The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Mr. Arnaud's Objections againſt what he terms Machins of Forgetfulneſs, Examin'd. The Examples of the inſenſible Changes alledg'd in anſwer to the Perpetuity, Defended.
I SAID in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, That if we had this Diſpute Anſwer to the ſecond Treat. ch. 1.with Greeks or Egyptians we ſhould not perhaps take it ill for them to ask us how this change was wrought; but we cannot bear without ſome kind of regret and vexation theſe ſame Tranſubſtantiators, this very party that made the change, who have uſed a thouſand tricks inſenſibly to effect it, that have made uſe of Fraud and Violence, to hinder its being wrought with noiſe, that have taken infinite care to deprive poſterity of the knowledg of the manner how 'twas done, to come now to us and demand how this could be.
WHEREUPON Mr. Arnaud tells us firſt, That we have in effect to Book 9. ch. 8. page 9…3.do with not only Egyptians and Greeks, but likewiſe Moſcovites, Ethiopians, Neſtorians, Jacobites, Armenians and Indians; that all theſe people make the ſame queſtions as the Author of the Perpetuity, and require the ſame ſatiſfaction. But that Mr. Claude cannot anſwer 'em, ſeeing they had no Paſchaſus, nor Popes, nor Monks, nor Councils, nor Croiſado's, nor Inquiſitors to work this Eſtabliſhment. In the ſecond place he ſays that I am unjuſt in accuſing Page 954.the Catholicks of this Age for making the change in queſtion, and employing Croiſado's and Inquiſitors againſt us. That theſe are not the ſame perſons that were in the 10th. Century, and that as to his part he has made uſe neither of Cheats nor Artiſices to hinder this change's being made with noiſe.
THE firſt of theſe Anſwers is already refuted. We have nothing to do either with Greeks, or Egyptians, Moſcovites, Ethiopians, Neſtorians, Jacobites, Armenians, nor Indians in the affair of Tranſubſtantiation. Mr. Arnaud puts queſtions to us about them without their conſent or order. The Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation has been a long time inſinuating of it ſelf amongſt 'em, which when effected we ſhall have the Emiſſaries and Scholars of the Seminaries to be Witneſſes of th' Innovation.
THE ſecond Anſwer is frivolous. We neither accuſe Mr. Arnaud nor his Friends perſonally for having done any thing to deprive us of the knowledg of the manner in which the change hapned: whatſoever they have thereunto contributed conſiſts only in the falſe Citations, and Sophiſms in their Books, but of theſe we will not here complain. We only complain here of their drawing advantage from the ill means that have been uſed by other perſons on their ſide, whoſe Succeſſors and Defenders they are, to deprive Poſterity of the knowledg of th' Innovation in queſtion, and I believe there's a great deal of Juſtice in this complaint. A Council has cauſed John Scot's Book to be burn'd, there are none to be had of 'em at this day. We have loſt the Writings of Heribald Biſhop of Auxerre, the Letter of Raban to Egilon, Eriger's Book againſt Paſchaſus, Berenger's Works, their Books who wrote in his favour in the 11th. Century. We know no more of this long Hiſtory than what we can gather here and there in ſuſpected Authors Adverſaries to Berengarius and his Doctrin. Moreover there have been given the publick under the name of the Fathers falſe and ſuppoſed Books: their real Works have been alter'd, and falſe pieces inſerted in them to make the world believe there were no Innovations in their Doctrin. I ſay Anſwer to Noüet.nothing but what may be eaſily juſtified, and which I have already clearly proved elſewhere. If I complain of Mr. Arnaud's injuſtice who makes advantage of theſe frauds put upon us, and which he knows to be ſuch, in like manner as what the Emiſſaries have done in the Eaſt, whence he would make us believe they of thoſe parts have ever held Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence. This is I think a complaint for which no rational perſon will condemn me.
I likewiſe propoſed ſome examples of inſenſible changes which have hapned in the Latin Church, whence I concluded 'twas not impoſſible one ſhould have hapned by the introduction of the Doctrins of Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence. Mr. Arnaud to extricate himſelf out of the perplexity which theſe examples cauſed him, has deviſed ſome diſtinctions, ſome of 'em imaginary, and others unneceſſary, by means whereof he has pretended to invalidate the change in queſtion, and they are theſe differences which we muſt now examine.
IT cannot be denied but that the cuſtom of communicating of both kinds, that of giving the Communion to little Children, and that of Faſting till the Evening, and ſome others have been chang'd in the Latin Church. Mr. Arnaud does not gain-ſay it, but tells us theſe cuſtoms are ſtill uſed in the Eaſtern Churches, ſo that the change has not been vniverſal, whereas if that of the eſtabliſhment of Tranſubſtantiation were true, we muſt ſuppoſe it hapned at the ſame time throughout all the world, and all Chriſtian Churches. This is his firſt difference which he amplifies and exaggerates after his manner. But the anſwer is not difficult, to wit, that there is not any Tranſubſtantiation or Real Preſence, ſuch as the Roman Church holds in the Eaſtern Churches, or if there be, 'tis brought in by the Emiſſaries and Scholars of the Romiſh Seminaries: beſides that a change is not ever the leſs inſenſible in reſpect of thoſe that have admitted it, for its being leſs univerſal.
THE ſecond difference is, that in the greateſt part of th' expreſſions which I propoſe the point concerns ſome eſtabliſh'd cuſtom, whereas here the queſtion is touching a new Doctrin univerſally eſtabliſh'd, which is, ſays he, extremely different, a general inconveniency may univerſally aboliſh a cuſtom; but when the queſtion is touching the remedying of an abuſe every man follows his particular judgment in the choice of remedies. And this eſpecially ſhews us th' impoſſibility of the change in the ſubject of the Euchariſt. For this muſt be ſaid to be an univerſal eſtabliſhment of an extraordinary Doctrin which cannot ſubſiſt with the infinite diverſity of judgments, reſpects and inclinations which happen in ſo many different Churches, which being divided in ſuch ſmall matters, cannot be expected to unite in a Doctrin ſo offenſive that 'tis ſtrange it has found any followers, neither could it, had it not been authoriz'd by an univerſal conſent.
I confeſs there's a great deal of difference betwixt an ancient cuſtom that is aboliſh'd, and a new Doctrin that is eſtabliſh'd. But this difference does Mr. Arnaud more hurt than good. For ignorant people are more earneſt to conſerve their cuſtoms which they know, than they are to reject a Doctrin which they know but imperfectly, and concerning whoſe novelty they cannot judg. When an ancient publick and perpetual cuſtom is aboliſh'd, th' innovation is more manifeſt than when a new Doctrin is introduc'd, for the novelty of it is conceal'd, 'tis offer'd as being the ancient Faith; and they that offer it pervert for this effect ſome ordinary expreſſions, turning 'em into another ſenſe. Cuſtoms are of themſelves popular, and when they are changed, people are apt to imagin their Religion is about being taken away from 'em: but as to Doctrinals, the people are wont to ſuffer thoſe that have greateſt authority in the Church to preach what they pleaſe, and obediently receive it without any examination. As to the reſt, 'tis certain there has hapned ſomething in reference to the Euchariſt, which is like what Mr. Arnaud obſerves, that when we leave an ancient cuſtom every man takes a different courſe, and follows his own particular judgment. For the Latins and Greeks in departing from the plain and genuine explication of the Ancients, which was, that the Bread and Wine of the Euchariſt are figures and images of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, have faln upon different ſentiments, the Greeks having taken the party of the union of the Bread with the Divinity, and augmentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Latins that of Tranſubſtantiation. But we muſt not paſs over in ſilence what Mr. Arnaud confeſſes, that the Doctrin of the Latins is ſo offenſive that 'tis ſtrange it has found any followers, had it not been authoriſed by an univerſal conſent. This acknowledgment muſt at leaſt ſhew the world how important it is to prevent being abuſed by this pretended univerſal conſent, and engaging in a ſentiment which moreover is ſo offenſive. But as the diſcuſſion of this queſtion touching the univerſal conſent has no proportion with the capacity of moſt people, this very thing ſhould ſhew, that to ground ones Faith on a ſolid foundation, wherein there's no deceit to be feared, the beſt which one can do, is to keep to the Word of God.
THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks conſiſts in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Diſcipline, whereas that in queſtion is a change of Opinion and Doctrin. Now, ſays he, Diſcipline is a thing of it ſelf liable to change, and the benefit of it depends on circumſtances which are mutable; but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature: that which is true at one time being ſo always. Every body knows that Diſciplin may be alter'd, and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change. So, adds he, to introduce a new Diſcipline, 'tis not neceſſary to deceive the world, nor ſhew 'tis ancient, but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty muſt of neceſſity de diſguiſed, which is oftentimes impoſſible. In fine, the belief of a Doctrin neceſſarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion, whereas one may embrace a Diſcipline different from another, yet without condemning that which one leaves.
THERE are ſeveral things to be ſaid to this diſcourſe. For firſt, It is not true that all the points of Practice and Diſcipline are mutable. The practices which our Saviour Chriſt himſelf has inſtituted in his Church with an expreſs command of obſerving 'em are perpetual, immutable, and neceſſary, at leaſt as to neceſſity of precept, and ſuch is the Communion of both kinds. Secondly, There are few perſons amongſt the people that are prepoſſeſſed with this opinion that the points of practice and Diſcipline may be changed, the greateſt part go not ſo far as this diſtinction of points of Practice, and Doctrins. The aboliſhment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin, becauſe of two parts whereof a Religion conſiſts, to wit, the Doctrins, and Practices, theſe laſt are moſt popular. Thirdly, There are practices which are ſo ſtrictly joyn'd with Doctrins, and are in ſuch a manner the dependances and conſequences of 'em, that 'tis impoſſible to change them, without alſo changing the Doctrins, and conſequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins. Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds; for it was anciently grounded on this belief, that Chriſt's command belongs as well to Miniſters as the People; as appears by Paſchaſus his own teſtimony, Drink ye all of it, ſays he, to wit, as well the Miniſters as other Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Domin. c. 15. &c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon. Comperimus de conſ. diſt. 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989.Believers: and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary practiſe. It is not well done, ſays the ſame Paſchaſus, to Communicate of the Fleſh without the Blood: This Myſtery, ſays Pope Gelaſius, cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege. It is a mere abuſing the world, ſays Mr. Arnaud, to pretend to eſtabliſh an univerſal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a ſingle paſſage of a Popes Writings, recited by Gratien, and to oppoſe this ſingle paſſage againſt the conſtant practice of all the Churches in the world, who have given the Communion to the faithful under one ſpecies in ſundry occaſions. But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn better the belief of the Church in the time of Gelaſius himſelf, who was at the head of the Church of Rome, who calls her ſelf the faithful depoſitory of Tradition? Is Mr. Arnaud ſo ſcandaliz'd at the producing of a Teſtimony of a Pope? It is Gratien, ſays he, that relates it. Is it the leſs authentick for that? Gratien did not invent it to ſerve us, we did not inſpire him with it; and the Correctors of Gratien have not ſo much as doubted of it. This paſſage, adds he, may receive ſeveral rational explications. I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications, but we ſhould know whether theſe explications be juſt: Mr. Arnaud ſhould propoſe 'em, and then we might examin 'em. This conſtant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in ſeveral occaſions is likewiſe a thing that ought to be proved. Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long ſtay for an anſwer, to what's alledg'd touching that ſubject.
THE Communion of little Children is likewiſe another practice appendant to a Doctrin, for the ancient Church had this cuſtom, becauſe ſhe believ'd this Communion abſolutely neceſſary for the ſalvation of Infants. S. Auſtin ſays ſo in expreſs terms. Eccleſioe Chriſti tenent proeter baptiſmum Aug. de Peccat rear. & remiſſ. lib. 1. c 24.& participationem Dominicoe menſoe non ſolum non ad regnum Dei, ſed nec ad ſalutem & vitam oeternam poſſe quemquam hominum pervenire. Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an univerſal Doctrin of the Church, To the end, ſays he, its authority may be (with plauſible pretences) trampled Page 990.under foot, and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected. But what have I done in this matter more than the Jeſuite Maldonat (who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud) did before me? Miſſam facio, ſays he, Auguſtini & Innocentii Maldon. in Joan. 6. Binn. not. in Epiſt. Innoc.primi ſententiam quoe ſexcentos circiter annos viguit in Eccleſia, Euchariſtam etiam, infantibus neceſſariam. What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Milevé. It appears, ſays he, that Innocent's opinion which has been in vogue for ſix hundred years, and which was followed by S, Auſtin was, that the Euchariſt is neceſſary to little Children. But ſeeing the command to receive the Euchariſt does not oblige thoſe that cannot receive it, and that we muſt reckon them unfit to receive the Euchariſt that cannot receive it with the reſpect due to it, the Church, inſtructed by the uſe of ſeveral Ages, and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd, not only that the reception of the Euchariſt is not neceſſary to Children, but that it ought not to be given 'em.
I know, adds Mr. Arnaud, that there are on this ſubject ſome paſſages of Page 990.S. Auſtin and Innocent the Firſt, which are difficult. But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained theſe paſſages. He knows alſo that Cardinal Perron and ſeveral other Catholick Authors have ſolved them. To the paſſages of S. Auſtin, and Innocent, Mr. Arnaud might add others, which will admit of no explication, as thoſe of Gelaſius the Firſt in one of his Epiſtles, of the Author of the Hypognoſticks, of Gregory the Second, of the ſecond Council of Toul, and ſome others. And as to the ſoft'ning Expoſitions of Fulgentius, they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now preſented, as alſo the Anſwers of Cardinal Perron, which are for the moſt part but mere illuſions.
WE may reckon amongſt the practices depending on a Doctrin that of the relative adoration of Images which has inſinuated it ſelf into France, and Germany ſince the 8th. and 9th. Century. For it is certain that in all the foregoing Ages and long after, France and Germany rejected this Adoration as unlawful and contrary to true Piety. Which appears by the Council of Francfort held under Charlemain, and conſiſting of above three hundred Biſhops, of France, Italy, Germany, and England, wherein the ſecond Council of Nice was condemned. This moreover appears by the Book of Images of Charlemain, by the Teſtimonies of Agobard Biſhop of Lyons, Jonas Biſhop of Orleans, and Walafridus Strabo, by the Council of Paris, under Lewis the Debonnair, and by the Continuer of Climoinus. We find likewiſe in Nicetas Choniatus that the Germans in the 12th. Century perſiſted in this opinion. The Germans, ſays he, and the Armenians agree in this, Nicet. Choni. l. 2. Page 986.that they reject the worſhiping of Images. Mr. Arnaud, who cannot deny ſo plain a matter of fact, ſays, that the Biſhops of Francfort admitted the adoration of the Croſs, which is only an image of the true Croſs, that they admitted likewiſe the hiſtorical uſe of images; and that without doing violence to nature, the hiſtorical uſe of Images cannot be ſeparated from the relative adorations of the ſame images. But this is an impertinent diſputing againſt the Fathers of Francfort, and the Churches that have follow'd them. The queſtion is not whether they were contrary to themſelves, or whether they did violence to nature. But whether it be true that the contrary belief and practice have inſenſibly crept into theſe very Churches, without noiſe, oppoſition, and diſputations. Now this is what cannot be denied.
IT is not at all ſtrange, ſays Mr. Arnaud, that the particular opinion of theſe Biſhops which is contrary to nature, reaſon, and the general conſent of the whole Church ſhould be laid aſide, and that the Popes who uſed this condeſcention towards 'em did not openly oppoſe 'em, but tarried till time wore out this Error, whereby they have had the ſucceſs which they expected from ſo charitable a conduct. So far is it from being ſtrange that this ſhould happen, that 'twould be a greater wonder if this has not hapned. This methinks is a diſpoſing too freely of the judgments and conſent of rational people. It will not then be ſtrange according to Mr. Arnaud that the Popes, and all this party that were in the opinion and practice of the relative adoration of Images ſhould uſe any condeſcention towards three hundred Biſhops aſſembled in Council, the Kingdom of France; and all Germany which were in a contrary Belief and practice, that they ſhould be cautious of oppoſing them in this particular, and patiently expect till time remedied this miſtake. But according to the ſame Mr. Arnaud, this will be the greateſt of all follies, and the higheſt extravagancy imaginable to ſuppoſe that ſome Paſchaſiſts, and Bertramiſts, which is to ſay, thoſe that believed the Real Preſence, and thoſe that believed it not in the 10th. Century, did not diſpute one againſt another: and altho that moreover they were not in a condition to diſpute, and had other things to trouble themſelves about, other intereſts to mind, yet muſt it be a folly to imagin they were of that patient and charitable diſpoſition the Popes were of, who referred theſe things to be remedied by time. Mr. Arnaud forbids us to be aſtoniſh'd at France and Germanies inſenſibly changing a Doctrin and a Rite; he forbids us to concern our ſelves about the queſtions of the birth and progreſs of this change, the ſtupidity of the Biſhops on both ſides, who look'd upon one another as Excommunicated perſons, yet without daring to ſpeak to one another about it, being withheld by a holy condeſcention, and the hope of the good effects of time, and by the marvellous meekneſs of the Laicks, ſome of whom were worſhipers of Images and others not, and ſome of 'em conſequently Anathematiz'd by the Council of Nice, and others condemned by that of Francfort, and yet lived in peace, without noiſe, without mutual oppoſitions, without diſputes. But if we will hear him on the other change touching the Euchariſt, he commands us not only to be aſtoniſh'd, but to eſteem it a fearful prodigy that the Doctrin of the Real Preſence which ſprang up in the 9th. Century, was taught and maintain'd as being the ancient and perpetual Doctrin of the Fathers, ſhould make inſenſible progreſſes during the darkneſs of the 10th. Century, and that there ſhould have been perſons in the ſame Church that have believed it, and others that have not, without falling foul upon, and oppoſing one another. When the queſtion of the adoration of Images was agitated in the Eaſt, it vehemently heated mens minds, ſo that each party proceeded to Anathema's, Baniſhments, and Blood-ſhed: and in the Weſt, the contrary party to the Adoration wrote, and held Aſſemblies, whereas when the queſtion of the Real Preſence was handled, in the 9th. Century there were neither Councils called, nor Anathema's pronounced, nor Baniſhments, nor any extraordinary matter. Yet in reſpect of the former, Mr. Arnaud will that by virtue of condeſcention and th' effects of time, the Party for the Adoration has inſenſibly fortifi'd themſelves, and at length got the upper hand; but as to the other he will not grant that the Real Preſence could advance and communicate it ſelf to ſeveral perſons, but the whole Univerſe muſt be ſhaken with it. Let the Reader then Judg of Mr. Arnaud's equity.
NOTHING, ſays he, is more aſtoniſhing than this univerſal forgetfulneſs Page 287.in the 11th. Century, whether there was therein any other Doctrin amongſt Chriſtians than that of the Real Preſence. But who told him that they of the 11th. Century forgot the conteſt which had been in the 9th. Was not John Scot's Book burnt by a Council? Let him forget it if he will, there will redound no advantage to him by it, ſeeing 'tis certain that in the 9th. Century the Doctrin contrary to the Real Preſence was taught; I mean, that which aſſerts the Euchariſt not to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, Chriſt born of the Virgin, and that 'tis only the Body of Jeſus Chriſt Sacramentally and virtually. Moreover, Mr. Arnaud does not obſerve that this very thing is againſt him; for if it be true that thoſe of the 11th. Century forgot ſuch a matter of fact as that which is juſtifi'd by the teſtimony of Paſchaſus himſelf, this is a ſufficient mark that the 10th. Century which holds the middle between the 9th. and 11th. was o'reſpread with thick darkneſs, ſeeing the ideas, and memory of a thing ſo conſiderable were therein loſt.
BUT we muſt examin his fourth difference. A fourth circumſtance, Page 960.ſays he, which does further ſtrangely diſtinguiſh this pretended change in the Doctrin of the Euchariſt, from all theſe other changes, is the very nature of this Doctrin. (He means of the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation.) For it is clear, that had it been new it muſt have extraordinarily ſurpriz'd all thoſe that never heard of it, which is to ſay the whole Church. I confeſs that in effect the Doctrin of the Converſion of Subſtances in the Euchariſt has ſomething in it that is very ſurprizing and more offenſive than whatſoever is done in other changes. But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offenſive and ſurprizing in a Doctrin, is not ſtrong enough to produce actually of it ſelf an oppoſition or a rejection; on the contrary, moſt people love in matters of Religion thoſe things that are ſurprizing and wonderful, of which we ſee examples in moſt Religions. But howſoever the Teachers of the Real Preſence provided againſt this inconveniency three ways, the firſt was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almighty power of God. The ſecond, the publiſhing of Miracles which really hapned about the Euchariſt, to wit, viſible apparitions of Fleſh and Blood. And the third, the aſſerting 'twas always the Faith and belief of the Church, accommodating to their ſenſe ſome paſſages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained.
HITHERTO we have had whatſoever Mr. Arnaud has ſaid that is conſiderable on the queſtion of the poſſibility or impoſſibility of the change in his 6th. and 9th. Book. Whatſoever is therein of moment we have conſidered and anſwer'd ſolidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud himſelf, I hope, will acknowledg. I ſhould have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a paſſage, taken out of a Book, called, The new Hereſie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont. The Author of this Book therein diſcovers the order and means which he pretends his adverſaries uſe to introduce Novelties inſenſibly into the Church, and he inſtances for this purpoſe the Parable of the Tares that were ſown in the night, whilſt men ſlept, which took root, and in time grew up, which is very near the manner after which, according to us, the change was wrought touching the Euchariſt, This Author has well comprehended it, as judging it far from being impoſſible; but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to ſay nothing to this paſſage.
I ſhould likewiſe been very glad, that having treated as he has done with great earneſtneſs of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eaſtern Churches, he had made reflection on ſeveral Doctrins and Practices which ſeparate them from the Latins, and in which there have hapned of neceſſity, either amongſt the one or the others, inſenſible changes. For example, how came it to paſs the Greeks loſt the belief of Purgatory, ſuppoſing this were a Doctrin of the firſt eſtabliſhment of Chriſtian Religion. How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and alſo that unleaven'd Bread in the adminiſtration of the Euchariſt is an abomination, and likewiſe that the Prieſts may as well as the Biſhops adminiſter Confirmation; and again, that the Church of Rome is not infallible in matters of Faith, and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical viſion of God till the Reſurrection: and in ſhort, how came they to believe all the reſt of thoſe opinions which they hold contrary to thoſe of the Latins? There muſt of neceſſity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all theſe Articles, whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them, which is to ſay, that theſe Articles be not of Apoſtolical Tradition, whether we ſuppoſe they held them in common ſince the firſt Preaching of Chriſtianity, which ſuppoſes that theſe Opinions were left 'em by the Apoſtles, or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day, but that they ſupported mutually one another, which ſuppoſes that both of 'em held theſe Opinions as needleſs ones, and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones. Now in whatſoever ſort we take it, there have of neceſſity hapned inſenſible changes without diſpute, noiſe, and oppoſition, altho there may be the ſame objections brought againſt 'em, and the ſame queſtions ſtarted which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged againſt the change in queſtion.
SHOULD we ſuppoſe a time wherein neither the one nor the other held theſe Opinions, how come they in fine to be imbued ſo generally with 'em, and ſo contradictorily, that a whole Church ſhould hold the contrary of what the other believes? Is there not in this double change at leaſt as much reaſon to be aſtoniſh'd and ſurpriz'd, as in that which has hapned according to us, in reſpect of the Real Preſence? Have both the Latins and Greeks faln aſleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory, or Proceſſion of the Holy Spirit, or quality which the Euchariſtical Bread ought to be of, or th' adminiſtration of Confirmation, or Beatifical Viſion of the Saints, nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome; and have they all together at the ſame time awaken'd poſſeſs'd with contrary opinions on each of theſe points? Whence had they their opinions? Did not he who firſt taught them 'em advertiſe 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of? If he did tell 'em of this, 'tis ſtrange he ſhould be followed immediately by his whole Church, and that ſuch new Doctrins ſhould be ſo immediately and zealouſly embraced. If he did not tell 'em this, 'tis then very ſtrange no body took notice of theſe Innovations, that the Biſhops and Prieſts did not oppoſe 'em, and that of all that innumerable multitude of Religious perſons not one of 'em has exclaimed againſt the Innovator. Had the Innovator made uſe of ſome expreſſions of Scripture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of theſe Doctrins, and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith, how can one conceive theſe terrible equivocations, that expreſſions have been taken in one ſenſe during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church, or generally by the whole Greek Church, and that immediately in another, they have been taken generally by the ſame Churches in another ſenſe?
IF we ſuppoſe a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the ſame thing in reſpect of theſe points, the ſame difficulties and the ſame queſtions return in reſpect of that of the two Churches which has changed. Suppoſe for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, that one may uſe indifferently in the Euchariſt unleavened Bread, and that which is leaven'd, and that the Biſhop alone has the right of Confirmation, how happens it the Greeks have paſs'd into contrary Opinions without diviſions amongſt 'em till the Council of Florence? Has this hapned all at a ſtroke? Was this done inſenſibly and by ſucceſſion of time? If this has hapned all at once, it muſt be granted this change is exceeding ſtrange, that ſo many Biſhops, Prieſts, and Religious ſhould ſo ſuddenly renounce their former Opinions, and embrace contrary ones without any Diviſions amongſt 'em. But 'tis yet ſtrange, they ſhould change 'em without perceiving it, without acknowledging they had made great and conſiderable Innovations in their Church, and comparing their firſt and ancient Faith with this new one. For 'tis certain that in reſpect of all theſe Articles which are in conteſt, the Greeks poſitively maintain and have ever maintain'd they have not innovated in any thing. If this change was wrought by ſucceſſion of time, let us be ſhew'd the Diſputes and Diviſions they have had amongſt 'em ſince on theſe Articles they have ſeparated from the Church of Rome, till the Greek Empire fell into the hands of the Latins, which is to ſay during above two hundred and fifty years. If it be alledg'd the change was made inſenſibly, we muſt return to the four times of the Author of the Perpetuity, and apply to 'em the ſame difficulties and objections he has raiſed.
IN fine, if we ſuppoſe a time wherein the two Churches held each of 'em their Opinions, yet mutually bearing with one another without proceeding to an expreſs condemnation of the contrary Opinions, beſides that it is difficult to comprehend how the Latins believing the Roman Church infallible, and their Sacrifice with unleaven'd Bread good and lawful, could ſuffer the Greeks holding on the contrary that the Roman Church may err in matters of Faith. Beſides this, I ſay, 'twill be demanded how they could change ſo ſuddenly their Opinion in reference to the controverted Articles, holding 'em before for unneceſſary points, and afterwards for neceſſary ones, reſpecting before the contrary Opinions to theirs as tolerable Errors, and afterwards reſpecting 'em as abominable and intolerable ones: whereupon one may make the ſame queſtions, how it could come to paſs that the whole Greek Church has believ'd at one time that the Euchariſt of the Latins with unleaven'd Bread was nevertheleſs the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, an object of ſupreme Adoration, and in another that 'twas only a dead Azym, a Jewiſh abomination; that ſhe ſhould reſpect it at one time with that Reverence and Devotion due only to the Son of God, and at another immediately ſucceeding the firſt, which is to ſay from night to morning, regard it with horror, waſhing and purifying the Altars whereon it had been celebrated as if they had been polluted.
WE may apply the ſame queſtions and difficulties to the Armenians, Jacobites, Coptics, Neſtorians, in reference to ſeveral of their Opinions of which Mr. Arnaud cannot ſhew the original, nor tell us after what manner they were diſperſed amongſt theſe people, nor how they have left the contrary opinions which the Church of Rome ſtill holds as being of Apoſtolical Tradition. How has it hapned for inſtance that the Neſtorians have left the uſe of Confirmation, and that of Extreme Unction, that the Jacobites have left that of Confeſſion, and the belief of Purgatory, that the Coptics have laid aſide the Doctrin of Purgatory, and uſe of Extreme Unction, and ſo of the reſt. For Mr. Arnaud, I think, would have me ſuppoſe, that according to him theſe points have been heretofore held and practis'd by all Chriſtians.
THESE examples do clearly diſcover the vanity of theſe pretended moral impoſſibilities which the Author of the Perpetuity, and Mr. Arnaud have urged with ſuch great exaggeration. For they may be all as ſtrongly applied to the changes which have hapned in theſe Eaſtern Churches, and yet it muſt be granted that theſe changes hapned there. Mr. Arnaud may argue as long as he pleaſes, ſtart queſtions, and raiſe difficulties, theſe inſenſible changes are more than poſſible, for they are come to paſs either in theſe Churches, or in the Latin, which has Opinions, and contrary Cuſtoms, which ſhews that theſe Gentlemens whole Philoſophy is but a mere Speculation, proper only for perſons that abound with leiſure, which does not at all agree with the manner after which things are carried on in the world.
BUT in ſhort the uſe which is made of the Seminaries, and Miſſions, and the courſe which the Emiſſaries take in the Eaſt, as we have obſerv'd in the ſecond Book, with the project of Thomas à Jeſu to make in a ſhort time, all the Greeks, good Roman Catholicks, according as I have related in the fourth Book; all this I ſay ſhews clearly that at Rome, and elſewhere amongſt the moſt zealous, it is not at all accounted impoſſible to introduce inſenſibly, and without diſturbance the Doctrins of the Romiſh Church amongſt people that have 'em not, and in effect it muſt be granted that their preſent labors are not unſucceſsful, and that time will probably finiſh the work.