A DISCOURSE OF Monsr. VIGIER TO The Lord Abbot Goddon, Great Dean of the Cathedral Church of TOUL in Lorraine.  
Concerning the Book of Monsr. ARNAUD, Doctor of the Sorbon; ENTITLED, The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholic Church, touching the EUCHARIST, Maintained against the Book of Monsieur CLAUDE.  
Englished out of French.  
In which Discourse is very briefly discovered the Vanity and Ineffectualness of that Pompous Volume of the SORBONIST.  
In the SAVOY: For Joh. Martin Printer to the Royal Society, at the Sign of the Bell in S. Paul's Churchyard, and a little without Temple-Bar. 1670.   

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DISCOURSE.  
THe occasion and design of it.  

I. Reflection, where it is showed by the acknowledgement of Monsieur Arnaud himself, that he might have cut of three Fourths of his Book, without taking away any thing Essential.  
II. Reflection, which showeth, that people have not been forward to have this Book of Monsieur Arnaud, because there is expected a Volume of his, of more importance.  
III. Reflection, wherein is noted, That the fierce and insulting Spirit, wherewith Monsieur Arnaud treateth Monsieur Claude, hath made us averse from the reading of it.  
iv Reflection, wherein the Author answers to three Crimes, wherewith Monsieur Arnaud unduly chargeth those of the Protestant Communion. The first is, that it is possible, the Church should subsist not more. The second that they have introduced detestable Morals The third, that they favour and support by their Principles the Errors of the Socinians.  
V Reflection, where the Author examineth the proofs of Monsieur Arnaud, for the first Supposition of the Book of the Perpetuity, which consists in the Union of all the Oriental Churches with the Roman, about the matter of the Eucharist in the time of Paschasius.  
VI Reflection, in which the Author evinceth, that Monsieur Arnaud hath no way proved the second Supposition of the Book of the Perpetuity, which consists in the Adoration of the Body of Jesus Christ present upon the Altars, in the time of the same Paschasius.    

SIR,  
YOu have demanded my thoughts, concerning the success, which Monsieur Arnaud's last Book against M. Claude hath met with amongst Us, in so pressing and civil a way, that I could not defend myself against it. I pretend not to penetrate into your heart, nor to divine a thing which you have concealed from me; possibly I should not miss the mark, nor be much wide from your thoughts, if I should believe, that the opinion you have had of my sincerity, in speaking of things without prejudice, and the Idea you have form of the Triumphs of M. Arnaud's Book, have induced you to desire this of me, thinking it to be an infallible means to make me acknowledge the Injustice of our Cause touching th● important subject, and even to make ●● forsake my party: But, I shall conte●● myself to give you satisfaction wit● out entering into this examen; an●  it be, I shall only tell you this to point, that neither my sincerity nor Monsieur Arnaud's Book have giust me the lest disposition to answer ●● thing in favour of this motive, if it that which hath set you on work.  
And indeed, Sir, I shall tell you freely, that this Work of M. Arnaud h●● not found that success, which his frien●● expected from it, nor obtained that influence, which some of our profess●● might apprehended fram the same was expected with impatience on besides: On the one, he was looked u● as a Victorious General, carrying terr● with him every where; and, one ●● should discomfit his Enemies at the f● encounter; who should make as m● Conquests as he had Readers; who sho●● dissipate at his first setting out the ●sions and enchantments which the Rhe●rick of M. Claude was bold to carry ●ven into the Cabinet of the greatest per●ns amongst them: On the other, he ●as considered as a formidable enemy, ●hat was able at lest, by the strength of ●is Eloquence and Wit to disturb the Joy they possessed, to cast things back ●gain into the hazard of a new Combat, and to make a victory doubtful, which seemed could not be disputed with them in reason, after that the most Learned and the most Ambitious of all Societies had found to their great regret, that they had not been able to succeed in it.  
Neither of the two parties were much in the wrong: For, what, I pray, was not to be expected from so learned and polite a Pen as that of M. Arnaud, and of his Friends the Gentlemen of the Port-Royal? What was not to be believed of those worthy Defendants of the sentiments of Great St. Augustin, touching the Efficacy of Divine Grace? What was not the Book of M. Claude, whos● cause and profession are none of th● most favour d, to fear of the Eloquence, Power, Dexterity, Credit, and good Fortune of those Gentlemen, who so frequently have beaten the innumerable troops of the Molinists, who have divided your Schools and your Churches, between Victorious and Sufficient Grace; who have been capable to persuade men, that the Council of Trent was not against them; who at a time, when their virtue was seen to succumb to the number of their Persecutors, have found in the Wisdom of our Incomparable Monarch, and in the extraordinary Prudence of the Pope, a return which was beyond their hopes, and which hath been the most splendid and the most glorious, that ever was seen in a like conjuncture.  
In the mean time, the Book of M. Arnaud hath made much lesle noise, since it hath appear d, than it did before it came abroad; His triumphs are only in ●he magnificent Attestations of his Ap●robators, and M. Claude hath not received the lest wound from it.  
Whence, I pray, Sir, comes this notable difference? Is it, that Monsieur Arnaud, tired by his first combats, hath not had the same vigour against this last Adversary? Is it, that being employed in things more essential to him, he hath not used all the attention which was requisite for this famous Answer? Is it, that he hath neglected himself from the consideration of this conjuncture of time, not being favourable to Us? Or lastly, is it the fault of the Cause rather than of its Advocate? Sir, you may say what you please of it; as for me, I esteem that there is something of all that in it, and you will perhaps be of my opinion, when you shall have made together with me the following Reflections, which will give more light to the Reasons, which make me judge, that that Work of his hath not met with among Us, nor possibly even among the sincerer sort of your party, those Applauses, and that Approbation, which you expected from it.   


The First Reflection.  
THe Book of Monsieur Arnaud is very big, and this hath been the first stumbling stone, many persons being unwilling to buy it, some by reason of its great price, and others, because they had not so much time to read it. I know many of both Religions, who never had it, upon either the one, or the other account; and it is certain, that ten times more of them would have been sold, if the Book had been of the price and bigness of his first Work. And indeed, Sir, so big a Volume scareth people, and they dare not undertake to read it, that they may not be obliged to quit it in the middle, and possibly sooner, by reason of the several occupation we all have. Besides, Monsieur Arnaud, methinks, hath had but little care of our salvation; for, this Book being, in his opinion, and in that of his approbators, a plain and entire conviction of us, and an easy means to reduce us into the bosom of their Church, is it not true, Sir, That his zeal for so great a work should have obliged him to have made it more common, more popular, more easy to buy, and to read it? What doth he know, whether of hundreds of persons, who have not seen his Book, and who would have read it, if it had been much lesle, the half, or the third part, would not have been converted? What doth he know, whether Tyre and Sidon would not have repent, if they had seen the Miracles that have been done in Chorazim and Bethsaida? So that, methinks, he should have so ordered it, either by a gratuitous impression, or by retrenching three parts of four of his Book, that all sorts of persons might have got it.  
It may be, Sir, you will think this, what I say of a gratuitous Impression, somewhat new and difficult to practise. But, if you consider, that those Gentlemen of the Port Royal have made above Five hundred presents of this Book, according to the relation of their Stationer, will not you avow to me, that, since the conversion of those that shall read it is concerned, those presents would have been better employed for the Salvation of Men, ●han for the payment of a civility, which aimeth but at the honour of the World? Heaven ●hould have carried it from Earth, and Cha●ity from Interest, whereto we are oftener carried by Custom, rather than by Inclination. And do not tell me, that this Book hath been given to Catholics, to confirm them in their Religion: For you do not doubt, that almost none of those, to whom it hath been presented, had any need at all of these elucidations, nor any scruple of their Belief. You know also, that the Shepherd in the Gospel leaves his Ninety and nine sheep, of which he is assured, to go and seek after that one which is gone astray. And if those Gentlemen had pleased, they might have made Presents, and given Alms, acquitted themselves of the duties, which respect and friendship demanded of them, and gained good will among their Adversaries. You see well enough, Sir, that I speak for the interest of our people, and for many, who would have been very glad to have seen this Book, and were not in a condition to buy it, nor to read it after they had got it.  
But let us set aside this Liberality and this Zeal; they are works of supererogation, to which a Man is not obliged; and when mere Counsels do cause trouble, pain, and some loss, we do easily exempt ourselves from them. But as to the second condition, which I would have wished from Monsieur Arnaud, viz. The shortening of his Book, to make it more common amongst us, he cannot blame it forasmuch as it would have turned both to hi● own account, and to that of others, since i● would have taken of half his pains in composing it, as well as that of ours in reading it.  
Do not think, Sir, that this retrenchment would have taken away any thing of the force of Monsieur Arnauds' Book; on the contrary, it would have contained nothing but what is essential and solid, whereas in the condition it is now in, it may be said in the general, that it is weak and useless throughout. For, it doth not bear itself up equally; he often tells us one and the same thing, which hath nothing but an amplification, and a paraphrase of his Refutation; and he gives us several useless and impertinent discourses. I believe, Sir, you yourself have perceived this truth, and it were not difficult to make it out to any who should doubt of it. In short, the first Book might be reduced to a Dozen Lines, instead of the Twelve Chapters it contains. For, since it was only written to Justify the Method of the Book of the Perpetuity; that is to say, to Justify, that the Author had not been obliged to answer to the whole Book of Monsieur Aubertin, and might have followed The way of Prescription, rather than that of Discussion; It was sufficient to observe so much in three or four words, since that is a matter of common sense, and without controversy: Nor hath Monsieur Claude blamed that method ●rther than to show, that it is not so sure as ●e other; but he hath not omitted to stick to ●e same, and to answer to it exactly: So that was to no purpose, to go about to multiply ●arrels, and to writ a Book, to prove what ●d not belong to the Question.  
The Four following Books, viz. The Se●ond, Third, Fourth, and Fifth, and than the Twelfth, which do largely treat of the consent of the Schismatic Churches with the Church of Rome, concerning the points of the Reality, of Transubstantiation, and of the Adoration of the Eucharist, are pieces besides the business, and not at all necessary. The first Treatise of the Perpetuity touched but one word of it: Monsieur Claude in his first writing had answered to it in Four Lines; in the refutation Monsieur Arnaud did somewhat enlarge upon it; which did oblige Monsieur Claude to make a longer answer thereto. But all that hath been hitherto done by slight touches, and as it were transiently; whereas now Monsieur Arnaud makes it his principal. The thing is (and it is that which hath swelled the Work) that Monsieur Arnaud hath not here taken Monsieur Claudes sense aright, and laboured to verify that which was not denied him: For he pretends to prove every where, that Monsieur Claude hath been in the wrong, in denying that the Eastern Churches believe the Reality; and almost all the passages, which he allegeth, tend only to make out the contrary. But, Sir, he hath taken pains in vain, and in this encounter he sights with his own shadow; because it ● not be found, that Monsieur Claude hath nied, that the Greek Churches did believe Reality in the time of Pascasius, or that th● believe it still: He hath only maintains that they never believed Transubstantial and Adoration; which is far differing fr● the other. For, although we may well a●● from Adoration and Transubstantiation to ●●ality, yet may we not conclude also from t● Reality to Transubstantiation and Adoration seeing that the Lutherans do reject these t● latter; and yet believe, as you do, that th● take with the Mouth of the Body, the tr● Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ. S● that, if Monsieur Arnaud would precisely ●fute the opinion of Monsieur Claude, he m● make it his business to prove, That the Gree● and other Eastern Churches have believe Transubstantiation, and adored the Eucharist but this he hath not so much as thought of, an● yet hath made a strange noise of what he f● thereth upon Monsieur Claude, though Mo●sieur Claude hath not said it. And so he ha● produced with much pomp and show suc● testimonies and allegations, which are not ● all to the purpose of that contest, which is betwixt them.  
But it may be, Sir, you will not believe m● upon my word, and you will hardly perswad● yourself, That Monsieur Arnaud shoul● have deceived himself in a matter of this nature, where there needs no more but to read ●t is therefore just, I should make this good ●o you, and allege before you those passages, ●here Monsieur Claude speaks of it, because ●ou have told me, That you have not seen his ●rst writing. It is therefore this, what he hath maintained: There remains only for me to say a word touching the opinion of the Greeks, and of ●he other Christians, which the Author saith, do ●gree with the Roman Church; which is, That I maintain, that Transubstantiation, and the Adoration of the Sacrament, are two things unknown ●o the whole Earth, except the Roman Church; for neither the Greeks, nor the Armenians, nor the Russians, nor the Jacobites, nor the Aethiopians, nor any other Christians, but those that submit themselves to the Pope, believe any thing at all of those two Articles. This is all he saith of it in that place; where you see plainly, ●hat he speaks not a word of the Real Presence, and that he confines himself to the two points of Transubstantiation and Adoration: And after ●he same manner doth he declare himself in his Answer to the Second Treatise of the Perpetuity, the Second Part, the Eighth Chapter, viz. I should have nothing more to do concerning this, if the Author had not, as he hath, called in to his succours the Schismatic Churches; but since he hath thought fit to join the question of their condition, with that of the condition of the Latins, it is just to satisfy him also in that. I said therefore about the end of my Answer, that the Adoration of the Sacrament is a thing, wherewith the whole world is unacquainted, except the Roman Church, etc. And in the sequel of that Chapter, he answers to what Monsieur Arnaud had alleged upon the subject of thi● Adoration; and this is one of the Points denied by Monsieur Claude. Of the other, viz. Transubstantiation, he speaks in his third part, the eighth Chapter, where he examines the proofs of Monsieur Arnaud, but he speaks no where of the Manducation of the Body of Christ; and if he saith sometimes (which is very seldom) that the Greeks, or the Fathers, have not believed the Real Presence, he presently explains himself, calling it afterwards, the Local Presence, and such an one as is believed at Rome, to show, That he speaketh only of the manner of Manducation. But it is time, to run through the other Books of his Volume.  
The Sixth may be reduced to a most certain, and most evident Proposition, which is, That the words which express what is to be believed of the Eucharist, have always been explained by Believers, either in a Literal Sense, or in a Metaphorical Sense, and that therefore the Church hath always distinctly believed, either the Real Presence, or the Real Absence. These are the words of Monsieur Arnaud in the Preface; whereupon he adds afterwards, That none other perhaps than Monsieur Claude would have obliged him to treat of this point, and that every man of good sense must agreed in it at first sight. Whence you see, Sir, that instead of this Sixth Book, there needeth only four or five Lines, according to the acknowledgement of Monsieur Arnaud; and that the sole wilfulness of Monsieur Claude hath been the cause of this length. But if this wilfulness is imaginary, if Monsieur Claude hath not only agreed to, but also positively maintained, what Monsieur Arnaud imputeth to him to have denied, is it not true, That we aught also to cut away this Sixth Book as useless, and supposing a thing which is not? But it is easy to verify this last Proposition, in the two parts of the Note of Monsieur Arnaud: One knows not, whether he accuseth Monsieur Claude for having denied the principle he puts, and the consequence; or, whether he accuseth him only for having denied the sequel, although he agreed about the principle; that is to say, One knows not, whether he will say, that Monsieur Claude would not acknowledge that the words, This is my Body, this is my Blood, have been always taken in the Literal Sense, or in the Metaphorical Sense, and that consequently Believers have always had a distinct belief of the Presence or Absence Real? Or, whether he meant only, that Monsieur Claude agreeing about the Thesis, hath denied the Consequence which Monsieur Arnaud draws from it. For his words relate to both these parts; yet I will believe, that Monsieur Arnaud hath only thought of the Consequence, since the whole Book of Monsieur Claude speaks of nothing else, but of the Metaphorial Sense of the Sacramental words, and that particularly the fourth, fifth, and sixth Chapters of the Second Part, are only spent to evince, That the Expressions of the Fathers, calling the Eucharist th● Body of Christ, could be taken in no other, b● a Metaphorical Sense.  
Let us see therefore, whether Monsieu● Claude hath denied, that Believers have always had a distinct belief of the Presence o● Absence Real, as Monsieur Arnaud impute● to him in his whole Sixth Book. For my part▪ I know not, whether I mistake, but methinks, that Monsieur Claude hath maintained the contrary in many places. In his first Answer (Pag. 9) he saith; The Body of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist four mann● of ways: And after he hath explained them he adds, And all the ways of Presence a● Real, each in its kind or order: This truth hat● been always believed, and is so still. And afterwards in his Fifth consideration, which hat● been the principal subject of the dispute upo● this matter, he saith (Pag. 12) Before th● Transubstantiation came into the World, every one believed, That Jesus Christ is present in th● Sacrament, and that his Body and Blood a●● there really received by the Believing Communi●cants. But in the Third Chapter of his Second Answer, you have two precise passages Thus when the Author tells us (saith Monsieu● Claude) that those who took the Instructions o● the Fathers in a Metaphorical Sense, had ● distinct and clear Idea of the Real Absence; i● he means, that they believe Christ to be Corporally Present in Heaven, without thinking on wh● was said afterwards, that he is at the same time ● Heaven, and on Earth; there, after the ●anner of a Body; here, after the manner of ● Spirit: To reject formally this opinion, I avow, ●hat Believers had in that sense a very distinct ●dea of the Real Absence. And afterwards (Pag. 273.) he maintain that in the first Eight Centuries, The Positive Doctrine, which we believe, was than taught so clearly, strongly and distinctly, that it dispelled all the difficulties, which could arise from these Expressions; The Bread is the Body of Christ, the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ. Is not this enough, Sir, to prove that Monsieur Claude hath not maintained, as Monsieur Arnaud imputes to ●im; That for the space of a thousand years, people knew not what the Eucharist was, and that Believers had not a distinct knowledge of the Real Presence or Absence.  
But if you suspect Monsieur Claude, if his words, his protestations, his complaints are not sufficient to you, I shall furnish you with a witness which you will not reject, and that is Monsieur Arnaud himself, who hath written the Fourth Chapter of this Sixth Book purposely to prove, That Monsieur Claude (Pag. 551.) hath entangled himself in two considerable faults; the one is, that he hath explained his sentiment amiss; and the other, that he hath granted him in effect all he desired. By the first, he pretends that Monsieur Claude hath not refuted what was the Question, and that he hath indiscreetly carried the Dispute to the distinct belief of Transubstantiation, which 〈◊〉 did not think upon; since he only thought on the Real Presence, separate from all the difficulties, which the circumstances and the way● of this Presence may beget. By the Second h● maintains, that Monsieur Claude grants in th● matter of the Real Presence or Absence, a● what is sufficient to his design.  
Thus you see a truth avowed by both parties. Monsieur Claude hath disputed against the distinct belief of the Transubstantiation ● and Monsieur Arnaud hath never maintaine● this distinct belief. Monsieur Arnaud hat● maintained the distinct belief of the Real Presence, and Monsieur Claude grants it, even by the acknowledgement of his Adversary. Wh● need than, to examine at large the Systeme o● Monsieur Claude, since it clashes not with th● Sentiments of Monsieur Arnaud? And to what purpose, to make a Book to prove, Tha● there hath always been in the Church, a distinct belief of the Real Presence, if Monsieur Claud● hath not denied it; if he hath strongly stoo● up for it, at lest for the space of the fir●● Eight Centuries; and if he hath spoken only of Transubstantiation in reference to the Nint● and tenth? But let us pass on to the other Books.  
The Positive proofs, saith Monsieur A●naud in his Preface, That have been alleged in the Seventh and eighth Book, to show, Th● the belief of the Real Presence, and of Transubstantiation was established in the Gre●● Church, and in the Latin, in the eighth, ninth, and tenth Centuries, are only Accessary proofs, and such as we might be altogether without. We shall not quarrel with him concerning this, we being much of his mind, that these two Books might have been very well spared. And so he would have obliged us in retrenching them.  
There is only the Ninth, which is Essential, continues Monsieur Arnaud, because it shows the impossibility of the Change; and yet in this Book there are things, which are not necessary but to confounded the stubbornness of Monsieur Claude, and which an Adversary of more sincerity than he, would have saved us the pains of writing. So that the whole Volume of Monsieur Arnaud might have been reduced to this Ninth Book, and even of this somewhat might have been pruned away.  
The Tenth (so goes on Monsieur Arnaud) contains some useful consequences, but such as are only designed for a further clearing of the truth. But if these consequences be of use, yet the Book is very useless, because it contains nothing but what hath often been said before; and that, besides that in each Chapter Monsieur Arnaud shows the sequels of his Examen and Ratiocinations, each Book hath at the end a Chapter express, which contains the breviate, the Conclusion and the Consequences; or, if you will, one Book contains the Consequences of two or three precedent ones. And so this Tenth Book can be nothing else but a tedious Repetition o● what hath been very often alleged.  
As for the Eleventh, Monsieur Arnau● saith nothing of it, and he hath reason, it being a piece, which serveth not at all to the main subject of the contest, and regards only Personal Complaints, wherein Readers are bu● little concerned.   

The Second Reflection.  
'tis strange enough, that M. Arnaud hath taken the pains of composing a Volume of ● hundred and fiftysheets, of which not so ●uch as the tenth part is absolutely necessary, ● I have showed from his own words; and ●at yet he hath not been willing to terminate ●at famous Controversy, which keeps both ●arties in expectation, and hath referred the answer to one part of M. Claude's Book to ●nother tlme.  
He giveth us notice of this design even in ●is very Preface, and declareth himself particularly about it in the second Book, the first chapter; His Book, saith he, in speaking of ●he Book of M. Claude, Is properly the mixture of two Books, of which the one respects the treatise of the Perpetuity, the other, the common ●ause of the Church: He hath blended and confounded them out of design, and we shall distinguish them out of a contrary design. We shall ●herefore represent first, the proofs of the Book of ●he Perpetuity, and the precise Answers he makes thereto: which shall be the subject of this Volume, and so contain the Answer to his first Book. And we shall reserve for a second Volume, what be alleges in general against the cause of the Church, and what the Church alleges against the Doctrine of the Calvinists; which shall m● the Answer to his second Book.  
Truly, Sir, 'tis to abuse one's leisure, ● give us accessary proofs, and such as we can ● without, of things not essential, of con●quences said over and over again; and yet divide the Book of M. Claude into two part for to Answer but to one of them, in a Boo● ten times as big. It had certainly been mu●● better, to have omitted the things which we● not absolutely necessary, and to have take pains in the main, and in the essentials.  
And 'tis this management of M. Arnaud which hath been the second reason, why m● have not been so earnest to have his Book and which hath not so greatly satisfied People because they expect the second Volume as t●● most important.  
For, what advantage soever M. Arna●● may attribute to his method of Prescription which he hath examined in this first Volume that of Discussion, which he reserveth for th● other, is the most sure, and the lest perplexed; the inconveniences, which he finds ● this, being found in his, because that is to examine the reasonings he allegeth to show t●● impossibility of the change, which we preten● to have happened in the time of Paschasius in th● belief of the Eucharist; and it must discu●● besides the proofs which we produce to evinced that all the World was not, as he pretends, o● the sentiment of Paschasius, and that he ha● many Adversaries.  
So that, if there be difficulties and prolixi●es to know aright the belief of the Fathers in ●is matter, for as much as some want that necessary help of profiting thereby, which is the understanding of Tongues; others have not leisure ● make this examen with a reasonable care and exactness; and others have not reach enough to ●●mpare so many proofs together, as Monsieur Arnaud saith; Why will not he admit, ●hat the same obstacles are found in his Method? Have the Simple and Ignorant, for ●hose sake it hath been principally brought to ●ight, the knowledge of Tongues, which is necessary to learn the History of the time of ●aschasius, and of the opinion of the Greeks and Latins? Have they more leisure to make this examen with a rational care, than that of the sentiment of the Fathers of the six first Centuries? Have they capacity enough to compare the proofs, which he and M. Claude shall produce in their Books; and not enough to compare the proofs of the Cardinal du Perron, and M. Aubertin?  
Sir, I must needs confess my ignorance, and I understand not the difference there is between the difficulties of these Methods; on the contrary, I found, that that of M. Arnaud hath two things to clear, whereas the other hath but one; For, that of Prescription must examine the force and truth of the reasons upon which 'tis grounded, and besides examines, as well as that of Discussion, the passages of many Greek and Latin Authors, which were necessary to be alleged by both sides, to know ● verity of the suppositions of this Book of P●petuity.  
But than, it is certain, that what remains t● be done by M. Arnaud, is much more important than what he hath done; for, a man re●sons very ill of the impossibility of a thing when another proveth, that the thing hath actually been done. M. Claude maintains, th● there hath been made a Change in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, and that the Antie● Church was of our belief; which he will prov● by the Writings of the Fathers of that time And M. Arnaud imagines, that we may satisfy ourselves upon bore reasonings, by whic● he pretends to prove the impossibility of thi● Change. You see, Sir, that We go naturally t● work, to know whether the thing have happened, when there are great appearances fo● it, when our men do positively maintain it▪ and offer proofs to evince it; and, that i● such a case as this we do little harken to those, that will persuade us by some abstra● and Metaphysical ratiocinations, (having need of proof) that the thing could not b● done.  
Add thereto the evident advantage of the proof of this fact above the Method of Prescription, which is, that there is never an end in Ratiocinations. Our mind is too fierce to confess itself overcome by the wit of another; it acknowledges no Superiors in this kind of disputes, and always finds answers, ●hether true or apparent, to disentangle it ●f, either in the difficulty of the question, or ● the strength of our wit, or in the weakness ● that of our Adversary: whereas we do ●ore easily acquiesce in the truths, which the ●her Method teacheth us, because in that case ●e do not yield to the reasoning of our adversary, but to the authority of the Ancient Church, and to the Testimonies of the Fathers, who assure us of the practice and doctrine of their time, and by that means of the true sense of the Passages of the Scripture, which are contested.   

The Third Reflection.  
THat Imperious and Insulting way, where M. Arnaud deals with M. Claude ev● where, is none of the lest reasons, which h● kept our People from reading his Boo● There are found in it at every turn injuri● and expressions of contempt; and it seem● that his Treatise was made on purpose ● paint him in the blackest colours, that can ● used for the picture of the most extravaga● of men. He doth perpetually descend fro● the Cause to the Person, and without staying as other Authors do, to refute in particular what is opposed against him, he presently fal● upon the genius, spirit and humour of M▪ Claude, of which he taketh pleasure to dra● an odd Picture; so that, if he be to be ●liev'd, there never was a Writer more extravagant, more ridiculous, more absurd, mor● deceitful, and more prevaricating, than M▪ Claude. If I should give you the collection I have made of the fine qualities, which M▪ Arnaud gives him, I assure myself, that yo● would startle at it, and I persuade my sel● even of the sincerity of M. Arnaud, that if h● saw this portrait, he would disown it, and blame the heat of the dispute, which hat● made him writ so many things contrary to hi● profession, and to the Laws of Christianity. ● shall only give you here a pattern of it, by which you may judge of the whole Piece. It ● in the first Chapter of the seventh Book, p. ●14, where speaking of the genius of M. Claude, ●e hath these words: His Spirit (of M. Claude) ●, as by divers Experiments we have already ●een able to discover, never to regard how things ●re in deed, but only how he would desire they should be; to have no respect to truth, nor so much as to probability, but only to the interest of his cause; to dispose of Histories and real Events with more liberty, than men dispose of the Chimerical adventures of Romances; to build upon the vacuum of his imagination, as upon the most real and the most solid foundation; not to stick to make all the World speak and think madly, so they do but speak and think according to his desires and pretensions; to prefer the most petty reasons to the strongest and clearest proofs; and, topropose and deliver all that in a fierce, bold, contemning and insulting manner; by giving to himself such applauses, as he would gladly receive from others, and treating his Adversaries, as he would that others should treat them.  
Some do imagine, that there are secret reasons, that have obliged M. Arnaud, thus to exceed the bounds that aught to be in the Disputes of Learned Men. I will not dive into them; but I am assured, that those transports are not always equitable, and because I have examined the cause thereof carefully, I would show you two or three examples of it, if it were not besides the subject of this Discourse, nor an undertaking of what is M. Claude's province, who hath the Pen in hand to sand himself, and needs no Second.  
But, at lest you will not think it strang● that we are scandalised to see the public Defendant of our Cause so evil entreated, a● that this manner of proceeding gives us an opinion of that which is maintained by ● Arnaud.   

The Fourth Reflection.  
IF we have cause to be concerned for Monsieur Claude, this observation will show, That we have a more sensible interest, and which more directly relates to us all, considering it concerns the generality of our Churches. And indeed, Sir, I was surprised to see, that Monsieur Arnaud makes a stay to reproach us with the irregularities of the first Authors that forsook their Communion, and to wrangle about their Mission, in a Book which hath nothing at all to do with that; besides that he knows, that we have answered a thousand times those ungrounded Objections.  
But there is more than this, which is, that Monsieur Arnaud fathers those opinions upon us, which are none of ours, and goes about to decry our Religion from Consequences, which he deviseth at pleasure, or which he borrows from those, who have invented them. I will only relate to you Three Examples of them.  
In the Third Chapter of the First Book, pag. 19 He weaves a prolix Discourse, to show, that we have no short way of knowing the true Church, and that a man must examine in particular all the Points that are proposed. It is not difficult to answer what he saith thereupon, but I leave that to Monsie● Claude, who will not fail to make it out, Th● the way of the Scripture is much more easi● shorter, and furer, than that of the Church by the very acknowledgement of many of the● own Doctors. I only note, that in that Ratiocination he accuseth us as if we believed That it is possible, that the Church shoul● subsist not more. Whence he infers, That w● cannot avoid discussing all the Dogmes of a Sects, present and passed, subsistent and extinct, and to search in the Catalogue of a● the Heresies, Whether we may not find ther● the Church of Jesus Christ.  
I know not, what may have made Monsieu● Arnaud to impute unto us such a pretty Vision: But this I know, that never any man o● our Communion hath said it, and I challenge Monsieur Arnaud to show me one only Author amongst us, who hath believed, that it could come to pass, that the Church should subsist not more. We believe just the contrary, and know, That the World doth not subsist but upon the account of the Church; that there hath never been a moment, and that there never will be any, to the end of the World, wherein it can be said with truth, that there is no true Church. Jesus Christ, who cannot lie, hath promised to be with us to the end of the World, and to secure his Church against the power of Hell. We say indeed, That some of the parts of this Universal Church can perish, and that that Eternal Subsistence is not fastened to the Church of Rome, ●r the Graecian, nor the Aethiopian, nor to ●● her particular Members; we have too sad ●● experience to doubt of it. We say also ●●rther, That the true Church hath her degrees of Light, as the Moon; that she is at times ●● oppressed by Tyrants, and so obscured by the darkness of Errors, that one can hardly discern her; and that a great Prophet cried out, That he was alone remaining in the midst of Idolaters, when God answered, to comfort him, That he had reserved Seven thousand Souls, that had not bowed their knees to Baal. But these things conclude nothing against the existence of the Church, and Monsieur Arnaud is much out, when he saith, That, according to us, it is possible, she should subsist not more.  
He hath no more reason in another place of his Work, (in the Tenth Book, chap. 1. pag. 6.) where he saith, That we have introduced amongst us Detestable Morals, which constitute an essential part of our Religion. I profess to you, Sir, that I could hardly believe my own eyes; I imagined, that they failed me, or that the Printer had mistaken: I read it over and over, an accusation so heinous, so scandalous, so ungrounded; and with all that, I could not resolve to believe, that such a thought had escaped a clearsighted, wise, and sincere man, and one that so much preacheth up Integrity and Candour: But I was yet much more astonished, when I was assured, that he was at work to publish our Morals, that as the first Book we shall see of him, and t●● he pretends to justify, that they are such, he hath described them here in short.  
Sir, you are one of his Friends, coun● him to employ his time better, and to lea● such calumnies to those base and ridiculo● Spirits, those Quacks of Religion, those ignorant Methodists, the Cutlers, Apothecary etc. that are the famous Disciples of o● Veron. Tell him, that a Doctor of the Sor● aught not to amuse the World with such trif● and fictions; that it becomes him to be mo● serious, and to say nothing, but what he ● clearly prove.  
I know not, how he will order himself making this Book; but I am very well assure that, in what manner soever he compose it, 〈◊〉 most simple will presently discover the weakness; the honester sort, even of their Religion, will look on it with contempt; and it w● work nothing amongst us, and his reputati● will but suffer the more by it.  
Yet I doubt not, but the Book will sel● we do naturally love Detractions and Novelties; and when Monsters are not in a condition to hurt us, they commonly excite o● curiosity. The Book will certainly have th● advantage, that it will teach us things we kno● not.  
But, Sir, whence may Monsieur Arnaud we this new Light? where hath he made this ●●w Discovery? How comes he to see amongst 〈◊〉, what never any one of ours hath seen; ●●d how comes it to pass, that we have not ●●en ware of these Detestable Morals, of ●hich he speaketh so positively? Whence ●omes it, that none of those, that have forsaken our Communion, and listed themselves 〈◊〉 yours, never thought on it to accuse us of ●at Looseness, nor have taken for a Motive of ●●eir Change, such Detestable Morals? Whence ●●mes it, that your most famous preachers search with care, and read with esteem, the Sermons of Monsieur de Moulin, Monsieur Mestrezat, Monsieur le Faucheur, Monsieur Daillé, Monsieur Gache, and other Ministers, without ●●ving there found, what Monsieur Arnaud ●●proaches us with, although those writings do ●●eifly treat of Manners? Whence comes it, that even our Fellow-Citizens of your Religion, that your Magistrates have hitherto made no complaint of our Conversation? How comes it to pass, that the Edicts of His most Christian Majesty have not thundered against those Detestable Morals? And how is it, that they suffer in the Kingdom such a pernicious irregularity, and a Religion, which for its Essential part hath Morals of that nature?  
Truly, Monsieur Arnaud hath made a strange step, and he saith too much to be believed. For the crime, which he chargeth us with, is the blackest and the most execrable that can be imagined, and never was so m● said of the most barbarous and the most impious Nations. There are among Heathy some infamous people, who glory in what call Vice, and know not what we call Virtue but those Crimes are not authorised by Law and are no Essential part of their Religion They are people, whom the Justice of G● giveth over to the disorders of their corrupted nature, and who even sin not in many thi●● they do, because they have no knowledge n● rule, to direct them what they aught to do, to avoid: But that Christians, enlightened the Light of the Gospel, should make profession of Detestable Morals by a principle their Religion, is so surprising, that I can● hold telling you again, that I can hardly conceive, how Monsieur Arnaud came to fall● to such a delusion, as to believe and spe● it.  
When he is maintaining against us, that o● Senses and our Reason are mistaken in the m●ter of the Eucharist, he is not the only m● that maintains it; their whole Church saithe same thing: And to prove this Proposition he alleges the Power of God, the Text the Holy Scripture, and the Testimonies the Fathers; but here Monsieur Arnaud go● about to do something more; for without proof, and without miracle he will, that o● Senses and our Reason are perpetually goi● astray; and although we read and hear da● Exhortations to Piety, Ho●iness, and Repe●●●nce, he will that these things speak nothing of ●hat they speak, and that this is nothing but Detestable Morality.  
I know, that certain Spirits of the mean●st rank have drawn ridiculous consequences out of some of our Tenants, and accused us, That we make God the Author of Sin; that we make all Sins equal; that we deny the necessity of good Works; that we Preach Libertinism, and the infallible assurance of Salvation, how sinful soever we be; but none hath been yet found, that hath gone so far, as to affirm in general, that our Morals are Detestable.  
But I must confess to you my being surprised on this occasion: I have, without thinking on it, put Monsieur Arnaud among these Spirits of the last rank, who feed only on poisons, and who cannot speak of their Adversaries, without making Satyrs: For after I had written, what you have just now read, I have found a passage in his Ninth Book (Chap. 9 p. 931.) which confirms what I have told you, touching the design of Monsieur Arnaud of writing our Morals, and teacheth me part of the Principles, upon which apparently he must build this great Work.  
He speaks in that place of Penitential Exercises, and saith, That it is not to be wondered, that they seem vain and superstitious to the Calvinists, that is, to a sort of people who are assured of their Salvation, who believe that their greatest irregularities do not make them lose the quality of being the Children of God; and that although they wallow in the shamefullest disorders, th●● are nevertheless as Just as the Blessed Virgin their pretended imputative Righteousness not being susceptible of plus or minus, of more or les● And somewhat after that, he saith again, Th● we believe the Penitential Works to be useless both to satisfy for the sins passed, and to assu● us of our Salvation; of which we esteem o● selves to be sure already without repentance an● good works. And as he is not a man to advance things of this nature without proof, he assure● us in the Margin, That all these accusations sha● be made good in an express Treaty.  
Thus what I was told, that he was busy i● writing our Morals, is found true, and i● the execution of what he hath promised i● this place. And it appears also by these Specimens, that he will draw up against us th● same accusations, which I have just now spoke of.  
Indeed, Sir, this is intolerable, that Monsieur Arnaud should so licentiously abuse th● credit he hath gained, that he should go abo● to imitate troubling Busi-bodies, and to warrant such impertinent calumnies, which hav● been so often and so solidly refuted? Doth h●● not know, that in matter of accusation, bar● suspicion and apparences are not sufficient, an● that there must be positive proofs, and as clear as the Sun? Doth he not remember what himself hath said (in his Second Book, Chap. 6 p. 153.) That we aught well to distinguish b●●●een Consequences, and Tenets formally main●ined. For it cannot be concluded, That those ●o maintain an opinion, maintain all the consequences of it, if those consequences are ill de●iced; and although they were well deduced, it not just to impute them to them, if they advow ●hem not, and it do not appear, that they have ●en them, and approved of them.  
Let Monsieur Arnaud take his measures by his own Maxim, let him in the Examen of our Morals allege none, but our clear and formally maintained passages, without pettifoggery, without equivocation, and without consequences drawn after his fancy; and I am sure, that, if he will keep within these bounds, as he is obliged to do, his Book will be soon made, or rather not be made at all.  
In the mean time, Sir, although I believe, that you are too intelligent to have made any ill judgement of our Morals, upon the Authority, or rather the Passion of Monsieur Arnaud, I shall, by way of anticipation, in a few lines refute the Book he is writing of them, and to show you the places whence he must take, what we believe in this matter.  
We have therefore no other Morals than those, which Jesus Christ hath taught us; and the Prophets and Apostles are our Casuists and Doctors, which we consult in all our difficulties. The sum of these Morals is, To love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our thoughts, and our neighbour as our selves, not doing to others what we would 〈◊〉 have done to us.  
The Authentic Acts, wherein we expl● at large our Sentiments in this matter, are o● Confession of Faith, and our Catechism. The● it is, Sir, where you may see these Moral which Monsieur Arnaud calls Detestable. B● I am apt to believe, that he will be alone 〈◊〉 his party, and that you will not be of his opinion, when you shall have understood, thi● there we teach, That God governs and order all things by his Providence even the Wicked and Devils 
* In the Confession of Faith, Art 8. Art 8, 22.  Without being the Author 〈◊〉 Sin, and that their wickedness cannot be imputed unto him since his Will is the supreme an● infallible Rule of all equity. That we are regenerated to newness of Life by Faith, which given us Grace to live holily, and in the fear of God, and which is so far from making us remiss in the duty of a good and holy life, that on the contrary it begets and excites it in us, necessarily producing good Works. 
* Catechism. Sect. 25.  That we aught not to take the Name of God in vain, nor speak of him, but with fear and humility: 
* Ibid. Sect. 26, 27.  That we aught to mortify our flesh, and to renounce and deny ourselves that so God may govern us by his Spirit. 
* Ibid. Sect. 28, 29, 30.  That we aught to observe the Ordinance instituted in the Church for hearing the Word of God, and having communion in the Public Prayers and Sacraments: That we aught to obey Father and Mother, honour them, and assist them to the best of our power: That we aught not only be without all violence and hatred, but love our neighbour, and procure his Salvation with a sincere affection: That we aught to abstain from all impurity, and keep ourselves chaste, not only in deed, but also in our desires, words, and gestures: That we aught not to take an other man's goods, neither by force nor by craft and ill practices: That perjury and evil speaking are sins condemned by the Law of God: That we aught to be so perfect, that not only evil actions, disorderly affections, and simple desires to sin are , but that even the thoughts, and the simple temptations to evil, although we do not consent thereto, are criminal before the severe Tribunal of God's Justice.  
This, Sir, is the Abridgement of our Morals, that make an Essential part of our Religion; which, I am sure, you will not think Detestable, and by it you may see, how great is the transport of Monsieur Arnaud, and whether I had not cause to make this injury one of the Motives, which hath made him very suspectful to us, and turned us away from reading his Book: Not to insist now, that he hath given matter to Monsieur Claude of a just recrimination, and to examine the Morals of the Jesuits, and that of the Jansenists, which have raised so much noise; together with the Regulations of the Church of Rome, for the tax of the Absolution of every sin, of the Bull of Indulgence, of Dispensations, and th● like.  
The third Example, which I shall allege is not lesle considerable. You know, that the Doctrine of the Gospel consists in these two▪ points, namely Faith and Repentance; Belie● and a good Life. Monsieur Arnaud accuseth our Morals to be detestable, and he doth no lesle concerning our Doctrine; since he affirms, That although the Trinity and all the other Mysteries of our Faith be asserted by innumerable, very clear, and very convincing proofs both in Scripture and Tradition, yet these proofs sound very ill in the mouths of the Calvinists, who so weaken them by their false principles, that they make them incapable to persuade the Socinians and all others that are in an error: And one may see, that these detestable Heretics have done not more but advanced the principles, which the Calvinists have furnished them with, by not enduring to be kept within those arbitrary bounds, to which the first Reformers thought fit to confine themselves: So that this Heresy may in reason be called an Extension of Calvinism. Those false principles, of which he speaks, are, That we renounce the Tradition and Authority of the Church, and that we reduce ourselves to the Scripture alone, explained by our Reason, and by our private Spirit.  
You cannot but see, Sir, that this discourse is altogether injurious, and that first of all, it insinuates into the minds of those who read ●, as if we had a great Conformity with the ●ocinians, and our Religion were an Abridgement of their Heresy, seeing that their Heresy ●s said to be nothing but an Extension of our Religion. Whereas hitherto there hath not ●een, God be thanked, any contestation betwixt us about these important truths, which those unhappy men fight against; and the most impudent calumny never durst quarrel with us upon this point: And our Confession of Faith, our Catechism, the writings of our Doctors against these Heretics, and all your own writers themselves do highly justify us. Whence than hath Monsieur Arnaud this sullen bitterness? Doth he think, he shall be believed upon his word, and that an accusation of this nature shall be received without proof? He will say, it may be, (and that is all that can be said, somewhat to excuse him;) That he meant not to charge us, as if we did formally maintain the errors of the Socinians about the Trinity, but only, that we have the same principles concerning the Rules of our Faith; that both they and we reject the Authority of the Church; that without this Authority Heretics cannot be convinced; and that thus, the Socinians being gone out from us, and even having driven farther, than we, this principle, that the Scripture alone is the Rule of Faith, we have furnished them with arms to fight against our most Sacred Mysteries.  
But if he would say no more than this, he hath very ill delivered himself, and for so eloquent a man as he is, his Discourse nec● too much comment to make it to be understood: For a man shall never conclude a● thing else from it, but that we partake of th● Heresy of the Socinians, which is a mere calumny; and it is always very ill argued, t● accuse people of all the Errors of those, wit● whom they have some things common: It i● as if I should say, that the Roman Religion i● an extension of the Errors of the Greeks, and that it hath advanced their principles, because both do pray for the dead, and you believe a Purgatory, which is not believed by the Eastern Churches. It may well be said, that both have some common opinions; but that infers nothing for the rest of their Tenants: And although the Socinians cut away the Authority of Councils, and of Tradition, from being Rules of Faith, as well as we do, yet it cannot be said without injustice, that their Heresy is an extension of our Belief in general. All that can be concluded from it, is, that we have that principle common; which signifies nothing, forasmuch as there is no Heresy, which hath not something common with the true Church. And not to pass out of our Argument, the Socinians believe and adore one only God; they believe, and desire Heaven; they believe and fear Hell, as well as we: Is it therefore to be said, that we therefore hold their other Tenants, which we detest and oppose both, with all our power? Certainly Monsieur Arnaud hath taken his measure very ill in this matter. But, Sir, you ●ay observe besides, that he not only mis●kes in this conclusion, but that the Passion he ●d to decry our Religion by such an odious comparison, hath hindered him to see divers ●otable faults, upon which he hath built that consequence, in such a manner, that there are hardly more lines than faults in his Ratiocination.  
First, It is not true, and it is even dangerous to affirm, That the Mystery of the Trinity hath need of Tradition, and of the Authority of the Church. If the holy Scriptures did not clearly assert it, we should always be doubtful, because that Tradition and the Authority of the Church are not common principles, and they have need of a great discussion to be known.  
Secondly, It is not true, that we renounce Tradition and the Authority of the Church in this point, nor in many others. Our Confession of Faith receiveth the Creeds of the Apostles, of Nice, and of Athanasius; the Councils, that have confirmed them, and the Doctors, that have maintained them against Heretics. We only desire, that whatever men do say may be examined by the Word of God, which is the only Rule of our Faith, and to which the Church is subject, according to the Sentiment of the Fathers, and the chief Doctors. And as to the private Spirit, by which Monsieur Arnaud saith we believe the Scriptures are to be expounded, that is a mear Chimaera, which hath been so often refuted, that it i● wonder, he should amuse people with t● kind of Objections.  
Thirdly, It is not true neither, that the S●cinians do absolutely reject the Councils, ● the Fathers, nor that they have advanced ● principles about this point, as Monsieur ●naud saith; their Books are full of passage of the Ancients, which they expound af● their way, but they will not suffer that th● should be opposed to the holy Scripture Monsieur Arnaud himself citys a place 〈◊〉 Socinus, which destroys wh● he saith here. 
* The first Book. cap. 5. pag. 42.  All th● things (it is Socinus speaks of the Fathers, and of t● Councils) and others of the same kind are serve men of understanding and good sense, on● to let them know, what was the Faith of t● Church at that time, and to induce them not 〈◊〉 recede without reason from the Doctrines th● were than received: But to go about, resolute to maintain opinions against the clear Testimony of the Scriptures, because the Fathers approve ● them, is, to endeavour to subvert designedly t● Divine Truth.  
Fourthly, The Ratiocination which Mo●sieur Arnaud maketh upon what I have bee● examining, is not square, and cannot be maintained. For though it were true, that w● should altogether reject the Authority of Tradition, and of the Church, since the Socinians do the same, how do we, by this principle nervate in respect of them the proofs of the ●inity? And how can Monsieur Arnaud ●agine, that we should convince them more ●sily, if we received that Authority, seeing ●at they reject the same equally? Doth he not ●ow, that we do not reasonably combat 'gainst our Adversaries, by our principles, but ●ely by theirs, or by common principles, in ●hich they agreed with us? So that, maintain●g as Monsieur Arnaud doth, that we weaken ●e proofs of the Trinity, by rejecting the authority of the Church, and that if we did ●ceive the same, we should more strongly oppose those Heretics; it is just, as I should say, ●hat a man who should reject the Gospel, ●ould weaken the proofs of the Deity and ●carnation of Jesus Christ, in respect of the ●ews; for it is the same thing to dispute ●gainst the Socinians by Tradition since they ●enounce it, as to dispute against the Jews by ●e Gospel which they believe not. Before we ●n act by the authority of a principle, it is necessary, that all the parties should agreed ●bout it, or we must prove the authority of ●hat principle.  
Thus you see, that Monsieur Arnaud, to make an odious comparison to our disadvantage, hath drawn a false consequence, and built upon false Propositions.  
You will say doubtless, that these Reasons, which regard the out-work of Monsieur Arnauds Book; his particular conduct, his way of writing, his resentments, and his personal differences with Monsieur Claude, do 〈◊〉 weaken the substance of the truth he th● establisheth, nor the proofs of the Book of ● Perpetuity, and that, that at lest must h● made some impression on those, who have 〈◊〉 the leisure and care of reading it all; and, you know, that I am of that number, you wo● also know, what I think of that, and will 〈◊〉 be content to know only, what others ha● said or might have said of it.  
It is easy, Sir, to satisfy you also in t●● point, and I shall therefore add to the for● Reflections, such other Observations as shall 〈◊〉 you see, that when Monsieur Arnauds Bo● shall be considered only in its Essential pa● severed from all the Objections I have be● examining, the weakness of his proofs a● reasonings, (which are, often enough, ver● embarussing and contradictory) doth there so evidently appear, that he could not expel from it a very  success.  
But, Sir, you will remember, if you please what you desired of me, and what I promise' you; which is, you know, that I underta● not to examine Monsieur Arnauds Book that concerns Monsieur Claude particularly who will acquit himself, I am sure, very we● and very generously of it. My design only to tell you, what effect this Book hath ha● amongst us, and how it hath been received b● us, together with the Reasons in general which have kept it from making that famous progress, which you thence expected. Wha● ●ath been observed of it already, hath fur●ished Reasons considerable enough, and what ● am going to note further, will furnish other ●ore important ones, because it will more ●early touch the Ratiocinations of Monsieur Arnaud about the Ground of the Defence of ●is Book concerning the Perpetuity.   

The Fifth Reflection.  
YOu know, Sir, that the only design of t●● Book about the perpetuity of the Faith of ● Catholic Church concerning the Eucharist, an● of the Treatises which have been written afterwards for its defence by M. Arnaud, is 〈◊〉 show, that the Change, which We say hath happened in this point, is impossible, and nothing but a Chimaera and Fiction of our Ministers.  
You know also, that the two Grounds 〈◊〉 this proposition do consist, in the Union of th● Greek Churches (about this point) with th● Latin Church at the time, at which we a● sign this change, which is in the ninth an● tenth Century; and in the Distinct belief, whic● all the people of the World had than and before, of the Real Presence of the Body o● Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, in consequence o● which he was there adored by all Christians.  
To speak the truth, this was no ill fetch, an● if it were well proved, the consequences which are drawn from thence, would be ver● strong: For, it is not to be conceived, th● an Innovation of this nature should insensibl● slide into the Universal Church; that th● Greeks, separated from the Latins, shoul● have taken new Tenants from these, which the looked no otherwise upon than irreconcileab●● enemies; that none should have perceived ●ther that the one part did not longer adore ●hat made their chief worship, and the principal subject of the ordinary Adoration of all Nations, or that the other part did begin to ●dore what they were not want to adore, and ●hich was nothing but a creature; or lastly, if 〈◊〉 Change so considerable had been perceived, ●hat all the World should have remained in ●●lence; that no public complaints should ●ave been made on one or the other side; and ●hat there should have been no Councils assembled to remedy it, as was done when Beren●er opposed himself in the Eleventh Age to ●he Opinion of the Roman Church about this point.  
And therefore M Claude, who saw very well, that these Principles could not be granted without some prejudice to him, denied them both, and maintained, that the Greeks did not acknowledge Transubstantiation, because this is the only medium you admit to make men believe the Real Presence, such as you receive it; that Paschasius, the Introducer of this opinion, doth not establish it but by craft, by keeping the ancient terms, and by way of explication of the Faith of his Pre●essors; that the Adoration which is opposed as an invincible medium to make people found the Change, if there had been any, was unknown to the Greeks and Latins of that time.  
But what injurious reproaches hath not M. Claude exposed himse f to by this denial? What storms and tempests hath he not raised The Schools did never so much exclaim against the opinion of the Motion of the Ear●● And if he had openly maintained in the Pulp●● at Charenton, that Paris was destroyed, and ha● not more any being in nature; or that 'tis v●ry dark at full noon when the Sun shine brightest, and the Air is least overcast, 〈◊〉 could not have been accused of a great●● blindness, and a more ridiculous temerity than to advance, that the Greeks did not believe Transubstantiation, the Local Presence and Adoration, in the ninth and tenth Cent●ry, and that they have still the same Sentiments Indeed, saith M. Arnaud on this occasion, (〈◊〉 his Refutation, p. 465.) 'Tis not tolerable 〈◊〉 advance evident falsities with that confidence without alleging proofs, and a man can hard recede more from sincerity.  
But, if the proofs, he produceth himself o● these two Essential points, conclude nothing and are not necessary, neither by our Principles, nor by his own; if he himself destroy by his own Maxims what hath been establish in his Book of the Perpetuity; may we not say that his wrath is unjust, that he hath ensnare● himself in his own net, that he evidently contradicts himself, that his Book of the Perpetui●ty can produce no effect, and that his defence is weak, and to no purpose?  
Let us than briefly examine these two Capital and sole Grounds of his Book of the Perpetuity, and let us refute them by M. Arnaud, ●heir own Defendant.  
The First consists, as I said, in the Union of ●he Greeks with the Church of Rome about the eucharist in the time of Paschasius, whom we affirm to have introduced in the Ninth Century the opinion of the Substantial Presence, and of Transubstantiation; and which got strength, and increased, and diffused itself through all the West, during the Tenth Age.  
'Tis pretended, that this Change could not be made, because the Oriental Churches had at that time the same belief which we now oppose, and which they could not receive from Paschasius, nor the Latin Church, seeing they had perhaps never heard of the former, nor seen his Book, neither were they in a condition to receive from the latter any Change in their Tenants, by reason of the animosity which was between these Churches; On the contrary, the Greeks would have been very glad to have exclaimed against the conduct of the Latins, if they had met with so fair an occasion, since they declared and published their demeanour in Writing about far slighter matters.  
To destroy this ratiocination, which is strong, if it were true; We have asserted, that neither at the time of Paschasius, nor in the following Century, the Schismatic Churches did at all believe Transubstantion, nor the Adoration of the Sacrament. So that, if M. Arnaud does not prove this Proposition, the first Pillar of his Edifice in the Book of the Perpetuity falls to the ground: But, if it b● himself that furnishes most of the Instrument to pull down this Pillar, his Enemy's wi●● discourse of it sufficiently, and his Friends as you, Sir, and I, who have a great estee● for him, shall not be able to forbear calli●● him the Destroyer of his own workmanship.  
Let us therefore examine the Proofs b● allegeth of the Opinion of the Orientals, concerning these weighty points, in the Ninth ar● Tenth Age; for the Controversy is not o● other Ages, and the force of the ratiocination of the Perpetuity-Book is altogether confine to these two Centuries.  
For the Ninth, M. Arnaud produceth th● testimony of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, of whom he citeth two passages, taken out of two of his Treatises against the Ic●noclasts, (Image-breakers) who called the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, the Figures and Images of the Body of Jesus Christ. These passages are reducible to these four Propositions.  
The First, That the Image and the thing thereby represented are altogether opposite, in so much, that 'tis a folly to maintain, that they are the same thing.  
The Second, That if sometimes the Bread and Wine were call d the Images and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that was before the Consecration.  
The Third, That Nicephorus and the other Greeks, adversaries to the Iconoclasts, did ●t call the Oblations designed for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Image of the Body of Christ, but the Body of Christ itself.  
The Fourth, That these Oblations are changed ●to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, after the same manner as the Bread and Wine are converted into our substance.  
M. Arnaud bears himself much upon these ●xpressions, which are nothing but Copies of the Discourses of the Fathers in the second ●ouncil of Nice against the Iconoclasts; Mean time I am sure, that not only he would be unwilling to maintain in earnest any of these ●our propositions, but also that he directly opposeth them in his Treatise.  
The first, That the Image is different from what it represents, and that it cannot be granted, that what jesus Christ hath given us to eat, should be both together his Image and his Body, is a Truth not to be contested, in what Tense soever it be taken. Nicephorus makes use of it to ill purpose, to prove against the Iconoclasts, that there is in the Eucharist, after the Consecration, neither Figure, nor Image, nor antitype, but only the Body and Blood of jesus Christ, because he believed the Impanation of the Word, that is, that the Bread and Wine were personally united to the Body and Blood of jesus Christ, and made one and the same Body and Blood, by this Hypostatical Union.  
But M. Arnaud, who is not of this opinion, cannot allege for himself the opinion of this Author, which agreeth not at all with the Belief of the Roman Church: And therefore h● avoweth every where, that there is Figure an● Antitype even after the Consecration, an● maintains against the position of Nicephorus that the Eucharist is Figure and Truth, Imag● and Body both together.  
I know very well, that to save Nicephoru● and the Second Council of Nice blameless, fo● having condemned their Adversaries, because they had called the Eucharistical Oblations 〈◊〉 Figure and Image, although according to M. Arnaud there was one popular sense of these words, which was exclusive of the verity, an● another popular sense, which was not exclusive when they were applied to the Eucharist (wherein it would be hard to save himself from a manifest contradiction:) I know very well, I say, that M. Arnaud supposeth, that at the time o● the II. Council of Nice and of Nicephorus, the word Figure and Image, which was not exclusive of the verity, was very rare, and that therefore the Iconoclasts would not use it, leas● those expressions should be taken in the other popular sense, which is exclusive of the verity.  
To this I answer two things; one, that this Distinction of Figure exclusive, and not exclusive of the Verity, was unknown to those Authors (the Adversaries of the Image-breakers,) and to others, who maintained, that the Eucharist was not an Image and Antitype: And M. Arnaud maketh them think ●d say, what they never thought nor said; ●ey never imagined this distinction, nor ●er declared themselves about it, after the ●anner that M. Arnaud would have it; their ●●spute would have been at an end in a moment, or rather there would have been no dispute between them, seeing the Fathers of that Council of Nice and Nicephorus had no more to do but to tell the Image-breakers, that it was true, that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but that they were Images which contained the Truth itself: their difference would have been thereby determined, since M. Arnaud believeth, that the Iconoclasts did at the bottom agreed with their Adversaries.  
This therefore is not the sense of the Greeks, who have asserted, that there was no Figure in the Eucharist; but, their opinion was, that there was neither Figure exclusive, nor Figure inclusive; neither Substance, nor Accidents of the common Bread, and that there was nothing but the Body of Jesus Christ, that is, that the Bread was truly his Body by an Hypostatical union. And this is evident by all the expressions of those men; which I hope to prove more largely another time.  
I answer secondly, That the reason, which M. Arnaud produceth to excuse Nicephorus and the Council of Nice, is not true: These very terms (of Images, Figures and Antitypes) being, saith he, in the seventh Book, Chap. 7. pa. 708, become lesle ordinary, would have appeared offensive, because the understanding a●ding no more to it, they beget no more but the I●● of what they precisely signify; and therefore ● is not to be wondered, that the Fathers of 〈◊〉 Council of Nice were scandalised at the wo● Image, which the Iconoclasts employed, because 〈◊〉 appears by the Authors of the seventh Age, the it was but little used in respect to the Eucharist.  
But whence is it that M. Arnaud hath learned that at that time the Word Image applied 〈◊〉 the Eucharist was little used? He cannot produce one only Author for it. For, to say that the Eucharist is not an Image, as Anastasius Sinaita doth, that concludes nothing, because that Anastasius acknowledged in th● Eucharist no Figure at all, neither exclusive no● inclusive; nor did he ever say, that this wor● Image was no more in use in his time, though it had been theretofore; on the contrary, he maintains, that, if the Eucharist have bee● called an Image, that was before the Consecration, that is, before it was the Eucharist. And thus Anastasius hath been alleged to ill purpose, as also some other Authors that have followed him, to prove, that the word Image, applied to the Eucharist, was little in use, since he denyeth, it was ever used.  
Besides, Is not this observation plainly refuted by the Council of Constantinople, against which that of Nice was called together, since that in this Assembly, composed of more than 300 Bishops, the word Image is given to the Eucharist? Is not such a considerable num●er of Bishops rather to be believed concerning what was in use in their time, than two or ●hree particular Authors? And, if they have ●alled the Eucharist an Image of the Body and blood of jesus Christ, is not that a convincing proof, that the popular sense, which it had in this respect until than, as M. Arnaud will have it, did obtain still, and that therefore this expression was blamed to ill purpose by the Fathers of Nice, and by Nicephorus?  
But, let us go not further than to M. Arnaud, to found the refutation of what he hath said concerning this matter; he will free us from all pain himself, and furnish us with an answer, which he cannot refuse without disowning his reasons.  
You saw but lately in the passage I related out of him, that, according to his opinion, we are not to wonder, that the Fathers of the II. Council of Nice, and the Patriarch Nicephorus, were scandalised at this, that the Council of Constantinople, held by the Iconoclasts, had called the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist a Figure and Image; for as much as from the Seventh Age that word was little more in use as to this matter.  
But than M. Arnaud, remembering no more this answer, asserts on the contrary, That we are in the wrong, when we allege for our defence the Passages of the Fathers, wherein the Symbols are call d by the name of Figure: And that we cannot thence conclude, (in his tenth Book, cap. 4. pa. 22.) that therefore the B● of Christ is not there enclosed, because, besil● that the same Language is found in the seven● and eighth Ages, it is found also in the eleven● Age, and at the time when they were condemne● who denied the Real presence, and yet those, w● were the greatest Enemies of the Error of B●renger, were neither offended nor scandalized 〈◊〉 it.  
So that when it pleaseth M. Arnaud, th● term of Figure and Image had not more▪ from the time of the Seventh Age, that popular sense, which made it to be received unde● the notion of a Figure, enclosing the Truth and therefore the Fathers of the II. Council o● Nice, and Nicephorus, had reason to be scandalised at it in the Eighth and Ninth Age; and afterwards when he pleaseth, this same word was in use in the seventh and eighth Age, and even in the eleventh, and was employed without any offence or scandal.  
This shows sufficiently, how much Passion and eagerness of Victory, whatever it may cost, cloudeth in great Wits the light they had received either from Nature or Grace.  
The same proves also, that the Second Proposition out of the passage of Nicephorus, is not more reasonable: For it is not true, that the Symbols were not called by the Father's Antitype, Figure and Image, but only before the Consecration; The contrary might easily be proved; but it is needless, since M. Arnaud, too intelligent not to know a thing of this nature, candidly acknowledgeth the error of Nicephorus, and of the Fathers of Nice in this matter. See his seventh Book, Chap. 7. p. 708. and Ch. 8. p. 717.  
The two last Propositions, drawn out of the passage of Nicephorus, viz. That the Bread and Wine are truly and properly the Body and Blood of jesus Christ, and that it becomes such by the virtue of the Holy Spirit, changing these Oblations into the Body and Blood of Christ, even as the Bread and Wine, and Water, are changed into our substance: These two Propositions, I say, will appear to you more formal for your Belief, and more express to prove the intention of M. Arnaud; But do not, I pray, stand upon the outside, nor the Exterior sense of these words; consider them attentively, and you'll found, that these two opinions are as contrary to their Doctrine as to ours.  
First, It is not true, according to you, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ; and I challenge Monsieur Arnaud, to produce me only one of your Doctors, that approveth this Proposition. On the contrary, all are agreed amongst you, that the word this, in this Enunciation of our Saviour, Take, eat, this is my Body, doth not signify, This Bread: And when your Writers do allege the passages of the Fathers, which say, That the Bread is the Body, to prove the Reality, they give explications to this manner of speaking, because ●t cannot be true, being taken in this sense, That the Bread is the Body; for, it is m●● certain, That the Body of Jesus Christ is n●● made of Bread, that the substance of th● Bread is not his Body, that the Accidents which you take for the Symbols, Signs, Figures and Images of the Body of Christ, are not ● neither, nor indeed can be.  
Secondly, What Nicephorus saith of th● Conversion of the Bread into the Body o● Jesus Christ, after the manner of the change o● Meat into our Substance, is a mere Parado● amongst you, as well as amongst us; the Tra●● substantiation hath nothing like it, and instea● of changing the substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ, it wholly destroys th● Substance, and reduceth it to nothing, t● substitute in lieu of it the Body of Jesu● Christ, after an invisible and incomprehensible manner. Thus, Sir, you see, that this fir● Testimony of the Belief of the Greeks in th● Ninth Age, deposeth nothing in favour of Monsieur Arnaud, since himself dareth not maintain any one of its Propositions.  
This Reflection may serve for Answer to the Second and third Testimony of Monsieur Arnaud.  
Theodore Abucara, Bishop of the Latin● speaks like Nicephorus (in the Seventh Book o● Monsieur Arnaud, Chap. 9 pag. 719, 720.) viz. That the holy Spirit descends upon the Oblations, and by the Fire of his Divinity, converts the Bread and Wine into the Body an● ●lood of Jesus Christ, just as the stomach rangeth the nourishment into its own Body.  
And Peter of Sicily, speaking of the Paulian Heretics, who said, That instead of ●ead and Wine, Jesus Christ had given nothing ●t words to be instead of Symbols and Figures, ●ith, They deny the dreadful and divine Tran●bstantiation of the Body and Blood of our Lord, ●hich is made in the Mysteries. And in another ●ace, The Bread, saith he, is presented visibly upon ●e Altar, and the Holy Ghost descends invisibly, ●nctifying the Oblations, and making them, not ●e Antitypes, but the very Body and Blood of ●r Lord, and our God.  
I grant, that they speak not in these terms ● Charenton, but Monsieur Arnaud must also acknowledge with the same sincerity, that nei●er do they speak so in the Sorbonne, and that ●ere they will never say, That after the Con●cration there is no Figure and Antitype in ●e Sacrament, and that the Body of Jesus ●hrist is made of Bread, as our Bodies are ●ourished and increased by the meat we eat. ●nd this sufficeth me to show, That these testimonies are useless to Monsieur Arnaud; ●r, he hath undertaken to prove, That the ●reek Church was in the Ninth and tenth Age's ●f the same opinion, which now obtains in the church of Rome, about the Reality, Transub●antiation, and Adoration. This is his main foundation, and these Testimonies are not able ●o prove it, because they are not of your opinion, and do believe what you believe not.  
If you shall ask me, what than was the Belief in this point, I will tell you, that sin● Anastasius Sinaita, and possibly before, t● Greeks did believe, that the Bread was hypostatically united to the Body of Jesus Chr● making by this means one and the same Bod● as the Body of Jesus Christ, united to the Divinity, doth constitute one only Person which maketh that we say, Man is God, a● God is Man. Some did declare themselv● more grossly and more rudely than others, ● rather carried this opinion to unconceivab● extravagancies, and to affrightful Erro● For, they believed, that by reason of t● Change, and of this Assumption of the Bre● into the Body of Christ, which made it o● and the same Body, this Body of our Saviour was seen, felt, eaten, bruised by the Teet● and in the Stomach reduced to the condition of common meat.  
These, Sir, are the Testimonies, whi● Monsieur Arnaud reciteth to prove, that th● Greeks in the Ninth Age were of your opinion. Judge you, whether he hath hit well; a● let him not say now, that we attribute to th● Greeks amiss, the Heresy of Stercoranism. hope to show that in another piece; here I sha● content myself to prove it by Monsieur A●naud himself, who contradicts himself in th● point so evidently, that I am altogether surprised at his not perceiving it, or that he ha● not been advertised of it by so many Learn Bishops, and Doctors of the Sorbonne, wh● have given him their Approbation with so much pomp, and will persuade us, that they have read his Book very attentively. Indeed, a good advertisement upon that and the like other contradictions, would have been much more advantageous to him, than all their Encomiums. But let us make proof of this Accusation.  
Monsieur Claude answering the Objection drawn from the pretended union of the Greeks and Latins in the Council of Florence, had said, That if by virtue of this union the Greeks seem to have tacitly suffered the Transubstantiation of the Latins, the Latins have likewise suffered the Stercoranism of the Greeks, and that there was no more reason to conclude from thence, that the Gresks are Transubstantiators, than that the Latins are Stercuranists.  
Hereupon Monsieur Arnaud asserts, (in his Fourth Book, Chap. 3. pag. 356.) That this Stercoranism of the Greeks is a mere Chimaera, which hath not any solid ground; that it is true, that Hubert had accused Nicolas of it, but that that was from a consequence at random, and that there appears not any trace or sign of it in all the Writings of the Greeks. And some Lines after he affirms, That it is a thing very false, and very improbable, that the Greeks have held this Error. He had asserted the same thing before (in his Second Book, cap. 6.) in answering an accusation of Cardinal Hubert, who did object to Nicolas this Stercoranism, and of Dalger, who chargeth all the Greeks there with.  
But now, as if Monsieur Arnaud were animated by two opposite Spirits, or had lost hi● memory, he hath changed his mind since h● Fourth Book to the Seventh. We are goi● to find him to be in a good understandi● with Monsieur Claude about this point, a● to confirm what just now he called a pu● Chimaera, and a thing very false, and very inprobable.  
Examining the difficulties, which occur i● a passage of Anastasius, a Religious Man o● Mount Sina, which he had alleged to mak● out the Belief of the Greeks of the Seventh Age, and not being able to extricate himself he is constrained, after Monsieur de Marca, to grant, that this Author was a Stercoranist believing, That the Body of Jesus Christ wa● corruptible in the Sacrament; and he endeavours also to prove, That this was the opinion of Anastasius, by comparing other places of the same Author. He alleges the example which he had already produced elsewhere of that Sicidite Friar, who taught under the Emperor Alexius Junior, that the Body of Jesus Christ was corruptible, and who had at that time some Followers, (in his Seventh Book, Chap. 2. pag. 629.) And thence he concludeth, That it would not be at all strange, the like thought● were come into the mind of Anastasius Sinaita. He confirms the same thing in his discourse upon the Book of Bertram (which is in the ●welfth Book of this Volume, Chap. 3. p. 33.) ●here, speaking of the Belief of those, against ●hom he thinks Bertram had written, and ●ho imagined, as he esteems, that there was ●o vail nor figure at all in the Eucharist, and ●hat the object of Faith was not distinguished ●om that of Sense, and that the very Body of Christ was properly seen and felt, he adds, We may gather from divers places of this piece, ●hat this opinion, though difficult, falls yet naturally enough into the mind, since it seems it is ●hat of Anastasius Sinaita, and of those other Greeks, who have said afterwards, that the Body of Jesus Christ was corruptible in the Eucharist; so that there is no cause to wonder, that there were men in the Ninth Age, which understood the Eucharist in the same sense, as it was understood of many Greeks.  
Thus you may see it sufficiently proved, That Monsieur Arnaud asserts in one place, that there have been Greeks Stercoranists, and in another, that Stercoranism is a Chimaera, and that there appears not any trace of it in their Writings. When you see him, Sir, you may ask of him the untying of this contradiction. But let us see, whether the Testimonies of the Tenth Age will be more  to him than those of the Ninth, we have been examining.  
He reciteth but two of them; but both do savour of the barrenness of the Deserts, whence he hath taken them, and they are useless, and deserve rather pity than answer.  
The first (in the Seventh Book, Chap. 9 pag. 722. and in the Refutation, pag. 243.) i● drawn out of an Extract of the Life of a● Anchorite called Luc, who being gone to consult the Archbishop of Collen, to know what he should do to receive the Divine Mysteries that Archbishop answered him, That if by ● inevitable necessity a Priest could not be had up● their Mountain, they must put on the sacred Table the Vessel, wherein the presanctified Mysteries are, than spreading a Linen Cloth, th● must lay down the sacred little parts, and bu●ing incense, they must sing Psalms suitable to th● Mystery, or the Canticle called Trisagion, together with the Creed; than adoring it by bending three times the knees, and joining the hands, they shall take with their mouth the sacred Body ● Jesus Christ our Lord. See how Monsieur A●naud hath cited this passage in his Refutation of the First Book of Monsieur Claude, wher● you finde the word adoring in bigger Letters to show the importance of it, and that there in consists the force of the Argument which i● taken out of this place. Monsieur Claude d● complain of it in his Answer, and accused th● Author of Falsification, because the word adoring is not in the Greek.  
Is it not true, Sir, that if, before having seen the Book of Monsieur Arnaud, this difference had been barely related to you, an● you had been well persuaded, that this word which is contested, is not in the Text, yo● would doubtless have believed at first, tha● Monsieur Arnaud was too candid not to own frankly, that the Latin Interpreters, which he followed, made him err, and that he should have consulted the Greek Text in an allegation of that consequence: Yet you may see, that your conjecture would have been in vain, since Monsieur Arnaud doth not yield to the truth which he seethe, but labours to confirm this Traduction by windings and turn, and by subtleties unworthy a man of his understanding and credit.  
Let us freely avow, Sir, that the spirit of man is a strange piece; there is no evidence, he will not darken; no darkness, for which he will not pretend to find light, when he finds himself engaged to maintain what he hath advanced, and believeth, That it were a shame for him to retreat one step in the face of his adversary; but let us avow also, That truth hath an admirable power, and it she be not always crowned by the hands of her own enemies, she is often opposed with so much weakness, that it is easy to see her advantage, and withal the perplexities entangling those who resist her motions.  
You see here a manifest example. Monsieur Arnaud grants, that in the Text there is only this, And than bending the knees three times; and that the word adoring is not there; and yet he goes about to maintain this Translation. Is not this an effect of that self-love, which casts away many of the greatest men, and which is never laid down but in our grave? Can it be the sole passion of contesting with Monsieur Claude even of the clearest things What may have obliged him to be obstinate against such an evidence? Can it be a defect of his understanding, and can he seriously believe, that a Translator hath the liberty th●● to add to his Text, and so strangely to satisfie● it by a paraphrase and an explication of his own fancy, under the pretence of having translated it according to the Sense, and not according to the Letter? Or can he believe, that to bend the knees, may be faithfully rendered by the word adore? You may make such Reflections upon it as you please; as for me, I am altogether persuaded, that Monsieur Arnaud is deceived, and that he saith nothing to maintain his Proposition, but what is extremely weak. But since I have not undertaken to refute his Book, and that that were to usurp the right of Monsieur Claude, I keep myself within the subject of this Letter.  
For this purpose, you will please to observe two things, which will show you the delusion of Monsieur Arnaud in the Allegation of this passage.  
First, That according to the truth of the Text he concludeth nothing, nor proveth at all the point, for which it is cited.  
Secondly, That even according to the false Latin Translation, which Monsieur Arnaud hath followed, it is alleged to ill purpose, and maketh nothing for the opinion of the Greeks.  
There needs no great discourse to prove ●hese two truths; a little common sense is sufficient to discover their evidence.  
For first, all that can be drawn from the true place, is this, That the Eucharist is called the Body of Christ, and that it is received kneeling. But this is not to any purpose; because, if all those who use this expression and this ceremony, are of your Religion in this point, you will not find many, against whom the claps of the fulminating Council of Trent can be justly directed, in regard that the Lutherans receive the Eucharist kneeling, and believe they eat the true Body of Jesus Christ; and those of our Communion in England take also the Sacrament on their knees; and there is not any Protestant person either in France or elsewhere, who doubts that he eateth and drinks truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ: We only differ about the manner of this Manducation; we distinguish the Sign from the thing signified, and we stick not to give to the Sacrament the name of the Body of Christ, conformably to the words of its Institution, the more to note the truth and efficacy of the Union there is betwixt them  
Whence you see, that such kind of expressions as these, which in the Letter seem more conform to your Belief, are yet not contrary to ours; they have their warrantable use; they are very true according to their intention, and are not at all incompatible with our Sentiments: Which is plainly made out, in that we make use of them without scruple; and it is a Rule, which Monsieur Arnaud hath laid down, and for the proof of which h● employs the Fourth Chapter of his Tenth Book: That when those, who believe a Doctrine, use terms which are objected to them as inconsistent with their Doctrine, it is a● evident mark, That those expressions may stand very well with their belief, and are no● in reason to be opposed as being contrary to them. For example, he saith, It is objected to us, that the Fathers have often called the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Figure, the Antitypes and Symbols of the Body of Christ; tha● they have given it the name of Bread, Wine the Fruit of the Vine; that they have said, i● was not Common Bread; that they have asserted, that the Body of Jesus Christ, which w● receive in the Sacrament, is Spiritual and Mystical. But, notwithstanding all these Conformities with our ordinary expressions, Monsieur Arnaud esteems not, that they prejudice at all the Sentiment of the Fathers, or that it may be concluded from thence, that they did not believe the Reality and Transubstantiation, because the highest Transubstantiators have used the same terms; which may have their truth, respect being had to what is exterior to the Sacrament.  
By the Application of which Rule, you see, Sir, it is not difficult to answer, not only to this passage, but also to all those, which Monsieur Arnaud, and your other Doctors can ●●●edge out of the Fathers, where the Eucha● is called the Body of Christ, since that is ●erm which we do not reject, and which may ●ve a very true sense according to us; and ● cannot be objected to us, because it is not compatible with our Belief, but consists with as naturally, as it doth with yours.  
But I answer Secondly to this passage, that Monsieur Arnaud is very much out, when he ●oposeth it to us as the mind of the Greek Church. It is an instruction of the manner, how an Anchorite is to receive the Sacrament, in the absence of a Priest; and he that speaketh and giveth the instruction, is an Archbishop subject to the Church of Rome, as Monsieur Arnaud hath said himself, Pag. 244. of the Refutation. For, though he be a Greek by Nation, and have written in Greek, that concludeth not, that these men were of the Greek Religion; so that, although there were in the Text, than adoring or bending the knees thrice, (as Monsieur Arnaud had translated it) yet it were no great wonder, that in the Tenth Age, in which time we grant, that Transubstantiation was received in the Church of Rome, ●an Archbishop, subject to this Church, should speak conformably to what was practised in his time.  
The second example of the Opinion of the Greeks of the Tenth Age, will not prove more  to Monsieur Arnaud than the first. It is of a She-saint called Theochriste, (in the Seventh Book, chap. 9 pag. 726.) who prayed a Hunter, that had by chance met b● in the Isle of Paros, to bring her the next ye● the Eucharist; which having been done b● him, this holy Woman took it with great respect, cast herself on the ground, and w● tears in her eyes said that Verse of the So● of Simeon: Lord, now lettest thou thy serum part in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy Saour, which thou hast prepared before the face ● all people.  
This passage, which hath been cited by Cardinal Perron, is taken out of Metaphrastes, ● Author whom Cardinal Barronius accuse● for often delivering Fables, Lies, and Fancies; so that in reason, we may suspect what ever he relateth. But to wave this, as also that, in all appearance, this Author was a Stercoranist, since he speaks, somewhat before this place, of a piece of the Flesh of Jesus Christ which is a thought, not more savouring of Rome than of Geneva; Monsieur Claude had answered very well, that this passage could not work in us what it aimed at, since the Reformed Churches of this Kingdom, after the Communion fall down upon their knees, and sing the whole Song of Simeon, and yet do no● therefore believe Transubstantiation, nor the Adoration of the Sacrament. Besides, he observeth, that this History shows the contrary of what is pretended, since, if than it had been believed, as it is now, that it were the very Body of Jesus Christ, they would not have trusted a Hunter with it, to have ●●rried it upon his Faith to any one.  
Monsieur Arnaud answers nothing to this ●●st note, which yet is not inconsiderable; ●●d to the first, he contents himself to say, ●●at the application, which this Saint made of ●●i● Verse of Simeon, is an effect of the balief of ●●e Real Presence, which the Calvinian devotion ●● itself will never raise to this motion; and if ●●y Calvinists practise it, it is upon this account, that the truth of the Ancient Faith, ●hich they have abolished out of their hearts, ●mains yet engraven in some of their actions and ●ords.  
If Monsieur Arnaud is satisfied with such ●swers as these, a very little will content ●im. As for us, we are more difficult, and ●re far from believing, that a Ceremony, which ●e ourselves practise, should be contrary ●o us. Monsieur Arnaud is deceived; first, ●n that he remembers not his own maxim, which ● lately noted upon the former passage, viz. ●hat there are expressions, which seem contrary, or which in one sense are contrary, but ●et in another sense agreed very well; which is ●hen proved, when those expressions are used ●y those, who are of a belief contrary to ●hat, which is pretended to be conform to the very same expressions. Secondly, in that Monsieur Arnaud imagines, that this part of the Song of Simeon produceth a motion repugnant to our Tenants; which is not so, since all our Churches have used it for so long a time, without finding this repugnancy. This cometh from thence, that Monsieur Arnaud is li● versed in our way, and that having been 〈◊〉 thereto employed in other affairs, and ● against many other Adversaries, he hath ● yet had much leisure to peruse our Books, ● seen our Belief otherwise than in some ● your most famous Doctors, such as are ● Cardinal's Bellarmine and Perron, who disge● it very often, and impute opinions to 〈◊〉 which we have not. And it is from this infe●ed Spring, that Monsieur Arnaud intends draw our Morals, which he means to fig● against, with consequences built in the A● And if he frames also our Doctrine after ● mode, certainly we shall appear to be strang● people; we see already a proof of it in ● Book, where he saith frequently, that we believe, we receive nothing in the Sacrament● but the Figure of the Body of Christ; which is very far from our Sentiments. Were it ● for this want of knowing what we believe Monsieur Arnaud would never go about ● object against us such kind of passages, no● others, that are more formal, which we ma● use of as well as you.  
I cannot altogether blame him in this; h● doth what he can, he hath no better coynt● pay that, which he stands engaged for; and ● he cannot oppose good Reason and Authority he pretends to save himself in the crowd 〈◊〉 his witnesses, good or bad: But, if he ha● found any Greeks of those Ages, who ha● said, That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is ● ●s a testimony of the union we have with Jesus ●hrist, forasmuch as he is not only once dead ●nd risen again for us, but also feeds and nou●●shes us truly with his Flesh and Blood, that ●e may be one with him, and have communion in ●is life; and though he be in Heaven until he ●ome again to judge the whole world, yet we are ●o believe, that by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his Spirit, he nourishes and quickens ●s with the substance of Body and Blood. Or such words as these, That we must believe those promises, which Jesus Christ, who is the infallible truth, hath pronounced with his own mouth, viz. That he will make us truly partakers of his Body and Blood, that we may possess him wholly, so that he may live in us, and we in him: Or, That God there gives us really and effectually what he represents: Or, That this Mystery surpasseth the reach of our senses, and the whole order of nature. If, I say, Monsieur Arnaud had found some of the Greeks speaking after this manner, with what pomp would not he have set them out? He would not have failed to tell us, that between those people and us, there were no good understanding at all; such words as these, The Body and Blood of Christ, Reality, Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ: And these, We must believe in the promises of Jesus Christ, who will make us truly partakers of his Body and Blood; that in this Mystery we are not to stand upon our Senses, nor the order of Nature: Such expressions, I say, would be, according to Monsieur Arnaud, as so many Thunderclaps against us, and as formal De●sions for you, as the Council of Trent it se●● Mean time, Sir, if you would know, ho● much he would find himself deceived, a●● with what little ground he would object the●● passages as contrary to us, you may observe the● they are the very terms of our own Confession of Faith, and of our Liturgy.  
You may thereby judge, that these express●ons, which are common to both parties, a●● which they both make use of, are not prop●● to decide our Controversy, and that they cannot in reason be objected against the one, o● the other; that there must be other proofs t● d●c●are, what was the opinion of those, who used them; that the doctrine elsewhere justified will show and determine the sense o● those expressions, but that they being alon● cannot precisely make out the doctrine of those who have used them.  
This Observation might serve for an Answer to the whole Book of Monsieur Arnaud; mean time this is not a place to consider it at large, I hope I shall one day set it out better in another Treatise, wherein, God permitting, I shall prove, that the true Belief of the Ancient Church about this point of the Eucharis●● is very hard to be known, that there are innumerable perplexities in it, and that, if the Fathers have believed the Reality, as I see no reason to doubt but they did, they have believed it in such a manner, which neither you, nor we, nor any other Christian Society would approve of.  
You may see, Sir, by this examen, that M. Arnaud hath not performed what he had promised for the Defence of his Book of the Perpetuity, as to the matter of his first supposition, whereby he did pretend to show the Impossibility of the Change (which we maintain ●o have happened in the Church about the Ninth ●nd Tenth Age,) upon this account, that the schismatic Churches had the same Belief with ●he Roman; which could not be but by a continual succession of the same Doctrine, which ●hey had received from their Ancestors, and could not have taken from Paschasius, as a person unknown to them: You may see, I say, the weakness of this ground by that of the proofs, which he hath produced of the Belief of the Greeks in those two Centuries.  
But there is more than this; for Monsieur Arnaud doth not only not prove, That the Greeks were of your opinion in the time of Paschasius, and the following Age; but he altogether forgets the other Schismatic Societies, about whom he made so much noise, who were comprehended in the first Supposition, and from whose opinion, as well as from that of the Greeks, he did pretend to draw the Fundamental Reasons of his Systeme.  
I know very well, that he treateth in his whole Fifth Book of the Belief of the Oriental Churches, of the Muscovites, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Nestorians, the Jacobites, the Maronites, the Cophtes, and the Ethi●pians: I know also, that Monsieur Claude having said, that in the Examen of the Change, happen●● in the Ninth and tenth Century, The questi●● was not of the whole Earth, but of the We● that is, of the Communion of the Pope: Mo●sieur Arnaud greatly triumpheth; and y●● may see, how he paraphraseth upon th●●● words, according to the sense he attributes● Monsieur Claude, viz. Let it be so, that 〈◊〉 is not the Question, I will not put myself to 〈◊〉 trouble of explaining, how the Doctrine of 〈◊〉 Real Presence and of Transubstantiation was introduced in the East, in the Patriarchates of Co●stantinople, of Alexandria, of Jerusalem, 〈◊〉 of Antioch, in the Churches of the Armenia● the Nestorians, the Jacobites: Nor will I at 〈◊〉 trouble myself to divine, how it hath penetrate into Ethiopia, Muscovy, Mesopotamia, Georgia, Mingrelia, Moldavia, Tartary, and 〈◊〉 Indieses. It is better to say, It is not there; t●● will make the shorter work, and by this mea● I shall free myself from a great embarasment (in the Ninth Book, Chap. 3. pag. 886.) And after he had affirmed in the following Page that it is material to know, how the Belief o● the Real Presence could be introduced into all those Countries, as well as into the Lati● Church, he addeth (Pag. 888.) I see very well that Monsieur Claude, as bold as he is, succumb under the greatness of this undertaking, he is terrified with it, he renounces it, he asketh grace he would gladly that that might not make a part of the question. The question is not, saith he, of the whole Earth; what shall one say? The●● is no way of contenting him: It is the question, in despite of him, since this Belief is established over all the Earth: It is a thing, which depends neither from him, nor from me: It is a necessary part of this great question, and which draws after it all the rest. Thus, since by a forced confession of his weakness he acknowledgeth, that be cannot say, There is made an Universal Change of Belief in all the East, he must abandon all the rest, and acknowledge, that all his means are ruined, all his engines shattered, all his projects overturned, and all his Suppositions destroyed.  
But for all this, Monsieur Arnaud is very much out, and he saith nothing in his whole Fifth Book, that may serve to prove the first Supposition of the Book of the Perpetuity. To show you plainly his illusion, you may remember, that, to prove the Impossibility of the Change, which we say was made by Paschasius in the Ninth and tenth Age in the Point of the Eucharist, the Author of the Perpetuity, and Monsieur Arnaud after him (if himself be not that Author, as it is very likely he is) hath taken for his first Supposition, that it was impossible, this Change should befall the whole Earth, because the Greek Churches, and the others separated from the Communion of Rome, could not have heard any thing of Paschasius, and were enemies to the Latin Church, of which they would have scorned to receive new opinions in such an important point.  
To support this ratiocination, it hath be●● supposed, that at the time, to which We assigns this Change, all the Oriental Churches did believe the Real Presence, such as you believe i● now; and because M. Claude would not gra●● this, M. Arnaud hath undertaken to prove it.  
To this end, he hath begun with the Gre●● Church, and pretends to have made out th● Belief she had in the Ninth and Tenth Age. He hath done more, for he hath recited her sentiments in the Seventh and Eighth Age, which preceded Paschasius, and in the Ages which have followed him until now. I have examined above, what he hath said about the Nin● and Tenth Age, because there are no other but those, that are essential and able to serve the question.  
But as to the other Oriental Churches, M. Arnaud loses his ground; for although the whole force of the supposition of the Book, he defends, consists in proving their conformity with the Latin Church in the Ninth and Tenth Age, he sets that time aside, and almost all the Ages following unto our times, and contents himself to prove, that in the latter Ages, but principally in that, wherein we now are, those great Societies have been, and are found to be in your Belief of the Reality, which very thing he proveth but very weakly, and which was not that which was properly denied by Mr. Claude, who had concluded himself to assert and maintain, that Transubstantiation and the ●doration of the Sacrament were received on●y in the Roman Church, without speaking of ●he Real Presence.  
Now in this proceeding M. Arnaud is very palpably deceived two ways, (for I will ra●her say, that he is deceived, than that he would ●eceive his Reader;) the first, in that he ●raggeth to have done, what he hath not done, ●or thought on; the other, in that all his proofs ●ould be useless, if they were without exception.  
The proof of these two Assertions is easy. For, as to the first, there needs no more but to use our eyes, and read his passages.  
In the Ninth Book, p. 865. M. Arnaud, speaking of the Change made by Paschasius, saith; This vision supposeth, that the Real Presence hath not been believed but in the Latin Church, and we have showed, that it hath been acknowledged formally and clearly by the whole Greek Church, and by all the Orient, both before and after Berenger.  
And, in the ninth Book, Chap. 3. pa. 889. M. Arnaud saith again; If he tell us, that 'tis Paschasius that hath invented this Doctrine, and that it could not fall into any other Man's mind than his; we shall show him the infinite number of Christians, who know neither Paschasius nor ●his Book, and yet in all times have made profession of this Doctrine: And so he is convinced of temerity and imposture. If he tell us, that the Popes have contributed by their Authority and Violence to make it to be received, we show him those vast Nations, where the Pope's exercise i● Jurisdiction at all, and which yet do as much a● here to the Belief of the Real Presence, as the people that submit most to the Holy See.  
In the ninth Book, Chap. 10. pa. 951. 'T● certain (saith M. Arnaud) that one of th● most remarkable circumstances of this Change ● Belief touching the Eucharist, is, that it must ● supposed to have happened at the same time in ● the parts of the World, and in all the Christi●● Societies, in the East, in the West, among the Latins, the Greeks, the Muscovites, the Armenian● the Nestorians, the Indians, the Cophtes, the A●thiopians, the Jacobites. This circumstance al●● shows clearly the Impossibility of this pretend● Change; wherefore we thought ourselves oblig●● to show so largely, that all the Societies, separated from the Roman Church, were united wit● the same in the point of the Real Presence, and ● Transubstantiation; and I think, we shall ● be complained of, that we have not proved ● enough.  
It is than very certain, that, according ● M. Arnaud, the Belief of the Schismatics Churches in the time of Paschasius, is an essential Circumstance against the Change, ● which this Monk is accused. It is also certain that M. Arnaud pretends to have proved th● Belief in an invincible manner; he is high● content; and he insults thereupon over M● Claude very fiercely: but in truth 'tis a mee● bravado; he hath not so much as thought ● it, and those clear and formal proofs, thos● proofs, which he taketh to be so satisfactory, are visions of the passion of M. Arnaud.  
Take the pains to read his whole Fifth Book; if you can found there one only passage, proving, that the Oriental Churches, the Muscovites, the Armenians, the Nestorians, etc. did believe in the time of Paschasius, and before Berenger, the Real presence and Transubstantiation, I will undergo such a condemnation as you shall pass upon me: But I am well assured, you will not found a word there of that assertion.  
I am contented to keep you company in this discussion, and to assist you in the examen. Let us than follow M. Arnaud, and see, whether he hath acquitted himself of this important proof, as he brags; but this shall be only within the compass of the design of this Letter, that is, in the Circumstance of the Time; This being sufficient for me, who leave the rest to M. Claude.  
In the four first Chapters he treateth of the Belief of the Muscovites: but M. Arnaud, who confesseth, (in the fifth Book, Chap. 1. pa. 424.) that he speaketh only of the opinions they have at present, to conclude from thence what they believed formerly, doth himself sufficiently show us, that these people are to be taken out of the Catalogue of those, whom he pretends to have believed Transubstantiation in the time of Paschasius.  
'Tis the same with the Syrians, of whom he speaketh in the fifth Chapter, and for the opinion of whom in the Ninth and Tenth Age 〈◊〉 produceth not one certain passage.  
He examines the Sentiment of the Arme●ans in the 6, 7, 8, and 9 Chapters. But th● ancientest testimony is taken since Berenge● and consequently without that fatal Epoch● which is in question: Besides, he grants, th● these people have been accused long ago, th● they believe not the Real Presence and Trasubstantiation, by Authors of their Religion against whom he finds difficulty enough to defend them; and even at present Thomas Herbert, an Englishman, who hath traveled i● their Country, relateth in the second Impression of his Book, that they believe not th● Real Presence; which Mr. Arnaud could not answer, but by accusing his Interpreter of a signal Imposture, and affirming, that there i● no such thing in the English Original: B●● this accusation, which doubtless was pronounced too rashly and too passionately, come from thence, t●at M. Arnaud got the Book o● the first Impression interpreted to him, where th●t Note of this Author is not; whereas M▪ Vilfort hath translated into French the Secon● Impression, where it is, as you know, Sir, th● M Arnaud hath acknowledged himself.  
In the Tenth Chapter he treateth of the Nestorians; and in the Eleventh of the Jacobites Therein he applieth to both the same rules, and goes about to prove their Belief by Negative proofs; but besides the weakness of such a testimony, he finds no Authors to support ●●ose proofs but in the Thirteenth Age, that is, ●ur Ages after Pascasius.  
The Maronites (of whom he speaketh in the ●welfth Chapter) submitted themselves to the church of Rome at the end of the Twefth ●ge, and although that Union did cool for ●ome time, yet it was very solemnly renewed ●nder the Pope's Leo X. and Clement VIII; so ●hat 'tis certain, they do now follow the Roman ●eligion, except certain Greek Ceremonies. M. Arnaud agreeth to these Truths, so that if ●e means to oppose to us with reason the ex●mple of that People, he must prove, that in ●he Ninth and Tenth Age they did believe Transubstantiation; and this it is, what M. Arnaud pretends to make out by positive passages, taken out of the Notes of Abraham Ethollensis, a Maronite, upon the Catalogue of the  Books of Abdiesu.  
The first is ascribed to john Maron, who lived, as he saith, between the Sixth and Seventh Age, where 'tis said, That the Bread, which jesus Chr●st took into his hands, blessed, consecrated, and called his Body, is the Body and Blood taken from the Virgin Mary; And that the same hand, which in the beginning took the dust of the earth, and by changing it, form the Body of Adam, changeth also this Bread, and maketh of it the Body of the Word, taken from the blessed Virgin, and by changing this wine maketh of it the blood taken from the same.  
The second is taken out of the Syriack Constitutions of the Church of the Maronites, put into the Arabic Tongue by David Archbishop of the Maronites, in the Year 105 where 'tis said, That the Apostles did eat Flesh, and drank the Blood; that the Bread 〈◊〉 made Flesh, and the Cup is truly the Blood 〈◊〉 Christ.  
Much might be said to these places; 〈◊〉 the latter of them, which Ethellensis relate● to be but a Translation made into Arabi● An. 1053, carrieth with it visible marks 〈◊〉 its being suppositious: for, it was made lo● before the reunion of the Maronites with th● Roman Church, and yet he saith, that our Saviour at the time of the Institution of th● Sacrament, took Unleavened Bread; which 〈◊〉 an evident token, that this Book is much newer, because that all the Greeks, and other Schismatic Societies have always believed that the Eucharist was not to be dispensed wit● unleavened Bread. And than he saith also, tha● jesus Christ lifted up this Bread with his hands which no Evangelist relateth, and therefore is mere Invention of the Author; as is that also which he allegeth in the third place, The Jesus Christ declared to his Apostles, that the Lamb, which God had commanded Moses to offer, was the Figure of this Bread, which had been made Flesh and was now his Body; and that the Blood, which ran out of it when it was sacrificed, was the Figure of this Cup, which was no● Blood.  
So M. Arnaud may but quote passages, he looks not very near to them, nor examines strictly whether they be receivable. I pray, ●●k him, Sir, Whether he believeth in earnest, ●t this passage be before the year 1053; and ●hether he knows not, in what Author, he that the Author of these pretended Constitutions of the Maronite Church, hath found this ●mparison, which our Saviour made to his apostles, of the Pascal Lamb with the Bread of ●●e Eucharist; of which no Evangelist, no apostle, not any of the Fathers, nor any Coun●●l ever hath spoken a word.  
As to the first passage, if it be truly cited, ●he Author was of the opinion, which was ●ommon amongst the Greeks of that time, of ●hom S. jean Damascen made himself as it ●ere the Head in the Eighth Age; viz. That ●he Bread was made the Body of Christ by the ●nion made with his natural Body, by the operation of the Holy Ghost; or he was of the opinion of those, who believed, that the Bread was the true Body of Christ, and was corruptible. But you are of neither of these two opinions. What ever it be, M. Arnaud, who quoteth this place as conform to your Belief, dareth not sign it; and, if he should do it, I am sure, that the number of his Approbators would not secure him from the Censure of the Sorbon, which will never approve of the Doctrine of this Author, viz. That the Body of our Lord is made of Bread, and his Blood of Wine, as Adam was made of the dust of the Earth: And if, notwithstanding these words, alleged by M. Arnaud in great Letters, he changeth the Bread, and maketh of it the Body of the Word, (which do plainly no● that the Bread is the matter of the Body ● Christ,) you will not have them thus expounded, you cannot give them a more favourab● sense than that of john Damascen, who d● believe the Assumption of the Bread and i● Union to the Body of our Saviour: which ● another opinion, which you reject as well ● we. And thus both these places are altogether useless.  
What he saith, in the Thirteenth Chapter, ● the Cophtes and Aethiopians, will not serum him better; for he only speaketh of the Belief they have now, which is a very ill argument to prove their Belief in the Ninth an● Tenth Age. 'Tis true, he pretends to prov● their Opinion further of, by Liturgies of thos● Nations, but to no purpose for the matter i● hand, because he noteth not, nor can note, th● these pieces were in the Ninth and Tenth Age● such as we have them now; and secondly, because all those Liturgies, which are pretended to be ancient, are not so, and additions hav● been made to them from time to time, as Cardinal Bellarmin did acknowledge, who in hi● fourth Book of the Eucharist, Ch. 13. answering the Greeks who alleged them, saith, That many things have been added to them. And indeed they are very differing from on● another in their several Editions; especially M. Arnaud telling us, that the  Liturgy is conform to that of St. Basil, sufficiently declares to us the uncertainty of that by the uncertainty of this: For, though it may ● true, that St. Basil hath made a Liturgy, ● cannot be that, which is alleged by Proclu● ●●triarch of Constantinople; for in that which ● have, the Trisagion revealed to this same ●oclus is found; and the Greek is much more ople than the Syriack. Neither can it be the ●turgy ascribed to St. chrysostom, which cardinal Perron saith, the Egyptians, Cophtes ●●d Aethiopians used, since in this there is ●ention made of persons, which lived long af●●r St. chrysostom.  
There is than nothing certain in all that, and ● lest there is nothing certain for the time of ●aschasius, and the Age that follow d him, ●hich is the only point in question. For as to ●●e Age wherein we live, or the precedent age's since Berenger, no consequence can be ●rawn from thence. And this is the second il●sion of M. Arnaud touching this matter.  
And indeed, since the whole force of the argument, proposed by the Author of the Perpetuity against the possibility of the change made by Paschasius, consists, in that the Greek Churches, and the others, separated from the Church of Rome, had the same Belief, which ●his Monk is accused to have introduced; to what purpose is it to speak of the opinion, which this People entertains at present? For I enter not into an examen of the proofs of M. Arnaud; I leave that to M. Claude, and I will suppose, that all these proofs are convincing: But I maintain, that they are useless to the present Question, for as much as the cannot be any consequence drawn from the ●lief that now is, to that which was former's since there may have happened a change since ● establishment of the Doctrine of Transubs●tiation in the Latin Church, either by the stir and commerce of the Latins and Greek● or by the voyages of the Portugals and oth● Nations in the Oriental Churches.  
The example of the Maronites manifest proveth what I say; for no consequence ● be made from the Belief they now have touching the Procession of the H. Ghost, and Unleavened Bread, to that Belief which they ha● when the Greeks made a Schism upon the● points: One cannot, I say, object to the oth●● Oriental Churches, that there hath been ● change about these Doctrines in the Rom● Church, for this reason, that the Maronit● would have opposed it; and to prove, that i● the time of the Schism this people did believ● the same thing with the Church of Rome, o● cannot allege their present Doctrine, since ' t● certain, that this People hath changed the● Belief above 400 years ago. Thus, though it were true, that all the Eastern Church's di● now believe Transubstantiation, yet that concludeth nothing for M. Arnaud, because ● change may have been introduced during th● space of 800 years among those Nations, a● it was introduced in the Western about t● Ninth and Tenth Age: And M. Arnau● argues, as if I should say, that Berenger i●●oduced nothing new in France about the mat●r of the Real Presence, and that this Change ●as impossible, because that some people, extremely remote from this Country, and who ●ever heard of Berenger nor his Books, were ●ound at that time in the Belief of Berenger; ●nd that thereupon to prove the Doctrine of ●he People in the time of Berenger, I should produce proofs of the Belief of many Provinces of the East and West-indieses, which have ●ow the same opinions with Berenger; which would not be difficult to do, since the English ●nd Hollanders settled in that Country, would be able to give us sufficient testimonies thereof, and Liturgies withal, written in the Language of those Nations.  
You see, Sir, by these Examples, that to satisfy the argument of the Book of the Perpetuity, the question is not of the present opinion of the Eastern People; and by the Examen I have been making, you may found also, that the triumphs of M. Arnaud about this point are imaginary, and that he hath not proved at all, that in the time of Paschasius, and the following Age, the Schismatical Churches were of his opinion. And this is that which I undertook in the beginning of this Section to show; We must now proceed to inquire into the other supposition, on which the Author of the Book of the Perpetuity grounds his impossibility of Change attributed to Paschasius; but, this will well deserve a particular Reflection.   

The Sixth Reflection.  
IT is surprising enough, that Monsieur ●●naud should so perpetually delude his R●●der. I have already observed to you, S● in my First Reflection, that he hath fought w● almost nothing else, but his own shadow, 〈◊〉 only defended that which was not denied, that which was not in dispute; and I ha● been lately proving it more particularly to the First Supposition, in the precede Section.  
I intent to show you in this, the like deviation as to the Second Supposition of t● Book of Perpetuity. Monsieur Arnaud employs the whole Sixth Book to maintain i● but (as I have already observed it in my 〈◊〉 Reflection) this whole Book is useless, s● it only proveth, that the Christians had in t● time of Paschasius a distinct Belief of the R● Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, 〈◊〉 of his Real Absence, and that Monsie● Claude had not contested with him about th● but only carried the Question to Transubstantiation and Adoration.  
Thus to bring things to the true state of t●● Question again, and to the force of the Argument of the Author of the Perpetuity, we m● examine them otherwise than Monsieur Arna●● doth. For, since we do all agreed, that the people in the time of Paschasius were to believe the Presence or the Absence of Jesus Christ, we aught indeed to find out that which maketh the difficulty, and upon which the Author of Perpetuity hath pressed his Impossibility of that Change, which we accuse Pas●hasius of. Now this cannot be the bore Belief of the Real Presence, or Absence, because of ●he ambiguity there is in these general terms, ●eeing that we believe both of us, that we are ●o eat the Body of Jesus Christ, and that it is present in the Sacrament; so that the mere Doctrine of this could not 'cause a division in ●he minds of Men; there must be something ●lse, which was, the Manner of this Presence, ●hat is, the Transubstantiation, and the worship ●hich necessarily followed this Doctrine, which ●s the Adoration.  
As for Transubstantiation, that hath made no impression upon the Author of the Perpetuity, ●o form his Argument of that, he hath not ●ad it in his eye: And Monsieur Arnaud ●rants this in his Sixth Book and elsewhere; ●eeing very well that he was not able to prove, ●hat the people in the Ninth and tenth Age ●ad a distinct Belief of Transubstantiation.  
But as to Adoration, that serveth for a sole ●round to the second Supposition of the Author of the Perpetuity; that he sets out on all ●ccasion, and presseth it incessantly; and ●hat division of the Spirits, which, according ●o him, would have been found among Believers, in case that Paschasius had introduce● new Doctrine, is grounded only upon 〈◊〉 diversity of the Worship, which it w● have caused; and upon this Ratiocinati●● that they would have looked upon one ano●● as Impious, or as Idolaters.  
Mean time Monsieur Arnaud in this wh● Sixth Book, where he treateth of the Sec● Supposition of the Book of the Perpetu● saith not a word of this Adoration, whi●● loan made up the force of this Second Supposition.  
But as I do intent to show his weakness both these Suppositions, I am obliged to things into their true order, and to bring 〈◊〉 into the right way, to examine whether hath well proved, that in the Ninth and te● Age, the people did so believe the prese of the Body of Christ upon the Altars, as give it the Sovereign worship of Latria. 〈◊〉 if he prove not that, this second Supposit● remains destroyed, and all the reasonings its Author, grounded upon the accusation Impiety or Idolatry, which this change wo● have caused, will be useless, and the Imp●sibility of that change, which we allege grounded upon this principle, will be noth● but a Chimaera, and a Vision.  
Monsieur Claude finding, that the Supp●tion of the Author was convincing, if it w● true, hath maintained, that Paschasius be● his change with the Doctrine, and not with Worship; that he taught Transubstantiation, 〈◊〉 ●t Adoration; and that the Doctrine of the ●rporal and Substantial Presence having been ●ght by way of explicating the ancient doctrine, and having by this way little by lit● surprised and drawn to him the minds of ●ople, the Adoration followed after with all 〈◊〉 Ceremonies and Pomp's; and that conse●ently that Division of Spirits, which the ●w opinion of Paschasius would have caused, ●ould not have obliged the people to an open ●pture of communion, as the Author of the perpetuity did pretend, because both did agreed 〈◊〉 one and the same public worship, which ●d not yet received any Change.  
He extends this Ratiocination farther, and ● the Eighth Chapter of the second Part of is Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpetuity, refuteth accurately all what Monsieur Arnaud had there said, concerning the Adoration, and he proveth these Four particulars.  
First, That the Adoration of the Sacrament was unknown to the Ancient Church.  
Secondly, That the first Authors of Transubstantiation, neither pressed it, nor publicly established it.  
Thirdly, That it was not constituted by public Decrees, but some time after these Councils, which condemned Berenger.  
Fourthly, That the Schismatic Churches did not receive it.  
How, think you, doth Mr. Arnaud clear himself from these Propositions. Truly Sir, in a pitiful manner; and although this be t● most important part of his Book, he dare● not look the difficulty in the face, he loo● only side-ways on it, he fights against it flying and speaketh almost not of it, but occasionally.  
For the first Question, which concerns th● Belief of the Ancient Church, he giveth ove● the proofs thereof to the victorious arms ● his Adversary, and replies not a word t● them.  
The second, which is the only Essentie for the defence of the Second Supposition o● the Perpetuity-Book, hath no more advantage than the first, and Monsieur Arnaud give● not any succours to it, and that rather out o● weakness, than negligence.  
For the two remaining, he saith somewho more of them; but because what he saith o● them is little considerable, and serveth nothing to the purpose of this discourse, I shall no● insist on it, but shall only confine myself t● my design, and show, as in the former Section That Monsieur Arnaud hath not at all proved, that in the Ninth and tenth Age, th● people did adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and consequently hath not at al● made out the Second Supposition of the Boo● of Perpetuity, grounded on this Adoration which would have made, as he pretends the Followers of Paschasius to be looke● upon as Idolaters, by those who wer● not of his opinion, if it had been new, an● ●hich at the same time would have obliged his ●ollowers to hold his Adversaries for Impious.  
I leave to Monsieur Claude to examine ●hat concerns the Belief of the Latins and Greeks of other Ages, because that respects ●im in particular, and maketh nothing for the ●ook of Perpetuity.  
Monsieur Arnaud treats not of this matter ●n its true order; the Sixth Book, where he speaks of the Second Supposition of the Book ●f the Perpetuity, was the place to examine it, because it was not to be separated from the distinct Belief of the Corporal Presence; ●he force of the Argument of that Author consisting in the Adoration of the Body of Jesus Christ present, as I have observed above. Neither doth he handle this Question directly, and with a design to refute what Monsieur Claude had said of it; but he speaks of it occasionally in his Tenth Book, where he at ●arge sets forth the consequences of the Nine foregoing Books. Let us now see what he there saith of it.  
It is in the Ninth Chapter of this Tenth Book that he speaks of this Adoration, and he there employs Twelve Pages, only to tell us these Three things.  
First, That he hath proved positively in the Books preceding this, That the Adoration hath been practised over all the Earth.  
Secondly, That there is an Interior Adoration, and another Exterior, and that the latter is of many sorts, of which, none is necessary.  
Thirdly, That the Universal consent ● the Belief of the Real Presence (which he pretends to have proved) carries necessarily wi● it the Belief of the Adoration.  
But these three Propositions are either false, or useless to the matter under consideration.  
As to the first, I do not examine the Positive Proofs of Adoration, which Monsieur A●naud may have alleged in his Work, as t● the Ages which have followed the Tenth, b●cause that belongs not to our Question: But assert, that he hath not one, neither of th● Latin nor the Greek Church, for the time o● Paschasius, and the Age next following; whic● is the thing in question in the Second Supposition of the Book of the Perpetuity, that being founded upon the Presence of Jesus Chris● adored on the Altars by the Faithful; up● the impossibility of the insensible Change which we put in the Ninth and tenth Age upon the diversity of the Worship, which thi● Change would have introduced upon the noise and upon the rapture of the Communion▪ which this newborn Idolatry would hav● caused; upon the great division, which would have been in all Families, in all Towns, an● in the whole Earth, by such an extraordinary and surpressing innovation as this; whic● would have caused, that the people would ●ave looked upon one another as Impious or ●s Idolaters.  
These, Sir, are the exaggerations of the Author of the Perpetuity. But he hath laid a foundation without Proof, and Monsieur Arnaud abandons him in his greatest need, ●eeing he doth not verify this decisive matter of fact at all. It is true, he brags to have done it; but what he hath done, belongs not to the fatal Epocha, which is in question, and at most, regards only the time posterior, and principally the Opinions of the Oriental Church at present, because Monsieur Clau●e had extended thither the difference of the Adoration.  
As for me, who examine only what is essential, and the true difficulty, I insist only on the Supposition of the Book of the Perpetuity, which Monsieur Arnaud hath undertaken to defend, and I maintain, that he hath not any Positive Proof, That in the Ninth and Tenth Age the people did adore the Eucharist.  
What I say, may be easily verified; there needs no more but reading, and the perusing of the places, where Monsieur Arnaud speaks of this Adoration.  
Concerning the Greeks, he examines their Belief, during the Seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth Ages, in his Seventh Book; but of all that he alleges of the two last Age, which are in question; there is nothing that can serve for his subject but the two examples, which the Author of the Perpetuity had been to look for in Deserts, and had applied to th● Adoration of the Eucharist; the one is of a● Anchorite, called Luc; and the other, of a Solitary Woman in the Isle of Paros. But I have showed in the precedent Reflection, that these passages, which Monsieur Arnaud had quoted in the matter of the Real Presence, were of no use to him, the former, because it stands upon the unfaithful interpretation of the Greek Text, the word adoring, being foisted in; the other, because it concludeth nothing but by a Consequence drawn by Monsieur Arnaud, which is so pitiful an one, that all our Churches do practise, a●ter the Reception of the Sacrament, the selfsame thing which was done by that Solitary Woman.  
As to the Latin Church, Monsieur Arnaud examines the Sentiments thereof, during the Age of Paschasius, in his Eighth Book; but there is not one word in it of the Adoration of the Sacrament. Thus you see the Second Supposition of the Book of the Perpetuity, altogether destitute of Positive Proofs. Let us now examine, whether the other Propositions of Monsieur Arnaud are able to supply this defect.  
The second (Pag. 74. of the Tenth Book, Chap. 9) contains the distinction between Interior and Exterior Adoration, and the Observation he maketh, that the latter may be extremely diversified, and that there is not any Exterior sign that is in its nature fixed to the Sovereign Adoration; this Ceremony differing according to places and times; so that it cannot be concluded, as doth Monsieur Claude, That, if certain Exterior marks of Adoration, which are used in one Church, are not practised ●n another, the Adoration is not believed nor practised in this Church.  
But this discourse, which is very true, hath nothing that conduceth to the Question, I grant, that the Feast of the Sacrament; the Sound of the Bell for advertising the people to adore it, either at the Mass, or when carried in the Streets; the Solemn Procession, wherein it is publicly adored with extraordinary pomp; the Confraternities established for its honour; the exposal of it made on Altars; are not marks absolutely necessary of the Exterior Adoration; a Church that practiseth none of all these Ceremonies, may adore the Sacrament, and use other tokens thereof. Nor hath Monsieur Claude said the contrary, in the manner Monsieur Arnaud hath represented, for to 'cause great exclamations against him. He hath only asserted, That if the Ancient Church, or the Church of the time of Paschasius, had adored the Eucharist, she would not have failed (Pag. 402.) to do, at lest as near as might be, the same things, which the Latin Church hath done after the establishment of the Transubstantiation. And in another place (Pag. 403.) he saith, That if the Ancients had believed what the Roman Church believeth this day, they would have done, at lest, a good part of what she doth. And so his Pr●position is not so general as M. Arnaud ha● made it.  
To consider things at the bottom, M. Claud● hath reason, and M. Arnaud concludeth nothing: For, what ever it be else, it is not ● answer pertinently, to examine the lest of th● Objections of M. Claude, and to pass by th● rest without saying any thing to them. And i● this examen, it doth not satisfy the intention of the Book of the Perpetuity, to go about t● show, that the objection made to it is not considerable; he aught to have gone further, an● proved, what was alleged as matter of Fa● by the Author of that Treatise.  
In short, although M. Arnaud endeavour to wind himself, as much as he can, out of the proof of the exterior Adoration, seeing very well that he cannot make it out; yet he i● constrained to acknowledge, that the people aught to adore the Sacrament, not only with a● Interior Adoration, but also an Exterior, by some action of outward respect (in the Tenth Book, Ch. 9 pa. 76.) and by some outward actions of Adoration, whatever they be, (ibid., p. 78.) And, without these visible and external marks of Worship, given to the Sacrament, how could the proposition of the Book of the Perpetuity be maintained? How could the people look upon one another, either as Impious, or as Idolaters? How could the Novelty of this Belief and religious respect have made a Noise, and caused a rapture o● Communion, if this Worship, which would ●ve been the cause of all the scandal, had ●nly been Interior, if the Adoration had on● been in the Breast, and if in the outward ●ctions there had been no difference?  
So that, it being certain, that this Adoration aught always to have had exterior marks, M. Arnaud was not to content himself to show, ●hat those, which M. Claude opposeth to him, might be separated from it, and that it was sufficient there were others; but he aught to have showed us, which were those other marks, and prov●d, that they had been observed in the time of Paschasius, and in the next following Age? But this he hath not thought upon; and if he should think on t hereafter, I dare say, he would not be able to give us any one positive proof of the Exterior Adoration of the Sacrament, in those two Ages, leaving him the choice of all the tokens, by which he shall endeavour to make us acknowledge this Adoration.  
But as he is very able and very dextrous, he hath not failed to see the weakness of these two Propositions I have been examining, that is, the weakness of the positive proofs of the Adoration; wherefore, for his last and principal defence, he maketh consequences his refuge, when he saith (the same Chap. p. 73.) The Adoration is really enclosed in the Belief of the Real Presence, and absolutely inseparable from it; so that, having proved the Consent of the Societies of the East, in the Doctrine of the Real presence, we have proved their Consent i● the Adoration. Mean time (so he saith som● pages after, viz. p. 78.) M. Claude, by an incredible subversion of reason and common sense, by committing in one and the same subject all th● faults that can be committed in it, at the sam● time that he will not acknowledge, that the Doctrine of the Real presence cannot be severed from the interior Adoration, and from some kind of exterior worship, and that he pretends, that since Paschasius unto Alger, that is, for near 300 years, the Real Presence hath bee● believed without adoring Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, is not wanting at the same time to dra● extravagant conclusions from these particular ways of Adoration, which are not necessary consequences of the Doctrine of the Real Presence, nor of the Adoration, to the end that he may she● by the defect of these Practices among certain people, that they did not adore Christ in the Eucharist.  
Behold, Sir, a terrible Censure, and a fierce accusation against honest M. Claude. Yet I think not, that he will found any great difficulty in freeing himself from it, and what he is accused of, is so easy to be overthrown, that 'tis matter of wonder, how Mr. Arnaud came to be so prejudiced against his Adversary, that he did not perceive his own delusion, and the distemper of his Gall. If a man would proceed against him with the same stile, would there not be more reason to accuse him for drawing extravagant conclu●●ons from divers particular ways observed 〈◊〉 the celebration of the Eucharist, as of ●ceiving it on the knees, or of saying a ●erse out of the Song of Simeon after the communion; which he objects to us as invincible proofs of the Adoration; although ●hey be not only not inseparable marks thereof, but besides so indifferent things, that Protestant's themselves do observe them? Whereas M. Claude hath all on his side, ●nd reasoneth very well, when he proves, that the Sacrament hath not been adored, ●n a time when nothing was said, nor done of what is said, and done now about this matter. And this note remains inviolable, until Mr. Arnaud shall destroy it by a proof of contrary actions, or by alleging other Ceremonies than those, which are at this day in use: which is that he hath not done, nor will be able to do. So that I see not, what cause he had to make so much noise. Nor is there more cause for the ground of Mr. Arnauds' Proposition; and I do maintain, that if there be an incredible subversion of reason and common sense, it is to be met with in the discourse of M. Arnaud rather, than in that of M. Claude.  
And indeed the Proposition of M. Arnaud is false, both in its principle and consequence; he lays an ill foundation, and if it were certain, the conclusion, he draws from thence, is not warrantable. Thus may be returned to him what he so liberally bestows on M. Claude, by saying with more Justice, th● he hath done, That he hath committed in ● and the same subject all the faults that ●● be committed in it.  
First, It is not true, That the Adoration really included in the Belief of the Real Presence, and altogether inseparable therefrom. F●● which we need no other proof but the practic of the Lutherans, who do very well separate these two Beliefs, and believe the Real Presence, without adoring neither the Euchar●● nor Jesus Christ, enclosed in the Sacrament.  
But because it may be answered, that t●● Lutherans do what they do because they believe not the Transubstantiation as you, a● do fear, lest they should adore the substance of the Bread together with the Body of Christ I say secondly, two things: First, that there ●● as much danger to Adore the Accidents, whic● remain according to you, as the Substance the Bread, which remains according to them and that therefore this consideration should oblige you to separate the Adoration from the Belief of the Real Presence. Secondly, that all the necessary consequences of a● opinion have not always their effect, as M. Claude had noted p. 421, who had alleged some examples of it, to which M. Arnau● would not take the pains to answer. However 〈◊〉 be, there are great reasons, in my opinion, no● to Adore the Sacrament as you do, although the Corporal presence be believed; and these are the reasons, which I hope I shall have opportunity one day to show you (in another treatise) or the like, which might oblige Pas●basius and his Followers not to introduce this ●doration into the Public Service of the church; so far is it from being a necessary consequence to adore Jesus Christ on the Altar's, and under the Accidents of Bread, that ●n the contrary, in this conjuncture, 'tis a necessary sequel of the Sovereign veneration we ●owe him, not to Adore him there, lest we ●hould fall into the sin of Adoring the Creature in stead of the Creator, or at lest jointly with him.  
Besides, 'tis not true, that M. Arnaud hath proved the Consent of all the Societies of the East, in the Belief of the Real Presence, in the Ninth and Tenth Age, as I have showed above, and by consequence 'tis not true, that he hath proved their Consent in the Adoration. So that there is neither positive nor consequential proof of the chief matter in controversy betwixt him and M. Claude: And by the Examen of these three propositions, you see, Sir, that the Second supposition of the Book of the Perpetuity, grounded upon the Adoration of the Eucharist, on which he laid the greatest stress, hath not been better defended than the First; And that so we must not wonder, that this Work hath not had that effect amongst us, which he expected from it, because that, besides the extraneous and accessary reasons, I have observed in my four first Reflections; I have made out, that he hath not at all proved the pretended impossibility of that Change, of wi● we accuse Paschasius; and that the two Supp●sitions of the Book of the Perpetuity, on wh● that impossibility was grounded, are Supp●sitions in the Air, Chimerical, without P●● and Reason.  
Thus you see, Sir, in general, what are ● thoughts concerning the Book of Monsie● Arnaud, and the Reasons, which, in ● Judgement, have kept it from finding that applause and success, which many expected fro● it. It may be, you will not be of my mind However, you have required, I should te● you without complacency, what I believed of it. I have done it with a design, only to please you, notwithstanding the troublesome interruptions I have from the unhappy Sui● of Law, which have detained me in this Tow● these two years, remote from my House, and from my Books. And this consideration may also excuse the faults of a Tract I have made in haste, and among so many Distractions. I do not pretend to meddle in so famous a Controversy, as this is, between two such Illustrious Champions; although I could not be accused of temerity, if I did, since the Cause is common, and that others have sometimes appeared in the field, without being called to it. Yet, Sir, if any one should go about to quarrel with me for it, you will not take it amiss, that I make you the cause thereof, and call upon you for my warrant, to show to the Republic, that your command alone did 'cause my engagement, and that I could not refuse to your merit, and to the honour of your friendship, a thing of this nature.  
At lest, I persuade myself, that those two persons will have no cause to complain of my conduct. For, as to Monsieur Arnaud, it is indifferent to him, to combat with one or the other, besides that, I look not at all ●or an answer from him; this Discourse was not made for that purpose: And if I accuse him of weakness in his reasonings and proof, ● confess ingenuously, that it is rather the fault of the matter, than of the Workman. But he would follow a Plane, which the Author of the Perpetuity had traced against the Rules; and ●e would prove the Belief of the Real Pre●ence by abstract and metaphysical by ways, ●nd by mere Ratiocinations, which are not ●ble to prove it. He would pass on further, ●nd maintain, That the Fathers had believed transubstantiation and the Adoration of the sacrament; and this is a mere Paradox. Thus ●e subject, he hath undertaken to defend, hath constrained him to conclude himself within ●ertain Suppositions, impossible to be maintained. He hath wanted neither dexterity, or light, nor heat; but he hath wanted a ●bject capable to receive the form which was ●tended for it. I am therefore not unwilling 〈◊〉 acknowledge his merit and his great parts; ●d, all I can say about this matter, is, That 〈◊〉 hath done in it whatever could be done, all that he hath defended a very ill cause with a very good grace, and an admirable abundance.  
As to Monsieur Claude, I believe not, that he will be offended at this small discourse. It was not made for his defence; I should be presumptuous, if I thought, he needed a second; and if I should offer hi● so weak an one, in case he needed any. H● work, which hath made such a noise, whic● hath charmed his Friends, and astonished ● Adversaries, which hath expressed Eulogies from the most passionate persons for your Religion, maketh us hope for another, whic● shall accomplish his Triumph, and assure 〈◊〉 him the Victory, which Monsieur Arna●● hath gone about to dispute with him, rath● by Number than Valour, and rather by t● Bigness, than the Reasons of his Book. Ne●ther do I attempt any thing upon his right; leave him still all the particulars to be exa●ned; I enter even but a little upon the essential considerations, neither do I speak of th● farther, than I was obliged to answer the design of this Discourse. Certainly we foll● very different ways, and as we have no commerce together, and that he will not see t● Discourse before it is published, nor I but than, I believe not, that we do mee● the same path. I do not pretend to share his Laurels, and as my whole end hath b● only to satisfy you, I there stop the wh● success of this Discourse, wherein I have 〈◊〉 only the Right of Nations, and the Libe● received in the Republic of Letters, to ●eak one's mind of the work of another.  
But it is time to make an end of this Tract, ●hich is too long already, and much longer, ●an I purposed to make it at the beginning. I ●ve no more to add to it, but only this request, that you would continued to love me; wish it with all my heart; you are good and ●enerous, and therefore I promise' to myself ●at favour, notwithstanding the Disputes of ●ome and Gerova, since in the hopes, that we ●all meet one day in Heaven in the same ●inde, and the same felicity, I am on Earth as ●uch as I can be  
SIR, Your very humble and very obedient Servant VIGIER. PARIS. Janu. 28. 1670.   
FINIS.