The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
A Defence of the ſecond, third, and fourth Rank of perſons againſt the Objections of Mr. Arnaud.
THE firſt rank of perſons being defended againſt Mr. Arnaud's ſubtilties, it now concerns us t' examin his Objections againſt the three others, but to do it with greater brevity: I ſhall not trouble my ſelf with his uſeleſs words, but as to matters of moment I ſhall not paſs by any of 'em.
THE ſecond rank is of thoſe that proceeded ſo far as the queſtion, how this viſible Bread, this ſubject called Sacrament, is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; but finding an inconſiſtency in the terms, their minds ſettled on the only difficulty without undertaking to ſolve it.
Mr. ARNAƲD ſays, That the Fathers have not known theſe kind of Lib. 6. ch. 7. pag. 575.people; he means they have not mention'd them in their Writings. But ſuppoſing the Fathers never knew 'em, does Mr. Arnaud believe the Fathers muſt needs know or expound all the ſeveral manners of taking things, which were practis'd by all particular perſons? Had they nothing elſe to do but to make general inventories of mens fancies, to find out and denote diſtinctly the ſtrength or weakneſs of each individual perſon. If he imagins 'tis a ſufficient reaſon to affirm there were not any perſons in the ancient Church, who finding great difficulty in this propoſition, that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſtuck here without undertaking to clear the point, to ſay the Fathers have known none of this kind, he muſt acknowledg at the ſame time that there were none likewiſe that took theſe words in this ſenſe, That the ſubſtance of Bread is chang'd into the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. For I maintain that the Fathers have not known any of theſe kind of people, never ſpake of 'em, never offer'd 'em as an example to doubters, nor declared that this was the true ſenſe of their expreſſions. Neither can it be anſwer'd, that if they have not mention'd 'em, 'twas becauſe all the Faithful took them in this ſenſe. For Mr. Arnaud confeſſes himſelf, 'Tis probable Lib. 6. ch. 1. pag. 529.that the belief of the Faithful has been ever clear and diſtinct on the ſubject of the Real Preſence, and that they have ever known whether what was given them was or was not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, altho they knew not always ſo expreſly and univerſally whether the Bread did or did not remain in the Sacrament. Any man may ſee what means ſuch an acknowledgment from Mr. Arnaud, I repeat it here again, that 'tis poſſible the Faithful did not always ſo expreſly and univerſally know whether the Bread remains or not in the Sacrament, which is without doubt at this time a very conſiderable acknowledgment. But not to extend it further than the terms will bear, we may at leaſt conclude thence that the Fathers ought to ſuppoſe there were perſons who probably would not take theſe words, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in this ſenſe, The ſubſtance of the Bread is changed into the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt: and hereupon may be askt why they have not obſerv'd the exactneſs and quickneſs of underſtanding in the one, to deliver the reſt from the ignorance wherein Mr. Arnaud acknowledges they may have been.
AGAIN, who told Mr. Arnaud that the Fathers knew not at leaſt in general there might be perſons who met with difficulty in this queſtion, How the Bread can be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe of the inconſiſtency of the terms of Bread and Body? This is the difficulty S. Auſtin propoſes in expreſs terms on behalf of perſons newly Baptiz'd, in a Sermon he preach'd to 'em. How, ſays he, is the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood? Serm. ad i…ſ.The ſame difficulty is propoſed by Theophylact, Let no body be troubled, ſays Theophyl. in Joan. 6.he, that he muſt believe Bread to be Fleſh. This was the difficulty which the Fathers were willing to prevent or reſolve by this great number of paſſages which explain in what ſenſe we muſt underſtand the Bread to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to wit, becauſe 'tis the Symbol of it, the ſign or figure, the Sacrament of it, becauſe there's ſome kind of proportion between Bread and Body, &c. as I ſhew'd in my Anſwer to the Author of the Perpetuity. Now what were all theſe explications for but to help thoſe that were perplext with theſe ways of ſpeaking, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and who for want of ſuch aſſiſtance might make thereof a rock of offence.
NEITHER need Mr. Arnaud make ſo many exclamations, How Lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 575.ſhould thoſe people diſcern the Body of our Saviour, who were not ſolicitous to know him, and that the Euchariſt bore its name? What Devotion could they have for this myſtery, ſeeing Devotion ſuppoſes Inſtruction? Altho they knew not how 'twas meant the Bread was the Body, yet did not this hinder 'em from having a reſpect for our Saviour's Body, from having a real Devotion, conſidering that our Lord was dead and riſen for 'em, unleſs according to Mr. Arnaud it be no real Devotion to meditate on the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt. Neither did this hinder 'em from receiving with great reſpect the Bread and Wine, as pledges and remembrances of our Lords Body and Blood. For 'tis not impoſſible for perſons to know the Euchariſt to be a remembrance of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and that alſo the Bread and Wine are ſaid to be the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, without knowing that the firſt of theſe expreſſions is the cauſe of the ſecond, which is to ſay, that the Bread and Wine are ſaid to be this Body and Blood, becauſe they are the memorials and pledges of it.
BƲT, ſays Mr. Arnaud, This lazineſs which makes the character of this Page 576.ſecond order, would laſt their whole life, and not only ſome little ſpace of time. That it would do ſo, we never told Mr. Arnaud, 'tis his addition. 'Twas a lazyneſs in a matter of the greateſt concernment. I confeſs 'tis very important to make a good uſe of the Sacrament, which is what I ſuppoſe theſe perſons did; but when a man ſhall find difficulty in knowing how the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and knows not how to ſolve it, we muſt not therefore deſpair of his ſalvation. This, ſays he again, is a lazineſs from which a man may be freed by the leaſt queſtion offer'd to a Prieſt or Laick that is knowing, by the inſtructions which the Paſtors gave to thoſe that were admitted to the Communion, and by thoſe they every day gave to the people concerning this myſtery. 'Tis true they might be freed from it by a thouſand expreſſions of the Fathers, which denoted the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt by an exchange of names which is made between the ſigns and the things ſignifi'd. But we are not wont to do every thing immediately which we can do; and 'tis not to be deny'd but ſeveral were freed from it by this means; but this does not hinder but that we may reaſonably conceive a rank of perſons who had not of 'emſelves ſufficient knowledg to clear this difficulty.
Mr. ARNAƲD earneſtly demands of us, Why theſe people did not Page 577, 578.underſtand the Bread to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in a ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation, or in a ſenſe of Conſubſtantiation, rather than to take them in this ſenſe, that the Bread remaining Bread was the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; ſeeing the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation has been follow'd by all Chriſtians ſince ſix hundred years; and that of Conſubſtantiation has been embraced by the Lutherans: whereas the laſt ſenſe has been follow'd by no body, and as yet never entred into any mans thoughts. I anſwer in two words, 'twas becauſe neither Tranſubſtantiation, nor Conſubſtantiation were then found out, and that theſe perſons we ſpeak of had not Philoſophy enough to invent 'em themſelves. They follow'd nature, which will not ſuffer us to take otherwiſe this propoſition, if we underſtand it literally, than by conceiving the ordinary idea of real Bread, and the common notion of a real Body; that is to ſay two inconſiſtent ideas. Moreover, not to inſiſt upon what Mr. Arnaud ſays, that the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation has been follow'd by all Chriſtians for this ſix hundred years; after what has been ſeen hitherto we may judg what truth there is in this propoſition. Neither do I at preſent mind what he ſays, that the laſt ſenſe has been follow'd by no body: this is as little ture as the reſt. Rupert held the aſſumption of the Bread, John of Paris has openly aſſerted it; not to mention here that the true opinion of the Greek Church ſince Damaſcen is, that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by the union of the Divinity, and by way of augmentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. But when there's occaſion to deny or affirm things, Mr. Arnaud is always at his liberty.
I SAID that theſe perſons of the ſecond rank of whom we now ſpeak, finding great inconſiſtency in theſe terms, Bread and Body of Jeſus Chriſt, found no ſenſe in this propoſition, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that it appear'd to them unintelligible. Mr. Arnaud ſays hereupon, That when two inconſiſtent notions are affirmed one of another, we learn three things. 1, Theſe two notions affirm'd, that is to ſay, the notion of each one of the terms. 2. The affirmation which is made of 'em. 3. The falſity and impoſſibility of this affirmation, and that if this propoſition is of a perſon to whom we cannot attribute a falſity, we have a fourth knowledg, which is, that this impoſſible affirmation is not the ſenſe which the Author of the propoſition had in his mind. I grant this. But I grant not the conſequence he would draw hence, that one knows an inconſiſtent ſenſe; for that which he calls an inconſiſtent ſenſe is not a ſenſe. We know an inconſiſtency, a mutual repugnancy of terms which cannot be reconcil'd; but we do not conceive a ſenſe. Mr. Arnaud ſays, That this Philoſophy ſurpaſſes his underſtanding, and ſeems to him to contain a manifeſt falſity. We muſt then endeavour to explain it to him, and make him acknowledg the truth of it. And for this effect it muſt be ſuppoſed that we ſpeak here of an affirmative propoſition, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; that we ſpeak of perſons who reſpected the three terms of which this propoſition conſiſts, according to their literal ſignification, conceiving the common idea of Bread, the common idea of a human Body, and taking the term eſt in a ſenſe of being real. This being ſuppoſed, I ſay, that in reſpect of an affirmative propoſition, a ſenſe is a notion which unites two ideas, and in which a mans mind may acquieſce, either in deceiving or not deceiving it ſelf; if it be not deceiv'd, 'tis a real ſenſe, if it be 'tis a falſe ſenſe. The knowledg of an inconſiſtency is on the contrary a notion that ſo ſeparates two ideas, that it makes them oppoſe and overthrow one another, and declares them irreconcilable. Now 'tis not to be imagin'd that a man can reconcile in his mind two ideas which his underſtanding judges to be abſolutely repugnant. To conceive a ſenſe, is to conceive a thing poſſible, to conceive an inconſiſtency is to conceive that there is therein an impoſſibility; to conceive a ſenſe is to conceive a ſtate wherein the mind or underſtanding may ſubſiſt; whereas to conceive an inconſiſtency, is to conceive that there is not there a ſtate wherein the mind can ſubſiſt. It is then certain, as I ſaid, that an inconſiſtency is not a ſenſe, and that 'tis to ſpeak abuſively to ſay an inconſiſtent ſenſe; for this is as much as to ſay a ſenſe which is not a ſenſe, a ſenſe is a notion which unites two ideas, and an inconſiſtency diſunites them. All Mr. Claudes ſubtilty, Page 580.or rather deceit, ſays Mr. Arnaud, lies in that he does not diſtinguiſh between a conceiv'd and an expreſſed ſenſe, and a ſenſe believ'd and approv'd of. 'Tis certain that thoſe who find a propoſition includes an inconſiſtency according to the letter, and ſee no other ſenſe therein, do approve no other; but 'tis not true that they conceive no other ſenſe therein, for they conceive an inconſiſtent ſenſe, which is to ſay, that they conceive only inconſiſtent terms are therein affirmed, and therefore diſapprove of 'em, and conclude from the inconſiſtency of this ſenſe, that this is not the ſenſe of the propoſition of the Scripture and the Church.
BUT Mr. Arnaud's Philoſophy has given here a falſe ſtroke; for, fot to ſay that a man conceives an inconſiſtent ſenſe, is to ſpeak abſurdly. We muſt diſtinguiſh between thoſe that offer an inconſiſtent propoſition, and theſe that judg it inconſiſtent. Thoſe that offer it, do not always ſee the inconſiſtency of the terms, either becauſe they conceive them under reſpects wherein th' inconſiſtency does not diſcover it ſelf, or becauſe they conceive them confuſedly, and in ſuch a manner wherein they hide from themſelves the contradiction, and then thoſe that judg of their propoſition enter into their thoughts, and conceive the ſenſe which the others have imagin'd to be poſſible, altho in effect it be not. They ſuſpend a while their own judgments, to put themſelves in the place of others, and by this means conceive this apparent poſſibility which has deceiv'd them. But this is not to conceive an inconſiſtent ſenſe, but on the contrary a ſenſe that appears conſiſtent and reaſonable to abuſed perſons, altho at bottom it be otherwiſe. Whilſt a man judges of it according to the falſe lights of theſe perſons, he calls it a ſenſe, becauſe his mind acquieſces therein, as ſeeing nothing therein impoſſible, but as ſoon as he judges of it upon th' account of th' inconſiſtency of the terms, 'tis no longer a ſence, 'tis a mere contradiction that has no ſenſe, and which is unintelligible. I confeſs, that as mens minds are ſubject to fearful capricio's, it ſometimes happens that they advance propoſitions, wherein contradictions are ſo evident that they muſt needs have ſeen 'em themſelves: ſuch as is that of this Philſoſopher mention'd by Mr. Arnaud, who affirmed, That if God pleas'd, two and two ſhould not be four: but in this caſe 'tis requiſite to ſay that theſe perſons impoſe on the world, and underſtand not themſelves what they ſay. For, for to ſay that a man can make to himſelf a ſenſe of a contradiction, when it appears to him to be a contradiction, that he can unite two ideas, by affirming one of the other at the ſame time, wherein he ſees they cannot be accorded; that is to ſay, that he can perſuade himſelf that a thing is poſſible, ev'n then when it ſeems to him to be impoſſible. If this be Mr. Arnaud's Philoſophy, he muſt Philoſophiſe by himſelf for me.
'TIS then clear, I had reaſon to ſay, that this ſecond rank of perſons, which I ſuppoſed in the ancient Church, who found inconſiſtency in the terms of this propoſition, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, conceiv'd properly no ſenſe at all in it. For as to their parts they could not find any in it, ſeeing the propoſition to them ſeem'd inconſiſtent. Neither could their Paſtors help 'em, ſeeing 'tis laid down for a maxim, that they knew not in what ſenſe the Fathers underſtood it. But, ſays Mr. Arnaud, not knowing Page 580.any other way to make the Euchariſt to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, they muſt make an entire ſeparation of the Bread and Body, and abſolutely deny the preſence and exiſtence of Jeſus Chriſt in the Bread, which is rejecting the Real Preſence. I anſwer that this is not a good concluſion, the perſons of which we ſpeak found no ſenſe in the propoſition, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the two ideas of Bread and Body appeared to them inconſiſtent, they knew no other means of making the Bread to be the Body, I grant, but ſeeing 'twas a propoſition of their Paſtors, whom they would not charge with falſity; and being taught it as from the authority of Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, 'tis not to be doubted but they acknowledg'd in general that it muſt have a good ſenſe, altho they knew not which was this good ſenſe; and therefore I ſaid in my anſwer to the Perpetuity, that their minds ſtopt at the only difficulty, without undertaking to reſolve it. 'Tis fruitleſs to enquire whether they rejected by a poſitive judgment the unity of theſe two ſubſtances Bread and Body, or whether their minds hung in ſuſpenſe, notwithſtanding what appear'd to 'em from th' inconſiſtency of the terms. I have not attributed to them this rejection, as Mr. Arnaud ſays I have, in impertinently tranſferring what I ſaid of them, who went as far as the Sacramental ſenſe, to thoſe of this ſecond rank, who proceeded not ſo far. But whether they formally rejected this unity of two ſubſtances, or only ſuſpended their judgments, it is clear they neither rejected Tranſubſtantiation, nor Conſubſtantiation; for neither one nor the other of theſe two opinions eſtabliſhes th' unity of theſe two ſubſtances Bread and Body, in the ſenſe we underſtand it here, that is to ſay, by affirming that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. They may have deny'd the Real Preſence in this laſt ſenſe, that is to ſay, judged that the Bread remaining Bread, cannot be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; but as to other ways ſince found out to make the Bread to be the Body, having no knowledg of 'em, they could not reject them. They rejected (if you will) the unity of the two ſubſtances, they conceived no ſenſe in this expreſſion, the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; yet they acknowledg'd it muſt have a good and a true one, altho they knew not in particular which that was, they carry'd off their minds from this difficulty, but in all this they conceiv'd no diſtinct notice either of Tranſubſtantiation or Conſubſtantiation.
IN vain does Mr. Arnaud endeavour to perſuade us, That the natural Page 583.idea of theſe words, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in explaining them in the uſual manner was, that appearing Bread 'twas not ſo, but the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that 'tis a renouncing all the lights of reaſon to pretend that this ſo common, true, and authoriz'd ſenſe by cuſtom never entred into the thoughts of any man during eight hundred years. All this ſignifies nothing, ſeeing his pretended ſenſe is contrary to nature, the queſtion concerning Bread which a man ſeeth, and which all the notices of ſenſe and reaſon aſſure to be Bread, theſe ſame notices do not inform us that 'tis not Bread, or that 'tis only an appearance of it. The queſtion likewiſe concerning a Body which we know is in Heaven, and which is like unto that which we have, the notices of reaſon urge not a man to underſtand that this Body is there under the appearance of Bread. So that ſhould we ſuppoſe that during eight hundred years this ſenſe entred not into any bodies thoughts, we ſhall ſuppoſe nothing but what's very natural and reaſonable. But, ſays Mr. Page 582.Arnaud, when Raphael led young. Toby, if any one that knew who he was ſhould ſay, this Man whom you ſee is an Angel, Toby would not have imagin'd that he was both Man and Angel too; but eaſily conceive he meant only, that appearing Man he was really an Angel. But does not Mr. Arnaud conſider that this example is quite different from our caſe? When the Angels appear'd under the form of men, there was always ſome ſenſible character that diſtinguiſh'd them, and eaſily ſhew'd there was ſomething more than natural in 'em. There's nothing like this in the Bread, th' apparition of Angels in a humane ſhape, was very frequent under the old Teſtament, and Toby was inſtructed in his infancy in the belief of this. This apparition of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt under the form of Bread was unheard of in the Church. We know that an Angel leaves Heaven, when he comes to appear on Earth in a humane ſhape; whereas we know on the contrary that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is ſo in Heaven that it will not leave that place till the laſt Judgment. We know an Angel is of a ſpiritual nature, and a man conſults not his eyes to know whether he is preſent or not; but we know that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is of a ſenſible nature, th' object of our ſight and feeling. Had then any one ſaid to Toby, This man whom you ſee is an Angel, perhaps Toby had taken this propoſition in Mr. Arnaud's ſenſe, becauſe he would have been led to it, by what I now come from repreſenting touching th' appearance of Angels. But ſuppoſe as we ought to ſuppoſe in this place of our diſpute a man that knows not as yet the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation, nor that of Conſubſtantiation; that knows not the Principles of it, that never heard of it, nor of an appearance of Bread without its ſubſtance, nor of a humane Body, impalpable, inviſible, and exiſtent in ſeveral places at a time; and moreover, knows that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is in Heaven. Let this man be told the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, 'tis certain that the light of reaſon will never lead him to this violent explication, That that which appears Bread, and is not, is the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt in ſubſtance. As to the reſt, Mr. Arnaud ought not to abuſe ſeveral paſſages of Calvin, Beza, and Zuinglius diſputing againſt thoſe called Lutherans. Their ſenſe is, that if theſe words, this is my Body, may be literally underſtood, we muſt rather admit the ſenſe of the Roman Church than that of the Lutherans. But it does not hence follow that the ſenſe of the Roman Church is the moſt natural one, nor that the people muſt find it of themſelves; this conſequence does not any ways follow.
SO that here are two of the ranks of perſons which I aſſerted delivered from the unjuſt purſuits of Mr. Arnaud: The third, ſays he, is leſs troubleſome Book 6. ch 8. pag. 586.than the others. Why? Becauſe, adds he, it conſiſts only of perſons that believed the Real Preſence, and had a diſtinct Faith of it? This rank is of thoſe, who going as far as the queſtion, How the Sacrament is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt? proceeded alſo to the ſolution of it; but their minds ſtopt at general terms, as that Jeſus Chriſt is preſent to us in the Sacrament, and that we receive therein his Body and Blood without ſearching a greater light. 'Tis certain, ſays Mr. Arnaud, there might be in effect faithful perſons in the ancient Church that penetrated no farther into this Myſtery than barely to believe that Jeſus Chriſt is therein preſent, and that we receive therein his Body and Blood. God be praiſed that we have at length once ſaid ſomething which Mr. Arnaud does not contradict. And to return him the ſame kindneſs do tell him, that what he grants here does not at all diſpleaſe me. For this plainly ſhews there were faithful people in the ancient Church that knew nothing of Tranſubſtantiation, but conceiv'd only a Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, and a reception of his Body and Blood under a general notion: yet Mr. Arnaud pretends that this notion, how general ſoever it might be, was diſtinctly the Real Preſence. Which is what I deny, and muſt examin. The queſtion is then only whether theſe perſons believ'd diſtinctly the Real Preſence, he pretends it and I deny it.
THEY knew, ſays Mr. Arnaud, neither the key of Figure, nor the key of Page 587.Virtue, according to the Hypotheſis it ſelf. So that neither the preſence of Virtue, nor the preſence of figure came into their thoughts. I grant it. What preſence then could they conceive but the Real Preſence, but the Real Reception? And why muſt they have given to theſe words another ſenſe than that which they naturally have? This is ill concluded. They would have conceiv'd a confus'd and general idea of Preſence without deſcending to a particular and preciſe diſtinction. I confeſs 'tis very hard for perſons that have their ſight, and never ſo little of common ſenſe, not to acknowledg that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is not in the Euchariſt in this ordinary and corporeal manner, by which a body is naturally in one place: and I am ſufficiently perſuaded that thoſe perſons in queſtion could not come ſo far as to enquire how the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, without conceiving the idea of his viſible and ſenſible Preſence to reject it: but we ſhall ſuppoſe nothing that is unreaſonable, in ſaying that in carrying off their thoughts from this corporeal Exiſtence, they conceiv'd it preſent under a very confuſed notion; for 'tis a uſual thing with perſons that are unlearned, to conſider things in a confuſed manner; and therefore we commonly ſee they cannot expreſs themſelves otherwiſe than in certain obſcure and general terms, which do never well ſhew what they have in their minds. It cannot be deny'd but this kind of confuſed ideas are uſual among people. But Mr. Arnaud muſt not imagin that theſe perſons of whom we ſpeak believed the ſubſtantial Preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, for rejecting the idea of the corporal Preſence, as 'tis likely they did by the very inſtinct of nature, to maintain they believ'd a ſubſtantial Preſence, we muſt ſuppoſe either that they had the idea of another manner of ſubſtantial preſence of a body than the corporeal one, or at leaſt that they knew there was ſome other which was not leſs a ſubſtantial Preſence than the corporeal one, altho they knew it not. Now of theſe two ſuppoſitions the firſt is acknowledged to be falſe by Mr. Arnaud himſelf, and the ſecond is wholly contrary to reaſon; for who ſhould inform them there was another manner of a ſubſtantial preſence of a body than a corporeal one? Nature ſhews us no other, the expreſſions of their Paſtors mention'd no other; whence then muſt they have it? It muſt then be ſaid they had a confuſed idea of another manner of preſence than the ſubſtantial one, they beheld it in the expreſſions of their Paſtors, felt it in the motions of their Conſciences; but to denote preciſely what that was, was what they could not otherwiſe do than by general terms of preſence, reception, and ſuch like. Now this was in effect to believe not a ſubſtantial Preſence, but a Preſence of union, a Preſence of ſalutary efficacy, in reference to the Soul, altho they comprehended it not in its full diſtinction.
THE fourth rank is of thoſe who after they had been puzled with the inconſiſtency of the terms of Bread and Body of Jeſus Chriſt, found the real knot of this difficulty, to wit, that the Bread is the Sacrament, the memorial and pledg of the holy Body of our Redeemer. They found it, ſays Mr. Arnaud, becauſe it pleaſes Mr. Claude to ſuppoſe ſo, but 'twas after a long ſearch. My ſuppoſition contains nothing but what we ſee happens every day in the world. 'Tis certain there are perſons who be full of doubts, this is no wonder, and we find 'em not ſo eaſily freed from them; they eſteem themſelves happy when after a long ſearch they get them reſolved. What extraordinary matter is there then in this ſuppoſition.
BƲT whilſt they were in ſearch of it, and could not find it, adds Mr. Arnaud, dares Mr. Claude ſay their minds were not ſmitten with any idea of the Real Preſence by all the paſſages and inſtructions of the Fathers. They never knew of any key of Virtue, or Figure, how then underſtood they the words of the Fathers which aſſured them that the Lamb of God is preſent on the Euchariſtical Table; that the Bread appearing Bread was not ſo, but the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; that we drink the immortal Blood of Jeſus Chriſt; that the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt is added to ours; that it enters into us; that this ſingle Body, which is diſtributed to ſo many thouſands is entire in each of 'em; that 'tis the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt in truth; that we muſt not doubt of it, ſeeing he has ſaid ſo himſelf; that altho what we ſee has nothing like to a human body, yet none refuſe to believe what Chriſt himſelf has aſſerted to be true; that the Bread is changed into the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt; that the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by the ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit; that we muſt not look for the uſual courſe of nature in the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Mr. Claude cannot defend himſelf from theſe paſſages, but by applying to 'em his keys of Virtue and Figure, and enduring a thouſand vexatious oppoſitions. Now theſe perſons being ſtrangers to theſe inventions, conceived the literal idea of theſe words, they conceived that Jeſus Chriſt entred into us, that 'twas not Bread, but the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'twas not to be queſtion'd; that they ought to give their ſenſes the lye: and thus during all the time of this ſearch, they had maugre Mr. Claude, the Real Preſence ſtill in their minds.
TO make this arguing good, there muſt be ſeveral things ſuppoſed, which Mr. Arnaud himſelf will not approve to be reaſonable. Firſt, we muſt ſuppoſe that thoſe of this fourth rank now in queſtion, had either heard a great part of the Fathers preach, which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour as well Greeks as Latins of ſeveral Ages, or read almoſt all their Writings concerning the Euchariſt; for what Mr. Arnaud now recited to us is a rhapſody of ſeveral expreſſions to be found here and there in Gelaſius of Cyzique, Cyril of Jeruſalem, Chryſoſtom; Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyſſe, Heſychius, Gaudencius, Epiphany, Damaſcen and Ambroſe. Secondly, We muſt ſuppoſe they made an exact collection of all theſe expreſſions of the Fathers which Mr. Arnaud abuſes, and put them altogether to make a better ſurvey of them, and grounded thereupon their difficulty. Thirdly, We muſt ſuppoſe that thoſe of this fourth rank did all the ſame thing, or at leaſt, communicated this rhapſody to one another, to behold therein all of 'em the Real Preſence during the time of their doubting. Fourthly, We muſt ſuppoſe they took care to collect nothing that might carry off their minds from rhe Real Preſence, or offer 'em contrary objects.
LET Mr. Arnaud conſider, if he pleaſes, that thoſe of this fourth rank now in queſtion are a middle ſort of people, whom we ſuppoſe to be perſons of ſmall reading, or ſtudy, who were not capable of making either for themſelves or fellows, collections of difficult paſſages, but only heard their Paſtors ſay that the Bread of the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. For when we ſuppoſe perſons that knew all theſe expreſſions of the Fathers propoſed by Mr. Arnaud, and that have collected 'em, 'twill be juſt to ſuppoſe likewiſe they were not ignorant that the Fathers taught alſo, That what we ſee on the Altar is Bread and Wine, creatures and fruits of the Earth; that they are ſigns and myſtical ſymbols of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt; that theſe ſymbols leave not their own nature, but remain in their firſt ſubſtance; that our Saviour Chriſt has honored them with the name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their nature, but in adding grace to their nature; that Jeſus Chriſt as he is God is every where, but as Man is in Heaven; that his Body muſt be in one place; that when his Fleſh was on Earth it was not in Heaven, and that being now in Heaven, it is not certainly upon Earth; that the Bread is not properly his Body, nor the Wine his Blood, but ſo call'd, inaſmuch as they contain the myſtery of 'em; that our Saviour has made an exchange of names, having given to his Body the name of Symbol; that he has called the Bread his Body, to the end we might know that he whoſe Body the Prophet had anciently figured by Bread, has now given to Bread the figure of his Body. By this means when Mr. Arnaud pretends the former paſſages gave the idea of a Real Preſence, I may pretend likewiſe that theſe laſt mention'd carried the ſame perſons off from it, and led 'em to a Sacramental ſenſe. But as I ſaid, it is not needful to put them of this fourth rank upon collecting paſſages out of the Fathers on either hand, ſeeing we ſuppoſe they were only meanly inſtructed in points of Religion.
TO finiſh this Chapter, and the defence of the ſecond, third, and fourth ranks of perſons which I ſuppoſed were in the ancient Church, we have only to anſwer in few words an objection which Mr. Arnaud has propoſed in his tenth Chapter, which reſpects theſe three ranks in general; I mean the ſecond, third, and fourth: which objection conſiſts in this, That there being two ſorts of doubts, the one in which a man underſtands and conceives a thing, but knows not whether it be or be not, whether 'tis poſſible or impoſſible; as when a man doubts whether Beaſts think, whether our blood circulates in the body; others wherein a man knows not what makes the doubt; as when one doubts of the cauſes of the flux and reflux of the Sea, or of the ſenſe of a paſſage of Scripture, when the ſenſe which appears is falſe, and yet a man ſees no other: there is this difference between theſe two ways of doubting that in the firſt, there's no need to have the thing explained to us, 'tis ſufficient we have proofs given us of it. But the ſecond which includes an ignorance of the manner, neceſſarily requires an explication. That the doubt or ignorance which Mr. Claude attributes to three of the ranks, which compoſe his ſyſtem, is of this ſecond kind, that is to ſay one of theſe doubts which have need of information and explication of the manner of the thing, being the perſons in queſtion were offended at the inconſiſtency of theſe terms, Bread and Body, and knew not how it could be true, that the Bread was the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or chang'd into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; ſo that their ignorance could not be cured, but by ſhewing 'em the manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to wit, in Figure aed Virtue. In the mean time the doubt againſt which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the ſame Fathers by confirming and ſeveral times repeating that the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt without the addition of an explication of Figure, or Virtue. Whence it follows, that the doubt they would take away is not in any wiſe that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks. For his doubt requires not proofs but illuſtrations, that is to ſay, the queſtion is not to prove the Euchariſt to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but to explain in what ſenſe this is true. Now in all the paſſages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt, they are only ſolicitous to prove that the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, without any elucidation, and they prove it by theſe words, Hoc eſt corpus meum: or by theſe, Panis quem ego dabo caro mea eſt, or by the divers examples of the Power of God, the Creation of the world, the Miracles of the Prophets, and by that of the Incarnation.
I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this diſcourſe, 'twill be ſufficient to make ſome remarks which will clearly diſcover the impertinency of it. Firſt, The diviſion Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is inſufficient for the ſubject we are upon; for he ſhould again ſubdivide into two, the ſecond kind of doubt, and ſay that ſometimes thoſe that doubt in being ignorant of the cauſes or manner of the thing, yet do nevertheleſs acknowledg the truth of the thing it ſelf, and hold it for certain, altho they know not how it is. Thus when a man doubts of the cauſes of the flux, or reflux of the Sea, he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true. When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters, this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them; and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three perſons exiſt, in one and the ſame eſſence, this does not hinder them from believing that they do exiſt. But ſometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it ſelf. Thus Neſtorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Perſon in Jeſus Chriſt, doubted of this truth, that there were in Jeſus Chriſt two Natures and one Perſon; and not only doubted of it, but deny'd it. Thus Pelagius, becauſe he could not underſtand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation. We may call this firſt doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance, and the ſecond a doubt of incredulity. Secondly, Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which ariſes from the inconſiſtency of theſe terms, Bread and Body, ſo far prevail'd in the minds of ſome, as to make 'em doubt of the truth it ſelf of theſe words. How can this be, ſaid they, ſeeing we ſee Bread and Wine, and not Fleſh and Blood, Who will doubt, Cyril Hieroſ. Catech. myſt. 1.ſays Cyril of Jeruſalem, and ſay, 'tis not his Blood? You will tell me, perhaps, ſays the Author of the Book, De Initiatis, I ſee quite another thing, how will you perſuade me I receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. And the ſame kind of doubt we have obſerv'd among the Greeks of the 11th. Century in Theophylact, Quomodo inquit? caro non videtur: and in the 12th. in Nicolas Methonienſis; for he entitles his Book, Againſt thoſe that doubt and ſay the Conſecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Perhaps, ſays he, you doubt, and do not believe, becauſe you ſee not Fleſh and Blood, but Bread and Wine. Thirdly, Mr. Arnaud takes notice, that when we have to do with theſe kind of doubters, who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it ſelf, becauſe they are ignorant of the manner of it, we uſually take ſeveral ways to perſuade them; ſometimes we confirm the thing it ſelf, without expounding to 'em the manner, altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing. Thus our Saviour ſeeing the doubt of the Capernaits, How can he give us his fleſh to eat? did not ſet about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em, but oppoſes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told 'em. Verily, verly, ſays he, if you eat not the Fleſh of the Son of man and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you, &c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together; and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus, How can a man be born when he is old; can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born? Verily, verily, ſays our Saviour, I ſay unto you, unleſs a man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Theſe words do at the ſame time both confirm and explain. But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into queſtion the truth of the thing, then we uſually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing, becauſe this alone is ſufficient to inſtruct them; and 'tis thus the Angel beſpeaks the Virgin: How, ſaid ſhe, can this be, for I know not a man? The Holy Spirit, ſays he, ſhall come upon thee, and the virtue of the moſt high ſhall overſhadow thee; therefore alſo that holy thing which ſhall be born of thee, ſhall be called the Son of God.
TO apply theſe things to the preſent occaſion, I ſay the Fathers had to do with two ſorts of Doubters; the one who were only ignorant of the manner, how the Bread is, or is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt? but yet who held the propoſition to be true, altho they knew not the ſenſe of it: and they are thoſe that make up the third, ſecond, and fourth ranks in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity: others who went ſo far as to call in queſtion the truth of the propoſition under pretence they underſtood not the manner of it. As to theſe laſt, ſuppoſing the Fathers contented themſelves with ſometimes confirming their propoſition by the words of Jeſus Chriſt, who is Truth it ſelf, it muſt not be thought ſtrange; the nature of the doubt led 'em to this: yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing, the explication of the manner, as may be apparently juſtifi'd by ſeveral paſſages which we have elſewhere cited. But when they had only to do with the firſt ſort of Doubters, then they contented themſelves with explaining the manner, without preſſing the truth of the words. Thus does S. Auſtin, (after he had propoſed the doubt of thoſe that were newly Baptiz'd, How is the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood?) make this anſwer, My Brethren, theſe things are called Sacraments, becauſe that which we Serm. ad inf.ſee is one thing, and that which we hear another; what we ſee has corporeal ſpecies, but what we hear has a ſpiritual fruit. To this end do all the paſſages of the Fathers tend which declare how the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to wit, or becauſe 'tis the Sacrament of it, the ſign and figure, or becauſe it ſtands for it, or becauſe it communicates it to us, or becauſe Chriſt changes it into the efficacy of his Fleſh; and thoſe which term it the typical Body, the ſymbolical Body, the myſtical Body, and thoſe that attribute to the words of Chriſt a Sacramental or figurative ſenſe; for theſe are as ſo many explications of the manner which ſerve to clear up the doubt in queſtion.
Mr. ARNAƲD's illuſion then is a double one▪ for on one hand what ought to be referred to one kind of doubt, he refers to another: what refers to the doubt of incredulity which reſpects the truth of the words, he refers to the ſimple doubt of ignorance which conſiſts only in not knowing the manner how the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt: and this illuſion is grounded on the imperfect diviſion which he has made of the doubts. On the other hand he ſuppreſſes whatſoever the Fathers have ſaid in order to th' explaining in what ſenſe the Sacrament is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and offers only what they have ſaid to confirm that it is ſo. As to the paſſages he propoſes, he ſhews but ſmall ſincerity in telling us the Fathers add no explication of figure or virtue; for the greateſt part of thoſe he alledges ſpeak either of the Type, or Figure, or Sacrament, or ſpiritual Underſtanding, or Virtue. Cyril of Jeruſalem ſpeaks of the type of Bread, and of the type of Wine. The Author of the Treatiſe De Initiatis concludes that 'tis the Sacrament of the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt. Gaudencius ſays, That the Bread is the figure of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Chryſoſtom ſays that God gives us in the Sacrament the intelligible or ſpiritual things by means of ſenſible. And Heſychius recommends to our conſideration the virtue of the Myſtery, and ſpiritual underſtanding of it.