The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 8

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part · Book 6 · Chapter 8

p. 198CHAP. VIII.

That Paſchaſus Ratbert was the firſt that taught the Real Preſence and Converſion of Subſtances. Mr. Arnaud's Objections Anſwered.

WE muſt come now to particular matters of fact which relate to the Hiſtory of the Change. Not but to ſpeak truly this difcuſſion appears to me very needleſs, conſidering what we have already done. For if the principal queſtion which reſpects the novelty of Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence be ended, and moreover there reſults from our Diſpute that the change was poſſible, and that there's nothing more vain than the objections which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have made on this ſubject, I ſee not any neceſſity there is of informing a man's ſelf in what manner this change hapned. What matter is it to us who was the firſt Author of this Innovation, who the promoters of it, what facilities or difficulties were met with in the eſtabliſhing of theſe Doctrins, whether Paſchaſus carried on his buſineſs with craft, or ſimplicity; whether John Scot, Bertram, and Raban wrote againſt him before or after his death? What ſignifies the knowing of theſe things provided we are certain not only that the change in queſtion was poſſible, but actually hapned? And this does now appear ſo plainly as will ſatisfie every rational man. In examining Mr. Arnaud's 6th. and 9th. Book we have made it appear that his pretended impoſſibilities are mere chimera's. And as to the actual change, beſides that we ſhall always have right to take it for granted by our proofs of fact, which is to ſay by the paſſages of the Fathers, which we have cited, till Mr. Arnaud and his friends have taken pains to anſwer 'em ſolidly: beſides this, I ſay, what I ſhewed concerning the Eaſtern Churches not holding the Doctrins in queſtion, neither in the 11th. nor following Centuries, and the Greeks and Latins not knowing 'em in the 7th. and 8th. Century, is more than ſufficient for the concluding that theſe Doctrins are not of the firſt eſtabliſhment of Chriſtian Religion, and conſequently that their introduction is an innovation. Yet will I not deſiſt from examining the points of Hiſtory which reſpect this change, becauſe this change is indeed the firſt and principal ſubject of the Diſpute between Mr. Arnaud and us.

Paſchaſus Ratbert, a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th. Century was (according to us) the firſt who taught the converſion of the ſubſtances of the Bread and Wine, and the Real Preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt. He treats of theſe Points in three different places of his works, in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, in his Commentaries on the 26th. Chapter of S. Matthew, and in his Letter to Frudegard. Book 8. ch. 8. page 36.Mr. Arnaud calls our pretenſion on this ſubject a new Hypotheſis and a p. 199pure work of fancy. But, adds he, as mens fancies are very different, that of other Miniſters who wrote beſore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge, as not thinking 'twere their intereſt to ſet 'emſelves more againſt Paſchaſus than other Authors of that Century. So that this ſame Paſchaſus againſt whom they pronounce ſuch woes, was at firſt, in another courſe of fancy, one of their beſt friends. Henry Boxornius a fnrious and paſſionate Calviniſt aſſerts, that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Euchariſt, and makes him a Calviniſt by the common privilege of all the Miniſters, to make Calviniſts of whom they pleaſe. Hoſpinien likewiſe treats him very kindly, and takes him for one of the witneſſes of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th. Century. Blondel ſeems not to have any particular quarrel againſt him, but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anaſtaſius Sinait and the Greeks, which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain, and the Council of Francfort, but does not think of making him an Author of any conſiderable change in the world.

IT muſt be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injuſtice in this diſcourſe. Firſt, ſeeing Mr. Arnaud himſelf affirms that Paſchaſus taught the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the ſame? Does the averſion which he has to our perſons tranſport him ſo far, that he cannot endure we ſhould be agreed with him, no not in one point? I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paſchaſus taught the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, we do at the ſame time add that he was an Innovator, wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud. But why may we not at leaſt agree with him in one Point, if we cannot in more? Let him oppoſe us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paſchaſus, we ſhall not diſlike it, for he maintains his own ſentiment; but let him give us leave to tell him that Paſchaſus alſo taught the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, ſeeing that herein we ſay nothing but what he himſelf aſſerts, and all Roman Catholicks with him.

SECONDLY, 'tis not generally true that thoſe who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paſchaſus was the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation. The Author of the Orthodox Treatiſe Page 479.touching the Euchariſt, Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expreſly mentions that Paſchaſus laid the foundations of Tranſubſtantiation, and Conſubſtantiation. Mr. Le Faucheur ſays he taught that the Euchariſt Lib. 9. Ch. 6.was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jeſus Chriſt reſiding ſubſtantially in the Bread and Wine. Du Pleſſis ranks him amongſt thoſe that Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Maſs. ch. 8have propoſed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church. And long before them Berenger himſelf attributed to Paſchaſus the Doctrin of the converſion of the ſubſtances as well as we. Sententia, ſaid he, according Lanfranc de Corp. & Sang. Dom.to Lanfranc, imo vecordia vulgi, Paſchaſi, atque Lanfranci minime ſupereſſe in altari poſt conſecrationem ſubſtantiam panis & vini.

BUT 'tis needleſs to cite Authorities, when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paſchaſus himſelf. He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore & ſanguine Domini, his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew, and his Letter to Frudegard, will find, Firſt, That he held and taught the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine was changed abſolutely into the ſame Fleſh which is born of the Virgin, which died, and roſe again, altho the colour, and ſavor of Bread and Wine ſtill remains. Secondly, p. 200That he held and taught that the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt enters into our fleſh, and that as he has joyn'd our ſubſtance to his Divinity, ſo he will have his ſubſtance to be in our fleſh. Thirdly, That he held and taught, that the words of Jeſus Chriſt, This is my Body, muſt be underſtood neither of the figure of his Body, nor his Body in the Sacrament, nor of his Body in virtue, but of his Body born of the Virgin, Crucified and Riſen, in propriety of nature. Fourthly, That he diſputed as ſtrongly as he could againſt thoſe that held the contrary. Fifthly, That there were made againſt his Doctrin ſuch objections as naturally ariſe from the Real Preſence, ſuch as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be. Sixthly, That he endeavoured to anſwer theſe objections on the Hypotheſis of the Roman Church.

IT hence, methinks very clearly reſults that Paſchaſus held and taught the ſame Real Preſence, and the ſame ſubſtantial converſion, as Gregory VII. and Innocent III. eſtabliſh'd ſince in the Latin Church, and that this truth cannot be call'd in queſtion. Yet muſt what I obſerved in my anſwer to the Perpetuity be remembred, that the Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the converſion of ſubſtances in a manner ſo expreſs, or uniform, but that there are here and there ſeveral paſſages which ſeem at firſt to favour the ſubſiſtence of the Bread, and ſeveral others that are capable of a Sacramental ſence, or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity, acording to Damaſcen's Doctrin. Mr. Arnaud muſt grant me this, ſeeing he ſometimes alledges Paſchaſus his expreſſions, t'elude ſuch kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fathers. Now hence it has hapned that ſeveral Proteſtants having been deceiv'd by theſe paſſages, have reckon'd this Author amongſt the number of thoſe that held not Tranſubſtantiation. But their error having ſprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin, Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage againſt thoſe that have entred into a more exact ſcrutiny of him, eſpecially conſidering that this opinion juſtifies it ſelf by the bare reading of Paſchaſus his Writings, and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own ſentiment, and that alſo of his whole Church.

WE need only now ſee whether Paſchaſus in teaching the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation has been an Innovator, that is to ſay, whether he firſt taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach. Mr. Arnaud affirms, that according to my proper Principles this would be impoſſibly human. His reaſon is that I ſaid in ſome places of my anſwer, That the expreſſions of the Fathers were not of themſelves capable to give riſe to this opinion, and therefore the idea of it muſt come from elſewhere. That ſuppoſing theſe expreſſions and a thouſand ſuch like were every day uttered by the Fathers, they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Tranſubſtantiation, or a Real Preſence, ſuch as the Roman Church teaches, unleſs they were propoſſeſſed with it by ſome other means. That there's no likelihood that before Paſchaſus made this firſt explication, men abandoned their ſenſes and reaſon to conceive the Real Preſence, and that certainly no place but the ſolitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth ſuch an extravagant fancy. Let a man upon this judg, ſays Mr. Arnaud, what kind of blade this Book 8. ch. 8. p. 839.Paſchaſus muſt be according to Mr. Claude, ſeeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own; and further had the power and good luck to perſuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumſtances which are yet more admirable. Certainly this is beyond the reach of man.

p. 201I ANSWER, that Mr. Arnaud draws his conſequences always ill. We ſaid that the people who uſually follow the lights of nature and common ſenſe, and whoſe meditations are not ſtrong enough of 'emſelves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to exiſt in Heaven and on Earth both at a time, could not raiſe the idea of this from the expreſſions of the Fathers, and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 'tis impoſſible that Paſchaſus has invented this opinion, or been able to perſuade others to embrace it. This conſequence is abſurd, for we have examples of ſuch kind of perſons as Paſchaſus who have wandred from the true lights of nature, and faln into remote imaginations, which no body ever had before 'em, and which the people were (certainly) never capable of. I confeſs that in ſome reſpect one may marvel at theſe figuaries of human invention, becauſe they are irregularities, it being likewiſe aſtoniſhing to ſee men capable of ſo many diſorders; but it muſt not be hence concluded that theſe diſorders are more than human, or that 'tis impoſſible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themſelves, to follow it when 'tis well contrived and coloured. We ſee this happens every day, and Mr. Arnaud ſhould propoſe ſomething more ſolid.

THE true way to know whether Paſchaſus was an Innovator or not, is to enquire whether thoſe that went before him taught the ſame Doctrin, for if they did, we are to blame in charging him with an innovation; but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his, we cannot doubt but he innovated. And this is the courſe Mr. Aubertin has taken; for he offers not the hiſtory of the change, of which he makes Paſchaſus the firſt Author, till he ſhew'd by an exact diſcuſſion of each particular Century, that till Paſchaſus his time no body ever ſpake like him; whence it follows of neceſſity, that he was an Innovator. It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity (had they deſign'd to deal ſincerely) to take this courſe, and ſhew that Paſchaſus ſaid nothing but what others ſaid before him. This would have been an eaſie and direct method, ſuppoſing Paſchaſus had not been an Innovator, but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in theſe kind of diſcuſſions.

HE thought it more for his purpoſe to fall upon a fruitleſs criticiſm by which he pretends to conclude, That no body publickly declared himſelf Book 8. ch. 8. p. 841.againſt Paſchaſus his Book all the time he lived, That no body wrote againſt him, That no Biſhop, no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it, That there were only ſome perſons who ſhew'd in ſecret they were frighted at theſe truths, and ſaid not in writing, but in particular diſcourſes, that he had gone too far, and yet this was not till three years after he had publiſh'd his Book.

SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain, as Mr. Arnaud has made it, what advantage will he pretend hence? Will Paſchaſus be ever the leſs an Innovator for his not finding any thing publiſh'd againſt him during his life? All that can be concluded hence is, that his Book was but little known at firſt, and afterwards but of ſmall eſteem with great men; and that if they believed themſelves oblig'd at length to write againſt his Doctrin, 'twas only becauſe they ſaw ſeveral follow'd it, whom 'twas neceſſary to undeceive. For to imagin that John Scot, Bertram, and Raban ſhunn'd the oppoſing him during his life, that they might not bring upon 'em ſo terrible an Adverſary, muſt proceed from th' ignorance of what theſe three great men were, who p. 202had another kind of eſteem amongſt the learned than Paſchaſus. 'Tis alſo a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life, becauſe his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church, which they dared not oppoſe. For if this reaſon hindred 'em from writing againſt Paſchaſus during his life, why did it not do the ſame after his death, ſeeing the common Doctrin of the Church was ſtill the ſame, and Paſchaſus carried it not away with him into his Grave?

BUT at bottom there's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud. For as to John Scot, there's not the leaſt reaſon to gueſs he wrote ſince Paſchaſus his death. We know he wrote of the Euchariſt by the command of Charles the Bald, and conſequently whilſt he was in France, whether this was before or after the year 852, 'twill be in my opinion hard to determin. As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter againſt Paſchaſus, was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad, who died in the year 822, or another Egilon Abbot of Prom, who ſucceeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is ſaid by the anonimous Treatiſe which Father Celot publiſh'd, which is, that Raban was Archbiſhop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter, is very weak. It's true it terms him Raban of Mayence, but upon another occaſion, to wit, when the Author accuſes him to have taught, that the myſtery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is expoſed to the common condition of aliments; whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote againſt Paſchaſus, he calls him only Raban, and hence can be nothing certain gather'd. As to Bertram, Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reaſon but this, That there's little Book 8. ch. 8. p. 842.likelihood he would write againſt his Abbot whilſt he was under his Juriſdictiction, and that Paſchaſus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime, muſt have complain'd of this attempt. But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the Preſident Maugin has written touching Bertram, that he was not only a very learned but a very honeſt man; a bold defender of the Diſſert. c. 17.Catholick Faith againſt all Innovators, and that he wrote againſt Hincmar his own Biſhop, altho he was upheld by the Kings Authority. What likelihood is there that a man who ſcrupled not to write againſt his Metropolitan and ſuch a man as Hincmar, who was countenanced by the King, would ſtick to write by the Kings order too againſt Paſchaſus altho he was his Abbot.

IT ſignifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to ſay, That Paſchaſus clearly teſtifies that his Doctrin was only attack'd by private Diſcourſes and not by Books. For this cannot be collected from his expreſſions, unleſs we read 'em with gloſſes and interpretations of Mr. Arnaud. Let thoſe, ſays Paſchaſus in his Commentary on the 26th. of S.Matthew, that will extenuate the term of Body, hear me; thoſe that ſay, that 'tis not the true Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church, and that 'tis not his true Blood, imagining they know not what, that 'tis in this Sacrament the virtue of the Fleſh and Blood, and make the Lord a lyar, ſaying, that 'tis not his true Fleſh, nor his true Blood, by which we declare his true death; whereas truth it ſelf ſays, This is my Body. And a little lower, I am aſtoniſh'd at ſome peoples ſaying 'tis not the real Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt in the ſame thing, but that it is Sacramentally ſo, a certain virtue of his Fleſh, and not his Fleſh, the virtue of his Blood, and not his Blood, the figure and not the truth, the ſhadow, and not the Body. And in another place a little further, I ſpake of theſe things the more largely and more expreſly, becauſe I underſtand that ſome rereprehend p. 203me as if I would (in the Book which I wrote concerning the Sacraments of Chriſt) attribute to theſe words more than the truth it ſelf promiſes. And in his Letter to Frudegard, Sed quidam, ſays he, loquaciſſimi magis quam docti dum hoec credere refugiunt, quaecunque poſſunt, ne credant quoe veritas repromittit, opponunt, & dicunt nullum corpus eſſe quod non ſit palpabile, & viſible, hoec autem inquiunt, quia myſteria ſunt videri nequeunt, nec palpari, & ideo corpus non ſunt, & ſi corpus non ſunt, in figura carnis & ſanguinis hoec dicuntur, & non in proprietate naturoe carnis Chriſti & ſanguinis, quoe caro paſſa eſt in cruce, & nata de Maria Virgine. Ecce quam bene diſputant contra fidem ſine fide. It appears from theſe paſſages that Paſchaſus his opinion was contradicted, That he was accuſed for taking Chriſts words in a wrong ſence, That he had ſeveral clear and ſolid objections offered him, whether by word of mouth, or writing, or by Books, or bare diſcourſes, he does not inform us. But one may well conclude hence that this oppoſition conſiſted not in ſecret diſcourſes, as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe. Are we wont to call private diſcourſe a formal oppoſition by way of objection, diſpute, cenſure, and clear and preciſe explication of the contrary opinion? Opponunt, ſays he, quoecunque poſſunt, Ecce quam bene diſputant, dicunt non in ſe eſſe veritatem carnis Chriſti vel ſanguinis, ſed in Sacramento virtutem carnis non carnem. Audivi quoſdam me reprehendere, &c. Do men thus expreſs themſelves when they would repreſent private diſcourſe? But, ſays Book 3. ch. 8. p. 843.Mr. Arnaud, Paſchaſus in his Letter to Frudegard, aſſures, that altho ſome are deceived thro ignorance, yet there is no body that dared openly contradict what the whole earth believes and confeſſes of this myſtery. I anſwer, that the ſenſe of Paſchaſus is, that no body dared contradict openly what the whole Earth believes and confeſſes of this myſtery, to wit, that 'tis the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, according as 'tis expreſs'd in this clauſe of the Liturgy which he alledges, Ʋt fiat Corpus & Sanguis dilectiſſimi filii tui Domini niſtri Jeſu Chriſti; and by the words of Chriſt, This is my Body. Now what he ſays is true in the ſenſe which we ſuppoſe muſt be given to the words of Chriſt, and to the terms of the Liturgy, but it does not hence follow that thoſe that oppoſed the ſence which Paſchaſus gave to theſe very words of the Liturgy, and to thoſe of Chriſt, explain'd themſelves very plainly againſt him, for there's a great deal of difference between acknowledging the truth of theſe words, and acknowledging the ſenſe which an Author would give 'em, They confeſſed that the words were true, and could not be queſtion'd without a crime; but yet this hindred 'em not from ſetting 'emſelves againſt the ſenſe of Paſchaſus. Paſchaſus pretends to draw advantage againſt 'em by their acknowledging the words, imagining the words were plainly for him; but he does not at all ſay they dared not to diſpute openly againſt him, nor againſt the ſenſe he gave theſe words. This is a deluſion of Mr. Arnauds, juſt as if any one having ſaid that there's no body yet amongſt the Proteſtants that has openly denied the Euchariſt to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, Mr. Arnaud would thence conclude that there's none of 'em then that has yet openly contradicted the ſenſe in which the Roman Church underſtands it, and that they explain themſelves about it only in ſecret diſcourſes. But pray why muſt theſe be ſecret diſcourſes during Paſchaſus his life, ſeeing Mr. Arnaud is obliged to confeſs there were after his death publick Writings which appeared againſt his Doctrin? Is not this a ſilly pretenſion which at fartheſt can only make us imagin Paſchaſus as a formidable man who held the world in awe during his life, and againſt whom no body dared open his mouth till after his death.

p. 204BUT laying aſide this imagination of Mr. Arnaud come we to the principal queſtion, to wit, whether Paſchaſus was an Innovator. Mr. Arnaud to defend him from this charge has recourſe to the Greek Church, which gives, ſays he, ſuch an expreſs teſtimony to his Doctrin of the Real Preſence Book 8. ch. 9.in the 7th. 8th. and 9th. Centuries, that it muſt needs ſhame thoſe who out of a raſh capricio have the boldneſs to affirm that Paſchaſus was the inventer of it. He adds, That all the principal Authors of the Latin Church of the ſame time who clearly taught it in ſuch a manner as they ought to teach it according to the ſtate of their time, do overthrow this ridiculous Fable. To paſs by Mr. Arnauds expreſſions which are always ſtronger than his reaſons, we need only ſend him to th'examination of the Greek Authors of the 7th. 8th. and 9th. Centuries, and Latin Authors of the 7th. and 8th. for he will therein find wherewithal to ſatisfie himſelf above his deſires. Let's only ſee whether he has any thing better to offer us.

HE has recourſe next to his great common place of moral impoſſibilities, and ſuppoſing that according to us none of the Clergy, or Laity imagin'd that Jeſus Chriſt was really preſent in the Euchariſt, that they all took the Euchariſt for Bread and Wine in ſubſtance, that they knew the Bread and Wine were ſigns and Sacraments of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by which we obtain his Graces, and that we muſt meditate on the Paſſion of Jeſus Chriſt in receiving them; that Paſchaſus very well knew that his opinion was oppoſite to that of the Church, and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a carnal motive, leſt he ſhould find himſelf too weak if he departed out of it; ſuppoſing I ſay this, he thus reaſons, Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Diſcipline, and him ſo young that he calls himſelf a Child, and who thinks he has diſcovered this marvellous ſecret, that Jeſus Chriſt is really preſent on Earth in infinite places, that all Chriſtians receive him really every time they partake of the Euchariſt, but that by a deplorable blindneſs they are ignorant of this happineſs, do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths, and take his real Body for an image and ſimple figure; that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Myſtery, and is deſtin'd to declare it to the world. This conceit is already very ſtrange and contrary to the idea which a man neceſſarily forms on Paſchaſus from his Writings, there being nothing more remote from the humility and ſimplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious inſolency with which Mr. Claude charges him, ſo that we may truly ſay he could not worſe repreſent the character of his mind. He afterwards ſays, that this enterpriſe of Paſchaſus of inſtructing all people in this new opinion was the greateſt enterprize that ever any man undertook far greater than that of the Apoſtles when they determin'd to Preach the Goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt throughout all the world. For in fine they were twelve, they wrought Miracles, had other proofs than words, they made Diſciples, and eſtabliſh'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd. Paſchaſus had nothing of all this. He triumphantly fills five great pages with this diſcourſe.

TO anſwer this with ſomewhat leſs heat, we'l reply that theſe arguings would have been perhaps of ſome uſe had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Paſchaſus his time, and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to diſſuade him from making his Book publick. But who told him at preſent that Paſchaſus muſt neceſſarily have all theſe things in his mind, and ſtudied 'em neither more nor leſs than Mr. Arnaud has done in p. 205his Cloſet? Who told him that all thoſe who teach novelties think throly on what they do? When Arius a ſimple Prieſt of Alexandria troubled the Church, by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature, there's no great likelihood he propoſed to himſelf at firſt the changing of the Faith of the whole world, for inſtructing the people, and every where overthrowing what the Apoſtles had eſtabliſh'd, or compared his deſign with that of the Apoſtles, and examin'd what there was more or leſs in it? 'Tis the ſame in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins, their firſt thoughts were preſently to ſet forth what they imagin'd moſt conſonant to truth, leaving the ſucceſs to time, and mannaging themſelves afterwards as occaſion required. The greateſt affairs do uſually begin after this manner, men enter upon 'em without much reflection, and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeſeen.

2. TO diſcover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings, we need only apply them to John Scot, or Bertram. Suppoſe we then as he would have us, that in their time the whole world believed firmly and univerſally the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, and all the Faithful had a diſtinct knowledg of it, knew all of 'em that the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine no longer ſubſiſts after their Conſecration, that what we receive in the Communion is the proper ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame numerical ſubſtance which was born of the Virgin, dead and riſen, and is now ſate at the right hand of God, that the ſame Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the ſame time. John Scot a ſimple Religious undertakes to diſabuſe all the people, to perſuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper ſubſtance of the Son of God was a ſubſtance of Bread, that thro a deplorable error they had hitherto worſhip'd an object which deſerv'd not this adoration, and that henceforth by his Miniſtry and at his word all the Earth ſhould change its Faith and Worſhip. Does this deſign appear leſs ſtrange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paſchaſus, upon our ſuppoſition? All the difference I find is, that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paſchaſus; for 'tis difficulter to root ancient and perpetual Opinions out of mens minds, than to inſpire them with new ones; to make 'em lay aſide their Rites, Altars, th'object of their ſupreme Adoration and Piety, than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a ſubject for which they have already a great reſpect. Howſoever 'tis certain that John Scot wrote a Book againſt the Real Preſence, and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypotheſis, this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thouſand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true. Why then will he have it to be impoſſible for Paſchaſus, who wrote a Book touching the Real Preſence, to advance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquainted? Why muſt there be in Hypotheſis's which are alike facilities on the one ſide, and impoſſibilities on the other? Paſchaſus and John Scot wrote, one for the Real Preſence, and the other againſt it. This is a fact which is uncontroulable. One of 'em muſt neceſſarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief, and conſequently one of 'em muſt be an Innovator. If it be poſſible that 'twas John Scot, it is yet more probable 'twas Paſchaſus; if it be impoſſible that 'twas Paſchaſus, it is yet more impoſſible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not ſo warm himſelf in his conſequences, ſeeing 'tis his intereſt as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em; and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong, that never man ſpent his pains to leſs purpoſe, than he has done in this occaſion.

p. 2063. ALL that can be reaſonably ſaid of Paſchaſus, is, that being yet young, and imagining the ſubſtances of Bread and Wine did not ſubſiſt in the Euchariſt, but were chang'd into the ſubſtance of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, he thought this marvail was not enough known, and that 'twas neceſſary to explain it. And therefore he undertakes to inſtruct his Diſciple Placidus in it, to whom he dedicates his Book, and the reſt of his Scholars. This appears from the reading of his Preface, and ſecond Chapter. Placuit, ſays he in his Preface, ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis & corporis tibi exigis neceſſaria, quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perſtringere, ut coeteri vitoe pabulum & ſalutis hauſtum planius tecum caperent ad medelam, & nobis operis proeſtantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro ſudore. And in the ſecond Chapter, Tanti Sacramenti virtus inveſtiganda eſt, & diſciplina Chriſti fides erudienda, ne forte ob hoc cenſeamur indigni ſi non ſatis diſcernimus illud, nec intelligimus myſticum Chriſti Corpus & ſanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute—ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis proviſum eſt ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam. There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the firſt deſign of Paſchaſus. His deſigns without doubt extended not ſo far as the whole Univerſe, they only reſpected Placidus and ſome other Scholars which he taught, and the end he propoſed was to give 'em the knowledg of this myſtery which he had obtain'd, believing 'twas not ſufficiently known. His Book which was deſign'd only for young people was yet read by many others, it excited the curioſity of ſeveral, as he himſelf tells us in his Letter to Frudegard, Ad intelligentiam, ſays he, hujus myſterii plures ut audio commovi: I have ſtirred up ſeveral people to underſtand this myſtery. 'Tis likely ſeveral became of his mind, and 'tis certain others condemned his opinion: Audivi, ſays he, quoſdam me reprehendere, and that others in fine remain'd in ſuſpenſe and uncertainty. Quoeris, ſays he, to Frudegard, de re ex qua multi dubitant, and lower, Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet, & hoc, Corpus Chriſti & Sanguis eſſe poſſit. This firſt ſucceſs ſo little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th. of S. Matthew, where he urges the words of Chriſt, This is my Body, and argues as ſtrongly as he can againſt thoſe that ſay 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in a Figure, in a Sacrament, and in Virtue. In fine, Frudegard having offered him a paſſage of S. Auſtin out of his third Book, De Doctrina Chriſtiana, wherein this Father ſays, that to eat this Fleſh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution, which ſeems to command a ſin, but which ſignifies to meditate on the Death and Paſſion of Jeſus Chriſt for us, he thence takes occaſion to write the Letter to Frudegard, wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin, preſſing again the words of Jeſus Chriſt, and relating ſome paſſages of the Fathers, and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his ſide, And this is all that can be ſaid hiſtorically touching Paſchaſus his fact, in which I think there's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator, that is to ſay, that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church, as will be made plain by what we ſhall alledg anon. Mr. Arnaud ſhould argue from theſe matters of fact, and not from imaginary ſuppoſitions.

PASCHASƲS, ſays he, propoſes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch. 8. p. 848.any Preface, or inſinuating addreſs, without ſuppoſing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleaſes. His Doctrin then was not new. This conſequence is too quick. He does not mention that horrid blindneſs wherein p. 207he muſt ſuppoſe the world. Altho he does not ſpeak of it, what can be thence concluded, thoſe that propoſe novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of abſolutely acknowledging that in this reſpect the world lies in an error. Yet does Paſchaſus inſinuate in his Book that this myſtery was unknown, that is to ſay, that men knew not yet his Doctrin, as I have already ſhew'd, and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that ſeveral were ignorant of it. Quamvis, ſays he, plurimi ignoraverint tanti myſterii Sacramenta. He does not trouble himſelf, adds Mr. Arnaud, to confirm what he ſays by proofs ſufficient to diſſipate this error. What follows hence? He proves it as well as he can, that is to ſay ill; yet does he advertiſe his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church, and he names S. Cyprian, Ambroſe, Hilary, Auguſtin, Chryſoſtom, Jerom, Gregory, Iſidor, Iſychius and Bede: Now here are, I think, great names enough.

Mr. Claude, adds further Mr. Arnaud, would perſuade us that a young Religions Page 850.having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to ſenſe and reaſon, and having taught it without proofs, living in a great communalty, having commerce with a great number of Religious, Abbots, and Biſhops, was yet advertiſed by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church, and that not only he eſcap'd unpuniſh'd, but for thirty years together no body teſtifi'd any aſtoniſhment at his Doctrin; ſo that he only learn'd from other peoples report, and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were ſome perſons who found fault with it. Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon ſtrange things. Does he not ſee we need only turn his reaſoning on John Scot and Bertram to expoſe the weakneſs of it? They wrote againſt the Real Preſence: who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church? who puniſh'd 'em for it? what Popes, what Councils condemn'd 'em? who, ſetting aſide Paſchaſus, ſtood up againſt thoſe that affirm'd the Euchariſt was not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt otherwiſe than Sacramentally, figuratively, and virtually, and not really, Non in re eſſe veritatem carnis Chriſti vel Sanguinis, ſed in Sacramento, virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem, virtutem Sanguinis & non Sanguinem? Suppoſing no body did addreſs themſelves to Paſchaſus himſelf to charge him with the publiſhing in his Book a new Doctrin, what can be rationally inferred hence, but that his Book was at firſt but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it, becauſe a Book deſign'd for Scholars does not uſually make any great noiſe, or becauſe perhaps that it was deſpiſed, ſeeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpoſe. But, ſays Mr. Arnaud, at leaſt the Monks of the Convent of Corbie muſt oppoſe him, Had they done it, they had done no more than they ought. But Paſchaſus was their Maſter that taught 'em, and the Diſciples are not wont to contradict their Maſters. Paſchaſus had immediately won to his intereſts Placidus, who was a perſon of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent, as appears by the terms of Paſchaſus himſelf, for thus does he beſpeak him. Dilectiſſimo filio, & vice Chriſti proeſidenti, Magiſtro Monaſticae Diſciplinoe, alternis ſucceſſibus veritatis diſcipulo. Again, who told Mr. Arnaud that no body for thirty years reprehended Paſchaſus to his face? how knows he this, that he can be ſo confident of it? Does Paſchaſus himſelf poſitively aſſure him of it? No. But 'tis becauſe Paſchaſus ſays, Audivi quoſdam me reprehendere. I am inform'd that ſome blame me. Every man ſees that this expreſſion is not ſufficient for the drawing of this conſequence, and that an Author may ſpeak thus, altho he was told of his fault to his face. In fine, who inform'd Mr. Arnaud p. 208that the contradictions which Paſchaſus met with did not happen till thirty years after the publiſhing of his Book? Becauſe he complains of this in his Commentaries on S. Matthew, which were publiſh'd not till thirty years after. A frivolous reaſon, as if the cenſures which were made of his Doctrin, muſt needs be of the ſame date as his Commentaries wherein he mentions 'em, and endeavours to defend himſelf. It muſt be acknowledg'd that never man argued more unhappily than Mr. Arnaud.

NOT only, adds he, he was not reprehended by any of his Superiors, Page 850, 851.Friends, and Brethren, but he ſtill believed the whole Church was on his ſide. For in his Papers which he wrote not long before his death he preſſes his unknown adverſaries of whom he had notice, by the Authority of the whole Church, and clearly affirms a man cannot oppoſe his Opinion without contradicting the Faith of it. Videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipſum Dominum, & contra omnem Eccleſiam. He ſays that no body dared yet openly contradict this Doctrin which he taught, nor oppoſe what the whole world own'd to be true. Ideo quamvis quidam de ignorantia errent, nemo tamen adhuc eſt in aperto qui ita hoc eſſe contradicat quod totus orbis credit & confitetur. In ſhort he accuſes thoſe as highly criminal, who uſing the common Prayers of the Church explain'd them in a ſenſe of figure and virtue, contrary to the conſent of the whole Earth. Nefandum ergo ſcelus eſt orare cum omnibus, & non credere quod ipſa veritas teſtatur, & ubique omnes univerſaliter verum eſſe fatentur.

I anſwered the Author of the Perpetuity, That Paſchaſus did not ſay the whole world was formally of his opinion, but that this was a conſequence which he would draw from the whole worlds believing to be true and above all queſtion the words of Jeſus Chriſt, This is my Body, which he imagin'd contain'd his Belief, and from the Churches ſaying in her Canon, Ʋt fiat Corpus & Sanguis dilectiſſimi filii tui Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti, to which the people anſwered, Amen. That there's a great deal of difference betwixt poſitive aſſuring that the whole Church believes by a diſtinct and unqueſtionable Faith a Doctrin, and th' iutroducing of it by conſequences drawn from ſome expreſſions which a man believes to be favorable to this Doctrin, but which are not ſo greatly favorable but that they may be of uſe to thoſe who believe a contrary Doctrin.

HERE, ſays Mr. Arnaud, is a diſtinction well worthy of Mr. Claude's invention who admirably well pretends to anſwer a matter when he does nothing leſs, and to diſtinguiſh by terms which have no ſenſe, that which reaſon cannot diſtinguiſh. Let us in good time ſee then whether my diſtinction be as extravagant as Mr. Arnaud would make it. When a man maintains againſt an opponent a Doctrin which is ſaid to be the common Doctrin of the Church, either this propoſition that 'tis the common Doctrin of the Church, is ſo clear and evident, that the Adverſaries themſelves muſt grant it, or it is not ſo clear nor evident but that 'tis queſtionable. As to the firſt caſe, a man need not trouble himſelf to prove it: for its taken for a Principle, and ſuch conſequences are thence drawn as are judged fitting. For inſtance, When the Gentlemen of the Roman Church teach that our Saviour Chriſt died not only for the Elect, but alſo for all men in general; that all Gods Commands are poſſible to be kept by the Juſt, according to the preſent condition of their ability; that the ſubſtance of Bread is really converted into the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; that the Wicked receive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and eat it with their bodily mouths in the act of p. 209the Communion; it is ſo evident that theſe are the common Doctrins of this Church, that there needs no proving 'em; and ſhould any one in the boſom of the Roman Church oppoſe theſe Articles, there's no body would take pains to prove to him that they are the Faith of the Church, for they would be ſuppoſed to be undeniable Principles, and he would have only hence conſequences drawn againſt him. As to the ſecond caſe, that is to ſay when 'tis not clear that this is the Faith of the Church, and that this point is in diſpute, both parties apply themſelves to the bringing of proofs, and each commonly endeavours to authoriſe his Opinion under the ſpecious name of the Faith of the Church.

BUT as this queſtion touching the common Doctrin of the Church may have two ſenſes, one which regards preciſely the preſent Church, which is to ſay, the Church in the time of the conteſt, the other which reſpects the Church in the preceding times, which is to ſay, before the controverſie, it may alſo receive two ſorts of proofs, ſome which refer to the preſent time, others which refer to the Ages which have preceded us. When a man proves for the time preſent, he alledges teſtimonies of the modern Church, when he proves for the paſt time, he alledges 'em of thoſe that have lived before us, and the queſtion determins it ſelf according as the proofs are good, or bad, concluſive, or not concluſive.

TO apply this to the matter in hand, I ſay, That Paſchaſus never advanc'd for an undeniable Principle, that his Doctrin was the Doctrin or common belief of the Church in his time; on the contrary he has formally acknowledg'd that there were in his time three ſorts of perſons in the Church; the firſt reprehended him for miſ-underſtanding the words of Chriſt. Audivi quoſdam me reprehendere quaſi ego in eo libro quem de Sacramentis Chriſti edideram aliquid his dictis plus tribuere voluerim quam ipſa veritas repromittit, and affirm'd on the contrary that the Euchariſt was the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in figure and virtue. Non in re eſſe veritatem carnis Chriſti vel Sangainis, ſed in Sacramento, virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem. Others that doubted of the truth of his Doctrin, multi dubitant, ſays he, ſeveral times. And in fine, others that erred thro ignorance, which is to ſay, that had not yet heard of theſe marvails which he propoſed. Quamvis plurimi, ſays he, dubitaverint vel ignoraverint tanti myſterii Sacramenta. And a little lower, Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent. He was then far from vaunting that his Doctrin was undeniably the common Faith of the Church of his Age.

I ſay in the ſecond place, that whatſoever deſign Paſchaſus had to make people believe that he taught nothing but what was according to the Doctrin of the Church; yet did he never alledg for this effect the men of his time, nor ever ſaid the Biſhops which then governed the Churches, the Abbots, Prieſts, Religious, and all learned men held the ſame language as he did, and all of 'em unanimouſly confeſs'd, that the ſubſtance of Bread was changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin according to the propriety of his nature. Neither did he ever aver he held his Doctrin from Maſters that taught it. Paſchaſus was far from aſſerting this.

HE keeps to three things, to ſome paſſages of the Fathers, to the words of Jeſus Chriſt, This is my Body, to a clauſe of the Liturgy, which ſays, Ʋt fiat Corpus & ſanguis dilectiſſimi filii tui Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti: And p. 210as to the paſſages of the Fathers having propoſed 'em, he concludes, That from thence one may know that what he wrote was not an effect of Enthuſiaſtical raſhneſs, nor a young man's viſion; but that he offered theſe things (to thoſe who were deſirous of 'em) from the authority of the Word of God, and the Writings of the Holy Fathers. Now ſeeing, adds he, it appears that all men have not Faith, yet if they cannot underſtand, let 'em learn to believe with the Fathers that there's nothing impoſſible with God, and acquieſce in the Divine words without the leaſt doubt of 'em. For we never as yet read any have erred in this point, unleſs thoſe that have erred touching the perſon of Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, altho ſeveral have doubted, or been ignorant of the Sacraments of ſo great a myſtery. Is this the language of a man that loudly glories in the conſent of the whole Church? Were he aſſur'd he wrote nothing but what was according to the common belief, what need he juſtifie himſelf from the ſuſpicion of Enthuſiaſm and pretences to Viſions? Are we wont to ſuſpect people in this ſort who ſay only what the whole world ſays and believes? And deſigning to juſtifie himſelf, why muſt he rather betake himſelf to ſome paſſages of the Fathers, (whoſe ſenſe and terms he may juſtly be ſaid to have corrupted) than to the teſtimony of perſons in his own time, and to ſay if he was an Enthuſiaſt or Viſionary, all the Biſhops, Abbots, Prieſts, Religious, Doctors, and Chriſtians in general were ſo too, ſeeing they all believ'd and ſpake as he did? But inſtead of this he complains that his Doctrin which he term'd that of the Fathers was not kindly received: Nunc autem, ſays he, exinde quia claruit quod non omnium eſt fides. He exhorts thoſe who reprehended him, to believe with the Fathers that nothing is impoſſible with God, and to acquieſce in the words of Jeſus Chriſt. Diſcant quoeſo cum talibus credere, ſi adhuc nequeunt intelligere, quod Deo nihil eſt impoſſibile, diſcant & verbis divinis acquieſcere, & in nullo de his dubitare.

WHEN then he adds that hitherto 'twas not heard that any perſon erred on this ſubject, unleſs 'twere thoſe who had erred touching Jeſus Chriſt himſelf. Quia uſque ad proeſens nemo deerraſſe legitur niſi qui & de Chriſto erraverunt. He would ſay that till then no body had contradicted the Doctrin of the Fathers, leaving it to be underſtood that then 'twas contradicted, becauſe they contradicted his, which he maintain'd was that of the Fathers. So far we do not find him boaſting of the conſent of the Church in his time, for we ſee on the contrary ſeveral things which ſufficiently denote that he was far from doing it.

AS to the paſſages of the Liturgy, and words of Chriſt, he ſays, that the Prieſt prays in the Canon in theſe terms, Ʋt fiat Corpus Jeſus Chriſti, that all the People cry Amen, and ſo the whole Church in every Nation and Language confeſſes that 'tis this ſhe deſires in her Prayer. Whence he draws this conſequence, Ʋnde videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipſum Dominum & contra omnem Chriſti Eccleſiam. Nefarium ergo ſcelus eſt orare cum omnibus, & non credere quod ipſa veritas teſtatur, & ubique omnes nniverſaliter verum eſſe fatentur. Let thoſe then that had rather contradict this than believe it, conſider what they do againſt the Lord himſelf and his whole Church. It is then a great fault to pray with all people, and not to believe what the truth it ſelf atteſts, and what all do univerſally, and every where confeſs to be true. His Argument is a Sophiſm which amounts to this, Our Saviour Chriſt ſays 'tis his Body, and the whole Church confeſſes the ſame. But they that at this day deny that 'tis his Body p. 211in propriety of nature deny that 'tis his Body. Therefore they contradict Jeſus Chriſt and his Church. Who ſees not but there is a great difference between reaſoning in this manner, and poſitively aſſuring, that the whole Church believes 'tis his Body in propriety of nature? I will have this, ſays Mr. Arnaud Page 852.to be only a conſequence. Are not Authors perſuaded of the truth of the conſequences which they draw, and do they not offer them for true as poſitively as their principles? Mr. Arnaud gives an exchange. The queſtion is not whether Paſchaſus was perſuaded of the ſolidity of his conſequence or not, but whether we ought to be perſuaded of it our ſelves, and take it for a teſtimony touching the publick belief of his time. Mr. Arnaud ſhould know that when a man teſtifies of a matter of fact, and afterwards draws thence by way of argument, and conſequence another fact, he is no farther credible in reſpect of this latter, but only as his argument or conſequence appears juſt to us. If I ſay for example that Mr. Arnaud confeſſes in the firſt edition of his Book, That 'tis poſſible the faithful knew not always ſo expreſly, Book 6. ch. 1.and univerſally, whether the Bread did or did remain in the Sacrament, and I from hence draw by way of argument and conſequence this propoſition, That Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Tranſubſtantiation was not anciently an Article of Faith in the Church. My teſtimony in reſpect of the latter fact will be no farther credible than my conſequence will be good. 'Tis the ſame here. Paſchaſus aſſures us, that the whole Church in his time called the Euchariſt the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, ſaying theſe words, Ʋt fiat Corpus dilectiſſimi filii tui. So far he acts as a witneſs, we muſt believe him. Whence he draws this conſequence. That thoſe that do not believe it to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in propriety of nature, but only in Sacrament contradict the Church. Here he acts the part of a Diſputer, if his arguing be good, we will believe him, if it be a Sophiſm, we'll not matter it. Now 'tis a ſophiſm; for according to the maxim of S. Auguſtin, The Sacraments aſſume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments, ſo that to deny the Euchariſt to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in propriety of nature, it does not follow a man thereby contradicts the Church which calls it the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

BƲT, adds Mr. Arnaud, 'tis moreover falſe that this is only a conſequence. Book 8. ch. 9. p. 852.For this propoſition that the whole Church believ'd the Real Preſence was included both in the Principle and Concluſion of Paſchaſus his argument. He concludes, That thoſe who deny the Real Preſence commit an horrid crime in oppoſing the Faith of the Church. Here we have it comprehended in the concluſion. Did ever man hear ſuch kind of reaſoning? 'Tis falſe that this is only a conſequence, becauſe 'tis a propoſition contain'd in the concluſion. This is juſt as if a man ſhould ſay 'tis falſe that it is day. Why? Becauſe the Sun is at his heighth, for for to be day, and the Sun to be at its heighth, are not more the ſame thing, than to be a conſequence, and to be a propoſition contained in the concluſion of an argument. Are theſe the prodigious effects of Mr. Arnaud's Logick? And the Principle of this concluſion is, adds he, not that the Church ſimply recites theſe words; Ʋt fiat Corpus dilectiſſimi filii tui, but underſtands them in the ſenſe of the Real Preſence. Which is what I deny. The Principle whereon Paſchaſus argues is no other than this, That the Prieſt ſays, Ʋt fiat Corpus dilectiſſimi filii tui, and the People anſwer, Amen. That the Church did, or did not underſtand this of the Real Preſence, is what Paſchaſus does not touch on. He is careful not to advance ſo far, Had he known, ſays Mr. Arnaud, that the Church took theſe words in another ſenſe, he muſt needs be a mad man to reproach as he does theſe perſons p. 212for being contrary to the ſenſe of the whole Church. He ſuppoſes then this for a Princile, that the whole Church took them in the ſence of a Real Preſence, and conſequently ſuppoſes ſhe held entirely this Doctrin. This is mere wrangling. Paſchaſus does not ſay that theſe perſons againſt whom he inveighs were contrary to the ſenſe of the Church, but only, that they went againſt the Church, to wit, inaſmuch as they went, according to him, contrary to the terms of the Liturgy. Secondly, Whether he did or did not know that the Church took theſe terms in another ſenſe, 'tis not neceſſary to enquire, ſeeing he does not explain himſelf therein, and ſpeaks neither far or near of the ſenſe of theſe terms. And 'tis likely he knew there were at leaſt three ſorts of perſons in the Church, the doubters, the ignorant, and formal adverſaries of his Doctrin who took 'em not in this ſenſe. Thirdly, Suppoſing we ſay not that Paſchaſus was mad, but argued like a Sophiſter, what inconvenience will follow, and what ſhall we ſay more than appears from the bare reading of his diſcourſe? He would have the Church on his ſide, what could be more eaſie, ſuppoſing at that time the converſion of ſubſtances, and Real Preſence were believed, than to proclaim clearly and plainly that the whole Church, Biſhops, Religious, the Doctors, and generally all the faithful believed his Doctrin neither more nor leſs, and there only needed them to be conſulted. Articles of Faith of this nature cannot lie hid in a Church which holds them. His Adverſaries could not have denied this truth, and had they the impudence to do it they might eaſily be convinc'd by a million of perſons then living. Why had he recourſe to arguing and conſequences? Why muſt this conſequence be drawn by the hair out of a paſſage of the Liturgy, which may receive I know not how many explications? Why did he not at leaſt ſay 'twas certain the Church underſtood this clauſe in the ſenſe of a Real Preſence? Wherefore was he ſilent touching the ſenſe, and argued only from the force of theſe terms, Corpus dilectiſſimi filii tui, &c. as if all thoſe that utter theſe terms, or add to em their Amen, believ'd the Real Preſence? Which ſhews us two things, the firſt, that Paſchaſus acted like a Sophiſter, ſheltering himſelf as well as he could under the Authority of the Church, againſt the reproach objected againſt him of being a Viſionary, and an Enthuſiaſt; and the other, that in effect he was an Innovator that had broached a Doctrin unknown to the Church of his time; for had he the advantage which Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes he had, which is, that the whole Church was of his opinion, and the people commonly believed the Real Preſence and converſion of ſubſtances of Bread and Wine, he would not have fail'd to make the beſt of it, and o'rewhelm his adverſaries with it.

Mr. ARNAƲD will now then perhaps comprehend that there's a difference between a man that affirms a thing for certain, and of which he himſelf is a witneſs, and one that draws a conſequence, and perhaps will no longer ſay, That my diſtinction ſeparates by terms which have no ſenſe, that which reaſon cannot ſeparate. And at the ſame time acknowledg, that never pretenſion was worſe grounded than that of the Author of the Perpetuity, and his own. They affirm the whole Church was of Paſchaſus his mind. But whereon do they ground their ſuppoſition? Were the Adverſaries of Paſchaſus agreed about it? No. Does Paſchaſus himſelf expreſly affirm it? No. But 'tis becauſe Paſchaſus inſinuates it by an equivocal term which the Church made uſe of. But does Paſchaſus formally aſſert, that the Church underſtood this term in the ſenſe which he gave it? No. But 'tis becauſe Paſchaſus muſt thus underſtand it, ſays Mr. Arnaud, to make his p. 213reaſoning juſt. Take away then from Paſchaſus his reaſoning the juſtneſs which Mr. Arnaud would give it, the ſubint…lligitur is annull'd, and theſe Gentlemen bare of proofs.

THESE words of Paſchaſus, ſays Mr. Arnaud, Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere non in re eſſe veritatem carnis Chriſti vel Sanguinis, ſed in Sacramento, virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem, furniſh us with another proof of the ſame nature. For they ſhew that this ſolution of virtue was new, and that Paſchaſus had not learn'd it but of late. Mr. Arnaud does well to advertiſe us that 'tis a proof of the ſame nature as the others, for 'tis ſo in effect, that is to ſay, a very ſlight one, and ſcarcely worth offering. Paſchaſus is aſtoniſh'd at what his Adverſaries ſay in reference to virtue, not that this ſolution appears to him new. He ſays nothing of it in this reſpect, but becauſe it does not appear to him conformable to theſe words of Jeſus Chriſt, This is my Body, nor to theſe others, The Bread which I ſhall give is my Fleſh, nor to theſe, He that eats my Fleſh, and drinks my Blood, dwells in me, and I in him. Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paſchaſus his Text, and he'l find what I ſay to be true. Jeſus Chriſt, ſays he, did not ſay, this is, or in this myſtery is the virtue or figure of my Body, but he has ſaid without feigning, This is my Body. S. John introduces likewiſe our Lord, ſaying, the Bread which I ſhall give is my Fleſh, not another than that which is for the life of the world. And again, He that eats my Fleſh, and drinks my Blood, dwells in me and I in him. Ʋnde miror, adds he, quid velint, &c, What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this ſolution of virtue?

IN fine, Frudegard himſelf, ſays moreover Mr. Arnaud, to whom Paſchaſus Page 857.wrote about the latter part of his life to remove ſome doubts he had on this myſtery may ſerve further to confute the falſity of Mr. Claude's fable, who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Preſence unleſs he took it from Paſchaſus his Book. Dicis, ſays Paſchaſus, to him, te ſic antea credidiſſe, & in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legiſſe, ſed profiteris poſtea te in libro tertio de doctrina Chriſtiana B. Auguſtini legiſſe quod tropica ſit locutio. Mr. Arnaud will have theſe words, Dicis te ſic antea credidiſſe, to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Preſence was the Faith in which he had been brought up, and that the following, Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legiſſe, denote that the reading of Paſchaſus his Book had confirm'd him in it. But who knows not that in theſe kind of diſcourſes the Particle Et, is very often a Particle which explains, or gives the reaſon of what was before ſaid, and not that which diſtinguiſhes, as I have already obſerv'd in another place. He would only ſay that before he thus believed it, having ſo read it in Paſchaſus his Book. And that Mr. Arnaud's ſubtilty might take place, he muſt have ſaid, not that he had thus believ'd it before; but thus believ'd it from the beginning, in his youth, that he afterwards thus found it in Paſchaſus his Book, who had confirm'd him in his belief, but that afterwards he had found in S. Auſtin that 'twas a figurative locution. In this manner he had diſtinguiſh'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud, whereas he diſtinguiſhes but two, antea, and poſtea, and as to the firſt, he ſays he had thus believ'd it, and thus read it in Paſchaſus his Book, denoting by this ſecond clauſe the place where he drew this Faith.

AND theſe are Mr. Arnaud's objections, but having examin'd them, 'twill not be amiſs to repreſent the concluſion he draws from 'em. I do not believe, ſays he; that having conſidered all theſe proofs ſeriouſly one can imagin, p. 214that Paſchaſus in declaring the Euchariſt to be the true Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt aſſum'd of the Virgin, has propoſed a new Doctrin. Neither can I believe that amongſt the Calviniſts themſelves any but Mr. Claude will be ſo obſtinate as to maintain ſo evident a falſity, and one ſo likely to demonſtrate to the world the exceſſive boldneſs of ſome of their Miniſters. Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory. Can you but think he has offered the moſt convincing proofs imaginable, oblig'd us to be everlaſtingly ſilent, and that the Miniſter Claude muſt be a ſtrange kind of a man, ſeeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himſelf againſt ſuch puiſſant demonſtrations and clear diſcoveries.