The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 2

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part · Book 6 · Chapter 2

p. 131CHAP. II.

Mr. Arnaud's Proceedings Conſider'd. His unjuſt Reproaches alſo Examin'd.

SAINT Auſtin deſcribing the humor and carriage of ſome perſons in his time with whom he was concern'd, obſerves they were very copious and eloquentin cenſuring the ſentiments of others, but flat and dull in eſtabliſhing their own opinions. Ipſos, ſays he, animadvertebam plus Aug. de Utilit. Cred. c. 1.in refellendis aliis diſertos & copioſos eſſe, quam in ſuis probandis certos & firmos manere. Methinks the ſame may be ſaid of Mr, Arnaud. For he troubles not himſelf with proving either the propoſitions he advances, nor thoſe of the Author of the Perpetuity, and is never more buſied than in cenſuring the opinions of others. So greatly is he in love with this kind of proceeding, that he ſcruples not many times to quit his principal ſubject, and fall upon any accidental one, provided 'twill but furniſh him with a pretence to make objections; nay, ſometimes he ſhall ſtart fancies of his own on purpoſe to give himſelf this divertiſement. Yet we muſt needs confeſs he has ſome reaſon to do thus, having a peculiar tallent of ridiculing the moſt ſolid mattters; for ſometimes he tells me of having private Dictionaries to my ſelf, other times of Keys, and Machines, rhetorical Enthuſiaſms, and a thouſand other pretty fancies, which take with his Readers, and give him, together with the benefit of ſome ſlight objections and declamations thereupon, the liberty of breaking looſe through the ſtrongeſt Arguments.

AN example whereof may be ſeen in this Diſpute of the diſtinct knowledg of the Real Preſence, or Real Abſence. For after the illuſtrations which we have given in the preceding Chapter, 'tis eaſie to find that Mr. Arnaud ought to eſtabliſh this Propoſition: that if the people of the 9th. and 10th. Centuries had not found themſelves imbued with the diſtinct belief of the Real inviſible Preſence, they would have diſtinctly believed the Real inviſible Abſence, at leaſt in a general manner, that is to ſay, they would have formally rejected every kind of ſubſtantial Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt; yet without ſpecifying ever a one of them in particular. He himſelf acknowledges that the Author of the Perpetuity would be underſtood to ſpeak of this general manner of believing diſtinctly the Real Abſence; ſo that it cannot be but the Readers muſt be in expectation of what he alledges for the confirming this Hypotheſis. But they will find themſelves much miſtaken, for inſtead of applying himſelf to ſtrengthen it, by new Arguments, or to maintain the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity in reſtraining them to the time in queſtion, he has rather choſen to employ the reſt of his ſixth Book in examining the ſtate of the people of the firſt ſix Centuries, not that 'twas neceſſary to enter upon this examination, ſeeing theſe Ages are out of the bounds of our Diſpute touching the change. But ſeeing he would only refute the five ranks of perſons whom I ſuppoſed to be in the Church before the opinion of the Real Preſence appeared, refute them I ſay in reference to the eight firſt Centuries to have thence occaſion to multiply his objections. I may with good reaſon be diſpenſed withal from following him; for to ſpeak properly, 'tis mere running p. 132into fruitleſs debates. Yet to omit nothing, I will ſtill patiently hearken to what he has to ſay on this ſubject. Before I enter upon the diſcuſſion of his particular objections againſt my five ranks of perſons, 'twill not be amiſs to examin ſome of his general ones, for we muſt endeavour to ſatisfie him in all things.

FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my ſelf. He ſays, That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550.if it be not true I admitted the confuſed Belief during ten Ages, if I included it in the 9th. and 10th. it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a diſtinct knowledg of the myſtery of the Euchariſt. I acknowledg this Conſequence to be juſt enough. But, adds he, Mr. Claud bethinks himſelf and finds 'tis more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity, and even to affirm that during theſe eight Centuries the Faithful had no diſtinct knowledg of the Preſence, or Real Abſence. Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's ſelf? What contrariety is there between theſe two things? Not, ſays he, but that there's an equivocation in all this. If there be any equivocation, Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it, nor ſay I am at diſcord with my ſelf. But the truth is, there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it; for we have already told him, that to know diſtinctly the myſtery of the Euchariſt, is neither to know diſtinctly the Real Preſence, nor Real Abſence, and that there's a difference in theſe things. To know diſtinctly the Real Abſence in the ſenſe wherein we take this term in this Diſpute, is to reject formally, and by a poſitive act this inviſible Preſence as an error. But to know diſtinctly the myſtery of the Euchariſt, is according to us, to know clearly that the Euchariſt is Bread and Wine, as to the ſubſtance of it, that by Conſecration this Bread and Wine are made ſigns or myſtical figures of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, that this ſignification is grounded on ſeveral relations which are between the Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, that thoſe who receive theſe Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jeſus Chriſt who died for us, and roſe again, and is reigning in Heaven, they ſpiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood, that theſe Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt by a Sacramental way of ſpeech, becauſe they do both repreſent them to our Faith, or becauſe there's a great conformity between them, and the things which they repreſent, or becauſe they communicate them to us, and ſeveral other like Articles. In a word, to underſtand the myſtery of the Euchariſt is to know poſitively wherein conſiſts the nature and eſſence of a Sacrament, which does not include any diſtinct knowledg either of the Real inviſible Preſence, or Real inviſible Abſence. I acknowledg 'tis not eaſie to ſurprize people that are in this capacity, nor perſuade them that this Real Preſence has been ever believed in the Church, eſpecially if they have Paſtors that are learned and honeſt, who acquit themſelves of their Duty, and watch diligently over their Flocks. But howſoever this is not to underſtand diſtinctly the Real Abſence in queſtion.

IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this ſubject, let me tell him, that when we attribute this diſtinct knowledg of the myſtery of the Euchariſt to the eight firſt Centuries, we would not be underſtood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform, or that all perſons who lived in each of thoſe Ages have been equally enlightned. We know the light of thoſe Ages was diminiſhed by degrees, ſo that the 7th. and 8th. had much leſs of it than the firſt ſix. We know likewiſe p. 133there has been always in the Church, I mean even then when 'twas moſt flouriſhing, a great number of pious Chriſtians in truth, but little advanced in knowledg, and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themſelves touching what they believed of the myſteries of Chriſtian Religion.

IN the ſecond place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things, which would be ſtrange enough were they true: the one, that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's ſentiment, and th'other that I granted him in effect whatſoever he pretended to. He grounds theſe two reproaches on that I ſaid ſomewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity, That if Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, part 2. chap 3.he meant that the Faithful who took the inſtructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical ſenſe, believed Jeſus Chriſt preſent corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been ſaid ſince, that he is at the ſame time in Heaven and on Earth, there after the manner of a Body, here after the manner of a Spirit, I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this ſenſe a moſt diſtinct idea of the Real Abſence, which is to ſay, they did not at all believe that he was ſubſtantially preſent in the Sacrament, applying their whole mind to the preſence of his Grace and Merit, ſetting themſelves to meditate on his infinite love, &c. without exerting their thoughts to this preſence of ſubſtance, invented of late by the Roman Church. But if by having an idea and diſtinct belief of the Real Abſence, that Author meant they knew and rejected diſtinctly this means of exiſtence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt on the Altar, in multiplying his Preſence in ſeveral places, I affirm'd they had it not at all.

BUT theſe two reproaches are without grounds, for in reſpect of the firſt it appears from what we have ſeen in the preceding Chapter, that the Author of the Perpetuity muſt have pretended to that which I charge him with; to wit, that the Faithful have had the diſtinct idea of the ſubſtantial inviſible Preſence, ſuch as the Church of Rome believes, and that they formally rejected it as an Error. For there's only this manner of believing the Real Abſence which can have place in this Diſpute, ſeeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has propoſed the firſt as we have ſeen, is impoſſible, and the third uſeleſs for the deſign of the Author of the Perpetuity; ſo that neceſſarily his ſenſe muſt fall upon the ſecond, which is preciſely that which I have attributed to him. And as to the ſecond reproach 'tis clear, that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him, his Argument will fall to the ground; for it does not follow from perſons not fixing their minds on the preſence of an inviſible ſubſtance, ſuch as the Church of Rome teaches, and their applying themſelves only to meditate on a preſence of Grace, which is preciſely what I grant him, it does not hence follow, I ſay, that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Inviſible Preſence, as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church. There needs ſomething more than this, I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection. For a man muſt have for this not only the idea of this ſubſtantial inviſible Preſence, ſuch as is fancied in the Church of Rome, but likewiſe diſtinctly know that ſuch a Preſence was never taught in the Church. For otherwiſe 'tis very poſſible that people will ſuffer themſelves to be deceived, when told the Church has ever believed ſuch a Preſence, eſpecially when they ſhall hear ſeveral paſſages out of the Fathers on this ſubject alledged in a counter ſenſe. Moreover, if Mr. Arnaud imagins I meant to acknowledg of my own head, that one may call the diſpoſition of theſe perſons who believe Jeſus Chriſt corporally preſent in Heaven, p. 134(without conſidering what has been ſaid ſince of his Preſence in Heaven and on Earth at the ſame time, there viſibly, here inviſibly) believing the Real Abſence, he is groſly miſtaken. For what I ſaid was out of condeſcention, and ſuppoſition, and not abſolutely, which is to ſay, that in caſe the Author of the Perpetuity pretended only this, I would not diſpute with him about an expreſſion. In effect if we are agreed touching the thing, I'll never make war with him upon the account of terms.

Mr. ARNAƲD is no leſs miſtaken when he accuſed me for making an illuſory anſwer to the Author of the Perpetuity. The buſineſs is, that this Author ſaid, that if the change which we pretend were true, There Firſt Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, page 37.muſt have been of neceſſity a time wherein the belief of the Real Preſence has been ſo mixt with that of the Real Abſence, that there were half of the Biſhops, Prieſts, and People, who held the one, and the other half that held the other. To this I anſwer'd, That in the times of the greateſt ignorance, even Anſwer to the firſt Treatiſe, page 12.in the 11th. Century, I doubted not but there were four or five ranks of perſons in the Body of the viſible Church, the one profane and worldly perſons who kept themſelves at a diſtance from theſe Diſputes; others ignorant ones, who contented themſelves with knowing in general, the Euchariſt to be the memorial of Chriſts Paſſion, and that they receive therein his Body and Blood, theſe holding the true Faith in a degree of confuſed knowledg. The third, of thoſe that held the true Faith in a degree of diſtinct knowledg, and rejected the ſubſtantial Preſence. And the fourth, of thoſe that had embraced the Opinion of this Preſence. And this is what Mr. Arnaud calls an illuſion. Whereas I affirm this anſwer is pertinent; for if there have been four ranks of men in the Church, 'tis ill done of the Author of the Perpetuity to reduce them to two. But, ſays Mr. Arnaud, the Author of the Perpetuity ſpeaks of the time before Berenger, and you ſpeak of the time that followed him. I anſwer that the Author of the Perpetuity ſpeaks of the time of the chimerical Lib. 6. ch. 5. pag. 560.growth through which the belief of the Real Preſence hath neceſſarily paſſed according to the imagination of the Calviniſts: And thus doth he formally explain himſelf. And I ſpeak of the time wherein Error made its greateſt progreſs, in the greateſt progreſs of error. Theſe are my words. So far there's nothing miſ-underſtood, we ſpeak both of us concerning the ſame time. But this time according to us is that in which Berenger began to oppoſe the Real Preſence. But, ſays moreover Mr. Arnaud, the whole Church Page 562.had already paſſed over into the belief of the Real Preſence before Berenger's time, and Aubertin himſelf acknowledges as much. Which is what I deny, and Mr. Arnaud ought not to affirm it without proof. The greateſt progreſs of the Real Preſence was then when Berenger declaring himſelf againſt it, Paſchaſius his Diſciples maintain'd it by Diſputes; ſo that this is preciſely the time about which the Author of the Perpetuity and I debated.

THESE are the firſt objections of Mr. Arnaud, after which he divides what he calls my Syſtem into three parts or times. The firſt, ſays he, comprehends Page 563.the firſt eight Ages, and the five ranks whereof it conſiſts. The ſecond contains two Centuries and an half, which a man cannot better name than the unaccountable time of the Miniſters, And the third contains the time which follow'd Berenger. 'Tis certain that of theſe three times there was only the ſecond (as I already ſaid to ſpeak properly) neceſſary to be examin'd touching the queſtion, Whether the change which we pretend was poſſible or impoſſible. For altho I do not grant that all the Faithful of the eight firſt Centuries have had a diſtinct knowledg either of the Real Preſence, p. 135or Real Abſence in the ſenſe wherein the Church of Rome takes theſe terms, yet did I acknowledg there was then light enough in the Church whereby to reject the Opinion of this ſort of Preſence, had it appear'd, ſo that it does not ſeem 'twas greatly neceſſary to diſpute concerning theſe Ages, wherein we do not ſay the change was made, and which we ſuppoſe to have been different from thoſe which followed. Yet ſeeing Mr. Arnaud will needs have 'em brought into the Diſpute, I am willing to treat of them.

I THEN reckon'd in the Church five ſorts of perſons, who had no diſtinct Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, part 2. chap. 3.knowledg of the Real Preſence, neither to reject nor admit it, without comprehending therein the prophane or worldly minded perſons, and grounded my diviſion on this reaſon. That 'tis not poſſible in this great diverſity of conditions and humors of men, to reduce them all either to one and the ſame meaſure of knowledg, or to the ſame form of action.

THE firſt rank is of thoſe who conceiv'd theſe two terms the Sacrament, and the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Sacrament under the notion which their ſenſes gave them; for whether 'twas call'd Bread, or by any other name, the idea they form'd thereof was ſuch as their eyes repreſented them with. They conceiv'd the Body of Jeſus Chriſt after the manner which the Goſpel ſpeaks of it, as a body, and fleſh like unto that which we have, born of a Virgin, united to the Eternal Word, hanging on the Croſs, riſen and taken up into Glory, and in a word under the idea which Religion gives us of it. The idea of the Sacrament ſerved to make them paſs on to that of the Body, but they ſtopt there, and made not a particular reflection thereon, how the Sacrament was the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Their devotion being content with the uſe which they made of the Sacrament, unto which they were aſſiſted by this formulary of Communion, Corpus Chriſti, they proceeded not ſo far as that queſtion.

THE ſecond rank is of thoſe who proceeded to the queſtion, How this viſible Bread, this ſubject call'd Sacrament, is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt? but finding a great deal of inconſiſtency in the terms, their minds ſtopt at the ſingle difficulty without undertaking to ſolve it.

THE third is of thoſe who going as far as the queſtion, proceeded as far as the ſolution, but their minds ſtopt at general terms, as that Jeſus Chriſt is preſent to us in the Sacrament, and that we receive his Body and Blood therein without ſearching after greater ſatisfaction.

THE fourth is of thoſe who having been diſguſted at the inconſiſtency of theſe terms, the Bread and the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, found at length the real knot of the queſtion, I mean, that the Bread is the Sacrament, the memorial, and pledg of the Sacred Body of our Redeemer.

THE fifth in fine is of thoſe who at the hearing of theſe propoſitions, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, The Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, went immediately to their true and natural ſenſe, without perplexity or difficulty, and without ſo much as thinking on the inconſiſtency of the terms, well underſtanding that the Bread remaining Bread is conſecrated to be a Sacrament, which repreſents and communicates to us the Lords Body; and theſe had a p. 136more clear and diſtinct knowledg of the truth, and a greater diſpoſition to underſtand the ſtile and uſual expreſſions of the Church.

HERE'S, ſays Mr. Arnaud, what Mr. Claude calls the happy days of the Lib. 6. ch. 5. pag. 560.Church, and the time of the diſtinct knowledg. And yet of theſe five ranks there are three who knew not what the Euchariſt was, and underſtood not the ſenſe of the expreſſions which form this Doctrin. The fourth ſought and happily found it, ſays he, after a long ſearch, and the fifth found it without ſearching it.

I ACKNOWLEDG that what has been ſaid of theſe five ranks, may be underſtood of all the time which preceded the change, but yet we may divide this time into two, and diſtinguiſh that wherein the Paſtors took a more particular care to inſtruct the people, and that of ignorance wherein the myſteries of the Goſpel were neglected, and the people ill inſtructed. For as ignorance was never ſo great, nor univerſal, but that there were ever ſome perſons knowing enough to underſtand diſtinctly, that the Bread is call'd the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe 'tis the Sacrament of it, ſo knowledg never ſo generally overſpread the Church, but there were always ſome weak and ignorant perſons in it. When we diſtinguiſh a time of knowledg, from a time of ignorance, we do not mean there were no ignorant people, during the time of knowledg, nor enlightned perſons during the time of ignorance. We do not thus underſtand it. But we take the denomination from the party that moſt prevail'd, and call a time of light, and knowledg, that wherein we ſee appear more learning and clearneſs; a time of darkneſs, and ignorance that wherein we find on the contrary appear much more thickneſs and ſtupidity. When then I ſaid that I reckon'd theſe five ranks of perſons in the Church, I underſtood that this was true in both the two times, that is to ſay, both in that which I called the Churches happy days, the time of a diſtinct knowledg, and in that of ignorance and confuſion; but I likewiſe meant that this was true in theſe two times diverſly according to the difference which diſtinguiſhes them, ſo that when the ſenſe of my propoſition is diſtributed, reaſon requires that the proportion of each time be kept. We muſt not doubt but that in the firſt ſix Centuries there were perſons to be found of theſe three firſt ranks which I denoted, but far fewer than in the following Ages.

AFTER this firſt remark Mr. Arnaud makes another, which is, that I do not prove what I offer touching theſe five orders, This is, ſays he, an Lib. 6. ch. 6. pag. 563.Hiſtory no where extant. Theſe are news which he alone knows, and for which he can bring no more proof than for worlds in the Moon. But this is Mr. Arnaud's uſual courſe, when he cannot anſwer an Argument he requires proofs for it, and ſo when he cannot invalidate an Anſwer he bethinks himſelf of ſaying, prove it. The Author of the Perpetuity affirms that the change which we pretend is impoſſible, I affirm 'tis poſſible, and to ſhew that it is ſo, I ſuppoſe by way of explication and illuſtration five ranks of perſons in the Church during the time which preceded the change. If I ſuppoſe a thing impoſſible or abſurd, it lies upon Mr. Arnaud to ſhew the impoſſibility or abſurdity thereof, and not to require proofs of me. I ſuppoſe nothing but what lies within the terms of probability, and is conformable to the manner of mens thoughts, which appears by their every days actions in like occaſions as this, altho not recorded in Hiſtory. Howſoever if Mr. Arnaud will have the Authors Argument of the Perpetuity to remain in force, p. 137he ſhould ſolidly attack my Anſwer and lay aſide thoſe fooleries of worlds in the Moon, which do not well agree with the importance of our ſubject.

AND this he ſeems to be ſenſible of, for he does not much inſiſt on this demand of proofs, but comes to a particular examination of theſe diverſe ranks, and to make it the more pleaſant, he gives each of 'em a nickname and title; the firſt he calls the rank of Contemplative Ignoramus's, the next that of Lazy Ignoramus's, the third that of Catholicks, the fourth of Conſiderate Calviniſts, the fifth that of Inconſiderate ones. In diſcourſing on the firſt rank he gives us a touch about Mental Prayer, of being ſnatcht up immediately into Heaven, concerning our meditation on the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in abſtracto, and ſtanding upon our guard againſt the terms which expreſs the eſſence of the Myſtery; and he uſes the ſame pleaſant method about the reſt, which ſhews he can be frolickſome ſometimes, and has his hours of creation, as well as other folks.

BUT laying aſide theſe fine words, let us come to things. The Author of the Perpetuity intending to prove that the Faithful ever had a diſtinct knowledg of the Preſence or Real Abſence, offer'd the formulary of Communion Refutat. part 2. chap. 2.Corpus Chriſti, which was uſed in the ancient Church, ſaying that theſe terms repreſented the Body of Jeſus Chriſt preſent on the Altar; and thence he concluded they had a diſtinct belief that it was thereon, if they follow'd the ſenſe of theſe words, or if they rejected them, they had a diſtinct belief of the Real Abſence.

TO this I anſwer'd, that the firſt impreſſion which things make on our minds, and words deſign'd to any uſe, is that of their uſe, that 'tis thus every morning that we conceive of the light, not as being under the notion Anſwer to the ſecond Treat. part 2. ch. 2.of a body or accident, or motion of air, but under the notion of a thing which is uſeful to us, and ſerves to lead us to our labors, which I farther illuſtrated by ſeveral other examples. Then applying this remark to my ſubject, I ſaid that this formulary Corpus Chriſti, was a formulary of uſe, deſign'd according to the intention of the Church to raiſe up the minds of Communicants to the meditating on the Body of Jeſus Chriſt dead and riſen for them. Whence I concluded there were ſeveral perſons who contented themſelves with doing that to which theſe words excited them, without proceeding any farther, their minds being ſufficiently taken up with that. And this is that which Mr. Arnaud calls extravagant and fantaſtical, and wherein he meets with ſuch ridiculous Hypotheſiſes, ſenſleſs ſuppoſitions, and abſurdities. 'Tis impoſſible, ſays he, for a diſcourſe to be more faulty than this, altho it be the foundation of the firſt order of this ſyſtem. Firſt, 'twill not ſerve the end whereunto 'tis deſign'd. Secondly, 'tis laid on a falſe foundation. Thirdly, it concludes nothing this falſe foundation being ſuppoſed. Theſe three remarks are eſſential, and need only proving.

AS to the firſt, he ſays, That ſuppoſing this ridiculous Hypotheſis were granted me, yet there muſt be made ſeveral others to draw thence the concluſion which I draw. Firſt, It muſt be ſuppoſed that the Paſtors who inſtructed the Communicants when they firſt received the Euchariſt, taught 'em only to make a Mental Prayer over the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, without mentioning to 'em a word of the eſſence of the myſtery, and ſenſe of the words which expreſs it, and ſatisfying the doubts which might ſpring up in their minds about it. And yet the form of theſe inſtructions appearing in the Writings of S. Cyril of p. 138Jeruſalem, S. Ambroſe, Gaudencius, and Eucherus, are very apt to imprint on their minds the diſtinct idea of the Faith of the Myſtery, according to the Doctrin of the Catholicks. Secondly, We muſt ſuppoſe that when theſe people met with this expreſſion either in Sermons, or particular Diſcourſes, or Books, that the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, they caution'd themſelves againſt admitting into their minds any idea of theſe words, but were immediately raviſh'd with abſtracted Meditations. Thirdly, 'Tis to be ſuppoſed that this laſted'em all their lives. Fourthly, We muſt ſuppoſe they uſed the ſame caution againſt theſe expreſſions, The Bread is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is made of Bread, we are nouriſh'd with the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt enters into us, that it is our ſtrength and our life.

I ANSWER, that ſuppoſing the Propoſition I ſtated touching the things, and uſual expreſſions, were fruitleſs in reſpect of the inſtructions given to the Catechumeniſts, and thoſe other expreſſions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud, yet does it not hence follow but 'twould be uſeful in reſpect of theſe terms Corpus Chriſti which were ſpoken before to the Communicants at the time wherein the Euchariſt is deliver'd to 'em. Now 'tis preciſely upon this account I made uſe of it, that is to ſay, to anſwer the Argument which the Author of the Perpetuity rais'd from theſe words Corpus Chriſti, which he ſaid repreſented the Body of Jeſus Chriſt preſent on the Altar. I ſhew'd then that theſe words were not only words of inſtruction, but likewiſe of uſe; the drift of which were to repreſent to the Communicants the Body of Chriſt dead and riſen for us. Mr. Arnaud ought to conſider my propoſition in reference to the particular end for which I uſed it, and not take it looſe (as he has done) from the ſequel of my diſcourſe. But 'tis his cuſtom when he propoſes any thing which I mention, to repreſent it indirectly, and 'tis on ſuch kind of proceedings as theſe whereon are grounded the greateſt part of his objections.

TO confirm the truth of my Propoſition, 'tis not neceſſary to change any thing in the Catechiſms of the Fathers; there needs only one thing be ſuppoſed, which is not hard to believe, which is, that neither the Catechiſms of S. Cyril, nor thoſe attributed to S. Ambroſe, and S. Eucherus, were uſed as forms of inſtructions which were given to perſons the firſt time they Communicated, ſeeing the greateſt part amongſt 'em received their firſt Communion, immediately after they were Baptized in their tender years, yea ſometimes whilſt at their Mothers Breaſts. I confeſs indeed they were not then taught to make Mental Prayers, as Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks; and 'tis alſo likely they had neither the Catechiſms of S. Ambroſe, nor S. Cyril expounded to 'em, as he pleaſantly ſuppoſes. And thus Mr. Arnaud's firſt Obſervation is abſurd.

AS to the Books they read, 'tis not neceſſary to ſay, they caution'd themſelves againſt the words which they met in 'em, we need only ſuppoſe one thing which is not unlikely. That there were at that time, and are at this day in the Church ſeveral people who could not read, and that amongſt ſuch as could, there were ſome that read little in the Treatiſes of the Fathers concerning the Euchariſt, Books not being then ſo common as they have been ſince Printing has been invented, and in fine, that amongſt thoſe who did, there might be ſome who applied not themſelves attentively enough to form in their minds the queſtion how the Sacrament is our Saviour's Body.

p. 139AS to private Diſcourſes, if Mr. Arnaud by revelation knows any thing of 'em we'l hear him willingly, in the mean time he'l let us ſuppoſe, that there have been always people in the Church, who never ſet themſelves to treat of abſtruſe queſtions of Theology in familiar Colloquies.

AND as to Sermons, ſeeing Mr. Arnaud pretends they muſt inſpire all perſons with curioſity that hear them, 'twould be juſt he ſhould tell us, firſt whether he believes the Preachers handled always the Euchariſt in difficult terms, ſufficient to excite the curioſity of their hearers touching the queſtion how the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Whether they explain'd not themſelves in terms clear and eaſie, which gave no occaſion for this queſtion. Secondly, 'Twould be juſt for him to tell us, whether when they made theſe difficult diſcourſes they cauſed all the Faithful in general to come to 'em, and charged 'em not to fail of forming in their minds the queſtion, How the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Thirdly, In ſhort it might be expected he ſhould tell us whether he believes that all the Auditors were of equal capacities to make reflections on the difficult expreſſions of the Fathers. For if he does not ſuppoſe theſe three things, there's little likelihood theſe expreſſions he mentions muſt have produc'd the effect in mens minds which he pretends. Perhaps perſons of mean capacities, who yet may be good men (altho they have but little knowledg) in hearing their Preachers would have turn'd their minds ſooner on the ſide of eaſie terms, than that of difficult ones. Perhaps alſo ſome of 'em did let theſe difficult ways of ſpeaking paſs without conſidering 'em with much attention, and troubling themſelves with queſtions beyond their reach: and thus may I ſuppoſe the expreſſions of the Fathers ſeldom made any deep impreſſion on them.

Mr. CLAƲDE, ſays Mr. Arnaud, who thinks that the putting of an extravagancy into mood and figure, is ſufficient to make it concluſive and deciſive, propoſes us this in an inſulting manner. What likelihood, ſays he, is there people ſhould proceed to reflections on this myſtery t' inform themſelves whether it be really Jeſus Chriſt or not? I anſwer, the queſtion here concerns the eight firſt Ages, and what he alledges I ſaid, was meant of the time of the moſt groſs ignorance, as 'twill appear to him that ſhall take the pains to ſee my words in the proper place whence he has taken them. He has not done fairly in this matter. For altho it be acknowledged that in the time wherein the Paſtors took care to inſtruct their Flock, there might be ſome perſons who proceeded not to the queſtion, how the Sacrament was the Body of Jeſus Chriſt? yet would we not be underſtood to ſpeak generally of the people of that time, as if there were no difference between them and thoſe that lived in the time when ignorance moſt prevail'd.

BƲT, ſays Mr. Arnaud further, There's nothing more wonderful than the alliance which Mr. Claude makes in this imaginary order, of two qualities the moſt irreconcilable in the world. Every body knows that an high Contemplation does ordinarily ſuppoſe a higher knowledg of Myſteries than is to be expected in the common ſort of the Faithful. Yet it ſeems the perſons of which this rank conſiſts were on one hand ſo ſtupid that they comprehended nothing in the moſt ordinary expreſſions amongſt the Chriſtians, altho their ears were ſtruck with 'em in a thouſand manners; and yet ſo ſpiritual on the other, that at the ſight of the Sacrament, or upon the leaſt mention of it, they had immediately p. 140their whole hearts ſo fixt on the Body of their Saviour, that they could not reflect on the words uſed in the celebration of the myſtery, or popular inſtructions.

EVERY body knows that to raiſe up one's devotion to our Saviour Chriſt who died and roſe again for us, 'tis not neceſſary to have a very high knowledg of Myſteries. As the Death of Jeſus Chriſt, and his Reſurrection are the moſt neceſſary notions of Chriſtianity, ſo are they likewiſe the firſt; and if a man be not ſpiritual enough to ſend up his Devotions to our Saviour, 'tis certain he is no Chriſtian. Neither need a man be very knowing to comprehend that the Sacrament is deſign'd for this uſe. The whole action of the Euchariſt leads the moſt ſimple to this, and the ſurſum corda which they underſtood put them in mind of it. But to make reflections on the expreſſions of the Fatherr, when they call the Euchariſt the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or ſaid the Bread was the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, this requires greater ability and curioſity. As to the firſt, which is the lifting up our hearts to our Saviour Chriſt dead and riſen, it needs only be ſuppoſed that the perſons of this firſt rank now before us, had learned their Creed, that they were not ignorant our Saviour died and roſe again for us, and knew the Euchariſt was intended to make us remember him. Now there are few Chriſtians but know this. But as to the ſecond, which is to make reflections on the expreſſions of the Fathers, 'tis to be ſuppoſed they had retain'd the common expreſſions which their Paſtors uſed in their Sermons or Books, and becauſe they were many, and very different from one another, ſome having no difficulty, and others on the contrary being hard to be underſtood, we may imagin they preciſely applied themſelves to the difficult ones, without contenting 'emſelves with the others: 'tis likewiſe to be ſuppoſed they had compared together theſe two ideas, that of the Sacrament, and that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and remarkt the differences by a formal act of Meditation. Now all this requires ſome application of mind, without which 'tis very poſſible that ſimple people may remain in the Chriſtian profeſſion. Thus we ſee what's become of Mr. Arnaud's firſt Remark, and whether my ſuppoſition touching the perſons of the firſt rank, ought to be reſpected as an extravagant and ſenſleſs diſtinction.

Mr. ARNAƲD's ſecond Remark contains, That 'tis falſe the uſe of this expreſſion Corpus Chriſti, which was ſpoken to thoſe who Communicated, was according to the intention of the Church, to make them meditate on the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in abſtracto; that 'tis certain on the contrary, that this formulary Corpus Chriſti was deſign'd to inſtruct them in the truth of the myſtery, and exact from 'em the confeſſion of it, ſo that 'twas a formulary of Inſtruction and a profeſſion of Faith, and not of Practice and Action.

THIS diſcourſe has all the characters of a perſon that finds himſelf intangled. What means he by meditating on the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in abſtracto? Is it meditating on his Death, Reſurrection, and ſitting on the right hand of the Father? 'Tis certain that this was the intention of theſe words according to the deſign of the Goſpel, as appears by the teſtimonies which I alledged from the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom, Primaſus an African Biſhop, and S. Baſil; and this may be confirm'd by ſeveral other paſſages, and by theſe words of S. Auguſtin, We call Aug. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 4.Bread and Wine that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth, and conſecrated by the myſtical Prayer, is received by us for the Salvation of p. 141of our ſouls in remembrance of the Death which our Lord has ſuffered for our ſakes: And by theſe of Tatianus, Jeſus Chriſt having taken the Bread and Tatian. in Diaceſſ.Wine, teſtified they were his Body and Blood, and commanded his Diſciples to eat and drink thereof, in remembrance of his approaching Sufferings and Death. But for this purpoſe 'twere better to read the words of S. Paul. Every time ye eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye declare 1 Cor. 11.1 Cor 11the Lords Death till he comes. If by meditating on the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in abſtracto, he means the meditating on it without conceiving it preſent on the Altar, 'tis not ſufficient to ſay 'tis falſe, that this was the deſign of this formulary, Corpus Chriſti, according to the intention of the Church, he muſt prove that the Church meant by theſe words to repreſent this Body preſent in its proper ſubſtance in the Euchariſt, which is what he muſt prove if he deſigns to uphold the Author of the Perpetuity's Argument, and does not think it ſufficient, to ſay, This is moſt falſe.

THIS formulary, ſays he, was deſign'd to inſtruct them in the truth of the myſtery: Who doubts it? It was a formulary of uſe, and inſtruction both together, as I plainly intimated in my anſwer to the Author of the Perpetuity; It behoves us only to know what is this truth of the myſtery in which it inſtructs men. 'Twas, ſays he, moreover a formulary and profeſſion of Faith, and not of Practice and Action. And I ſay 'twas both the one and the other. I have proved 'twas a formulary of Practice, I acknowledg 'twas a formulary of profeſſion of Faith. But that this Faith of which it required the profeſſion was the ſubſtantial Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, is what I deny and what Mr. Arnaud ought to prove. I prove it, ſays he, by the word Amen which the Communicants anſwered. The Amen which the Communicants pronounced, ſignifies nothing leſs than this Preſence of ſubſtance. The Book of the Initiated attributed to S. Ambroſe draws thence only this concluſion vere carnis illius Sacramentum eſt; It is Ambroſ. de iis qui myſt. init. cap. 9. lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 3. Aug. Serm. ad infr. Serm. de quarta feria.truly the Sacrament of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt. The Author of the Book of Sacraments, wrongly cited by Mr. Arnaud, under the name of S. Ambroſe, refers it to the Spiritual Communion of Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, which we have in the Sacrament. S. Auſtin refers it to our ſelves, being made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt and his Members. The Author of the Treatiſe of Dreſſing the Lords Field, refers it to the Faith of the Death of Jeſus Chriſt, and effuſiſion of his Blood. Pope Leo refers it to the reality of the humane Nature of Jeſus Chriſt, againſt the Error of the Eutichiens. And it ſignifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to offer ſo earneſtly what this Pope ſays, Hoc ore ſumitur quod fide creditur, & fruſtra ab illis Amen reſpondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur diſputatur, for 'tis clear enough that theſe terms ſignifie nothing elſe but that the Sacrament which we receive with our mouths, is a declaration and confirmation of what we ought to believe, to wit, that Jeſus Chriſt has aſſumed a real humane Nature, becauſe 'tis the Sacrament of his real Body which we receive, and that the Amen which is anſwered is the Seal of this truth, ſo that when the Hereticks diſpute againſt it, they diſpute againſt the very Amen which they pronounce. And this is the ſenſe of Leo, in all which there's no ſubſtantial Preſence.

AS to what remains, Mr. Arnaud takes a ſtrange liberty. I told the Author of the Perpetuity that this formulary Corpus Chriſti was a formulary of uſe and action deſigned for the ſtirring up of the Communicants to meditate on the Death of Jeſus Chriſt, and prov'd it very clearly by theſe words of the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom. Our p. 142Saviour has given us his Sacramen to the end that by this means we ſhould always remember THAT HE DIED FOR US, AND THEREFORE WHEN WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE HAND OF THE PRIEST, WE ARE TOLD THAT 'TIS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST; and by thoſe of Primaſus, Every time we do this we ought to remember, THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR US; AND THEREFORE WE ARE TOLD 'TIS THE BODY OF CHRIST, to the end that remembring what he has done for us we may not be ungrateful. What does Mr. Arnaud hereupon? He conceals theſe paſſages, and concludes from his own authority, That theſe notions of uſe, and this extaſie of the Soul immediately tranſported by theſe words Corpus Chriſti to the meditation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in abſtracto, are Mr. Claudes Dreams, exactly oppoſite to the ſentiments of the Fathers, and the Churches intention, and that there's ſmall likelihood the faithful would depart from them to dive immediately into theſe kind of Meditations.

'TIS certain Mr. Arnaud can conquer when he pleaſes, he ſuppreſſes my Arguments, recites my words in a contrary ſenſe, turns things into ridicule, and flouriſhes all this over with paſſionate expreſſions. But proceed we to his third remark.

IT affirms I conclude nothing tho the falſe Principle on which I ground Page 573.my Arguments were ſuppoſed a true one. Altho, ſays he, 'twere true that theſe words Corpus Chriſti were not deſigned by the Church to inſtruct the Faithful, but only to excite in them certain inward motions, and ſet them on meditating upon the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; yet this intention of the Church hindred 'em from underſtanding the ſenſe of theſe words: and 'twould be ſtill ridiculous to ſuppoſe, that theſe ignorant perſons ſhould ſo immediately enter upon the practice of theſe inward motions, that they could not underſtand the terms which the Church made uſe of to excite them.

I ANSWER, Mr. Arnaud charges me with two things unjuſtly, the firſt, That I affirm this Formulary was not deſign'd by the Church to inſtruct the Faithful, but only to excite internal motions in them, which I never imagin'd: I affirm'd expreſly rhe contrary, as may be ſeen by whoſoever ſhall conſult that part of my anſwer noted in the Margin. There's Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe of the Perpetuity part 2. ch. 2. page 259. In Quarto Edit.little ſincerity in this imputation; and as little in charging me with a concluſion which I do not draw, and in ſuppreſſing that which I do. I do not conclude the intention of the Church which deſign'd theſe terms, Corpus Chriſti to excite inward motions in the Souls of the Communicants, ſhould hinder them from underſtanding the ſenſe of theſe words. I know that as the uſe which is made of things does not hinder but we may conſider the nature of 'em if we will, ſo that which is made of words does not hinder a man from examining their ſenſe. But, I ſay, there are ſeveral perſons who ſtop at the bare notion of uſe without going farther, and thence I concluded it may be well ſuppoſed that in the ancient Church there were ſeveral perſons who hearing the words Corpus Chriſti when they Communicated, applied themſelves only to the practice of the inward affections of devotion, which theſe terms excited, without going any farther, and making reflection on what the terms, being applied to the Sacrament ſignifi'd. Let any man now judg, whether my ſuppoſition be ridiculous, extravagant and ſenſleſs, as Mr. Arnaud would make people believe; or whether 'tis not rather by a ſpirit of contradiction that Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to refute it.

p. 143IT may alſo be here confider'd by the way, whether he has had reaſon to call abſurd the notion I inſtanc'd touching light, when I ſaid our conceptions about it every morning are not under the idea of a body or accident, or motion of air, but under the idea of a thing which ſerves us and leads us forth to labour. And this I think is the ſenſe of the greateſt part of the world, and perhaps of Mr. Arnaud too if he would ſpeak his mind, there being few perſons who think when the day begins to appear, or withdraw, of conceiving the light under the notions which Philoſophy offers, be they what they will. At leaſt I have the anonimous Author of the Diſcourſe containing ſeveral reflections on the modern Philoſophy of Mr. Des Cartes on my ſide, for he freely acknowledges, That this idea is ſuch in effect as Mr. Claude ſuppoſes it in every workman, juſt as the workman ſays, that when the light of the day fails him, he had rather have the light of the Lamp than that of the Candle, for this or that kind of work.