The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Defence of the Fifth Rank againſt the Objections of Mr. Arnaud.
THE fifth rank of perſons which I ſuppoſed were in the ancient Church was of thoſe that 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, proceeded immediately to their true and natural ſenſe, without perplexity or difficulty, and without conſidering the inconſiſtency of the terms, very well underſtanding that the Bread remaining Bread is conſecrated to be to us a Sacrament which imparts to us our Lords Body, and theſe had a more clear and diſtinct knowledg of the truth, and an apprehenſion better fitted to underſtand the ſtyle and common expreſſions of the Church.
Mr. ARNAƲD ſpends all the 11th. Chapter of his ſixth Book to ſhew that theſe perſons, whom I ſuppoſe had neceſſarily before their eyes a diſtinct idea of the Real Preſence. Which is what he endeavours to prove. Firſt, By the example of this infinite number of Chriſtians which were found to hold in the beginning of the 11th. Century the belief of the Real Preſence, and who had taken up this Faith from the ſame expreſſions of the Fathers which ever rung in the ears of the Faithful of the firſt eight Centuries; whence it without doubt follows that theſe expreſſions which have perſuaded the whole world into the belief of the Real Preſence, might well give the idea of it to thoſe which preceded them. Secondly, He offers the double idea which the metaphorical terms offer to the mind, for they offer, ſays he, to the mind that which one would have it underſtand, and ſhew it at the ſame time the image by which one repreſents it. Thus this expreſſion of Scripture, Vicit Leo de tribu Juda, puts us upon thinking that Jeſus Chriſt is compared to a Lion by reaſon of his ſtrength; ſo that the word Lion forms at the ſame inſtant in the mind two ideas, that of the ſtrength of Chriſt which is the natural idea of the thing conceiv'd as true, and which the Scripture would ſignifie, and the idea of a Lion which is the natural idea of the Word, but which is only the reſemblance of the truth which the Scripture would make us conceive. It is eaſie, ſays he moreover, to conclude hence that when a man ſhould take all the words of the Fathers which expreſs the Real Preſence for metaphorical ones, when one ſhall give 'em all the ſenſes which the Miniſters give them, and ſuppoſe that the Faithful of the fifth Rank were all of 'em born every whit as metaphorical as Aubertin was after he had corrupted his judgment by vain wranglings for thirty years ſpace, when we ſhould grant they had all an infuſed knowledg of 'em, and had 'em alſo as preſent as the firſt Principles, they could not but ſee the Real Preſence in the expreſſions of the Fathers, either as the true idea which they would mark, or as the image of this idea, but an image ſo lively and ſenſible, and denoted by ſuch a great number of expreſſions, that 'tis impoſſible but their mind muſt have been touch'd with 'em. Thirdly, Mr. Arnaud uſes for the ſame deſign the example of other Miniſters, Who conceiv'd, ſays he, a literal ſenſe in the paſſages produc'd by the Catholicks. In fine he uſes for this end the very paſſages of the Fathers, and eſpecially one of S. Hilary, and another of Gregory of Nyſſe. We ſhall anſwer in order theſe four pretended reaſons.
AS to the firſt which is taken from th' example of the people of the 11th. Century, it is evidently ineffectual by means of two eſſential differences there are between theſe people, and thoſe of the eight firſt Centuries. The firſt is, that the idea of the Real Preſence, I mean of that about which we diſpute, was offered to thoſe of the 11th. Century by the Diſciples and followers of Paſchaſus, who maintain'd, and taught it, and applied thereunto the paſſages of the Fathers, dazling the eyes of the world by falſe colours, and giving to theſe paſſages a ſenſe which the people would never have diſcovered, had they been led by the light of nature. But there can be nothing ſaid like this of the people of the eight firſt Centuries, to whom the idea of this ſubſtantial and inviſible Preſence was not yet diſcovered. They had not been taught it, nor were they told 'twas in this ſenſe they muſt take the expreſſions of their Paſtors. Moreover, the people of the 11th. Century had not the clear and eaſie paſſages of the Fathers propoſed to 'em, which might give the true meaning of the Sacrament, and at the ſame time ſerve for an explication to the obſcure expreſſions, and by this means ſhewing 'em only one ſide of the thing, and making 'em conſider it in wrong circumſtances, 'twas no hard matter for 'em to be deceiv'd, and take that for a Real Preſence which was far from being it. But we muſt make another duplicate page duplicate page judgment of the eight firſt Centuries, wherein the Paſtors inſtructing their flocks, gave them other ideas of this myſtery, which carried them off from that of the inviſible and incorporeal Preſence.
We may in a manner apply the ſame anſwer to Mr. Arnaud's third reaſon, which is taken from the example of ſeveral Miniſters, who altho they pretend that the true ſenſe of the paſſages of the Fathers produc'd by thoſe of the Roman Church, is the metaphorical one, yet do conceive the literal ſenſe. For there is a great deal of difference between us and the people of the eight firſt Centuries. They lived in thoſe times wherein the idea of the Real Preſence, ſuch as the Roman Church believes, was not diſcovered; whereas we live in thoſe times wherein 'tis continually repreſented before our eyes. Both Rhetorick and Philoſophy are ſet on work to ſhew it us in the Writings of the Fathers. 'Tis not poſſible then but entering into the ſenſe of thoſe that diſpute inceſſantly againſt us, and putting our ſelves in their places to comprehend what they think, but we muſt conceive in the paſſages which they alledg to us, the ſenſe of the Real Preſence, altho we judg it to be falſe. 'Tis alſo true that they offer ſome to us under the name of the Fathers, which as Mr. Daillé has well obſerv'd, ſeem in no wiſe to admit the ſenſe of the Proteſtants. But theſe paſſages are of two kinds, for either they are falſly attributed to the Fathers, as is that denoted by Mr. Daillé, That the Bread changes its nature, and becomes by the Almighty Power of God the Fleſh of the Word, which he has conſider'd as the words of S. Cyprian, under whoſe name they have been uſually cited, whereas they are Arnaud of Bonneval's, an Author of the 12th. Century. As to ſuch as theſe I confeſs 'tis not eaſie for Proteſtants to accommodate them to their ſenſe, but very eaſie on the contrary to conceive the idea of the Real Preſence in 'em; but this happens by their being regarded as the words of the Fathers, whereas indeed they be not. The others are really the ſayings of the Fathers, but contain a particular ſentiment, which is neither that of the Roman Church nor that of the Proteſtants; ſo that it cannot ſeem ſtrange if thoſe that would accommodate them to the ſenſe of the Proteſtants found themſelves perplexed with 'em; and ſuch are ſeveral paſſages in Gregory of Nyſſe, Anaſtaſius Sinaite, and Damaſcen, which to ſpeak properly, are neither for the Church of Rome, nor for us; I mean, do neither confirm our poſitive belief nor theirs, altho they alledg them in their own favour.
AS to what Mr. Arnaud ſays touching the metaphors, I grant they do naturally form this double idea of which he ſpeaks; but he is not ignorant there are, as I ſaid, metaphorical terms, which uſe has made proper: ſo that they do not of themſelves offer to the mind the natural idea which they ſignifie, but only the metaphorical one; unleſs a mans mind makes a particular reflection on them. Thus the term of Houſe in Aſtrology, the term of Ariſtotle and Plato in a Library, and I know not how many others of this nature, do not preſent more to the mind than the idea of the things which they originally ſignifie. Let Mr. Arnaud call them as long as he will equivocal terms, dark metaphors which are aboliſh'd by uſe, this does not hinder the truth of my remark, nor th' application which I made of it to the terms of Corpus, Corpus Domini, Corpus Chriſti, which uſe had made ſo proper to the Sacrament, that they brought no other idea to the mind than that of the Sacrament, according as our ſenſes repreſent it, without bringing in that of the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt. It is true, ſays Mr. Arnaud, Page 602.that the cuſtom of employing ſome terms in a metaphorical uſe does ſometimes in ſuch a manner obſcure the double idea, that the mind feels no more than the impreſſion of the thing ſignifi'd and conceiv'd as true. This is exactly what I would have. I deſire no more, and it ſignifies nothing to alledg that this does not contradict the rule which the Author of the Perpetuity had propoſed, becauſe he ſpake only of terms which were really metaphorical, and not of equivocal terms, ſuch as thoſe are wherein the double idea is not felt. This, I ſay, ſignifies nothing, for beſides that the Author of the Perpetuity had propoſed his Principle a little too generally, my exception invalidates the uſe which he would make of it; for it ſhews that in applying this Principle to the terms, Corpus, Corpus Domini, Corpus Chriſti, a man can draw no advantage thence, nor ſay that they brought into the mind the idea of the Real Preſence, becauſe that in effect theſe terms did not repreſent more than the idea of the Sacrament, according as our ſenſes offer it.
I confeſs we cannot apply this remark to ſeveral paſſages of the Fathers, wherein the figure is more ſenſible; and therefore we have only apply'd it to theſe terms preciſely, Corpus, Corpus Domini, Corpus Chriſti, by which the Sacrament has been often deſign'd. An anſwer is not the leſs good for being proper and particular to a ſubject. And as to other paſſages which the Author of the Perpetuity propoſed, we have already maintain'd, and do ſtill, that their natural ſenſe was the Sacramental one, and not that of the Real Preſence, excepting ſome which we will ſpeak to hereafter. And for the better underſtanding of this, we muſt firſt diſtinguiſh the particular ſenſe of each term, from the ſenſe of the whole propoſition; each term has its proper common and ordinary ſignification, and being thus taken apart, brings naturally into the mind the idea of that which it ſignifies. But the firſt and natural ſenſe of th'entire propoſition muſt not always be taken from the natural ſignification of each term, but oft-times from the force of the matter in queſtion which guides nature to a certain ſenſe, without ſuffering her to imagin any other: and this is oft the metaphorical ſenſe, which I illuſtrated by th' example of theſe propoſitions, The Stone was Chriſt, The King is the head of Gold, The ſeven ſtalks are the ſeven years. The particular terms Stone, Chriſt, was, taken apart do naturally bring into the mind the idea of what they ſignifie. The Stone offers the idea of a Rock, Chriſt the idea of Jeſus Chriſt, was, gives the idea of an affirmation, but the ſimple and natural ſenſe which reſults from theſe three terms gathered together, is no other than the metaphorical one, by reaſon of the matter in hand, which ſuffers not naturally the mind to conceive another. 'Tis the ſame in reference to theſe propoſitions, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt enters into us, we receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and ſuch like. If a man conſiders each term of theſe in particular, they naturally bring into the mind the idea of what they ordinarily and commonly ſignifie, the Bread, that of Bread, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, is, that of an affirmation, changed, that of a change, enter and receive, that of an entrance, and reception: But the ſenſe which reſults from theſe terms collected being determin'd by the matter in hand, can be naturally no other than a myſtical ſenſe, to wit, that the Bread is the Sacrament, the ſign, the pledg, the memorial of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; that it ſerves us inſtead of it, that 'tis myſtically chang'd into this Body, that this Body enters into us by its ſymbol, that we receive and partake of it by a ſpiritual reception and participation. This is the true and natural ſenſe of theſe expreſſions, and that which firſt preſents it ſelf to the mind by reaſon of the matter in hand.
NEITHER the truth of my Principle, nor the truth of the application which I make of it can be diſputed me. The Principle is, that when the matter in queſtion determins the propoſitions to a certain ſenſe which they may reaſonably receive, then we muſt not ſeek for the natural ſenſe of theſe propoſitions in the natural ſignification of each term taken apart, but from the matter it ſelf; and that the ſenſe to which the matter determins them is the ſimple and natural ſenſe. This Principle may be juſtifi'd by a thouſand examples drawn from the ordinary uſe of human ſpeech, in which is made every moment propoſitions, which would be ſenſleſs did not a man take the natural ſenſe of the matter in queſtion. Each Art and Profeſſion has alſo its particular expreſſions which would be as ſo many extravagancies, were they not underſtood according as the matter determins them; and this is in my opinion, what no one can contradict. Th' application which I make of this Principle is no leſs undeniable; for 'tis true that the expreſſions of the Fathers on the Euchariſt are determin'd to a certain ſenſe by the very nature of the Euchariſtical action, which is a Sacrament or a myſtery of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt: Seeing then their expreſſions are capable of receiving a Sacramental and myſtical ſenſe, it muſt be granted that that is the natural ſenſe.
THE natural ſenſe of a propoſition is that which may be moſt naturally in the mind of him that made it; but to judg well of it, we muſt conſider the matter, and ſee whether it has not led them to explain themſelves in this manner. Now it will be granted me that the queſtion here being about ſigns or myſtical ſymbols, and a Spiritual Communion which we have with Jeſus Chriſt, men have more naturally in their thoughts the myſtical and Sacramental ſenſe than that of Tranſubſtantiation, or Conſubſtantiation.
BUT beſides this diſtinction which reſpects the expreſſions both in themſelves, and in relation to thoſe that have uſed them, there muſt be made another, which regards the perſons to whom theſe expreſſions are addreſſed. For there are ſome that have ſmall knowledg of the matter in hand, which know only confuſedly what a Sacrament or myſtery is, who have made little reflection on the manner after which our Lord communicates himſelf to us in the Euchariſt; and there are others that have this knowledg more diſtinct and better form'd. Now it being the matter or ſubject in hand that determins the ſenſe of theſe expreſſions, 'tis certain they are more or leſs clear, more or leſs intelligible, according as this matter is more or leſs underſtood by every one: But 'tis likewiſe certain, that to mark well the natural ſenſe of 'em, we muſt ſuppoſe perſons who have a diſtinct knowledg of the ſubject in queſtion, and manner after which the Church has expreſſed her ſelf about it▪ and not ignorant perſons that have only a very obſcure notion of it. The natural ſenſe of th' expreſſions of each Art, and each Profeſſion is without doubt not that in which thoſe may take it, who have ſcarcely any knowledg of this Art, or this Profeſſion but that wherein intelligent and able perſons take it; and 'tis for this reaſon the later are conſulted rather than the others upon any difficulty. I confeſs Religion ought to be the Art and Profeſſion of the whole world, but men are neither wiſe nor honeſt enough to apply themſelves exactly to it. It cannot be deny'd but there have been always many perſons in the Church little advanced in the knowledg of the myſtery of the Goſpel. 'Tis not from them then that we muſt learn the natural ſenſe of the expreſſions of the Fathers. They might have been the object of their Faith, tho not of their Underſtanding. I mean, they might believe 'em to be true without diving into the ſenſe of 'em, and knowing what they ſignifie. And this is the meaning of S. Auſtin in his Sermon to Children. What ye ſee, ſays he, is Bread and Wine, which your eyes likewiſe tell you, but the inſtruction which your Faith demands is, that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Cup, or that which is in the Cup his Blood. This is ſaid in a few words, and perhaps this little is ſufficient to Faith, but Faith deſires to be inſtructed; for the Prophet ſays, If ye do, not believe, how will you underſtand? Ye may reply, ſeeing you have commanded us to believe, explain to us what that is, to the end we may underſtand it. Whilſt theſe perſons remain in this degree of Faith without underſtanding, 'tis not to them we muſt addreſs our ſelves for the finding out the natural ſenſe of the propoſitions of the Fathers, ſeeing they do not underſtand 'em. We muſt deſire this of them that are more advanced in knowledg, who know what the Church means by theſe ways of ſpeaking, and can give a good account of the natural impreſſion they make on their minds.
BUT who are theſe people? They are thoſe that learn'd from the Fathers themſelves, what a Sacrament or Myſtery is, who knew that a Myſtery or Sacrament is when we ſee a thing, and underſtand and believe another, who knew that the Bread and Wine of the Euchariſt are ſigns, images, figures, memorials, repreſentations, reſemblances, pictures of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, who knew, that the Bread and Wine are to us inſtead of the Body and Blood, that Jeſus Chriſt is ſignified and communicated to us by means of theſe ſymbols, and that in partaking of this viſible Bread we ſpiritually eat our Lords Fleſh, who knew, that the ſigns take commonly the names of the things which they repreſent, that the Sacraments are called after the name of the things themſelves, that our Saviour did not ſcruple to ſay, This is my Body, when he gave the ſign of his Body, that he made Bread his Body in ſaying, This is my Body, that is to ſay, the figure of my Body, that we muſt diſtinguiſh between the Bread of our Lord, and the Bread which is the Lord himſelf, that the conſecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body, altho the nature of Bread remains, that the nature or ſubſtance of Bread ceaſes not to be, and that that which we celebrate is the image or reſemblance of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, who knew, that the humanity of Jeſus Chriſt is local, abſent from Heaven when on the Earth, and left the Earth when it aſcended up into Heaven, that to eat the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt is to believe in him, that this locution is figurative, and muſt not be taken according to the letter, ſignifying we muſt communicate of our Lords Paſſion, and call to remembrance that his Fleſh has been Crucified for us.
'TIS ſuch kind of perſons as theſe who are well inſtructed in the ſenſe of the Fathers, that are to be conſulted to find the natural ſenſe of theſe other expreſſions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour. What likelihood is there that with theſe preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Paſtors they ſhould ſtick at theſe expreſſions they heard 'em uſe, That the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt enters into us, that we are refreſh'd with his Blood, and nouriſh'd with his Fleſh, and other expreſſions of this nature; what likelihood is there they ſhould heſitate at 'em, or ſee any other ſenſe in 'em, than the Sacramental or figurative one? Now theſe are the perſons whereof my fifth rank conſiſts, whom I ſuppoſed to have a knowledg of the truth more diſtinct and clear than the others, and a mind better fitted to underſtand the ſtile, and ordinary expreſſions of the Church. Let the ſame inſtructions, the ſame expoſitions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them, let neither Tranſubſtantiation, nor the Real Preſence, nor the converſion of the ſubſtance of Bread into the very ſubſtance of Chriſts Body, nor the Body of Jeſus Chriſt concealed under the vail of accidents without a ſubject, nor th'exiſtence of theſe accidents without a ſubject, nor the real exiſtence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in ſeveral places, nor his double Preſence, that is to ſay, his viſible and inviſible one, nor his Sacramental ſtate after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd, let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Euchariſt with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jeſus Chriſt alone; and in a word, let all things be ſuppreſs'd which we find the Fathers did not ſpeak or do, and let the impreſſions and prejudications which theſe novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be loſt: let the ſame inſtructions and expoſitions, I ſay, be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them, and then let 'em be told as long as you will, that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis chang'd into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; for I am perſuaded, and believe every reaſonable man will be ſo too, that the people will never conceive from theſe expreſſions either Tranſubſtantiation, or Conſubſtantiation, but underſtand 'em, without difficulty in a Sacramental ſenſe. Where! Where's then this great noiſe which the Real Preſence made, knocking, as the Author of the Perpetuity words it, millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful? Is not this clatter a mere dream, and has Mr. Arnaud any reaſon to reproach me with the deafneſs of my ears?
BUT 'twill perhaps be queſtion'd, whether perſons of mean capacity (whom we do not ſuppoſe to have this knowledg of the ſtyle and ſenſe of the Church) did not receive by theſe words th' impreſſion of the Real Preſence. I anſwer, we ſhall do 'em no wrong by ſuppoſing they did not underſtand them: You have commanded us to believe, ſaid they in S. Auſtin; Serm. ad inf.explain to us then, how the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to the end we may underſtand it. They did not underſtand it then before the explication. In effect the greateſt part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural ſenſe, Philoſophy muſt give 'em one; for how can we underſtand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, according to a literal ſenſe, or chang'd into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſeeing we behold it ſtill to be Bread? I confeſs there are ſome of theſe expreſſions which are apt to offer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Preſence, but not of the real inviſible and incorporeal Preſence, touching which we contend, but on the contrary, the idea of a corporeal Preſence, for a mans mind, eſpecially that of an ignorant man, does not imagin th' exiſtence of a human, inviſible, inſenſible, and impalpable Body. I moreover ſay, that this idea of the corporeal Preſence would be immediately rejected as falſe by the moſt ſtupid and ignorant, from the teſtimony of their own ſenſes, which they could not but conſult, ſuppoſing at leaſt they knew Chriſt's Body was a human one. But ſuppoſing they did not, 'tis likely their ſimplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt was really upon Earth in the form of Bread, ſuch as they ſaw in the Euchariſt: and this is what S. Auſtin ſays little Children would do were they earneſtly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.
AS to the paſſages of S. Hilary, and Gregory of Nyſſe, which Mr. Arnaud alledges, as offering the idea of the Real Preſence, I confeſs the firſt is able to ſurprize th' ignorant, and make 'em conceive a corporeal Preſence; ſeeing it has theſe words, that Jeſus Chriſt is in us in reality of nature, and not by a ſimple conſent of will: and then again, that Jeſus Chriſt dwells in us naturally; which literally ſignifies that our Lords Fleſh exiſts in us in ſuch an ordinary and corporeal manner as the fleſh of animals exiſts in us when we eat 'em; which was the ſenſe wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jeſus Chriſt. Mr. Arnaud himſelf ſeems to have acknowledg'd this, ſeeing he believ'd himſelf oblig'd to add in his Tranſlation a corrective that mollifies or explains this term naturally. Naturally, ſays he, that is to ſay, really. But this, that is to ſay, really, ought not to be written in Italick, as if 'twere S. Hilary's own explication; and if the fault be the Printer's, and not Mr. Arnaud's, he ſhould at leaſt have ſet it in the Errata, becauſe it cauſes two illuſions at a time: on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt in us, in proper terms, ſeeing he ſays that he remains in us naturally, that is to ſay, really, which is not true: and on the other it hinders us from perceiving that the ignorant taking the naturally of S. Hilary according to the letter, would have had the idea of a corporal and natural Preſence, and not that of a ſpiritual and inviſible Preſence. Theſe are a kind of faults for which people are not wont to be overſorry when they happen; for they have a deſir'd effect for ſome time, and when they chance to be diſcover'd may be laid on the Printer. But howſoever 'tis certain that all the impreſſion which this paſſage of S. Hilary could make on the mind of an ignorant perſon was only to put him upon conceiving a corporal Preſence, which he might eaſily reject, by the teſtimony of his proper ſenſes. But to ſpeak the truth, there's little reaſon to ſuppoſe the Books of S. Hilary De Trinitate came to the knowledg of ſuch ignorant and ſimple people as we ſpeak of.
THE paſſage of Gregory of Nyſſe gives naturally the idea of a change of Bread into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, by the union of the Bread into the Word, and by way of augmentation of the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as appears from the example which he brings of the Bread which Jeſus Chriſt ate, which became the Body of the Word, which is far remote from the Tranſubſtantiation of the Church of Rome, who will have the ſubſtance on the Altar to be the ſame in number as that which our Saviour Chriſt aſſum'd from the Virgin, and which is now in Heaven. There's little likelihood that ſimple and ignorant people underſtood what Gregory meant, even ſuppoſing they were acquainted with his Catechiſm, which is not very likely. But ſuppoſing they knew it all by heart, and comprehended the ſenſe of it, they could thence only conceive this change by union to the word, and augmentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which Damaſcen has ſince explained more clearly. And this is what Gregory ſuppoſes alſo, not as the true Faith of the Church, but only as a probable opinion, according as he formally explains himſelf, Perhaps, ſays he, we are in the right.
AND this is what we had to ſay concerning Mr. Arnaud's ſixth Book. Whatſoever ſucceſs this Diſpute might have had, he could not thence promiſe himſelf any advantage, becauſe as we have already obſerv'd more than once, the eight firſt Centuries being out of the time wherein we ſuppoſe the change was wrought, when he ſhall have proved the Real Preſence, or Real Abſence was diſtinctly held therein, he will be ſtill told the queſtion concerns not thoſe Ages, but the following. But 'tis not the ſame with me, who draw thence ſeveral advantages. For firſt, neither Mr. Arnaud, nor the Author of the Perpetuity can henceforward prevail by the equivocation of the term of Real Abſence, which may be taken either for the rejection of the viſible or corporeal Preſence, or for the rejection of th' inviſible Preſence, ſeeing we have ſhew'd 'em that in this debate the queſtion concerns not the Real Abſence in the firſt ſenſe, but the Real Abſence in the ſecond. Secondly, They can no longer confound theſe two things as if they were but one, to wit, to be in a condition to acknowledg that the Real Preſence does not agree with the lights of nature, and to be in a condition to acknowledg 'tis a novely which was never held in the Church, ſeeing we have ſhew'd 'em there's a great deal of difference between theſe two diſpoſitions, and that it does not follow hence that thoſe who are in the firſt, are alſo in the ſecond, which is preciſely that which is here in queſtion. Thirdly, Neither will they I think any more confound two ſorts of very different doubts, the one of incredulity which deny the thing it ſelf, and the others of ſimple ignorance which conſiſt only in not knowing the manner, yet without denying the thing, ſeeing they have been ſhew'd clearly enough the difference of 'em, and that they ought not to refer to one of theſe doubts what belongs to the other. Fourthly, They can no longer blind the world by this vain diſtinction of three ways of rejecting the Real Preſence, or by a general rejection, without denoting any one kind of 'em, or by a formal rejection of all the kinds, or by a bare view of the nature of things, ſeeing we have ſhew'd 'em that the firſt is impoſſible, that the third brings no advantage to 'em, and that there's only the ſecond which they can reaſonably ſtick to, and which yet they renounce, becauſe they find it unjuſtifiable. Fifthly, 'Tis likely they will no longer obſtinately maintain that a known inconſiſtency, that is to ſay, a pure impoſſibility, and reſpected as ſuch, is a ſenſe after th' illuſtrations given on this ſubject. Sixthly, They can no longer ſay that the ancient formulary of the Communion, Corpus Chriſti muſt neceſſarily direct the minds of the Faithful to conceive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt preſent in the Euchariſt which they receiv'd, ſeeing it had another uſe, which was to raiſe 'em up to meditate on the Death and Reſurrection of their Saviour; this other uſe being ſufficient to employ many of their minds. Seventhly, They will henceforward in vain pretend that the terms which the Fathers uſed in their ordinary inſtructions, brought naturally the idea of the Real Preſence into their Auditors minds, ſeeing we have ſhew'd that the natural ſenſe of their Propoſitions did not depend on the natural ſignification of each term, but on the matter in hand, which determin'd them to a figurative ſenſe. Eighthly, They have had no reaſon to pretend that all the Faithful have always had a diſtinct belief either of the Preſence or Real Abſence, in the ſenſe wherein the Roman Church underſtands theſe terms, ſeeing we have ſhew'd them five ranks of perſons in the Church of the firſt eight Centuries, who had no formal knowledg of either the one nor th'other. Ninthly, It being thus in reference to the firſt eight Centuries, it hence follows 'twas the ſame by greater reaſon in the following, which were far darker. Tenthly, And that which is moſt important is that one may already know by this, that the change which occaſions our principal queſtion has been not only poſſible, but eaſie. For there being only two things which can hinder it, the one the diſtinct belief of the Real Abſence, that is to ſay, the formal and poſitive belief that the Body is not in the Euchariſt by its proper ſubſtance, neither viſible nor inviſible; and th'other the knowledg, diligence, and fidelity of the Paſtors, watching over their Flocks, ready to acknowledg and repel the new errors, and make them known to their people. 'Tis already apparent that the firſt of theſe things is an unjuſtifiable ſuppoſition, and contrary to all probability. And as to the other 'tis certain it calls in queſtion the credit of all Hiſtorians, and the judgment of all learned men who agree in this, that in the 9th. 10th. and 11th. Centuries th' Eccleſiaſtical order did not abound with famous men, and eſpecially the 10th. Century.