belong to Port-Royal; for this is the first thing you say to every one
who combats your errors: as if it were only at Port-Royal that persons
could be found possessed of sufficient zeal to defend, against your
attacks, the purity of Christian morality. I know, fathers, the work of
the pious recluses who have retired to that monastery, and how much the
Church is indebted to their truly solid and edifying labors. I know the
excellence of their piety and their learning. For, though I have never
had the honor to belong to their establishment, as you, without knowing
who or what I am, would fain have it believed, nevertheless, I do know
some of them, and honor the virtue of them all. But God has not confined
within the precincts of that society all whom he means to raise up in
opposition to your corruptions. I hope, with his assistance, fathers, to
make you feel this; and if he vouchsafe to sustain me in the design he
has led me to form, of employing in his service all the resources I have
received from him, I shall speak to you in such a strain as will,
perhaps, give you reason to regret that you have _not_ had to do with a
man of Port-Royal. And to convince you of this, fathers, I must tell you
that, while those whom you have abused with this notorious slander
content themselves with lifting up their groans to Heaven to obtain your
forgiveness for the outrage, I feel myself obliged, not being in the
least affected by your slander, to make you blush in the face of the
whole Church, and so bring you to that wholesome shame of which the
Scripture speaks, and which is almost the only remedy for a hardness of
heart like yours: “_Imple facies eorum ignominiâ, et quærent nomen tuum,
Domine_—Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O
Lord.”[280]
A stop must be put to this insolence, which does not spare the most
sacred retreats. For who can be safe after a calumny of this nature? For
shame, fathers! to publish in Paris such a scandalous book, with the
name of your Father Meynier on its front, and under this infamous title,
“Port-Royal and Geneva in concert against the most holy Sacrament of the
Altar,” in which you accuse of this apostasy, not only Monsieur the abbé
of St. Cyran, and M. Arnauld, but also Mother Agnes, his sister, and all
the nuns of that monastery, alleging that “their faith, in regard to the
eucharist, is as suspicious as that of M. Arnauld,” whom you maintain to
be “a downright Calvinist.”[281] I here ask the whole world if there be
any class of persons within the pale of the Church, on whom you could
have advanced such an abominable charge with less semblance of truth.
For tell me, fathers, if these nuns and their directors, had been “in
concert with Geneva against the most holy sacrament of the altar” (the
very thought of which is shocking), how they should have come to select
as the principal object of their piety that very sacrament which they
held in abomination? How should they have assumed the habit of the holy
sacrament? taken the name of the Daughters of the Holy Sacrament? called
their church the Church of the Holy Sacrament? How should they have
requested and obtained from Rome the confirmation of that institution,
and the right of saying every Thursday the office of the holy sacrament,
in which the faith of the Church is so perfectly expressed, if they had
conspired with Geneva to banish that faith from the Church? Why would
they have bound themselves, by a particular devotion, also sanctioned by
the pope, to have some of their sisterhood, night and day without
intermission, in presence of the sacred host, to compensate, by their
perpetual adorations towards that perpetual sacrifice, for the impiety
of the heresy that aims at its annihilation? Tell me, fathers, if you
can, why, of all the mysteries of our religion, they should have passed
by those in which they believed, to fix upon that in which they believed
not? and how they should have devoted themselves, so fully and entirely,
to that mystery of our faith, if they took it, as the heretics do, for
the mystery of iniquity? And what answer do you give to these clear
evidences, embodied not in words only, but in actions; and not in some
particular actions, but in the whole tenor of a life expressly dedicated
to the adoration of Jesus Christ, dwelling on our altars? What answer,
again, do you give to the books which you ascribe to Port-Royal, all of
which are full of the most precise terms employed by the fathers and the
councils to mark the essence of that mystery? It is at once ridiculous
and disgusting to hear you replying to these, as you have done
throughout your libel. M. Arnauld, say you, talks very well about
transubstantiation; but he understands, perhaps, only “a significative
transubstantiation.” True, he professes to believe in “the real
presence;” who can tell, however, but he means nothing more than “a true
and real figure?” How now, fathers! whom, pray, will you not make pass
for a Calvinist whenever you please, if you are to be allowed the
liberty of perverting the most canonical and sacred expressions by the
wicked subtilties of your modern equivocations? Who ever thought of
using any other terms than those in question, especially in simple
discourses of devotion, where no controversies are handled? And yet the
love and the reverence in which they hold this sacred mystery, have
induced them to give it such a prominence in all their writings, that I
defy you, fathers, with all your cunning, to detect in them either the
least appearance of ambiguity, or the slightest correspondence with the
sentiments of Geneva.
Everybody knows, fathers, that the essence of the Genevan heresy
consists, as it does according to your own showing, in their believing
that Jesus Christ is not contained (_enfermé_), in this sacrament; that
it is impossible he can be in many places at once; that he is, properly
speaking, only in heaven, and that it is as there alone that he ought to
be adored, and not on the altar;[282] that the substance of the bread
remains; that the body of Jesus Christ does not enter into the mouth or
the stomach; that he can only be eaten by faith, and accordingly wicked
men do not eat him at all; and that the mass is not a sacrifice, but an
abomination. Let us now hear, then, in what way “Port-Royal is in
concert with Geneva.” In the writings of the former we read, to your
confusion, the following statement: That “the flesh and blood of Jesus
Christ are contained under the species of bread and wine;”[283] that
“the Holy of Holies is present in the sanctuary, and that there he ought
to be adored;”[284] that “Jesus Christ dwells in the sinners who
communicate, by the real and veritable presence of his body in their
stomach, although not by the presence of his Spirit in their
hearts;”[285] that “the dead ashes of the bodies of the saints derive
their principal dignity from that seed of life which they retain from
the touch of the immortal and vivifying flesh of Jesus Christ;”[286]
that “it is not owing to any natural power, but to the almighty power of
God, to whom nothing is impossible, that the body of Jesus Christ is
comprehended under the host, and under the smallest portion of every
host;”[287] that “the divine virtue is present to produce the effect
which the words of consecration signify;”[288] that “Jesus Christ, while
he is lowered (_rabaissé_), and hidden upon the altar, is, at the same
time, elevated in his glory; that he subsists, of himself and by his own
ordinary power, in divers places at the same time—in the midst of the
Church triumphant, and in the midst of the Church militant and
travelling;”[289] that “the sacramental species remain suspended, and
subsist extraordinarily, without being upheld by any subject; and that
the body of Jesus Christ is also suspended under the species, and that
it does not depend upon these, as substances depend upon
accidents;”[290] that “the substance of the bread is changed, the
immutable accidents remaining the same;”[291] that “Jesus Christ reposes
in the eucharist with the same glory that he has in heaven;”[292] that
“his glorious humanity resides in the tabernacles of the Church, under
the species of bread, which forms its visible covering; and that,
knowing the grossness of our natures, he conducts us to the adoration of
his divinity, which is present in all places, by the adoring of his
humanity, which is present in a particular place;”[293] that “we receive
the body of Jesus Christ upon the tongue, which is sanctified by its
divine touch;”[294] “that it enters into the mouth of the priest;”[295]
that “although Jesus Christ has made himself accessible in the holy
sacrament, by an act of his love and graciousness, he preserves,
nevertheless, in that ordinance, his inaccessibility, as an inseparable
condition of his divine nature; because, although the body alone and the
blood alone are there, by virtue of the words _vi verborum_, as the
schoolmen say, his whole divinity may, notwithstanding, be there also,
as well as his whole humanity, by a necessary conjunction.”[296] In
fine, that “the eucharist is at the same time sacrament and
sacrifice;”[297] and that “although this sacrifice is a commemoration of
that of the cross, yet there is this difference between them, that the
sacrifice of the mass is offered for the Church only, and for the
faithful in her communion; whereas that of the cross has been offered
for all the world, as the Scripture testifies.”[298]
I have quoted enough, fathers, to make it evident that there was never,
perhaps, a more imprudent thing attempted than what you have done. But I
will go a step farther, and make you pronounce this sentence against
yourselves. For what do you require from a man, in order to remove all
suspicion of his being in concert and correspondence with Geneva? “If M.
Arnauld,” says your Father Meynier, p. 93, “had said that in this
adorable mystery, there is no substance of the bread under the species,
but only the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ, I should have
confessed that he had declared himself absolutely against Geneva.”
Confess it, then, ye revilers! and make him a public apology. How often
have you seen this declaration made in the passages I have just cited?
Besides this, however, the Familiar Theology of M. de St. Cyran having
been approved by M. Arnauld, it contains the sentiments of both. Read,
then, the whole of lesson 15th, and particularly article 2d, and you
will there find the words you desiderate, even more formally stated than
you have done yourselves. “Is there any bread in the host, or any wine
in the chalice? No: for all the substance of the bread and the wine is
taken away, to give place to that of the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
the which substance alone remains therein, covered by the qualities and
species of bread and wine.”
How now, fathers! will you still say that Port-Royal teaches “nothing
that Geneva does not receive,” and that M. Arnauld has said nothing in
his second letter “which might not have been said by a minister of
Charenton?” See if you can persuade Mestrezat[299] to speak as M.
Arnauld does in that letter, at page 237? Make him say, that it is an
infamous calumny to accuse him of denying transubstantiation; that he
takes for the fundamental principle of his writings the truth of the
real presence of the Son of God, in opposition to the heresy of the
Calvinists; and that he accounts himself happy for living in a place
where the Holy of Holies is continually adored in the sanctuary—a
sentiment which is still more opposed to the belief of the Calvinists
than the real presence itself; for as Cardinal Richelieu observes in his
Controversies (page 536): “The new ministers of France having agreed
with the Lutherans, who believe the real presence of Jesus Christ in the
eucharist; they have declared that they remain in a state of separation
from the Church on the point of this mystery, only on account of the
adoration which Catholics render to the eucharist.”[300] Get all the
passages which I have extracted from the books of Port-Royal subscribed
at Geneva, and not the isolated passages merely, but the entire
treatises regarding this mystery, such as the Book of Frequent
Communion, the Explication of the Ceremonies of the Mass, the Exercise
during Mass, the Reasons of the Suspension of the Holy Sacrament, the
Translation of the Hymns in the Hours of Port-Royal, &c.; in one word,
prevail upon them to establish at Charenton that holy institution of
adoring, without intermission, Jesus Christ contained in the eucharist,
as is done at Port-Royal, and it will be the most signal service which
you could render to the Church; for in this case it will turn out, not
that Port-Royal is in concert with Geneva, but that Geneva is in concert
with Port-Royal, and with the whole Church.
Certainly, fathers, you could not have been more unfortunate than in
selecting Port-Royal as the object of attack for not believing in the
eucharist; but I will show what led you to fix upon it. You know I have
picked up some small acquaintance with your policy; in this instance you
have acted upon its maxims to admiration. If Monsieur the abbé of St.
Cyran, and M. Arnauld, had only spoken of what ought to be believed with
great respect to this mystery, and said nothing about what ought to be
done in the way of preparation for its reception, they might have been
the best Catholics alive; and no equivocations would have been
discovered in their use of the terms “real presence” and
“transubstantiation.” But since all who combat your licentious
principles must needs be heretics, and heretics too, in the very point
in which they condemn your laxity, how could M. Arnauld escape falling
under this charge on the subject of the eucharist, after having
published a book expressly against your profanations of that sacrament?
What! must he be allowed to say, with impunity, that “the body of Jesus
Christ ought not to be given to those who habitually lapse into the same
crimes, and who have no prospect of amendment; and that such persons
ought to be excluded, for some time, from the altar, to purify
themselves by sincere penitence, that they may approach it afterwards
with benefit?” Suffer no one to talk in this strain, fathers, or you
will find that fewer people will come to your confessionals. Father
Brisacier says, that “were you to adopt this course, you would never
apply the blood of Jesus Christ to a single individual.” It would be
infinitely more for your interest were every one to adopt the views of
your Society, as set forth by your Father Mascarenhas, in a book
approved by your doctors, and even by your reverend Father-General,
namely, “That persons of every description, and even priests, may
receive the body of Jesus Christ on the very day they have polluted
themselves with odious crimes; that so far from such communions implying
irreverence, persons who partake of them in this manner act a
commendable part; that confessors ought not to keep them back from the
ordinance, but, on the contrary, ought to advise those who have recently
committed such crimes to communicate immediately; because, although the
Church has forbidden it, this prohibition is annulled by the universal
practice in all places of the earth.”[301]
See what it is, fathers, to have Jesuits in all places of the earth!
Behold the universal practice which you have introduced, and which you
are anxious everywhere to maintain! It matters nothing that the tables
of Jesus Christ are filled with abominations, provided that your
churches are crowded with people. Be sure, therefore, cost what it may,
to set down all that dare to say a word against your practice, as
heretics on the holy sacrament. But how can you do this, after the
irrefragable testimonies which they have given of their faith? Are you
not afraid of my coming out with the four grand proofs of their heresy
which you have adduced? You ought, at least, to be so, fathers, and I
ought not to spare your blushing. Let us, then, proceed to examine proof
the first.
“M. de St. Cyran,” says Father Meynier, “consoling one of his friends
upon the death of his mother (tom. i., let. 14), says that the most
acceptable sacrifice that can be offered up to God on such occasions, is
that of patience; therefore he is a Calvinist.” This is marvellously
shrewd reasoning, fathers; and I doubt if anybody will be able to
discover the precise point of it. Let us learn it, then, from his own
mouth. “Because,” says this mighty controversialist, “it is obvious that
he does not believe in the sacrifice of the mass; for this is, of all
other sacrifices, the most acceptable unto God.” Who will venture to say
now that the Jesuits do not know how to reason? Why, they know the art
to such perfection, that they will extract heresy out of anything you
choose to mention, not even excepting the Holy Scripture itself! For
example, might it not be heretical to say, with the wise man in
Ecclesiasticus, “There is nothing worse than to love money;”[302] as if
adultery, murder, or idolatry, were not far greater crimes? Where is the
man who is not in the habit of using similar expressions every day? May
we not say, for instance, that the most acceptable of all sacrifices in
the eyes of God is that of a contrite and humbled heart; just because,
in discourses of this nature, we simply mean to compare certain internal
virtues with one another, and not with the sacrifice of the mass, which
is of a totally different order, and infinitely more exalted? Is this
not enough to make you ridiculous, fathers? And is it necessary, to
complete your discomfiture, that I should quote the passages of that
letter in which M. de St. Cyran speaks of the sacrifice of the mass, as
“the most excellent” of all others, in the following terms? “Let there
be presented to God, daily and in all places, the sacrifice of the body
of his Son, who could not find _a more excellent way_ than that by which
he might honor his Father.” And afterwards: “Jesus Christ has enjoined
us to take, when we are dying, his sacrificed body, to render more
acceptable to God the sacrifice of our own, and to join himself with us
at the hour of dissolution; to the end that he may strengthen us for the
struggle, sanctifying, by his presence, the last sacrifice which we make
to God of our life and our body?” Pretend to take no notice of all this,
fathers, and persist in maintaining, as you do in page 39, that he
refused to take the communion on his death-bed, and that he did not
believe in the sacrifice of the mass. Nothing can be too gross for
calumniators by profession.
Your second proof furnishes an excellent illustration of this. To make a
Calvinist of M. de St. Cyran, to whom you ascribe the book of _Petrus
Aurelius_, you take advantage of a passage (page 80) in which Aurelius
explains in what manner the Church acts towards priests, and even
bishops, whom she wishes to degrade or depose. “The Church,” he says,
“being incapable of depriving them of the power of the order, the
character of which is indelible, she does all that she can do;—she
banishes from her memory the character which she cannot banish from the
souls of the individuals who have been once invested with it; she
regards them in the same light as if they were not bishops or priests;
so that, according to the ordinary language of the Church, it may be
said they are no longer such, although they always remain such, in as
far as the character is concerned—_ob indelebilitatem characteris_.” You
perceive, fathers, that this author, who has been approved by three
general assemblies of the clergy of France, plainly declares that the
character of the priesthood is indelible; and yet you make him say, on
the contrary, in the very same passage, that “the character of the
priesthood is _not_ indelible.” This is what I would call a notorious
slander; in other words, according to your nomenclature, a small venial
sin. And the reason is, this book has done you some harm, by refuting
the heresies of your brethren in England touching the Episcopal
authority. But the folly of the charge is equally remarkable; for, after
having taken it for granted, without any foundation, that M. de St.
Cyran holds the priestly character to be not indelible, you conclude
from this that he does not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ
in the eucharist.
Do not expect me to answer this, fathers. If you have got no common
sense, I am not able to furnish you with it. All who possess any share
of it will enjoy a hearty laugh at your expense. Nor will they treat
with greater respect your third proof, which rests upon the following
words, taken from the Book of Frequent Communion: “In the eucharist God
vouchsafes us _the same food_ that he bestows on the saints in heaven,
with this difference only, that here he withholds from us its sensible
sight and taste, reserving both of these for the heavenly world.”[303]
These words express the sense of the Church so distinctly, that I am
constantly forgetting what reason you have for picking a quarrel with
them, in order to turn them to a bad use; for I can see nothing more in
them but what the Council of Trent teaches (sess. xiii., c. 8), namely,
that there is no difference between Jesus Christ in the eucharist and
Jesus Christ in heaven, except that here he is veiled, and there he is
not. M. Arnauld does not say that there is no difference in the manner
of receiving Jesus Christ, but only that there is no difference in Jesus
Christ who is received. And yet you would, in the face of all reason,
interpret his language in this passage to mean, that Jesus Christ is no
more eaten with the mouth in this world than he is in heaven; upon which
you ground the charge of heresy against him.
You really make me sorry for you, fathers. Must we explain this further
to you? Why do you confound that divine nourishment with the manner of
receiving it? There is but one point of difference, as I have just
observed, betwixt that nourishment upon earth and in heaven, which is,
that here it is hidden under veils which deprive us of its sensible
sight and taste; but there are various points of dissimilarity in the
manner of receiving it here and there, the principal of which is, as M.
Arnauld expresses it (p. 3, ch. 16), “that here it enters into the mouth
and the breast both of the good and of the wicked,” which is not the
case in heaven.
And if you require to be told the reason of this diversity, I may inform
you, fathers, that the cause of God’s ordaining these different modes of
receiving the same food, is the difference that exists betwixt the state
of Christians in this life and that of the blessed in heaven. The state
of the Christian, as Cardinal Perron observes after the fathers, holds a
middle place between the state of the blessed and the state of the Jews.
The spirits in bliss possess Jesus Christ really, without veil or
figure. The Jews possessed Jesus Christ only in figures and veils, such
as the manna and the paschal lamb. And Christians possess Jesus Christ
in the eucharist really and truly, although still concealed under veils.
“God,” says St. Eucher, “has made three tabernacles—the synagogue, which
had the shadows only, without the truth; the Church, which has the truth
and shadows together; and heaven, where there is no shadow, but the
truth alone.” It would be a departure from our present state, which is
the state of faith, opposed by St. Paul alike to the law and to open
vision, did we possess the figures only, without Jesus Christ; for it is
the property of the law to have the mere figure, and not the substance
of things. And it would be equally a departure from our present state if
we possessed him visibly; because faith, according to the same apostle,
deals not with things that are seen. And thus the eucharist, from its
including Jesus Christ truly, though under a veil, is in perfect
accordance with our state of faith. It follows, that this state would be
destroyed, if, as the heretics maintain, Jesus Christ were not really
under the species of bread and wine; and it would be equally destroyed
if we received him openly, as they do in heaven: since, on these
suppositions, our state would be confounded, either with the state of
Judaism or with that of glory.