belief of the ſubſiſtence of the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt, which is to ſay in a word that 'tis exactly the opinion of Berenger, and that 'twas only to render it odious that their adverſaries expoſed it under this idea, or repreſentation of Stercoraniſm. Which is what juſtifies it ſelf from the teſtimony of Thomas Waldenſis, who tells us that a ſubtil Doctor of his time ſaid, We ſhould interrogate the Prieſts, whether they did not think that this thing Thom. Valdenſ. tom. 2. cap. 52.which they believ'd to be the Fleſh of Chriſt was taſted with ones bodily mouth, and whether being received into the ſtomach it went into the draught, according as, adds he, the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught, for they ſay ALL, that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATƲRAL BREAD, is the auguſt Sacrament and conſecrated Hoſt. Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally ſay that the Sacrament, the conſecrated Hoſt, which according to them paſſes into Excrements, is, The natural Bread. The aforeſaid Waldenſis diſputing in the ſequel againſt Wicliff, ſays, Ibid. cap. 26.that Wicliff proved that the Euchariſt was Bread by the experience of nature, becauſe a man may be fed with Hoſts. Whence, adds he, I conclude that as he admits the digeſtion of the Euchariſt, he muſt likewiſe grant that it paſſes into Excrements. And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence, who have taught that the true Sacrament was ſubject to the caſualty of other food. 'Tis plain he puts no difference between the Stercoraniſm of theſe two Biſhops, and the ſubſiſtence of the Bread of Wicliff. Elſewhere he alſo more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the ſubſtance of Bread remained, or as he ſpeaks, that he was of the Sect of the Panites, becauſe he alledges the paſſage of Raban, which bears that the Sacrament paſſes into our food. Et ipſe enim, ſays he, de ſecta Panitarum, Rabani verſum Ibid. cap. 90.ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Miſſoe, Sacramentum, inquiens, ore percipitur, & in alimentum corporis redigitur.

p. 248BUT if we will beſides the teſtimonies of theſe Authors hearken moreover unto reaſon, we ſhall find that there is nothing more inconſiſtent with the belief of the Real Preſence than this pretended error of the Stercoraniſts; and that thoſe who will have theſe two opinions agree together, have never well conſidered what they undertook to eſtabliſh. It is not poſſible to believe the Real Preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, I mean of this ſame numerical ſubſtance which was born of the Virgin, and is now in Heaven, without believing at the ſame time that this ſubſtance is not ſenſible in it, palpable, viſible, extended, capable of being divided in the ſame manner as 'twas when our Lord converſed on Earth. 'Twill be the greateſt folly imaginable to impute to perſons that have eyes, and ſee the Euchariſt, and have ſome remains of common ſenſe to make therein exiſt this Body without making it therein exiſt inſenſible, indiviſible, impalpable after the manner of ſpirits, as they alſo do of the Church of Rome. Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoraniſm, which aſſerts that this Body is digeſted into the ſtomach after the manner of other meats, that one part of it paſſes into our nouriſhment, and the other is ſubject to the common neceſſity of aliments. What is digeſted is touched by the ſubſtance of our ſtomach, penetrated by our natural heat, divided and ſeparated into ſeveral parts, reduced into Chyle, then into Blood, diſtributed thro all the ſeveral parts of our Body, and joyn'd immediately to 'em, after it has been made like 'em, whilſt that which is moſt groſs and improper for our nouriſhment paſſes into Excrement. What likelihood is there that perſons who are not bereft of their ſenſes can ſubject to theſe accidents, an indiviſible and inpalpable ſubſtance, which exiſts after the manner of Spirits? Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is animated with its natural Soul, and that what paſſes into our nouriſhment is animated by ours, what a monſtrous opinion then is it to imagin that the ſame numerical Body can be at the ſame time animated with two Souls, with that of Jeſus Chriſt and ours, to be united hypoſtatically to the Word, and hypoſtatically to us? On what hand ſoever we turn, 'tis certain that 'tis an inexpreſſible chimera to ſay that thoſe which were called Stercoraniſts believ'd the Real Preſence in the ſenſe which the Roman Church underſtands it. It muſt be acknowledged that they were Panites, as Thomas Waldenſis calls them, that is to ſay, they believ'd that the Euchariſt was a Real Subſtance of Bread. And ſeeing we ſhew'd that Amalarius, Heribald, and Raban were of the number of theſe pretended Stercoraniſts, it muſt be neceſſarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paſchaſus, whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then, as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was. For theſe three great men held in it too conſiderable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point ſo conſiderable, and Mr. Arnaud himſelf will not have us think thus of 'em. One of 'em, to wit, Amalarius, was ſent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to ſeek the Antiphonaries, as he himſelf teſtifies. The other, to wit, Heribald, was Biſhop of Auxerre, and reputed a Saint after his death, as appears from the Inſcription of his Sepulchre, Here lies the Body of S. Heribald; and the laſt, to wit, Raban, was Abbot of Fulde, and afterwards Arch-Biſhop of Mayence, accounted one of the moſt learned men of his Age, as appears by the teſtimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne.

p. 249TO theſe three we muſt add Bertram, for it cannot be doubted but that he was alſo one of thoſe who were afterwards called Stercoraniſts, which is to ſay, he believ'd that this ſubſtance which we receive in the Sacrament was ſubject to digeſtion, and paſſed into our nouriſhment. He clearly ſhews his ſenſe in ſeveral places of his Book. For having related theſe words, of Iſidor, The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jeſus Bertram de Corp. & Sang. Dom.Chriſt, becauſe that as the ſubſtance of this viſible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man, ſo the Word of God, which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul, when ſhe participates of it, he makes this remark. Saying this he clearly confeſſes, that whatſoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood, is uſed for nouriſhment to our Body. And a little further, Secundum viſibilem creaturam, corpus paſcunt. And ſpeaking afterwards of the Euchariſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, Negari non poteſt corrumpi, quod per partes comminutum diſparitur ad ſumendum & dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur. And again, Non attenditur quod corpus paſcit, quod dente premitur, quod per partes comminuitur, ſed quod in fide ſpiritualiter accipitur.

THESE two laſt Authors, to wit, Raban and Bertram, beſides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the reſt, have eſpecially this, that they have formally oppoſed the novelties of Paſchaſus by publick Writings. Which is what appears by the teſtimony of the anonymous Author whoſe words we have already related; for he ſays in proper terms, that Raban and Ratram wrote againſt Paſchaſus; to wit, Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon, and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles, and that they defamed him for offering this propoſition, that what we receive from the Altar is nothing elſe but the ſame Fleſh which was born of the Virgin, and ſuffered on the Croſs, and roſe again from the Sepulchre, and is at this day offered for the ſins of the world.

WE have no reaſon, ſays Mr. Arnaud, to believe that Raban attack'd Paſchaſus Book 8. ch. 12. p. 874.otherwiſe than Bertram. Now Bertram does not any where name Paſchaſus, and not only, he does not attack him openly, but ſhuns to appear contrary to him, ſo that it cannot be concluded from the teſtimony of this Author, that Raban was an adverſary to Paſchaſus his Book. Why can it not be concluded from the teſtimony of this Author, ſeeing this Author formally ſays it? Can Mr. Arnaud that never ſaw this Letter to Egilon better judg of it, than this Author that did ſee it? Suppoſing Raban did not name Paſchaſus, it will not follow that he did not attack his Book; for a man may write againſt a Book, and yet not name the Author of it. 'Twas a ſufficient attacking the Book to combat preciſely and directly the fundamental and eſſential propoſition which Paſchaſus came from eſtabliſhing in it, which was, that what we receive in the Communion is the ſame Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt which was born of the Virgin.

THIS anonymous Author, ſays moreover Mr. Arnaud, is the only perſon Ibidem.that ſpeaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon. 'Twas never cited either by Berenger, nor by any other Author, 'twas unknown to all the Writers of the 11th. Century. Suppoſing what Mr. Arnaud ſays were true, yet would it not be ſufficient for the calling in queſtion the ſincerity of this anonymous Author who ſpeaks of this Letter as of that which he ſaw. But beſides this Mr. Arnaud hazards himſelf too much when he poſitively affirms that this, p. 250is the only Author who ſpeaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon. He may be convinced of the contrary by Raban himſelf who acknowledges it, and makes expreſs mention of it on the ſame ſubject of Paſchaſus his Doctrin, and in the ſame ſenſe which the anonymous does, excepting the name of Paſchaſus which he does not expreſs, which plainly defends the ſincerity of this nameleſs Author, Quidam nuper de ipſo Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis Poen. Rab. c. 33.Domini non rite ſentientes dixerunt hoc ipſum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum eſt, & in quo ipſe Dominus paſſus eſt in cruce & reſurrexit de Sepulchro; cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilum Abbatem ſcribentes de corpore ipſo quid vere credendum ſit aperuimus.

BƲT ſuppoſing 'twere true, ſays Mr. Arnaud, that Raban did in effect Page 875.contradict Paſchaſus, this will be but of ſmall advantage to Mr. Claude. Which he endeavours to prove afterwards by the example of ſeveral great Wits, and famous Biſhops who have attack'd the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt. He adds, That Raban was as other men are, as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons refuted, that it cannot appear ſtrange he ſhould fall into an error touching the Euchariſt, and that the qualities of a Philoſopher, Rhetorician, Aſtronomer, and Poet, could not render him incapable of being deceived. Suppoſing we had only Raban to oppoſe againſt Paſchaſus, the advantage would not be inconſiderable. Paſchaſus was only a mean Religious, when Raban was Abbot of Fulde, and when Paſchaſus came to be Abbot of Corbie, Raban was Arch-Biſhop of Mayence; whence it follows that the authority of the one was far greater than that of the other. As to knowledg, it cannot be denied but Raban infinitely excelled Paſchaſus, not in the mere qualities of a Philoſopher, Rhetorician, Aſtronomer and Poet, altho theſe qualifications do much ſet off a Scholar: but by the Epithet which Baronius gives him, Audi, ſays he, quid vertex hujus temporis Baron. ad ann. 847.Theologorum Rabanus decreverit. Mr. Arnaud cannot propoſe Paſchaſus but only as the ſingle perſon of his Party; now were it the ſame with us in reſpect of Raban, 'tis certain that the preſumption would be wholly for this laſt, and that 'tis apparently better to bring the Church on Raban's ſide, than on Paſchaſus's. But we are not in theſe Circumſtances. The Doctrin of Raban agrees very well with that of other Authors, his Contemporaries; that of Paſchaſus agrees with none of 'em. The Doctrin of Raban has diſturb'd no body, but that of Paſchaſus ſet ſeveral perſons againſt him of his own time. There's not the leaſt reaſon for accuſing Raban of Innovation, but there are very ſtrong proofs whereby to conclude that Paſchaſus was an Innovator. It ſignifies nothing to ſay, that Raban was as other men are, as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons has refuted: for ſhould a man rigorouſly examin Paſchaſus his Writings, he will find more marks of human weakneſs than in thoſe of Raban: beſides that from this very thing that Raban had the Church of Lyons for his Adverſary, one may hence conclude, according to Mr. Arnaud's way of reaſoning, that his Doctrin on the Euchariſt differed not from that of his time; for otherwiſe 'tis likely that the Church of Lyons would not have ſpared him on ſuch an important Article: and yet inſtead of this we find on the contrary that when this Church her ſelf ſpake of the Euchariſt, it has been in terms which do not at all favour the Real Preſence. When our Saviour Chriſt, ſays ſhe, gave Lugd. Eccleſ. de tenend. ver. Script.to his Diſciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, he ſays, Take, eat, this is my Body which is given for you: which inſinuates that ſhe underſtood theſe words, This is my Body, in this ſenſe, This is the Sacrament of my Body. And a little further, The Oblation of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, which is p. 251to ſay, the myſtery of his Paſſion and Death. The example of theſe great Wits and Biſhops that have attackt the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, does indeed ſhew that 'twas not impoſſible for Raban to fall into error, which is what we do not at preſent diſpute, for there's no body infallible, no not Mr. Arnaud himſelf: but this example concludes the ſame thing of Paſchaſus, who was no more infallible than others. So far they ſtand upon equal ground, both men, and both liable to error. It remains to know which of the two actually fell into error, and that this example of the Biſhops does not decide.

IT ſignifies nothing, adds Mr. Arnaud, to ſay that no body ever reproach'd Book 8. ch. 12, p. 875.him with this error, for it does not appear that any other Author, ſave the Anonymous, ſaw this Letter to Egilon, ſo that the only perſon that had knowledg of it has condemned it. Raban did not keep this Letter ſecret, ſeeing he has himſelf made mention of it in his Penitentials, and ſays he did it againſt the error of thoſe who ſay that the Sacrament was the Real Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin. Thoſe who ſaw not his Letter might eaſily comprehend by theſe words the ſubſtance of it, and for what end he deſign'd it, if they have not condemned it 'twas their fault. Yet do we not pretend to draw hence any great advantage. But moreover, ſays Mr. Arnaud, how many errors are there in Authors which have been never taken notice of by any perſon, nor reproached to thoſe that taught 'em? There are ſtrange inſtances of this, and here is one from amongſt the reſt which is ſingular in its kind. Photius teſtifies that Theodorus Moſpueſte wrote a Book againſt the Doctrin of Original Sin. Both Eaſt and Weſt have been as greatly animated againſt this Author as can be imagin'd. He was condemned even after his Death in the fifth Council: There was never then any perſon to be leſs favoured than he. Yet we do not find that this Capital Error obſerved by Photius has been Animadverted by any Author of the 6th. Century in the very time when Theodorus was uſed with moſt ſeverity. We muſt acknowledg with Mr. Arnaud that theſe kind of arguments by which we conclude that if a Doctrin has not been condemn'd by a Church, it follows that this Church has held it and approved it, are not convincing, and what he relates of Theodorus of Moſpueſte is a conſiderable argument of it. But it muſt alſo be granted that never man was more at variance with himſelf than Mr. Arnaud; for what he now ſaid overthrows the better part of his Book. Thoſe that have read it may remember that the greateſt part of his diſpute touching the Greeks is reduced to negative arguments, perfectly like unto thoſe which he now condemns. The Greeks, ſays he without ceaſing, have not condemned then Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins. Therefore they believed it with 'em. Cerularius did not concern himſelf at Berenger's condemnation, he believed the Tranſubſtantiation. Humbert did not reproach the Greeks with their not believing the Real Preſence, and Nicetas did not reproach the Latins with their believing it; therefore they were agreed in this Article. We can ſcarcely meet with any thing elſe but theſe kind of concluſions in every page. He does the ſame on the ſubject of the other Schiſmatical Churches, he argues from the ſilence of the Emiſſaries, the ſilence of the Popes, the ſilence of the Armenians, and that of the Neſtorians and others. When the queſtion concern'd the 12th. Century, how many times has he remembred th… neceſſity of the Diſputes of the Paſchaſiſts and Bertramiſts; how many prodigious exclamations has he made at their not being condemned, at their not baiting one another? And when the diſcourſe was about Paſchaſus, and the Innovation which we charge him p. 252with, with what exaggerations has he not urged this argument, That Paſchaſus was not publickly reprehended by any perſon for thirty years, was never puniſh'd, nor admoniſh'd that he offered a Doctrin contrary to the Church. Apply I pray you to this Rhetorick, what he ſays now of this great number of errors in Eccleſiaſtical Authors which have been never animadverted by any body, nor reproach'd to thoſe who have taught 'em. Add hereunto his example of Theodorus of Moſpueſte, and that of John Scot, of whom he ſays likewiſe afterwards, that it does not appear that theſe errors have been condemned by any Eccleſiaſtical Cenſure of that Age, and that of Raban; for he ſuppoſes he might have erred on the Euchariſt by a capital Error in denying the Real Preſence, and he affirms that in this caſe 'twill not be ſtrange that never any body reproach'd him with this Error: lay I ſay all this together, and make a reform on this ground of Mr. Arnaud's Book, retrench whatſoever agrees not with this rule which he here gives us, and I am ſure you'l reduce his Volume into a leſs compaſs by half.

AFTER theſe firſt Anſwers with which Mr. Arnaud was not perhaps Page 876.well ſatisfi'd, he hazards another, which is, that this propoſition, That the Sacrament of the Euchariſt is not the Real Body born of the Virgin, may have two ſenſes, the one that the external part of the Sacrament, which is to ſay the viſible vail is not really the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is not really white, round, and has not in it ſelf all theſe ſenſible accidents which appear to us; the other, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is not really contain'd in the Sacrament. He pretends that Raban denied this propoſition only in the firſt ſenſe, and not in the ſecond. But this anſwer has neither ſincerity nor truth in it. Firſt, it confounds what ought neceſſarily to be diſtinguiſh'd. For 'tis not the ſame thing to believe that the viſible Vail, which is to ſay, the accidents of Bread, are really the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and to believe that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is white and round, and has in it ſelf all the ſenſible accidents which appear to us. There is a great deal of difference between theſe two, as any man may ſee. Suppoſing a man believed that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is white and round, 'twill not hence follow he muſt ſay that this whiteneſs and this roundneſs, which are the Vail which Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks of, were really the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. In the ſecond place, I do not think that ever any body imagin'd that theſe ſenſible accidents of whiteneſs and roundneſs in abſtracto, as they term it, are really the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and whoſoever imputes to Raban the combating of this fancy, charges him with oppoſing ſuch an imagination as never yet entred into any bodies mind.

AS to the other propoſition, That the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is really white and round, as 'tis not cuſtomary to expreſs it in theſe terms, That the Euchariſt is the ſame Body which was born of the Virgin, ſo 'tis not uſual to refute it in theſe, That the Euchariſt is not the ſame Body which was born of the Virgin; and this explication of Mr. Arnaud is ſo forced, and remote from the natural ſenſe of Raban his words, that there are few reaſonable perſons to whom 'twill not appear a pitiful evaſion.

YET does Mr. Arnaud earneſtly urge not only that 'twas the ſenſe of Raban to attack this Propoſition, but likewiſe that of Bertram, in his Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini. And altho the anonymous Author, who according to all probability lived about the 9th. Century, expreſly ſays, that Raban and Bertram refuted Paſchaſus. Yet does Mr. Arnaud affirm the p. 253contrary, and ſays that he demonſtratively proves it. He ſays for this effect, That there were people in that time who groſly ſaid that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt was ſuch as the Sacrament appeared to be, which is to ſay, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt has really the form of Bread. That this opinion was a neceſſary conſequence of that of Amalarius, that 'tis from thence he concluded that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt iſſued thro the pores, and applied unto it theſe words, Omne quod in os intrat, in ventrem vadit, & in ſeceſſum emittitur. That it is apparent from the accuſation which Florus forms againſt him of having corrupted France by theſe fantaſtical opinions, that Amalarius had his Diſciples. Here then, adds he, we have people, who ſaid in the time of Charles the Bald, and who muſt ſay according to their Principles, That the Body of Jeſus Chriſt has all the external accidents which appear to our ſenſes, and that there was no difference between the Body of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin, and the Sacrament. So that here are perſons againſt whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox ſenſe, that the Sacrament of the Euchariſt is not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin. He afterwards endeavours to ſhew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only theſe perſons.

TO ſolve this difficulty, it muſt firſt be ſuppoſed as a thing already proved, that thoſe who have been ſince called (by way of reproach) Stercoraniſts, cannot be thoſe of whom Mr. Arnaud here ſpeaks; who according to him believing the Real Preſence, yet affirm'd that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt had all the ſenſible accidents which appear in the Euchariſt, and that Mr. Arnaud could ſay nothing leſs to the purpoſe than what he has offered, That this opinion was a neceſſary conſequence of that of Amalarius, that 'tis from thence he concluded the Body of Jeſus Chriſt iſſued out thro the pores, applying to it theſe words, Omne quod in os intrat, in ventrem vadit & inſeceſſum emittitur. We have already ſeen from the teſtimony of Tho. Waldenſis, that theſe Stercoraniſts were Panites, which is to ſay, that they conſerved the ſubſtance of Bread in the Sacrament, and ſaid all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread. We have already ſeen that in effect the belief of the Real Preſence is abſolutely inconſiſtent with this opinion, that the Sacrament paſſes into our nouriſhment, that it is digeſted, that one part of it is changed into our fleſh, and another part into Excrements.

SECONDLY, we muſt obſerve that ſuppoſing 'twere true the Stercoraniſts believ'd, as Mr. Arnaud would have it, that the ſenſible accidents really affect the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, there could be nothing more abſurd than to imagin they were thoſe whom Raban and Bertram oppoſed. For as to Raban it appears as well from the teſtimony of the anonymous Author, as by that of Waldenſis, that he was himſelf a Stercoraniſt. The ſame thing appears from the proper paſſages of Raban, which I have already related. Whereunto I ſhall add another, taken out of his Penitential, Touching what you have demanded of me, whether the Euchariſt Cap. 33.when it has been conſum'd, and paſs'd into Excrements like other meats, returns again to its firſt nature which it had before 'twas Conſecrated on the Altar. (This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement, This Period which I have included in this Parentheſis has no coherence with the diſcourſe of Raban, and my conjecture is, that it is a remark which ſome body put in the Margin, and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text.and ſeveral other Holy Fathers, who ſay, that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats.) Such a queſtion is ſuperfluous, ſeeing our Saviour ſays himſelf in the Goſpel, Whatſoever enters into the mouth deſcends into the ſtomach and is caſt into the draught. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of viſible and corporeal things, but operates p. 254inviſibly our ſanctification and ſalvation of both Body and Soul. What reaſon is there to ſay that what is digeſted in the ſtomach, and paſſes into Excrements, returns again to its firſt ſtate, ſeeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens. I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this ſubject, and that now it cannot be any longer queſtion'd whether he was a Stercoraniſt. As to Bertram, the paſſages which I related out of his Book do clearly ſhew that he was of the ſame ſentiment. What can be more unreaſonable and worſe contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud, that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoraniſts, which is to ſay, that they have fought againſt themſelves, and wrote Books againſt perſons without knowing they were themſelves of their party. Mr. Arnaud could not ſay any thing more unlikely, and therefore we ſee that great Wits who believe 'emſelves able to overthrow every thing, do oft-times overthrow themſelves, and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out.

IN the third place, how little ſoever we conſider this opinion, mention'd by Mr. Arnaud, and the manner in which he conceives it, we ſhall find 'tis impoſſible it ſhould ever come into any bodies mind unleſs he were exceſſively extravagant. Not to mention how difficult it is to ſtate how the natural accidents of Bread do unlooſe themſelves from their proper and natural ſubſtance to faſten on that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, nor how the ſame numerical ſubſtance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents, and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine. I ſhall only ſay, that unleſs a man doats extremely, he cannot imagin that the ſame numerical Body which is above, exiſts on Earth in a corporeal and material manner, as a ſubject ought to exiſt that has accidents really inherent; and yet is there in the natural manner of a real ſubſtance of Bread. For every ſubſtance that receives and really ſuſtains the accidents of Bread, muſt receive and ſuſtain them in the manner of a true ſubſtance of Bread to accommodate it ſelf to the nature of theſe accidents. A ſubſtance which receives really the accidents of Bread, muſt have all its parts in ordine ad ſe, as the Schools ſpeak, made as the parts of real Bread, to the end there may be ſome proportion between them and the accidents which it receives. And is it not an extravagancy to ſay that the parts of the human body of Jeſus Chriſt, to wit, his head, his arms, and other members do exiſt inwardly in ordine ad ſe in the manner of the parts of Bread, as little crums. Who ever ſaw any thing more hollow than this Philoſophy, a human Body really diviſible, really palpable, really ſenſible of a diviſibility, a palpability, and a ſenſibility, which is proper to it, and yet is not natural to it, but borrowed of another ſubject? This diviſibility and this palpability of the Bread which reſide really in the ſame ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, made it capable of all the changes which the Bread ſuffers, it was digeſted by the natural heat in the ſtomachs of the Communicants, and one part was reduced into their proper ſubſtance animated with their ſoul, living with their life, and united to them perſonally. What did they then believe, did they imagin that this ſame Body of Jeſus Chriſt, was at the ſame time animated with two ſouls, and living with two lives, or to ſpeak better with an hundred thouſand ſouls, and an hundred thouſand lives, to wit, that of Jeſus Chriſt, and of thoſe of all the Communicants of the world, perſonally united to the Son of God, and perſonally to an hundred millions of men at a time; or do they imagin that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is looſed from his proper and natural Soul, and diſ-united hypoſtatically from the Word? Believe me, a man muſt be fallen into a dreadful diſorder of mind p. 255to be guilty of theſe kind of fooleries. But if theſe perſons of the 9th. Century againſt whom Raban and Bertram wrote, believed in effect all theſe matters, how happens it, there's no ſuch thing to be found in Authors of thoſe Ages, nor the following ones; and that to eſtabliſh this fact, to wit, that there were perſons who believ'd that the proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame numerical ſubſtance which is in Heaven, is here below really endued with the accidents of Bread, Mr. Arnaud could offer nothing but ſome few conjectures impertinently drawn from a Principle of Amalarius?

BUT you will ſay, how happens it that the paſſages which Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Bertram ſeem not directly to oppoſe the Doctrin of Paſchaſus, and that ſometimes they both meet in their expreſſions? Bertram declares his deſign was againſt people who maintain that the myſtery of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is celebrated in the Church is not made under any figure, nor under any vail, but that the truth appears therein naked and manifeſt. He makes to himſelf the queſtions, Whether the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, which is received in the Church by the mouth of the Faithful, be made as a myſtery, or as a truth, which is to ſay, Whether it contains any thing conceal'd which is only perceiv'd by the eyes of Faith, or whether without the vail of any myſtery the ſight of the body ſees outwardly that which the ſight of the mind ſees inwardly; ſo that whatſoever is done in this myſtery is diſcovered to the view of ſenſe. And in the ſecond place, Whether it be the ſame Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that ſuffered and died. Paſchaſus on the other hand declares, That it ought not to be denied that this Sacrament is a figure. He diſtinguiſhes that which is felt outwardly from that which is hid inwardly; and teaches that one is the figure of the other, Eſt autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius ſentitur ſed totum veritas, & nulla adumbratio quod interius percipitur.

ALL the force of this objection conſiſts in an equivocation. Paſchaſus takes the term of figure in one ſenſe, Bertram takes it in another. Bertram affirms that the Euchariſt is a figure in a ſenſe which Paſchaſus denies. So that their Doctrins in the main cannot be more oppoſite than they are. And of this the readers needed not to have been ignorant, had Mr. Arnaud been pleaſed to relate in what manner Bertram explains himſelf. For having propoſed two queſtions in the terms which we have ſeen, he adds, Let us examin the firſt of theſe queſtions, and to clear it from all ambiguity define what we mean by a figure, and what by truth; to the end, that having ſomething that is certain before our eyes, we may better find the reaſonable way which we ought to follow. The figure is a kind of ſhadow, which by means of ſome vails, ſhews us what it propoſes to ſhew us. As for example, when we would ſignifie the Word we call it Bread, as in the Lords Prayer, where we ask our daily bread, or as our Saviour ſays in the Goſpel, I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven. Thus does he call himſelf a Vine, and his Diſciples the Branches. I am, ſays he, the true Vine, and you are the Branches. In all which there is one thing ſaid, and another ſignified. The truth on the contrary is a manifeſt demonſtration of the thing without uſing either ſhadow, image, or vail, it being diſcovered by ſimple and natural expreſſions, there being nothing to be underſtood but what is contained in the terms. 'Tis not the ſame in theſe other examples, for our Saviour Chriſt is not ſubſtantially either Bread, or Vine, nor the Apoſtles Branches, Here then we have a figure, but in the laſt examples, the truth is uttered in plain and open terms. Now to apply this to the things in queſtion, to wit, the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Were this myſtery p. 256celebrated without a figure it could not be call'd a myſtery: for one cannot call that a myſtery, wherein there is nothing ſecret, nothing remote from the corporal ſenſes, nor hid under any vail. Yet this Bread which is made the Body of Chriſt by the miniſtry of the Prieſt, ſhews another thing outwardly to the ſenſes, and offers another thing to the intelligence of the Faithful. Outwardly one diſcovers the form of Bread, its colour and ſavour, ſuch as it was before. But there is another thing far more precious and excellent which is taught inwardly, a divine and heavenly thing, to wit, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is therein repreſented, and 'tis not by the corporal ſenſes, but by the ſpiritual intelligence of the Faithful that this thing is conſidered, taken and eaten. He ſays the ſame of the Vine, and concludes, ſeeing no body can deny but this is ſo, 'tis manifeſt that this Bread and this Wine are the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt figuratively.

A man muſt ſhut his eyes if he cannot ſee he means that the Bread and Wine of the Euchariſt are a myſtery which repreſent to us the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt; and that when they be called the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt 'tis a figurative locution, like in ſome ſort to theſe others in the Goſpel, where our Lord is called Bread, a Vine, and his Apoſtles Branches. Now 'tis preciſely in this ſenſe that Paſchaſus denied the Euchariſt was a figure. When our Saviour, ſays he, brake and gave the Bread to his Diſciples, C…mment. in Mat. 26.Matt 26he does not ſay that this, or there is in this myſtery a certain virtue, or a figure of my Body, but he ſays plainly, This is my Body. And a little lower, I marvail at ſome peoples ſaying 'tis a figure, and not the truth, a ſhadow and not the Body. And in his Letter to Frudegard, Sacramentum Corporis Chriſti & Sanguinis quamvis Sacramentum dicatur non eſt aliud quam veritas & quod ipſa veritas repromiſit, which he proves by the ſame examples which Bertram alledges of ſimple locutions, to wit, of the Birth, Incarnation and Paſſion of our Saviour. Theſe things, ſays he, which our Saviour did as God and Man, be Sacraments of his Grace and a myſtery of Faith, and yet are they nothing but the truth, altho they be called Sacraments. And he afterſtards makes this objection. Theſe things being myſteries cannot (to wit in this quality) be either ſeen, or toucht, and conſequently this is not a Body, and if it be not a Body, they are a figure of the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and not this Fleſh and this Blood in propriety of nature. Then anſwering this objection, Totum, ſays he, quod eſt Chriſtus proedicatur, non in figura, ſed in re, & in proprietate, atque in natura. 'Tis then plain that Paſchaſus and Bertram are directly oppoſite not only as to ſence but terms. So that when Paſchaſus acknowledges there is a figure in the Euchariſt, meaning by this figure, either the accidents of Bread and Wine which cover the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or the repreſentation of the Paſſion of Jeſus Chriſt, this expreſſion in this ſenſe does not hinder, but Bertram formally contradicted it, and that the teſtimony of the anonymous is true. For Paſchaſus expreſly denies the Euchariſt to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in figure, and Bertram expreſly affirms it.

AS to wherein both of 'em ſeem to agree in ſaying that our ſenſes ſhew it to be Bread, but that inwardly our Faith diſcovers therein the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, this is but an equivocation. Paſchaſus means we muſt not refer our ſelves to the teſtimony of our ſenſes in reſpect of the ſubſtance hidden under the accidents, and by the term of inwardly he means this ſubſtance covered with accidents which he would have us believe to be the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Bertram on the contrary argues p. 257from the teſtimony of our ſenſes, and concludes that 'tis real Bread and real Wine in ſubſtance. For he maintains from the evidence of ſenſe that there happens no real change. According to the ſpecies of the creature; ſays he, and the form of viſible things, the Bread and Wine do not ſuffer any change. And if they do not ſuffer any change, they are not any thing elſe but what they were before. And in another place, We ſee not any thing that is changed in theſe things corporally. We muſt then confeſs, either that they be changed in another reſpect than that of the Body, and conſequently that they are not what appears in truth (which is to ſay, they are not the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in truth, becauſe 'twould be then inviſible were it there) but that they are another thing which yet we plainly ſee they are not by their proper exiſtence. Or if this will not be acknowledg'd, it muſt of neceſſſity be denied that they are the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt which will be impious to ſay or think. And immediately after he concludes that the change which happens to the Bread and Wine is a change of figure; Ʋt jam, ſays he, commutatio figurate facta eſſe dicatur. He alſo proves there that the change which happens to the Euchariſt does not make the Bread and Wine ceaſe to be in truth what they were before. We do not find, ſays he, that ſuch a change happens here, but we find on the contrary that the ſame ſpecies of the creature which was before remains ſtill. And a little lower, in reſpect of the ſubſtance of creatures they are after the Conſecration what they were before; they were before Bread and Wine, and we ſee they remain in the ſame kind, altho they be conſecrated. And again he concludes that 'tis not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in ſpecie, but in virtute, becauſe our eyes do not ſee it, 'Tis Faith, ſays he, that ſees whatſoever this is, the eye of the fleſh diſcovers nothing therein, theſe viſible things then are not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in ſpecie, but in virtue. He underſtands then that the teſtimony of our ſenſes which ſhew us that they are ſtill Bread and Wine in ſubſtance, are true, and that were the ſubſtance of the Body therein, our ſenſes would diſcover it. Now this wholly contradicts the ſenſe of Paſchaſus.

I will not examin, ſays Mr. Arnaud, whether Bertram underſtands theſe Page 881.words in another ſenſe than Paſchaſus. But why will not Mr. Arnaud do this, ſeeing on it depends the real oppoſition which is between theſe two Authors? They that will contradict an Author, ſays Mr. Arnaud, directly, do oppoſe not only his ſenſe but his words, and they never borrow the words of thoſe whom they combat to expreſs their own opinion. Whoſoever deſigns to contradict an author ſolidly minds particularly his ſenſe, without troubling himſelf about his expreſſions. 'Twas enough for Bertram to refute the new Doctrin of Paſchaſus, and this very thing, that he uſes his expreſſions, only more ſhews their oppoſition; for Bertram does not ſpeak of the teſtimony of our ſenſes on the ſubject of the Euchariſt in the ſame terms of Paſchaſus, but to draw thence arguments to overthrow the pretended change of ſubſtance, and the Real Preſence which Paſchaſus had advanced; ſo that this apparent conformity is no leſs in effect than a real contradiction.

THIS contrariety of ſentiment appears ſtill more in the ſecond queſtion which Bertram diſcuſſes, which is, Whether what the Faithful receive with the mouths of their bodies in the Communion, is this ſame Body which was born of the Virgin, that has ſuffered for us, died and roſe again, and is now at the right hand of the Father. Paſchaſus affirms it, and endeavours to eſtabliſh it by his Book. Bertram denies it and proves moſt ſtrongly his negative. The one ſays that theſe things nouriſh in us that which is born of God, and not p. 258that which is born of Fleſh and Blood. The other anſwers us, that in reſpect of what we ſee, and receive corporally, which is bit with the teeth, ſwallowed and received into the ſtomach, they do not communicate eternal life; for in this reſpect they nouriſh our mortal fleſh, and do not communicate any corruption. The one ſays, That we muſt not ſtop at the ſavour, nor colour of Bread; for were it changed into fleſh (to wit, viſibly and ſenſibly, as he explains himſelf in the ſame place) 'twould be no longer the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt. The other teaches, That ſeeing 'tis Faith, and not the eye of the Body which diſcovers the Bread to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, we muſt hence conclude that 'tis not ſo in ſpecie, but in virtute. The one ever ſays, that what we receive from the Altar is this ſame Fleſh which is born of the Virgin. The other ſays, that this Fleſh which was Crucified, and born of the Virgin conſiſts of bones and ſinews, diſtinguiſh'd into ſeveral members, and enliven'd by the ſpirit of a reaſonable ſoul, having his proper life and motions. Whereas this ſpiritual Fleſh which nouriſhes ſpiritually the Faithful in reſpect of its outward ſpecies, conſiſts of grains of Wheat and is made by the hands of man, that it has neither nerves, nor ſinews, nor bones, nor different members, that 'tis animated with no rational ſoul, nor can exerciſe any vital functions. Whence he concludes that 'tis not then this Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt which was born of the Virgin. In a word, the oppoſition therein is ſo formal, and ſo evident, that it cannot be more plain.

WHAT we have hitherto ſeen touching Authors Contemporary with Paſchaſus, yields us a demonſtrative proof that Paſchaſus was an Innovator; for the reſt do not ſpeak like him, there are two of the famouſeſt of 'em, viz. Raban and Bertram, who have expreſly applied themſelves to the refuting of his Doctrin.

TO theſe two we may add a third, which is John Scot, who wrote alſo by the command of Charles the Bald againſt the novelties of Paſchaſus. His Book was burnt in the Council of Verſeil, and we underſtand from the teſtimony of Aſcelinus in his Letter to Berenger, that the end which he propoſed was to ſhew in this Book that what is Conſecrated on the Altar is neither the true Body, nor the true Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. Toto niſu totaque intentione ad hoc ſolum tendere video, ut mihi perſuadeat hoc videlicet quod in Altari Conſecratur neque vere Corpus, neque vere Chriſti Sanguinem eſſe, hoc autem aſtruere nititur ex Sanctorum Patrum opuſculis quae prave exponit. The Author of the Diſſertation which Mr. Arnaud has inſerted in his 12th. Book, pretends that the Book which we have under the name of Bertram, and that of John Scot are the ſame. He endeavours likewiſe to leſſen as much as in him lies the authority of this Adverſary to Paſchaſus, and I had not finiſh'd this Work without examining his Conjectures, had not one of my Friends inform'd me that he had eas'd me of this pains, as well as this Author has help'd Mr. Arnaud. I hope this friend of mine will ſoon publiſh his Piece, which will (or I am greatly deceived) fully ſatisfie every unprejudic'd man that ſeeks the truth.