Invincibly proved by the Argu­ment used against the Prote­stants, in the Books of the Faith of the Perpetuity, written by Mr. Ar­naud.

A Translation from the French.

Printed at Holy-Rood House, 1687.

Errours to be Corrected,

Page 40. line 18. I know not. p. 50. l. last r. [...] more easily. p. 89. l. 1. r. came. p. 214. l. 6. r. put out a p. 225. l. 23. r. for those. P. 262. l. 3. after day. r.? l. [...] after procedurer,? also l. 9. after not r. ? also l. 18. in stea [...] of that it was not, r. was it not.


THe sole Title of this little Book, is capable to make you suffici­ently understand, that the attentive reading of it, may be of great impor­tance to you. It treats of a Mystery, on the account of which, you have been made conceive the greatest aversion from the Catholick Church: And which you have been made to look up­on as the greatest obstacle of your Re­concilement to it. There is no Person of good sence among you who will not avow, That if your Religion be false in this point, you ought to forsake it; and that you ought to give no credit to your Ministers, if it be found that in [Page]the matter of the Sacrament, they have made you mistake Errour for Truth. You have no assurance that you are not thus misled; for they dare not say that their Church is Infallible. Do not then neglect so easie means to examine whether it be so or not; and refuse not a few hours application to the most important Affair you can have in the World, which is that of your Salvation.

Your Ministers ought not to hinder you from this application: For if you find nothing solid in what is here pro­posed to you, you will be inclined to adhere more closely to them. And if on the conttary, the Truth appear to you with such evidence as obliges you to embrace it: What other thing should hinder it from having the same effect on them, but a selfish stubborn­ness; which should not be a motive to you to follow them, but rather to forsake them.


Perhaps they will tell you, there is nothing here proposed to you of new, nothing but the same Argument which Mr. Claud has answered; and conse­quently that it's not worth your ta­king notice of it.

But the contrary is true: For if here were offered to you a new Proof of any Article of our Faith, which you had not heard discoursed of before; you would not miss to say, That you ought to expect what your Ministers could answer to it: But this you cannot say here; for ne­ver was there a Debate so agitate on either part as this whereof you have here the result.

That little Book of the Perpetuity, where it was supposed that the Ea­stern Societies believes what we be­lieve concerning the Eucharist; while it was yet a Manuscript, was impugned by a Manuscript-Answer of Mr. Claud, wherein he maintained that the said Supposition was false, and [Page] that excepting the Roman Church, Transubstantiation and the Adorati­on of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, were two things unknown to the whole World; and that neither the Greeks, nor the Armenians, nor the Russians, nor the Jacobites, nor the Ethiopians, nor generally any Christian, save only those who are subject to the Pope, be­lieves any thing of these two Ar­ticles.

After this, the little Perpetuity was printed, with a Refutation of the An­swer made by Mr. Claud: In which Refutation were brought most clear Testimonies of what he had so boldly denied, concerning the Faith of the Christians of the East. But as it was judged the contrary could not be maintained; so that point was not insisted on at length.

Mr. Claud sets out a great Volume against that little Book: And not yielding to the Proofs that were brought against his Assertion, he em­ploy'd [Page]all what he had of Wit and De­xterity to support what he had asser­ted, viz. That Transubstantion and the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, were believed in no place of the World, except in the Roman Church

To this Book of Mr. Claud's, was opposed the first of the three great Volumes of the Perpetuity; where­in the truth of the matter of fact im­pugned by him, was confirmed with such force, with Proofs so convincing, with Testimonies so irrefragable and so numerous, that no Man in the World would believe that one could yet pertinaciously maintain a thing so manifestly false.

But we were mistaken in this, Mr. Claud did not yet give over, but em­ployed all kinds of artifices and sub­tilties to put out the eyes of those of his Party, that they might not see the Faith of the Roman Church concer­ning the Eucharist; in the most for­mal [Page]and express Testimonies of all the Oriental Societies.

But this Opiniatorness served only to make the truth shine forth more brightly; for it was the cause of pro­curing a great many more new Testi­monies, and whole Books published by the Greeks in certain circumstances, that 'tis impossible but the most un­reasonable must succumb if so be they be oblig'd to reflect seriously on them.

This was made appear in the gene­ral Answer to that Book of Mr. Clauds, and in the last Book of the Third Volume of the Perpetuity: And Father Paris, Canon-Regular of the Congregation of St. Genevieve, a most learned Divine, has made two Books on the same subject; which joyned with those I have mentioned, have made this matter of fact evident in the highest degree.

This is the fruit of that long Dis­pute, which has verified that Saying of St. Augustin (De Civit. Dei, lib. [Page]16. cap. 12) That God permits se­veral points of the Catholick Doctrine to be impugned by Hereticks with ma­ny artifices, to the end that the Catho­licks being obliged to defend them, they may be examined more exactly, illu­strated more clearly, and maintained more vigorously.

Mr. Claud has written nothing since that time on this matter; (his last An­swer is in the year 1670.) And there are five Volumes which he has left unanswered: (The last of these five Volumes is in the year 1675.) The two last Volumes of the Perpetuity, the general Answer, which is in 1671, and the two Books of Father Paris. And yet, Gentlemen, it is very strange, that notwithstanding of this silence of Mr. Claud, so publickly notorious; it is given out amongst you, that he has written last, and that his Books are not answered: For I know this has been said by several persons, and par­ticularly [Page]by Madamoiselle de Suze, to a Priest a Friend of min.

I have set down to you the progress of this famous Debate, to let you see you have no reason to say in this occa­sion, we are expecting till our Mini­sters shall have taught us what is to be answered to this Argument. They have done all you could expect from them on this subject; they are exhau­sted: They have spoken, they have answered, they have replied, they have (if I can use the word) duplied. So that it is no more a process to be in­structed; it's all instructed already, and they can do no more for their part to put it in a condition to be dis­cerned on.

But who shall be the Judge of it? It shall be every one of you, according to the Principles of your own Religi­on: For according to the Principles of ours, there would be no question at all; because on one hand our Church has all the marks, by which it has [Page]been judged since St. Augustin's time, that we ought to acknowledge it the true Church of Jesus Christ And on the other, we believe that Jesus Christ has given to his Church an infallible Authority, to which every particu­lar person is bound to submit. But your Church is grounded on another Maxim directly contrary; and you are made to believe, that every one of you have right to examine and judge, after all your Ministers assembled in a General Synod could say unto you.

Make use then of the liberty which is given you, even to the end you may be sure if they had reason or not to give it you. Read and Judge; but read with such attention and care, as you would bring to comprehend an Affair upon which depended the Life of one of your best Friends; and judge with that Conscience and sincerity of Heart, with which you would desire [Page]to be judged, if your Life or Death depended on the Judgment they were to make of you. And indeed, there is no less at the stake in this occasion; only with this difference, that these Men who should Judge you, could not preserve your Life, but for a lit­tle time, nor condemn you but to a Death, which sooner or later you could not eschew: Whereas it is of far greater importance to you to dis­cern in this process, after the instru­ction that is given you of the same; for in judging it aright, and having nothing but God before your eyes, you may eschew a Death which never ends; a Death which all those will incur who have been made to look upon as a Damnable Errour, the Ancient and perpetual Faith of the most sublime Mystery of our Religion, and may put your selves in a condition to enjoy one day a Life eternally happy, after having [Page]received the pledge thereof by the real and true partaking of the Worlds Saviour, wherewith the Catholick Church nourishes her Children.

Invincibly proved by the Argument used against the Protestants, in the Books of Mr Arnaud, entituled, The Per­petuity of the Faith, &c.

THere is no Christian can deny, that a Doctrine regarding one of the principal Mysteries of Religion, such as is the Eucharist * The Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most im­portant of those which makes the separation betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestants, says Mr. Claud, p. 1. of the Preface of his Answer to Mr. Arnaud. The Article of the Eucha­rist, in my Judgment, is one of the most essential, says M. de Larroque, Minister at Rouen, in his Preface to the History of the Eucharist., which had [Page 2]been always believed in the Universal Church, is a Doctrine taught by the Apo­stles to the first Believers We shall then have proved the Doctrine of the Real Presence, such as the Roman Church now believes it, to be the Apostles Do­ctrine, when we shall have proved it to be that which has always been believed in all the Churches of the World. Now it's impossible but it must have been al­ways believed in all Churches. If being certain it was universally believed in some Ages, we can demonstrate that it could not proceed from an innovation or change of its ancient Faith, that the Church of these Ages began to believe it. The business will be compleatly done then, if we can make out this: And thus we make it out.


  • All the Churches both of the East and West, were found to be united in the Belief of the Real Presence towards the beginning of the eleventh Centu­ry, and they are found to be yet united in the same Belief, excepting onely some new Sects of the last Age.
  • But it is impossible this Belief should have been established of new (or by an innovation of their ancient Faith) in all these Churches; and yet no trace nor memorial of that Innovati­on appeared: And it is certain there has appeared none at all, neither from Paschasius his time, to that of Beren­garius; nor from Berengarius his time, even to this day.
  • Therefore it is certain that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, is the perpetual Doctrine of the Church; and conse­quently none can maintain the contra­ry, without being an Heretick.

THe first Proposition, which is cal­led the major, has two parts; one that the Churches of the East were uni­ted in the same Faith, concerning the Eucharist, with the Roman Church, in Berengarius his time: The other, that they are united with the same at this time.

The second Proposition, which is called the minor, has likewise two parts: One, that supposing the truth of the ma­jor, as to Berengarius's time, it's im­possible that the innovation pretended by the Calvinists, to have been made in all Churches, from Paschasius to Be­rengarius, could be made in that time. The other, that if it was not made in that time in all the Eastern Churches, it would be impossible it could have been made from Berengarius's time, to this day.

SECT. 2.

The general Proof of the major, in re­spect of Berengarius his time.

A Matter of fact unanimously asser­ted by contemporary Authors, who cannot be suspected to have been deceived, or intending to deceive; and which has not been contradicted by those who were most concerned to con­tradict it, ought to be held for most cer­tain and undoubted.

But we have shewn from the very be­ginning of the first Treatise of the Per­petuity, and in the first Tome, 2 Book 7 Chap. and 9 Book 1 Chap. That all those who wrote against Berengarius, A­delmanus who had studied under S. Ful­bert, Hugo Bishop of Langres, Deodur­nus Bishop of Leige, Lanfrancus Arch­bishop of Canterbury, Durandus Ab­bot of Troarn Guitmondus Archbishop [Page 6]of Aversa in Italy, did all of them re­proach to him, That he had separated himself from the unity of the Holy Church; that he scandalized the whole Church; that none before him had drea­med of his Follies; that his Heresie was so notorious, that there needed not a Council assembled to condemn it; that he impugned what the Church taught througbout the World: That the Beren­garians had not for themselves one sole Town, nor so much as one Village: And in a word, that there needed no more but to ask the Latins, the Greeks, the Armenians, and generally all the Chri­stians of whatsover Nation, and all would answer, That they believed the change of the terrestical substance of the Bread and Wine, by the infallible, in­comprehensible, and miraculous operati­on of the Omnipotence of God, into the essence or substance of the Lords Bo­dy.

We did likewise shew it was not cre­dible, that all these Authors were mista­ken, [Page 7]or knew not if there were any Churches holding Berengarius his O­pinion or not: Lanfrancus a Native of Italy, who had been a Monk at Bec, afterwards Abbot of Caen, and at last Archbishop of Canterbury, could bear witness of the Sentiments of a great part of Europe: Deoduinus and Adelmanus could serve as witnesses for Ger­many, and Guitmondus for Italy, where the Greeks were mixt with the Latins; and Hugo for France. Nor can it be said they intended to deceive the World, because there is not any probability that so considerable Men, would have been so imprudent as to advance against their Conscience, so important a matter of fact: concerning which, it had been easie to have covered them with shame, had it not been true.

Finally, it is there made out farther, that neither Berengarius nor his Secta­tors, did object to these Authors, that their Reproaches of the novelty of their Opinion was false; or that it was not [Page 8]contrary to all the Churches of the World: That we find not they cited any Author either of the Eleventh or Tenth Age, as favourable to their Opi­pion; but were forced to go seek it in some passages of St. Augustin, interpre­ted according to their fancy, and in the Book of John Scot Ae [...]rgene: And that they found themselves so straitned by that Argument of the uniform Belief of all Churches, as they had nothing to say, but that after the Gospel was prea­ched to all Nations, and the World had believed it, and the Church was form­ed, augmented, and fructified; it fell af­terwards into Errour, by the ignorance of those who understood not the Myste­ries; and that it was perished, and re­mained extant onely in their Par­ty.

It ought then to be held for cer­tain and undoubted, that all Christi­an Churches were found united in the Belief of the Real Presence, in the time of Berengarius, about the be­ginning [Page 9]of the Eleventh Age. And this is what Aubertin, lib. 9. p 943. (a most Learned Protestant) acknowled­ges at least as to the Latins: For he pretends that the Innovation was made in the darkness of the Tenth Age: That those of the Eleventh had suckt in with their Milk, the Belief of the Real Pre­sence. Hac Opinione una cum Lecte imbuli.

SECT. 3.

The particular Proof of the same Ma­jor, in regard of the Greeks in the time of Berengarius.

AMong many Proofs which may be seen in the First Tome of the Perpetuity, lib. 2. c. 5, 6, 7, 8. &c. I shall content my self with one one­ly.

During the Eleventh Century, when the Heresie * The Heresie of Berengarius consisted in de­nying the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Ho­ly Sacrament. of Berenga­rius made so much noise in the Latin Church, when it was condemned by nine Councils; whereof some were held in France, and some in Italy; the Greeks had several Churches and Monasteries in Italy; and the Latins had also Chur­ches at Constantinople: Whence it was not possible, that being so mixed toge­ther, [Page 11]either of them could be ignorant of the Sentiments of one another, espe­cially in respect of a Mystery; concer­ning which, there was risen up a Heresie in the Judgment at least of the Latins.

Wherefore it is inconceivable, that if the Greeks had been Berengarians at that time, (as Mr. Claud would have it believed) they should have without the least bustle or noise, suffered the Latin Church to condemn as an Heresie their Sentiment in the matter of the Eucha­rist: And that the Latins on their side should have said nothing to the Greeks, seeing them maintain that same Heresie which they had so recently condemned in the person of Berengarius.

Now it is certain that these two Chur­ches did not at that time, nor afterwards, upbraid one another on this matter; although they were never more incli­ned, nor had greater provocations to have done it, if there had been any ground for it. For it was at that time there arose the hottest debate that could [Page 12]be imagined, betwixt Michael Ceru­larius Patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo Archbishop of Acride, Metropo­litan of Bulgaria on one side, and Pope Leo, and the whole Latin Church, on the other. Nothing could parallel the bitterness and animosity of the Greeks. Michael and Leo of Acride did write in the year 1053, (which is the very same year wherein Berengarius was condemned in two Councils both held in Italy, one at Rome, and the other at Vercelli) to John Bishop of Trani in Apulia. This Letter was most bitter: They upbraided the Latins in several things: That celebrating the Eucha­rist in Azimis, they communicated with the Jews: That they eated stran­gled meats: That they did not sing Al­leluia in Lent: But not so much as one word of the Faith of the Eucharist. And this Letter having been communicated to Pope Leo the IX. He wrote thereup­on a Letter to that Patriarch and Arch­bishop, wherein after having defended [Page 13]the Latin Church on the point of A­zimis, he complains of the violence of the Patriarch Michael, who had caused shut up all the Churches of the Latins that were at Constantinople: And he ex­tols the modesty of the Roman Church, in that there being several Churches of the Greeks both within and without the City of Rome; yet they were not hin­dred to observe the Traditions of their Ancestors. Because (says he) the Roman Church knows well that the di­versity of Customs, according to Times and Places, is no ways prejudicial to the Salvation of Believers, when they have the Same Faith. Whence it ap­pears, that although there were then a great number of Greeks in Italy, whose Sentiments in matter of the Eucharist, Pope Leo could not be ignorant of; he was perswaded there was no more but a diversity of Customs in point of the Eucharist, by reason of the Azimis, betwixt the Greek and Latin Church; and that both these Churches had but [Page 14]one and the same Faith of that Myste­ry. And consequently he was no le [...] perswaded that the Greek Church be­lieved the Real Presence and Transub­stantiation, as well as the Latin: For a [...] to the Latin Church, the Calvinists doe [...] not deny that she believed both those points at that time.

This is farther confirmed by another Letter which Michael Cerularius wrote the year following (when he could be no more ignorant of the condemnati­on of Berengarius) to the Patriarch of Antiochia: which as the forementio­ned is full of Accusations against the Ro­man Church, to perswade him to forsake the Popes Communion; amongst which Accusations, there were some altoge­ther calumnious, as that the Latins did not Honour St. Basil and Sr. Chryso­stom; and yet not so much as a word of their Belief of the Eucharist, which had been a far more considerable ground of separation, if the Greeks had not had the same Faith on that matter, than the [Page 15] [...]ifles which they objected to the La­ [...]ins: That their Priests raised their Beards: That their Monks eated fat: That their Bishops carried the Effigies of a Lamb.

And by what passed at Constanti­nople betwixt Cardinal Humbertus, one of the most zealous Adversaries of Be­rengarius, whom Leo the IX. sent thither to compose matters in Contro­versie; and the Greeks whom Michael had exasperated against the Latins. This Cardinal having there on several occasions spoken so clearly of the Eu­charist, according to the Belief of the Roman Church, that it is impossible the Greeks did not understand him; or that they would have sufferd him, if they had not had the same Faith.

And lastly, by the Council held at Placentia in Italy, in the year 1095, under Victor the II. where the Berenga­rian Heresie was again condemned, and the Catholich Faith declared in these terms: That the Bread and Wine being [Page 16]consecrated on the Altar, are changed not onely in figure, but absolutely and essentially into the Body and Bloud of the Lord. Which cannot be said to have been unknown to the Greeks, the Am­bassadors of the Emperour Alexius Comnenus having been present at this Council. So that if the Greeks had not been of the same Faith with the Latins in that point, it's impossible but so sur­prizing a decision would have strangely startled them; and in this astonishment made them advertise the Emperour and all Greece of the same.

SECT. 4.

Proof of the Minor as to the first time, that is, the Proof of the impossibility of an Innovation, whereof no memo­ry remained, which the Calvinists must say was made in all the Chur­ches of the World, from the end of the Ninth Age, to the beginning of the Eleventh. First member of this Proof.

THe Major being proved in regard of the first time; that is to say, it being to be held for certain, that in the time of Berengarius, all the Churches of the East, especially the Greek Church, had the same Faith of the Eucharist, which the Roman Church had; which the Calvinists does not deny to have at that time believed the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. If it was not the ancient Faith of the Church, these Churches must have changed their Be­lief [Page 18]of this Mystery by an Innovation whereof themselves were not sensible, nor did perceive, and of which no trace nor memory has remained perceivable to us: And this is what is said to be im­possible, in the First Part of the Minor of the famous Argument of the Perpe­tuity.

The Calvinists on the contrary pre­tend, that this not only was not impos­sible, but that it had de facto come to pass by a Book of Paschasius a Monk of Corbie, made in the beginning of the Ninth Age. They accuse him to have been an Innovator or Broacher of a new Doctrine, and to have been the first Author of Transubstantiation; they set up incontinently Adversaries against him: But they suppose that this Book of Paschasius, and his Schollars who defended it, did insensibly corrupt the minds of a great many Men, and that this made such a progress, during the igno­rance and darkness of the tenth Age, that those of the Eleventh, tho' become more [Page 19] [...]lear-sighted, having suckt in this opinion with their Milk, made it pass for truth. Hinc contigit, says Aubertin, pag. 443. [...]ut in sequenti saeculo, quamvis literati­ [...]res facti, hac tamen opinione cum lacte [...]mbuti, illam tanquàm veram confiden­ter obtruserint.

This is what the Salvation of Calvi­nists is grounded upon: If this Romance be not true, there is no Salvation for them, because there is none for those who overturns or destroys in so impor­tant a matter, the ancient Faith of all the Christians of the World, and who have taken the same Faith for the grea­test pretext of their schismatical separa­tion from the Church.

Now we have shewn in several places of the Books of the Perpetuity, that ne­ver was there a Fable worse contrived, though Mr. Claud thinks it the most exact and best invented that could be: For what is there (says he) more reaso­nable, than to say that Paschasius his Opinion, adorned with the Colours of [Page 20]Antiquity although in reality it was but a Novelty, supported with a little Philosophy, extoll'd by these big words which ignorants admire, and proposed in Ages like the Ninth and Tenth, did find at the beginning some Sectators, who induced others to follow them, until at last it became the strongest, and was established by the assistance of violence and Authority

But its his pleasure, to the end he may render this Innovation less absurd, never to represent it with those circum­stances, with which it must of necessi­ty have been accompanied, if it had fallen out.

The first is, that about the end of the Ninth Age, and the beginning of the Tenth, all the Bishops, Priests, Monks, and Laicks, having been instructed in the Belief of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (which ought to have been, according to the Calvinists, the common Belief of the Ninth Age) they abandoned without resistance and [Page 21]without debate, the Faith of their Fore­fathers, to follow a new Opinion, in­troduced by a Monk of France.

The second is, that this comes to pass without noise or tumult.

The third is, that this change is made at the same time, and after the same manner, in all the Churches of the World, it being, as we have already de­monstrated, that they are all found to have been of the same Faith of the Real Presence, in the beginning of the E­leventh Age.

The fourth is, that no trace of this change remains; and the memory of it so abolisht, that in the Eleventh Age immediately following that wherein they say that Innovation was made, no person had heard tell of it, as appears sufficiently, in that there being in the year 1003, a Council held at Orleans, (Spicileg. Tom. 11. p. 675.) wherein were condemned as Hereticks, two Priests, for having denied amongst other things, that the Bread is changed into [Page 22]the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucha­rist.

But because of these four circumstan­ces, the two last are they which shews more palpably the impossibility of this change, and are least exposed to be elu­ded by any wrangling; I shall content my self to set down here, how these two circumstances are pressed in the Ninth Book of the First Tome of the Perpe­tuity.

The first is treated of in the third Chapter, which has for Title, Exami­nation of Engines of Retrenchment, or Means by which Mr. Claud exempts himself from making the Doctrine of the Real Presence, preached to the grea­test part of Christians. And here is what is said of it.

How happy should Mr. Claud be, if the Effects followed his Words, as his Words follows his Desires; and if to make things true, it were enough that he assured them to be so, as it is enough for him to desire them, for assuring [Page 23]them! Then we should easily see come to pass that wonderful change he un­undertakes to make in the Tenth Age: But the ill is, that the things which are without him, and those by past Events, have an inflexible and unva [...]iable cer­tainty, which suits not at all with his Desires: And so it falls out, that he rec­kons of them on his side as he pleases himself; and on the other, the things remains still quite contrary to what he says of them.

The Question, says he, p 641. is not of the whole-World; it's onely of the Occident, and of the Provinces subject to the Obedience of the Pope. That is to say, I will not have this to be the question; I will not be at the pains to explicate, how the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiati­on was introduced in the East, in the Patriarchates of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Jerusalem, and An­tiochia, in the Churches of the Arme­nians, Nestorians, and Jacobites: I [Page 24]will not trouble my self to guess how it did penetrate into Ethiopia, Muscovia, Mesopotamia, Georgia, Mingrelia, [...]oldavia, Tartaria, and into the Ind a's; I had better say it is not there, I will have sooner done, and by this means I will free my self of a great ma­ny difficulties.

Mr. Claud, if he pleases, will per­mit us to adverrise him, that he is Man, and nor God; and consequently nei­ther his Words nor his Wishes are ope­rative. He would not have the Do­ctrine of the Real Presence, to be in all these great Provinces: But it is and will be in them, whether he would or would not, the matter does not at all depend upon him: And we have made it appear by Proofs, which we judge himself will not gainstand.

So that notwithstanding of all his Wishes, the question is to know how the belief of the Real Presence, could be introduced in all these places, if it had not still been in them. Cerrain it [Page 25]is, that it is there established, and reigns and domineers absolutely. There is no other known, no memory that ever any other Doctrine was there. All these Nations are perswaded they hold it by continual succession from their Forefathers It is manifest they have held always this Doctrine, since the time the Berengarians were first heard of; and that in this point they were still united with the Roman Church. Mr. Claud must then tell us, who has made them embrace this Doctrine: But how can he do it, since the reason why he would exeem him­self from entring into this question, is, because he finds that not only solid Proofs, but even Inventions and Fi­ctions fails him; all his Machines be­come useless to him. He talks to us of Paschasius, of Disputes, of the Intrigues of Monks, of the Violences of the Court of Rome. And to render all this heap of Dreams and Visions ridiculous, there needs no more but [Page 26]to oblige him to cast his eyes on two third parts of the World, which knows neither Paschasius nor his Book; and are so far from acknowledging the Pope, that they are most passionately bent to contradict him in all they can.

Let Mr. Claud tell us therefore, who did perswade them to a Belief which he pretends to be directly contrary to Scripture, to Fathers, to Reason and Sense? What Preachers did produce so great an effect? How comes it to pass that none of all these Nations did resist this Innovation? How comes it to pass that all of them have forgot they changed their Perswasion, and takes their present Doctrine for that which the Apostles established in the Church, and which has descended even to them by the succession of their Bi­shops.

Mr. See pag. 2. of the General Answer. Claud wearies his Imagination to invent an impertinent Fable of a young [Page 27]Monk, who without going out of his Convent, and without being heard tell of abroad, yet changes the Faith of the whole Occident: He torments him­self to accompany this Fable with a thousand phantastical suppositions: He exhausts all his Figures, and all his big Words, to dazle a little the eyes of the simple; and to hide from them the absurdity of this Romance.

But he takes no heed that all his en­deavours are in vain; there remains more than two thirds of his Work to be done; without which, all the pains he takes are to no purpose; he must yet find other Paschasius's to carry this Faith into all the Societies separate from the Roman Church, and into re­mote Provinces: All these Pascha­sius's must have the same success, that no person contradict nor oppose their Enterprizes; that no person perceive them renversing the ancient Faith; and in a word, they must all have ac­complisht their work at the same time, [Page 28]when Berengarius shall happen to start up, to the end he might with some ground of reason say, That the Church was perished, and there was no more remnant of it than those who followed him (Lanfrancus, cap. 23.)

I see very well that Mr. Claud for all his stoutness, succumbs under the greatness of this Enterprize: It frights him, he gives it over, he asks pardon, he would wish with all his heart, that that this made no part of the Question. The Question (says he) is not of all the World. But there is no moyen to be complaisant to him: The Question is of the whole World, whether he will or will not because that Belief is esta­blisht throughout the World. This depends neither upon him nor me: It is a necessary part of this great Questi­on, and which draws all the rest after it. Wherefore since by a constrained confession of his inability, he acknow­ledges he cannot say there was made an universal change of Belief in the [Page 29]whole Orient, he must needs abandon all the rest, and avow that all his moy­ens are ruined, all his Engines shatte­red, all his Projects renversed, and all his Suppositions destroyed.

If he say it was Paschasius who in­vented this Doctrine, and that it could never have fallen into the brain of ano­ther, we shew him an infinite number of Christians, who neither knows Pas­chasius, nor his Book, and who yet makes still profession of this Doctrine; and here he is convinced of timerity and imposture.

If he tells us, That the Popes did by their Authority and Violences, concur to make it be received; We shall let him see those great Nations, over whom they have no Jurisdiction, in which they are not acknowledged, and a­mongst whom their Decisions have neither Credit nor Authority; and who notwithstanding are no less tena­cious of the Faith of the Real Presence, as those People who are most submit­ted [Page 30]to the Holy See; and this does far­ther point him out as a Deceiver of the World, by groundless and improbable Fables.

If he talks to us of Cabals and ima­ginary Intrigues, of Disputes of Phi­losophy, by which he pretends this Doctrine was established; we shall shew an infinite number of People, who neither knows the School Philo­sophy, nor never disputed of these matters; and amongst whom even the imagination of Mr. Claud himself could never make the Intrigues of the Court of Rome active; and who yet believes the Real Presence as we do: And lo here also all his Reckonings and Fables annihilated.

This is what regards the third Cir­cumstance; which is, that this Innova­tion should have been made at the same time in all the Churches of the World: Which renders it so evidently impossi­ble, that Mr. Claud could not extricate himself otherwise (as we have shewn) [Page 31]than by an Engine or Machine of Re­ [...]renchment, whereby he would have [...]s believe, against all truth, that the [...]oint controverted in this matter, is not [...]he belief of the whole World, but on­ [...]y that of the Occident, and of the Pro­vinces submitted to the Obedience of [...]he Pope.


The Second Member of the Proo [...] of the impossibility of an insensibl [...] change, from the end of the Ninth Age, to the beginning of the E­leventh.

THe fourth Circumstance, viz. That this Innovation ought to have been made in a manner so imper­ceptible, as that no tract thereof remai­ned to posterity, is treated in the ninth Chapter of the same Book, which has for Title, Examination of the Engines or Means of Execution, in which is shewn the impossibility of an insensible change. I would wish one should read it entirely, for they would have greater satisfaction: But not to be too prolix, I shall transcribe here the most necessa­ry.

[Page 33]

The inutility of the preceeding means made use of by Mr. Claud, gives us no ground to expect great matter from those he pretends were made use of to bring to pass this insensible change. So it may be seen in the De­scription thereof, made on his own proper words, that he knows not what to lay hold on, and employs contra­dictory means. Sometimes he makes the Real Presence establisht by the noise of Disputes, pag. 300. Sometimes he avows there were no Disputes in the Tenth Age, in which he pretends this change was made, pag. 651. So here we have right to ask of him in the first place, that he would take his option; and that in chusing one of these chime­rical moyens he should confess he ad­vanced the other falsly and timerari­ously.

Yet it must be granted, that if the contradiction be evident, it is in some manner necessary; and he was forced to it by the consequence of his false [...] [Page 36]it was impossible the Belief of the Rea [...] Presence should be introduced into the Church, in case it had not always been in it, without a great number of Disputes and Contestations; and therefore at first he lays hold on this moyen, as absolutely necessary for his purpose. These Meanings or Senses, says he, were assaulted by the noise of Disputes, pag. 30. But when he saw that these Disputes did neces­sarily draw after them Writings on ei­ther hand, and that he could produce none; he repents himself of the step he had advanced, and retires back in contradicting himself by a pretty An­tithese as we have seen: I conclude in­deed, says he, pag. 400. that since there were no Writings on the matter, there were no Disputes about it. The consequence in my opinion is reasonable; but I do not conclude, that there ha­ving been no Disputes, therefore the Doctrine of the Church was not as­saulted. The consequence is not good; [Page 37]was established without being defen­ded. ......... I conclude indeed, that if there had been Disputes on the point, Ignorance had not subsisted: But I con­clude likewise, that Ignorance has subsisted, because there were no Dis­putes.

If we require proofs from Mr. Claud. that the Real Absence (which he calls the Doctrine of the Church) was as­saulted by false Philosophy, by the In­trigues of Monks, and hy the Authority of the Court of Rome, which was ne­ver more fierce nor more powerful. He would be no less straitned than he is, to produce Writings and Disputes; for there is as little likelihood in the one as the other. Never was there any thing more remote from Philosophy true or false, than all what remains of the Writings of the Tenth Age: And if there was any ignorance greater in this than in other Ages, it was onely of Aristotles Philosophy, and Humane Literature: For the Ecclesiasticks of [Page 38]that time, applied themselves onely to the reading of the holy Scripture and the Fathers.

That Authority of the Court of Rome, which Mr. Claud says was ne­ver so fierce nor so powerful, and by which he will have the true Doctrine to have been attacked, is also a fiction not only timeratious and groundless, but notoriously false, and contrary to the truth of History: For not onely the Court of Rome was neither fierce nor powerful in the Tenth Age, but was extreamly depressed; for the Empe­rours taking upon them to make de­pose the Popes, and elect others; it may be said, that during all this Age, the Roman Church was under the de­pendence of the Temporal Power, and consequently was never less in conditi­on to make a new Doctrine be recevied by the whole Church, as it was never farther from enterprizing it.

These Intrigues of Monks are meer fables, without likelihood and without [Page 39]ground. The Monks of these times were either disorderly and thought little on, changing the Faith of the Church; or reformed, as these of the Congregation of Cluny, the Camaldu­lenses establisht by St. Romuald in Ita­ly, the Monks of Germany reformed by the Bishops. There were also se­veral other Reforms made in France and Germany, of which mention is made in the Book of the Perpetuity: But all these Reforms aimed at the withdrawing of the Monks from the Intrigues of the World, and not to in­tangle them therein. We have yet extant the Life of St. Mayeul, writ­ten by St. Odilon, that of St. Odo written by an Author contemporary; those of St. Odilon and St. Romuald, written by Petrus Damianus. As all these persons were perswaded of the Real Presence; St. Odo speaks honou­rably of Paschasius in his Conferen­ces; St Odo saw Berengarius, Petrus Damianus survived the condemnati­on [Page 40]of his Heresie, and condemns it every where throughout all his Books; so they would have made no difficulty to avow, that they whose Lives they wrote, had laboured to establish the Belief of the Real Presence. They would have thought Intrigues for such a subject honourable; and taking from them the name of Intrigues, they would have made them pass for works of their Zeal for the Truth.

And yet we find not that it's obser­ved of any of these holy religious Men, that they contributed any manner o [...] way to root out the Opinion contrary to the Real Presence, nor to spread that Doctrine abroad.

I knew not if Mr. Claud has been at the pains to reflect on this Observati­on, and if he sees the consequence that springs from it. So that to help him to draw them, I entreat him to consider, that if it was true that the Doctrine of the Real Presence had been establisht in the Tenth Age, and [Page 41]pagated into all the Provinces of Chri­stendom. It must be absolutely ne­cessary, that all those who were repu­ted for Piety and Learning in these times, had their part in its establish­ment, and laboured for the same. And as there can hardly be imagined a grea­ter work, than to perswade this Belief to all the Ecclesiasticks, and to all the People, to overcome all the oppositi­ons of their Reason and their Senses, fortified by the multitude, and by be­ing accustomed to other more easie and more humane Cogitations: It would have doubtless been the princi­pal Occupation of these Paschasites; and these Paschasites who should have so changed the Faith of the whole Church, could be no other than Men who were considered as the Heads of the Religion of that Age, and who by their Authority drew the Ecclesiasticks and People after them.

Now we have the Lives of the most part of these persons, written by Au­thors [Page 42]contemporary, or at least of the following Age.

We can reckon more than twenty of them (whom I omit for brevity) and resume the Discourse by this reflecti­on.

But it is not said neither of these Saints, nor of any other, that they preached the Doctrine of the Real Presence; that they were zealous for its establishment; that they converted many persons to this Belief: And that which should have been their chiefest occupation, and the principal object of their Zeal and Devotion, according to Mr. Clauld's fancies, is not so much as observed by the Historians, save only by St. Odo Archbishop of Can­terbury, Uncle to St. Oswald; but in a manner far from giving ground to think that the Belief of the Real Pre­sence was not that of his time. The History of St. Odo, which William of Malmsbury draws from Osborn, car­ries onely that several persons doubt­ing [Page 43]of the verity of the Eucharist, he confirmed them in the Faith by a Mi­racle, in shewing the Host changed into Flesh. Plurimos de veritate Do­minici corporis dubitantes, says Wil­liam of Malmsbury, it a roboravit, ut panem Altaris ver sum in carnem, & v [...]num calicis in sanguinem, propa­lam ostenderet, & denuo in pristinam speciem retorta, usui humano conduci­bilia faceret, Guil Malmsb. in Odone. The matter of fact is acknowledged by the Protestants themselves, though Baleus no less than Aubertin ascribes it to the Devil, mendacibus Satanae miraculis.

This proves indeed that there were in St. Odo's time, some persons who doubted of the Real Presence; which is no strange thing, being that the My­steryitself is capable to excite these kind of doubts: And besides this, John Scot had retired himself to England, where he might have made some private Di­sciples of his Doctrine.

[Page 44]

But here its manifestly seen, that this doubt was condemned by Odo, Head of the English Church; who having been lookt upon as a Saint by those of his time, and not accused of Errour by any, is an unquestio­nable Witness of the Faith of the Church of England, during the Tenth Age

The same Osborn in the Life of St. Dunstan, chap. 44. speaks likewise of the Eucharist, but onely occasionally, and to shew how much this Saint was replenished with the Spirit of God: Being returned, says he, to the Altar, he changed the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, by the holy Benediction: And when he had given the Blessing to the People, he left once more the Altar to preach; and being inebriated with the Spirit of God, he spake of the verity of the Bo­dy of Jesus Christ, of the future Resur­rection, and of Life eternal, in such a manner, that one would have thought [Page 45]they heard speaking a Man already beatified. Lo here the rank which was given to the Article of the Real Presence in the Tenth Age.

It ought moreover to be concluded from the example of St. Odo, that if all the Authors of the Lives of Saints had had any such thing to be related of those whose Lives they wrote, and if they had had ground to remark the Conversions they had made, they would not have omitted to have done it; and consequently their silence is an evident proof, that these Saints never had it in their view to inspire the Doctrine of the Real Presence; that they never dream'd of this project: And as it could not have been established by others than by them, it follows that it was not established by any person in that Age, because it needed not, being the ancient Belief of preceeding Ages.

After having remarked what ought to have been found in the Lives writ­ten particularly of the Saints of that [Page 46]time, we pass next to the Histories, Annals, and Chronicles.

The same observation may be made on the Historian Ditmarus Bishop of Mersbourg, who at least had no less intention to write the Ecclesiastical History of his time, than that of the Temporal State of Germany: His great Birth did not suffer him to be ig­norant of what passed in his time: He was an intimate Friend of all the Bi­shops of his Age; and he makes the Eloge of several of them in his History, wherein are reckoned to the number of eleven: He speaks of a great many others, and makes his own Life in his History; but he neither mentions of himself, nor of any other that took pains to establish the Belief of the Real Presence.

Will Mr. Claud say that all these Bishops had no part in this Work, or that the matter was not worth the re­marking? Will he pretend that to withdraw Germany from an Opinion [Page 47]which the Paschasites must have lookt upon as a detestable Crime, to per­swade the World a Doctrine so con­trary to Reason; and which they judg­ed so necessary for Salvation, was a thing too trivial to appear in the Eloge of these Bishops?

We find the same silence in all the other Historians of the Ninth and Te [...]th Age, how sollicitous soever they were to transmit to us the Affairs of the Church. There are reckoned up ten, what Histories, what Annals or Chronicles, which says not so much as one word of that establishment of the Real Presence, of these Disputes, of these Conversions, nor of the Zeal of the Bishops of that time, to instruct all the people in that Doctrine,

In a word, as Mr. Claud who is acute enough to forsee what ought to be, misses not to rank amongst those means which could advance the esta­blishment of the Real Presence, the Intrigues of Courts, the Combinations [Page 48]of great Men, the Interests of Bishops and other worldly Engines; and which he says he would have remarked, if he had been living at that time: It must be granted to him, that Intrigues which should have had so great effects, ought to have been most remarkable; and yet we find no mention at all made of them, in any of the contemporary Au­thors, who wrote the Lives of the Princes and Princesses of this Age, as in Wittichindus, Ditmarus, Glaber, Rodolphus, Helgaldus, Odilo, and se­veral others. Many proofs are there seen of the Zeal of these two Princes for Religion; and it's hard to find any who were more careful, who had more favour for the Church, and who had more esteem and affection for the holy Bishops and Religious Men of their time. And if it was true that the Do­ctrine of the Real Presence was intro­duced in their time, it must have been by their Authority and favour. Whence comes it then, that that Zeal, and all [Page 49]these Actions which should have flow­ed from it, have not been obser­ved by any Author: And that in the telling us of these Kings, of these Prin­ces and Princesses, they make no men­tion of their particular Devotion to the Real Presence, nor of the care they had to establish it more and more among the faithful.

And yet according to Mr. Claud, these Princes ought to have had a great hand in that Innovation, no less than the Pope and the Bishops, seeing that to make it the more credible, he supposes Pascasius his Doctrine, ought to have been establisht by the help of Violence and Authority. But it was found alto­gether established then, when Berenga­rius proposed his figurative Sence: So there must have been before Berenga­rius, either Princes or Popes, or Bi­shops, who employed Violence or Au­thority, to set it in that height of credit it was found in before Berengarius ap­peared. How comes it then, that in so [Page 51]many Histories, Annals, and Lives of holy Bishops, nothing of all that is to be seen.

‘The prodigious silence of so many persons, on a matter so important as the universal change of Belief, which could no have come to pass, without the participation of all these he speaks of, will stand for a most evident de­monstration to all judicious persons; there being no method more convin­cing to prove Negatives of this kind; for it ought not to be pretended, that these Authors should have prophesied, that there were to come Men so auda­cious as to assert that the whole Church had changed her Faith during this Age, or that they were obliged to belye be­fore-hand so ridiculous an Imaginati­on.’

I pretend then that the Minor is most clearly proved in respect of the first time; that is to say, the impossibility of a change, whereof no trace should have remained, which the Calvinists [Page 50]must pretend to have been made in all the Churches of the World, from the end of the Ninth, to the beginning of the Eleventh Age, is most solidly demon­strated. There remains then no more but to prove the second part of the Ma­jor; that is, the unanimous agreement of all these Churches at this present time.

And the second part of the Minor, to wit, That it's impossible they should be found at present in this union, by an in­sensible change as to the Faith of the Eucharist, which should have hapned in all the Churches of the East, in the time that has run since Berengarius till now. And this is a thing more easie, because the truth of things nearer to us is discovered.

SECT. 6.

Proofs of the Major in regard of the present time; that is to say, that the Eastern Churches, especially the Greek Church, are of the same Faith that the Roman Church is concerning the Eucharist.

I Cannot tell if ever there was a matter of fact proved by so many pieces and irrefragable Testimonies, as the Agree­ment of the present Eastern Church with the Roman, in the Belief of the My­sterie of the Eucharist, that is, of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and Adoration.

They are all to be seen, some in the First Tome of the Perpetuity, Book 12. others in the first Book of the General Answer; and more at length in the Thrid Tome, Book 8. Where they are found altogether marked at the end in a Table which here follows.

For the Greek Church of the Patriar­chate of Constantinople.

A Writing of a Nobleman of Mol­davia, concerning the Belief of the Greeks, entituled, Enchiridion, sive stella Orientalis.

Letter of M. Olarius, concerning the Belief of the Muscovites and Ar­menians.

Extract of a Synod held in the Isle of Cyprus, in the year 1668.

Attestation of a Priest and Canon of Muscovia, and of three other Mus­covites in the Ambassadors Train, con­cerning the Belief of their Nation.

Confession of Faith required by Me­thodius from Doctor Cicada.

Extract of the Book of Agapius, Monk of Mount Athos, entituled, The Salvation of Sinners.

Attestation of eight Superiors and Monks of Mount Athos.

Attestation of Methodius Patriarch of Constantinople.

Attestarion of the Superior of Mount Athos, concerning Agapius.

Attestation of seven Archbishops of the East.

Attestation of the Church of the I­fland of Anaxia.

Attestation of the Church of the Isles of Cephalonia, Zacynthus, and [...] ­thaca.

Attestation of the Isle of Micone.

Attestation of the Isle of Milo.

Attestation of the Church of the Isle of Chios.

Attestation of a Superiour and the Monks of the Monastery of Mauro­male.

Letter of M. Panjotti.

Attestation of the Patriarch of Con­stantinople, of three other Patriarchs preceeding him, and of the Metropoli­tans of that Patriarchate

Attestation of the Churches of Mi [...] ­grelia, Colichis, and Georgia.

Attestation of the Vicar Apostolick, [...]esident at Constantinople.

Attestation of M. Casimir, Resident [...]t Poland.

Attestation of M. Quirino, Refident [...]f the Republick of Venice.

Attestation of M. Fieschi, Resident of Genoa.

Attestation of the Ambassadors of [...]he the Republick of Ragusa.

Attestation of the Community of [...]he Perots, as well Supetiours as Offi­ [...]ers.

Attestation of M. Taisia, on the [...]eath of his Son, communicated by the Greeks.

Extract of some Decisions of the Church of Constantinople, sent to the Russians.

The Answer of Marcus Donus of [...]he Isle of Candia, sent to Mr. Claud.

Attestation of the Monastery of St. George.

Extract of the Treatise of Meletius Syrigus, against Cyrilius Lucar.

For the Greek Church of the Patriar­chate of Alexandria.

Extract of a Letter of the Patriarch of Alexandria, sent to Constantinople.

For the Greek Church of the Patriar­chate of Antiochia.

Profession of the Faith of the Greek of the Patriarchate of Antiochia, con­cerning the Eucharist.

Condemnation of the Calvinists by Macarius Patriarch of Antiochia, o [...] the Greek Nation.

A new Condemnation of the Calvi­nists by the Grecian Church of the Pa­triarchate of Antiochia, under the Patri­arch Neophilus, signed by the Patriarch Archbishops, Curats, Priests, Deacons and others.

Apology of Sotericus Panteugen [...] to the Patriarch of Antiochia, and to th [...] Council, concerning the matters o [...] which he was accused.

For the Grecian Church of the Patriar­chate of Jerusalem.

Letter of Nectarius Patriarch of Je­rusalem, to Paysius Patriarch of Ale­xandria.

Extract of a Synodical Treatise, com­posed by Docitheus Patriarch of Jeru­salem; and by a Synod at the Dedicati­on of the Church of Bethlehem, signed by sixty two Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Curats and other Ecclesia­sticks.

Extract of the Treatise of Elias Pa­triarch of Jerusalem, concerning the Mysteries, drawn from an Arabick Manuscript of the Kings Bibliotheck.

For the four Patriarchs together.

A Book entituled, The Orthodox Confession of the Oriental Church, ap­proved by the four Patriarchs.

Approbation of the second Edition of the same Book.

For the Maronites.

Act or Treatise of the Marionites of Antiochia, concerning the Faith of their Churches.

For the Armenian Church.

Attestation of the Armenian Patri­arch, who is presently at Rome, concer­ning the of Belief the Armenians in matter of the Eucharist.

Attestation of Ʋscanus Bishop of St. Sergius in the Greater Armenia, given at Amsterdam.

Attestation of the Patriarch and of several Priests and Armenian Bishops residing at Alippo.

Attestation of the Patriarch of Er­meazin, concerning the Belief of the Armenians.

Attestation of the Armenian Arch­bishops of Constantinople, of Amasea, and Adrinople.

Attestation of the Patriarch of Cis, at number 10.

Attestation of the Armenians of Cairo.

Attestation of the Armenians of Is­pahan in Persia, at number 16.

For the Church of the Syrians.

Attestation of the Patriarch of the Syrians, concerning the Faith of their Churches, in matter of the Eucharist, 12.

Condemnation of the Calvinists by the Church of the Syrians at Damascus.

Extract of an Arabick Manuscript of the Kings Bibliotheck, shewing the Be­lief of the Jacobites concerning the Eu­charist, in the Tenth Age.

For the Nestorians.

Attestation of the Patriarch of the Nestorians of the Town of Diabe­ker.

Extract out of the Missals and Pray­er-Books of the Nestorians.

For the Church of Cophtes.

Attestation of the Patriarch of the Cophtes.

Another Attestation of the same, concetning the Eucharist In particular.

These Attestations are to be found at the end of the Third Tome of the Perpetuity of the Faith, either at length or by citation of other places of these Books.

I know not if Mr. Sphanhemius, Pro­fessor at Leyden, will yet be so bold as to say, as he did in his Strictures against the Bishop of Condom's Book, that no regard is to be had to all these Attestati­ons, as being given by the miserable Greeks, who can be made to say any thing one pleases for Money: A quibus nihil non pretio extorqueas. And so we have ground to think, that they conti­nued [Page 61]still in the Opinion of the Calvi­nists concerning the Eucharist, even when they seem to condemn it with the greatest zeal. But I perswade my self there is no honest man but will conceive indignation at an Answer so unreasona­ble, which leaves us no moyen to be assured of the Religion of any People. The least that those deserves who makes use of it, is to doubt whether they be Christians, Jews, or Maho­metans; there being left them no way to hinder us from believing that they are in their heart any thing we please to suspect them of.

But to deprive them of all means of being able by their most unjust and ex­travagant Calumnies, to brangle those who shall read this little Treatise, I shall chuse one only of all these Testimonies, which is the Book of the Orthodox Confession, whereof the History is set down in the General Answer, Book 1. Chap. 9. in these terms.

[Page 62]

If one should set himself on pur­pose, to contrive the Idea of an Act proper to decide the matter in questi­on betwixt us, he could not in my Judgment require other conditions, and other circumstances than those I am going to speak of.

1. That it be signed and authori­zed by the four Patriarchs, and by the principal Bishops and Ecclesiasticks of the Eastern Church.

2. That it appear, that those who made and approved it, had not any intelligence with the Latins, and that they continue in all the particular Sen­timents of the Greek Church.

3. That it was made for the parti­cular necessities of the Greek Church, without that the Latins had any hand in it.

4. That the terms thereof be perem­ptory, and contain so clearly the Do­ctrine of the Real Presence and Tran­substantiation, that Mr. Claud cannot elude them by his ordinary subtilties.

[Page 63]

Now all these circumstances are ex­actly found in the Act which I shall here set down, whereof a Patriarch of Jerusalem named Nectarius, has ta­ken the pains to make the History in a Letter at the beginning of it, and here it is.

Peter Mogilas who had been ordai­ned Archbishop of Russia, by Theo­phanes Patriarch of Jerusalem, having assembled three of the most Learned Bishops his suffragants, and the most pious Theologues of his Archipiscopal City, to banish away the Errours and Superstitions of his People, resolved with them by unanimous consent, to draw up a Confession of Faith, on the Articles of the Christian Doctrine, and to cause it be received and approved by the Church of Constantinople, and by the Synod which was there assem­bled.

To bring this to pass they composed a Book on the Articles of Faith, which they entituled, The Confession of Faith [Page 64]of the Russians. And then they en­treated the Church of Constantinople to appoint those they should depute in­to Moldavia in quality of Exarcks, to examine it together with those whom they should send on their side.

The matter was executed as it was thus projected. The Synod of Con­stantinople did depute into Moldavia Porphyrius Metropolitan of Nice, and Meletius Syrigus Theologue of the Great Church; to whose Piety and Learning, the Patriarch of Jerusalem gives very ample commendation: And the Deputies of the Russians being met there, that Confession of Faith was examined with all exactness possi­ble.

But yet they did not content them­selves with this examination, and to render this piece more Authentick, they thought fit to send it to all the four Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, and to submit it anew to their Judg­ment.

[Page 65]

These Patriarchs then having re­ceived and examined it, found it so conform to the Belief of their Church, that not onely they approved it, and signed it with their own hands, with many other Bishops, but they appoin­ted moreover, that instead of the Title it had before of Confession of Faith of the Russians, it should be thenceforth called, Confession of Faith of the Ea­stern Orthodox Church.

After the Letter of this Patriarch of Jerusalem, containing the History a­bove-mentioned, we find at the very beginning of that Confession, the Ap­probation and Subscription of four Pa­triarchs, of nine Bishops, and of all the principal Officers of the Church of Constantinople.

The Approbation of the four Patri­archs, is dated in the year 1643, in the Month of March, and that of the Letter of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, which was prefixed only to the Print is only in 1662. This Confession no, [Page 60]having been printed in Greek till long time after it was made, and not being distributed before but in writ [...] because the Turks permits no Printing in their Empire.

As to all the other Conditions we have pointed at, they are likewise found in that Confession.

The Latins medled not in it any manner of way; it was allenerly made for the utility of the Greek Church. It was composed by the Greeks, ex­amined by all the Heads of the Estern Church: These who composed it had no aim to gratifie any person.

It is now more than fourty years since it was made and more than twen­ty since it was printed.

Yea it appears the Hollanders were employed for the printing of it, for certainly the Types are of Holland.

All the Doctrines controverted be­twixt the Greeks and Latins are therein openly asserted, and the Au­thors of this Confession can be no ways [Page 61]suspected to have had any sway or in­clination for the Roman Church.

So that it's hard to imagine or deny a Book less suspect, more authorized, more authentick, and of which greater assurance can be had that it contains the true Sentiments of the Eastern Church.

There remains no more but to see what it contains: And in this man­ner it begins to explain what regards the Eucharist.

QUESTION 106. Which is the third Sacrament?

IT is the holy Eucharist; that is, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearances of Bread and Wine, Jesus Christ be­ing therein truly, properly, and really present.

Here is enough for any other than Mr. Claud. But that he may not toil his mind to seek here some evasion, I beseech him to hear what is read in the following Interogation, it concerns the Conditions necessary for the cele­bration of this Mystery, and it has these express terms: In the fourth place, the Priest must be perswaded, that at the time when he consecrates the holy Gifts, the substance of the Bread, and the substance Wine, is changed into the substance of the True [Page 69]Body and of the True Blood of Jesus Christ by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who is invocated at that mo­ment.

Here is already these mysterious words; without which, Mr. Claud thinks the Real Presence cannot be ex­pressed, nor Transubstantiation; and with which he must then avow that it is most formally expressed: For him­self grants, that the word Transubstan­tiation is not necessary when the mat­ter is thus explained: But yet if he will require farther that we let him see the Greek Church using and au­thorizing it, he may be satisfied there­in by the following words.

After the words of Inovocation, at the same instant Transubstantiation. ( [...]) is made, and the Bread is changed into the True Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his True Blood, the appearances of the Bread and Wine remaining by a divine Oeconomy. First that we may not see the Body of [Page 70]Jesus Christ with our Eyes but by Faith in leaning on those words. This is my Body, this is my Blood; and by so do­ing that we may prefer his Words and his Power, to our own Senses; which acquires the beatitude of Faith, accor­ding to what is said, Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have be­lieved.

Secondly, That because Humane Nature has horrour to eat raw flesh; [...] that seeing we ought to be united to Jesus Christ, by the participation of his Body and Blood, that Man might [...] have aversion from it. God has provided for this Inconvenient, in gi­ving to Believers his proper Flesh and and Blood, under the vails of Bread and Wine.

There remains no more to condemn the Calvinists, but to determine that this Sacrament ought to be adored with the same Honour that Jesus Christ is worshipped, that is to say, Latria, and that it is a true Sacrifice; and these [Page 71]are seen in that Confession, in the fol­ding terms:

The Honour you ought to render to these dreadful Mysteries, ought to be the same which you render to Jesus Christ himself: So that as St. Peter speaking for all the Apostles, said to Jesus Christ, Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; so every one of us worshipping with Latria Sove­raign Worship these Mysteries, ought to say, I believe, Lord, and confess that you are the Christ the Son of the Living God, who came to the World to save Sinners, of whom I am the chief.

Moreover, this Mystery is offered in Sacrifice for the Orthodox Christi­ans, both Living and Dead, in hope of the Resurrection to Life eternal.

And a little after: This Mystery is propitiatory before God, both for the Living and the Dead. The clearness of these Words, suppresses all reflecti­ons, [Page 72]which could do no more but ob­scure it

Hitherto is what was said in the year 1671. But whereas it was thought then by the Characters, that this Book had been printed in Holland, it was af­terwards known to be certain; and we have learned the History of it from M [...] Nointel, Ambassadour of France at the Port, who writ to Paris in these terms the year 1672 as is to be seen in the Third Tome of the Perpetuity, Book 8. Chap 14.

The 15th of February one of my Friends has told me, that having di­ned with M. the Resident of Holland, and the Discourse falling upon the Re­ligion of the Greeks, mention was made of the Book entituled, The Or­thodox Confession of the Catholick and Apostolick Church of the East, as ju­stifying her Belief of the Real Presence and of Transubstantiation.

M. the Resident Discoursed of the origine of the printing of this Book; [Page 73]for he told him that M Panajotti having sent the Copy into Holland to be prin­ted there on his expences, the States would not let his Money be taken; but to gain his favour, had caused most carefully to print it on their own Charges; and had entrusted several Boxes of the Impression to their Resi­dent to be made a present to M. Pana­jotti.

The fourth of March I ordered Fontain to go to M. the Resident of Holland, to thank him for what he had sent me by his Secretaty, before his Voyage to Smyrna, and to offer him his Services at the Port whither I was dispatching him. He entreated him that he would do me the favour to give me one of these Books, entituled, The Orthodox Confession of the Catholick and Apostolick Church of the East: And to let me know how it was prin­ted, and by what means some of the Copies thereof had come to his hands. The Resident having testified how sen­sibly [Page 74]he was obliged by my civility, as­sured Fontain that he and all that was in his House, was at my service; and he gave him two of the Books which I desired, telling him they were the only two that remained; and that as to their printing, Desbrosses who was here Secretary in the year ....... there being then no Resident, was desired by Mr Panajotti to cause print in Holland a form of Catechism, which he gave him in a Manuscript, declaring that he would make the expences; that this Secretary having informed the States they caused print it on their Charges; that it cost them four thou­sand pounds to fill the Boxes, in which were many Copies.

M. the Resident added, That being at that time named to come and reside for the States at Constantinople, he was appointed by them to take the charge of these Boxes, and to make a Present of them to M. Panajotti: And that there were a dozen and half of [Page 75]Copies Bound after the Holland man­ner, whereof he presented him twelve; and as to the other six, there were no more undisposed of, save onely these two which he had given me.

Finally, That which should com­pleat the Conviction of the most incre­dulous, if any could be, after what is said, is what is set down concerning the same Book of the Orthodox Confession, in the said Tome of the Perpetuity, Book 8. Chap. 15.

In the mean time that these Acts and Attestations of the Greek Church were at the Press, the Secretary of the Ambassadour arrived at Paris from Constantinople, to bring to his Maje­sty the Ratification of the Treaty con­cluded with the Port, and brought with him the Originals of several Au­thentick Attestations, which the Pa­triarchs of the East had entreated the Ambassador to cause present to the King, for justification of their Faith a­gainst the Calumnies of the Calvinist [Page 76]Ministers. There was amongst these Attestations a Manuscript very sum­ptuously Bound, which Mr. Pana­jotti made a Present of to his Majesty to be conserved in his Library, and to serve for ever as a Testimony of the Faith of the Or [...]ental Church.

This Manuscript is one of the Ori­ginals of the Orthodox Confession; it's Subscribed by the Patriarch of Con­stantinople, by many Bishops, and by several Officers of the Church of Con­stantinople: But whereas the Printed Copies are onely in Greek, this Manu­script is in Greek and Latin, the Latin being no less Original than the Greek.

There is prefixed to it a new Appro­bation of Dionysius, bearing that M. Panajotti has caused [...]et out a new Edi­tion of it, at the request of the Patriarch, and that this Gentleman has distributed gratis Copies throughout the whole East. Here follows that Attestation.

Dionysius by the mercy of God Arch-Bishop of Constantinople the New Rome, and Oecumenical Patriarch.

THose who make the holy Books their daily study, and applies themselves continually to them, do certainly reap thence very great fruit for Salvation, for it is as a way in which they cannot go astray, which leads in a supernaural manner, those who aim streight at eternal Glory, and which procures them a happy end; it be­ing according to the Scripture, that he is blessed who meditates day and night in the Law of the Lord.

Wherefore considering that the reading of this Orrhodox Doctrine may be very profitable, which hav­ing been Composed some years ago by the Orthodox Doctors, approved, received, and confirmed, by the Ve­nerable Patriarchs our Predecessors, [Page 78]and printed some time after by the care, pains, and expences, of the most Wise and Orthodox Signior Panajotti, first Interpreter of the Emperours of the East and West, our Dearest Spiritual Son full of Piety and Divine Zeal, with an extraordinary prudence, has gratis distributed Copies thereof round a­bout to Christians for the publick good. And all the Copies that were Prinred, being employed in this Di­stribution which was made of them; several persons who earnestly demands so profitable a piece, cannot have it we Judged it our duty to provide for this, and to sollicite the same Signior by his accustomed bounry, to supply this want, and put remedy to it by a second Edition; holding out to him that he would thereby aquite to himself Re­putation not only equal to that he has already throughout the World, and whereof no person is ignorant, but a bet­ter and far surpassing it; to wit, that by which noble Actions becomes immor­tal. [Page 79]And as he has a fervent zeal and passionate desire of the publick good, so he has not neglected our Counsel; but on the contrary, has incontinently by Gods help putten it in execution, and by a second Impression, has given of new a great number of Books to the Faithful; by so doing, rendering a piece of important service to the Au­thor of them, in not suffering his Work to be buried in obscurity: for M. Me­letius Syrigus, Doctor of the Great Church, has by order of the Patriarch and Synod, laboured most carefully to review and set the Book in order. Therefore ye Orthodox Christians, re­ceiving favourably this Book of the Orthodox Doctrine, as pious and pro­fitable to Souls, give thanks for it to the common Benefactor, and keep it well without ever neglecting the read­ing of it, for Life eternal is found in the Meditation of the holy Scriptures; which I wish all of us may attain to in Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be [Page 80]Glory for ever. So be it. The year 1672. in the Month of July. Indicti­on 5.

Seal of the Patriarch, Dionysius of Constantinople.

But this Original being in Greek and Latin, I though that if it was needless to set down the Greek Text, which being a strange Language, would be under­stood by few, it would be fit to insert here in the Latin Tongue, what is there said of the Eucharist, and which has al­ready been cited in French in the Gene­ral Answer.

QUESTIO 106. Quodnam sit tertium Mysterium?

EEt Eucharista, sive Corpus & Sanguinis Christi Domini sub spe­cibus panis & vini, & realis presentia. Hoc Sacramentum excillit all [...]is, & ma­gis conducit saluti animae nostrae: in hoc enim Sacramento omnis gratiae bonis Christi fidelibus manifestatur & prae­sentatur.

In the following Question.

ANimadvertendum est ut Sacerdos habeat talem intentionem, quod ipsa vera substantia panis & substantia vini Transubstantientur, in verum Corpus & Sanguinam Christi, per ope­rationem Spiritus Sancti cujus invoca­tionem facit tum temporis ut perficiat Mysterium hoc orando & dicendo Mitte Spiritum Sanctum in nos, & in haec pro­posita [Page 82]dona, & fac hunc panem pretio­sum Corpus Christi tui; quod autem est in hac calice, pretiosum Sanguinem Christi tui, transmutans per Spiritum Sanctum. Statim enim ad haec verba fit Transubstantiatio, & Transubstan­tiantur panis in verum Corpus Christi, & vinum in verum Sanguinem Christi, remanentibus solum speciebus visibili­bus, & hoc fit secundum divinam dis­positionem propter duo. Primo ne vide­amus Corpus Christi, sed credamus il­lud esse propter verba prolata à Christo Domino, Hoc est Corpus meum, & hic est Sanguis meus, plusquam sensibus nostris. Siquidem pro hoc promisit no­bis beatudinem dicens; Beati qui non vident, & credunt. Secundo quia natu­ra humana abhorret usum vivae carnis; & quoniam debet homo uniri Christo Domino per communicationem carnis Christi Domini, & Sanguinis Christi Domini; ne igitur abhorreret consti­tuit Dominus dare carnem suam, & Sanguinem suum in esum, & potum sub [Page 83]specibus panis & vini. De quo diui Da­mascenus & Gregorius Nyssenus fusius disputant.

De Exibendo Honore qui debetur kuic Mysterio tanquam ipsi Christo.

Quemadmodem sanctus Petrus de de ore omnium Apostolorum dixit: Tu es Christus, Filius Dei viventis, ita & nos dicimus cultu Latriae, Credo, Do­mini, & confiteor quod tu'es Christus, Filius Dei vivi. Est etiam id My­sterium Sacrificium pro vivis, & defun­ctis iis qui in spe resurrectionis mor­tui sunt; quod Sacrificium ad extre­mum judicium non cessabit.

There is at the end of the Manuscript an Act of Legalization of the Ambassa­dor, who gives Testimony of the Truth of what I have related, whereof the te­nor follows.

WE CHARLES R FRANCIS OLIER of Nointel, Coun­sellor of the King in his Councils in his Court of Parliament of Paris, and Ambassador for his most Christian Ma­jesty at the Ottoman Port, do certifie and attest, That the present Latin and Greek Manuscript, entituled, The Or­thodox Confession of the Church of the East, was consigned into our hands by the Signior Panajotti, first Interpreter of the Port; who having assured us that it would serve efficaciously to establish the verity of the Book bearing the same Title, printed by his care, seeing it is one of the Originals of it, and has the Ori­ginal Signatures of the Patriarchs at it: He did out of Zeal to vindicate his Church from the Affronts put upon it, entreat us to deal with his Majesty, that he would be so good as to accept of it for the Confusion of those that would call it in question. And as he lookt upon it as a matter of Conscience and [Page 85]Honour in imitation of the Patriarchs & Prelates of his Church, to put the matter of fact contested, in the greatest evidence possible; he sent us the last year an Ap­probation of the same Book by Dionysius the Patriarch, then holding the See of Constantinople, which we set before that Manuscript. All these Verities being certain, to the end none may doubt of them, we make no difficulty to confirm them by our Subscription, and the Seal of our Arms, and the Counter-Seal of our first Secretary.

Olier de Nointel, Ambassadour to his Majesty at the Ottoman Port. By my said Lord his Command. Le PICARD.

What can one say against this proof? Is not this piece as decisive as if it had been made in the Sorbonne or at Lou­vain? Is it not beyond all suspicion of having been extorted by the Roman Catholicks? Can any imagine that it could have been altered in the printing, coming onely from the hands of a Greek, a Person of Quality most zea­lous for his Religion, to those of a Pro­testant, who sent it to Amsterdam, where it was printed at the Charges of the States? Can any thing be imagined more Authentick in the Greek Church, seeing we find that having been at the very first approved by the four Patri­archs, and several Bishops, it has still continued to be in so great esteem, that the new Patriarch of Constantinople desired to have it reprinted, that it might be the more easily spread over all and every where.

There remains then no more but to prove the second part of the Mi­nor, to the end it may be said that we have invincibly shewn the Faith of Catholicks concerning the Eucha­rist, to be the ancient Faith of the Church.

SECT. 7.

Proof of the second part of the Minor, which is, that it is impossible there should be made an insensible change in the Bel ef of the Eucharist in all the Eastern Churches, during the time that has interveened betwixt Berengarius and us.

THere would be no need to be at the pains to prove this, if Mr. Claud, and the Ministers who have putten in his hands the Defence of their Cause, were not altogether unreasonable; for having proved most clearly in the se­cond Section, that these Churches were found united in the Belief of the Eucha­rist in Berengarius his time; and in the preceeding Section, that they are pre­sently united in the same Faith: to ima­gine that it was by an insensible inno­vation happened in that interval, they [Page 89]come to the condition they are in at this day, it must be feigned that the Eastern Churches having embraced the Opini­on of the Real Presence in the Eleventh Age, they should resume some time after, that of the Real Absence; and then again by an insensible change they should have fallen back again into the same condition wherein they certainly were in the Eleventh Age, in believing as they do certainly at this day, the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Eucha­rist. It's ealsiy percieved how ridicu­lous this fiction would be.

But because Mr. Claud would not acknowledge this argreement of the Ea­stern Churchs with the Roman in Beren­garius his time, for no other reason but because it pleases him to pretend all is false which seems disadvantageous to his Cause; we have thought fit to follow him in his wandrings, and to let him see, that setting aside all what proves that agreement in Berengarius his time, there [Page 90]is nothing more contrary to common sense, than that which he would per­swade as most possible, viz. That the Greeks having believed, as he supposes the Real Absence, until the end of the Eleventh Age, did since that time by an insensible Innovation, whereof no me­mory remains come to believe the quite contrary, that is, the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and Adoration, which is the state they are found in at this day.

And it must be carefully observed, that what we have demonstratively pro­ved, reaches not only to shew that some particular persons of the Greek Church, or even some or several of their Chur­ches entirely believes what I say; but that it is the manifest Belief of the whole Body of these Churches; as it is that of the Roman Catholick Church. This then ought to have been the effect of that pretended insensible Innovation, in whatsoever time it is placed during the six Centuries of years that have in­tervened [Page 91]betwixt Berengarius and us. And this is what we have shewn in the third Tome of the Perpetuity, Book 8. Chap. 21. to be the most incredible of all Chimaeras; so I need no more to prove the second part of the Minor, but to set down here what is written there.

The least spark of common sence perceives instantly, that it was impos­sible that the Latins being mixed throughout the whole East since the Eleventh Age, with those Societies se­parated from the Roman Church, be­ing strongly perswaded of the Real Presence, having it most present in their minds more than any other Article, punishing in the West with all sorts of rigour those who doubted of it, and examining carefully all the points of Belief of these Societies, which did not agree with their own; that these La­tins, I say, should not have perceived, during the whole space of six hundred years, that these Societies had another Faith than they concerning this Arti­cle; [Page 92]or that perceiving they should have thought fit to dissemble it; and that in like manner those Oriental Societies could continue six hundred years, either without perceiving in the Latins that difference of Belief in so important an [...]rticle, or without up­braiding it to them, in so many Wri­tings they made against them.

Of these two parts, which are equal­ly ridiculous, Mr. Claud betakes him­self to the second, in his third Answer, by maintaining that this came to pass by the policy of the Latins upon one hand, and by the timerousness of the Oriental People on the other; and this we have refuted in the General An­swer, by representing only the absur­dity of this supposition, according as we shall set it down here.

Mr. Claud supposes in the Greeks, and in all the other Societies of the East, that is, in an infinite number of Men, a timerousness of six hundred years, hindring them all to rise up a­gainst [Page 93]the Latins, and to treat them as Idolaters on the Doctrine of the Real Presence. He stops the Latins mouth on the same point, by a piece of policy of six hundred years continu­ance. Neither Charity, nor Zeal, nor the natural inclination Men has to tell the Verity, nor Hatred, nor Inte­rest, never makes any of the Latins nor any of the Greeks belye them­selves. The Latins are feared to of­fend the Greeks by this reproach, even then when they are putting them to death; and the Greeks are feared to offend the Latins on this point, even when they are dying for their Religion, or being in security, they abandoned themselves to the greatest violence of their hatred.

And what is yet more wonderful, is, that the means by which the Latins are combined in this politick reserved­ness are so hidden, that they could never yet be discovered in the least; so far ex­tended, that they are practised by the [Page 94]Popes, by the Cardinals, by the Bi­shops, by the Priests, by the Monks; by the Souldiers, and by the curious Travellers; and so efficacious, that they never suffered any one person to bewray the secret. They suffer all the other passions to act against the Greeks, they suffer the utmost rigours to be ex­ercised against them all kind of reproa­ches to be made to them, even such as naturally seems by the thread of the di­scourse to lead to the accusing them of not believing the Real Presence, if it could have been made with truth; but it stops their Pen and Tongue precisely when it comes to the point of passing to that; and this for the space of six hun­dred years, not in one onely place, one onely Town, one onely Province, but in the greatest part of the World.

Here is what Mr. Claud endeavours to perswade those of his Religion, and which he pretends to have rendred probable. Without this twofold sup­position of a timetousness of six hun­dred [Page 95]years, domineering in all the Christians of the East, and smothering all other passions: and that of another Policy equally lasting amongst the Latins, practised by them with an in­violable fidelity, and suppressing also in them all the feelings and inclinations of Nature; Himself must avow that the Greeks, and other Oriental Socie­ties, believe the Real Presence. This is what all his Answers are reduced to. It is this rare invention which is the ground of the extraordinary satisfacti­on he declares he has of his Work. It's by this he pretends to have overthrown the Argument of the Perpetu [...]ty. But if he be a Man to feed himself with his own dreams, I hope there are few who will be of his humour in that, and who will not allow me to conclude against him,

1 That the union of these matters of fact we have set down, proves with an entire certitude, that the Greeks and other Oriental Societies to whom [Page 96]they may be applied, believes th [...] Real Presence, as the union of th [...] same matters of fact proves, that th [...] Calvinists believes the Trinity and In­carnation.

2. That this consequence extend [...] farther, and shews not onely that the Greeks and other Christians of the East, are presently perswaded of that Doctrine; but that they have been always perswaded of it since Berenga­rius; and consequently that includes entirely the matter of fact which is found in the first Volume of the Per­petuity; and that it destroys in parti­cular the whole second Book of Mr. Clauds Answer, to which he had given for Title. Nullity of the Consequence: And which is most easie and most im­portant to make appear.

He strains himself in that Book to prove that the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation, could have been introdu­ced amongst the Greeks and other schismatical Societies, by the mixture [Page 97]of the Latin Church with them, by the Missioners whom the Popes sent thither, and by the power which the Latins had over the Christians of the East. But granting to Mr. Claud all the matter of fact he alledges, there needs no more but to tell him in one word, That they prove exactly the quite contrary of what he pretends, and that it cannot be better proved than by these very same matters of fact.

That which always deludes him, is, that whereas humane Things are tied to innumerable circumstances, which most frequently renders them possible or impossible, easie or difficult, he disjoyns them from all the circumstan­ces to which they are tied, to make metaphysical Questions of them, which he considers in a speculative and abstract manner, as if the matter in hand were of a World separated from ours, whereof we knew no news.

[Page 98]

He examines in the Air that questi­on, Whether it was possible that Tran­substantiation (under which he will have the Real Presence comprehen­ded, though he dare not say it) should be introduced since Berengarius, in the Societies of the East. And he thinks it enough to find some vagrant causes, which has a remote and meta­physical proportion with that effect. Hence it is that he tells us stories which are as useless for him, as they are useful being turned against him. But to undeceive him, there needs no more but to oblige him to consider them such as they are, and to cloath them with all the circumstances which are really annexed to them.

First therefore it is certain that the Latins have not totally reduced these Societies to an union with the Latin Church: if they converted some par­ticular persons, they converted not the whole Body of them: they were not able to make them quit their anci­ent [Page 99]Opinions, nor change their ancient Discipline, to which for the most part they adhere as closely as ever.

Let Mr. Claud then include in the first place this circumstance in the que­stion he treats, and let him examine not whether it be possible in general that the Latin Missioners perswaded all these People of the Doctrine of the Real Presence. But whether it be cre­dible that these Missioners, not having been able to make be received in any of these Societies, neither the Do­ctrines of the Roman Church, nor the points of Discipline in which they dis­agreed from her, nor to pacifie their minds toward that Church, nor hinder them to treat her as heretical; yet they generally succeeded in making be received in all these Societies, a Do­ctrine so strange, as that of the Real Presence must have seemed to those who had been Educated in another Belief.

[Page 200]

He must besides add to this Questi­stion, his double Supposition of a general timerousness amongst all the Oriental Christians, and a general po­licy amongst the Latins, during all the time he appoints for this change; for as in the progress of this introduction, it cannot be shewn that the Greeks, and other Oriental People unconver­ted, did withstand the Latins in this point, or took thence ground to up­braid those who had not yet embraced their Faith; Mr. Claud is bound to shew us that this introduction is possi­ble with these two circumstances; that is to say, he ought to make appear it is possible that all the unconverted Ea­stern People seeing a new Doctrine spread amongst them, did for fear of the Latins, suppress all what natural Jealousie and the Principles of their Religion could furnish them of Reasons and Arguments against so strange a Doctrine, and that all of them suf­fered [Page 201]it without any resistance to be introduced in the whole World.

He must also shew it possible, that all these Missioners, who conversed amongst these People, and who knew them to be infected with the Errour of Berengarius, who all lookt upon this Errour as a damnable Heresie, who instructed them carefully on this point, who saw their Doctrine received by some and rejected by others, could all without any apparent reason, ob­serve a silence on this point so Religi­ous; that none of them accused these Nations of the Errour of Berengarius, none inserted it into the Catalogue of their Heresies; none gave notice there­of to the Popes; none of them made any Books for their Conversion; none used any rigour against those who re­fused to believe the Doctrine of the Real Presence, how great power so­ever he had to use it: That none in any Book made ostentation of the success of his preaching on this point; none [Page 202]is found to admire that astonishing ali­ance of so extraordinary a docility to receive this Doctrine, with so inflexible opiniatorness to reject all other Do­ctrine inculcated to them; and that finally they all conspired to deprive us of the knowledge of so great an e­vent.

This is what Mr. Claud should have undertaken to perswade possible, if he would have destroyed that conse­quence which he impugns in the Title of that second Book, and which he establishes by the whole Book it self. But as he durst not so much as attempt it, there needs no more to renverse all that Book, but to shew him what he had to prove, and to make be observed that the mixture of the Missioners and the power of the Latins over the Greeks and other Oriental Christians proves very ill that they could make them receive the Doctrine of the Rea [...] Presence with these circumstances▪ but proves perfectly that it is impossi­ble [Page 203]on one hand they should not have discovered that Errour in the Greeks and other Eastern Christians, if it had been amongst them; and yet less pos­sible on the other hand, that they should not have upbraided it to them, and endeavoured to root it out, if they had discovered it. Whence it follows, that never having done it, by Mr. Claud's own confession they must have been altogether free of it. It's the only rational conclusion can be drawn from the matter of fact alledged by Mr. Claud in his second Book, and it were to lose time to refute it after another manner. There needs no proof to establish a matter which Rea­son perceives with so great evidence.


Some Consequences which may yet b [...] drawn from this Argument, and which necessarily follows from the a­greement of all Christian Societies in the belief of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, which i [...] proved in this Book.

AS the Scope of this Book was on­ly to illustrate more the Proo [...] of the Perpetuity of the Faith of th [...] Church concerning the Eucharist; [...] think it fit to set down here some Conse­quences which springs from it, and som [...] clearing which may be drawn from it, t [...] overturn the Arguments of the Calvi­nists, and to fortifie the Proof of the Catholicks.

The first of these Consequences i [...] so much the more considerable, that i [...] ruines instantly the chief Objections o [...] [Page 205]Protestants, and cuts off innumerable important Contestations, which over­charging the Understanding, makes it [...]ose the sight of Truth.

These who are acquaint with the man­ner how the Protestants impugns the Doctrine of the Church, concerning this Mystery, knows their strongest endeavours are employed to turn to their own sence, the Words by which Jesus Christ did institute it; and to this they strive to reduce the Question. They make long Treaties, composed of many Metaphysical Arguments, to find their own Opinion in these Words, This is my Body; they employ long Discourses to explain every Term: The Word This, the Word Is, the Word Body, and all that aims to per­swade that these Terms are not to be taken in a proper and literal sence, but ought to be understood in a Figurative and Metaphorical sence, by supposing that Jesus Christ intended only to [Page 206]teach us by them that he made the Bread the Figure of his Body.

As there is nothing less certain than these Arguments, which have no other but obscure Principles, so they agreed not among themselves, but only in the design of impugning the Doctrine of the Church: And when the Question was to explain the meaning of these Words, they fell into the confusion of innume­rable different Explications, which Luther reduces to seven, and compares to the seven Heads of the Beast in the Apocalypse, * Habet sacramentaria secta jam, ni fallor, sex ca­pita uno anno nata: mi­rus spiritus qui sic dissenti­at sibi. Carolstadii [...] fuit una. quae cecidit. Zuin­glii est altera quae cadit oe­colampa dii figuratum & Silesia quae cadit. Cecedit & quarta Carolstadii qui sic verba disposuit, quod pro vobis traditur est cor­pus meum. Quinta surgit jam & stat in Silesia.— Hi omnes spiritus invicem di­versi, argutis dimicant diversis, omnes jactant revelatio­nes precibus & lacrimis impetratas. Luth. Ep. ad Spa­latinum clasis 2. locor, comm. cap. 15. pag. 48. some have placed the Figure in the Word Is, others in the word Body; some have put one kind of Figure in them, some another kind; and by the different Shuffling together of the Explications, [Page 207]they have given to every one of the Terms, they have produced an extream great variety of different meanings. Ca­rolstadius will have the word This, to relate to the Body of Jesus Christ which sate at the Table: Zuinglius rejects this Explication, and will have Jesus Christ to have given no more but a simple Figure of his Body. Cal­vin rejects Zuinglius his sence, no less than Luther's, and maintains they are both in the wrong, (Treatise of the Supper at the end.) Socinus rejects Calvin's sence, and the Quakers re­jects them all.

These differences and variety of O­pinions are inevitable, as often as men will regulate by Philosophical Reflecti­ons and Arguments, these matters whereof they should judge by simple impression, and good sence. One is dazled, and loses himself in these Me­taphysical Cogitations, and ceases to understand what he understood before: and that which breeds no difficulty to [Page 208]those who play not the Philosopher, and follows simply Nature and common Sence, in the signification of the Terms, becomes obscure and inexplicable when it's made the object of these kind of spe­culations. Many Examples of this might be given, but for brevities sake they are omitted.

Certain it is, when Jesus Christ pro­nounced these Words, This is my Bo­dy, he spake not to be understood on­ly by Philosophers and Metaphysici­ans: one the contrary, they are the last to whom he would allow the understan­ding of these Divine Vereties, because their ways are most opposite to the ways of Faith. He designed that his Religion should be followed by multi­tudes of simple People, and those who reasons little, and dives not to the bot­tom of things. Who then can doubt but that we ought to judge of the sence of these fundamental Words, ordained to instruct us in the belief of this My­stery, by that general and common Im­pression, [Page 209]which these kind of People re­ceives, without so many reflections: And consequently that these common Im­pressions are the rule of the meaning of these Words, This is my Body; seeing otherwise it would follow that Jesus Christ should have led into errour all those who following Nature and com­mon Sence, should have bonâ fide un­derstood these Words in the sence they imprint naturally.

The Question then is only to find the simple and natural Impression which the Church has received by these words. Now what more proper means could be made choice of to perceive the sence these words are taken in without Philosophy, and without Metaphysick, in following simply Nature and com­mon Sence, than to consult in what sence they were de facto, taken since the Apostles to this day, by all the Christians of the World, who were not concerned with our Disputes? And this is seen by the agreement of all [Page 210]Christian Societies in the belief of the Real Presence, which we have so clear­ly and solidly proved in this Book; for it's manifest they entered not in that be­lief, but in taking the Words of the In­stitution of the Blessed Sacrament in a literal sence; and in understanding that after the Consecration, the Bread became the true Body of Jesus Christ.

They did not amuse themselves to play the Philosopher on the meaning of the word This, on the meaning of the word Is, on the meaning of the word Body; they did not study the tropes and figures, but without so many boutways, and reflections, they all conceived that it was the very Body it self of Jesus Christ. This is what these words bred in their minds; this is what they expres­sed by their Professions of Faith.

Mr. Claud, and several other Mini­sters, would indeed perswade us, if they could, that there is nothing more natu­ral and easie to find than their figurative sence they give to these Words. For [Page 211]when there is no more to be done but to assert things boldly, and to make shew of much confidence, these Gentle­men never find themselves straitned. But to see how little sincere they are in this matter, there needs no more but to read what we have answered to them in the two first Books of the second Tome of the Perpetuity. Certainly if that figurative sence was so easie to be found, how came it to pass that all these Chri­stians, who compose those great Socie­ties of the East and West, and who for so long a time, have believed the Real Presence, did not perceive it? How came it to pass that Luther * Epistola de argen­tinenses tome 7. Wi­temb. fol. 502. Gra­vibus curis auxius in haec excutienda ma­teria multum desu­dabam, omnibus nervis extensis, me extricare conatus sum, cum probe per­spiciebam hac re Pa­patui me valde incommodare posse... verum me cap­tum video nulla via elabendi relicta; textus enim Evan­gelii nimium apertus est & potens, &c. who sought after it so long time, as a mean which he thought would be so advantage­ous for him to vex the Pope, as he says him­self, could never find [Page 212]it? And that after he had bent all his en­deavours to that purpose, totis nervis extensis, he avows that the Text of the Gospel is so clear, and so strong for the Real Presence, that it was impossible for him to get himself rid of it. How did this figurative sence. I say so easie to be found, not shew it self to this man, who is reputed among them as Calvin (Liv. du. lib. arb. pag. 311. in Opus.) assures us for an excellent Apostle of Jesus Christ, who has erected their Church of new?

Finally, how does Zuinglius, who is also one of their Holy Fathers, declare that several years after he had rejected the Real Presence, he knew not yet how to explain these Words, This is my Body, by these words. This signifies my Body; and that he learned this fa­mous Explication, which he calls a happy Pearl, foelicem Margaritam; only from the Letter of a Hollander, which he found in the Cloakbag of two [Page 213]of his Friends, who came to consult him: * Epistolam istam cujusdam, & docti & pii Batavi, soluta sar­cina communicarum. In ea foelicem hanc margaritam, est pro significat, hic accipi in­veni. Zuing. Ep. ad Pomeranum, Tom. 8. f. 256. and that it was only by an advertisement he had in a Dream, from a Spirit, which he says he knew not whether it was white or black (In subsidio Euchar. Tom. 2. f. 249.) that he learned a passage of Exodus, which he thought most proper to de­fend his Key of Figure, as himself calle it, if this sence was so natural, and so easie to find?

Mr. Claud proposes in his third An­swer, Pag. 26. as a means which he pretends is infallible to assure him that beliefs concerning a Mystery, such as is the Eucharist, are not formaly in certain Passages, where they are said to be, to wit, says he, when the eyes do not perceive them, and that they are not in them, in equivalent Terms, or are not drawn from them by necessary and evident consequents, when common [Page 214]sence does not discern them therein. And he adds, that this proof, although ne­gative, is of the highest degree of evi­dence, and greatest certainty. But not to stay here to shew the horrour as a Christian should have at this impi­ous reasoning, which justifies all He­reticks; for they need say no more than Mr Claud does: If the Truths he would have us believe were in Scrip­ture in formal Terms, our eyes would perceive them; and if they were there in equivalent Terms, or might be drawn thence by evident and necessary conse­quences, our common sence would dis­cern them, &c. For although they do ill in rejecting a Truth, yet it's true that they do not perceive it: Not to in­sist, I say, on this, I need no more but to make use of this Argument against him, and tell him, that if the Belief, and figurative Sence of the Protestants were in formal Terms, in the Words of Jesus Christ, our eyes would perceive them; if they were there in equivalent Terms, [Page 215]or might be thence drawn by evident and necessary Consequences; our common sence would discern them; but after having made an exact search by all manner of ways, our eyes and our com­mon sence declares they are not there in any of these ways; therefore they are not there at all.

What can Mr. Claud deny in this Argument? Not the first Proposition, for it is his own word for word; nor must it be the second, for it is undou­btedly true; because certain it is, that neither our Eyes nor our common Sense discovers to us that figurative sence and belief of Protestants, concerning the Eucharist, where they say it is contai­ned: They are not then there accor­ding to his principle.

Perhaps he will say that our preoccu­pation, hinders us to perceive what seems to him so clear and natural; but besides, that we will say the same to him; we will oppose to him so many millions of Christians of the East and [Page 216]West, who for so many preceeding Ages, believe the Real Presence, and who ne­ver perceived that metaphorical and fi­gurative sence. We will oppose to him Luther, whom Zuinglius considers as one Eye of the Protestant Church, (Ʋnum Corpus sumus, Caput Christus est, alter oculus Lutherus est, Zuing. Tom 2. f. 359.) who could not perceive this figurative sence be so much desired to incommodate the Papacy with, and who was so far from being preoccupied against this figurative explication, that on the contrary he had a violent incli­nation leading him towards it, as he de­clares himself by these words, which he adds in his Letter to those of Stras­bourg: Prohdolor! plus aequo in hanc partem propensus sum. Mr. Claud then must avow that his belief concer­ning the Lords Supper, is not in holy Scripture, seeing we do not perceive it there, and seeing so many millions of Christians never found it there.

I conclude therefore that he is mista­ken, with all those who imagines as he does, that there is nothing so clear and natural, as his figurative sence in the Words of Jesus Christ.

So horrible a mistake in these Gentle­mens measures should indeed convince them, that all their Arguments must be false, and all their ways deceitful: And I see nothing more unreasonable than wilfully to continue to follow Guides, who draws them so far away from the nature and true rule of Expres­sions.

For seeing that the true meaning of the Words of Jesus Christ, is doubtless that which he intended to signifie by these words; and that the sence in which they were to be taken, was not unknown to him; can it be doubted that he had the intention to express the meaning in which these words have been actual­ly taken by all the Christians of the World, for so many Ages by-gone, ra­ther than that in which they were un­derstood [Page 218]by a small number of Berenga­rians in the Eleventh Age, whose Ring­leader did thrice abjure his Doctrine as an Heresie, and by a few Sects of the late Age, who mutually condemn one another of Errour and Impiety, viz. the Socinians, the Anabaptists, the Qua­kers, the Independents, the Calvinists, &c.

I know well that Mr. Claud pretends that the Believers of the first eight Cen­turies, which he calls the fair days of the Church, (Answer to the Treatise part 2. chap. 3. p. 295.) during which he says, errour durst not appear, did understand the words of Jesus Christ in the sence those of his Religion under­stands them: But we have now right to suppose the contrary, as a matter be­yond debate, because we have proved it in so convincing a manner in the last two Tomes of the Perpetuity, that he has not been able to answer to it; and we have so secured the proofs of Catholicks from the Cavils and Subtilties of the [Page 219]Ministers, that it is impossible they can obscure them.

But though we had not shewn, as we have done in these Works, that the Be­lievers of these first Ages had no other Belief concerning the Eucharist, but that which we have at present; it is e­nough to have shewn by unquestionable proofs, which are reduced to a compend in this Book, the union and agreement of all Christian Societies for so many Ages, in the belief of the Real Presence, because that union and agreement de­cides instantly the sence of Tradition, in letting us see, that seeing this Doctrine could not be established by Innovation, it must be the original Doctrine of the Church, and consequently that the Be­lievers of the first Ages, had the same belief concerning this Mystery, as those of the following Ages.

SECT. 9.

The Argument of the Perpetuity serves also to decide the Controversie, con­cerning the meaning of the expressions of the holy Fathers, in matter of the Eucharist.

THe Argument which proves the Agreement of all the Eastern So­cieties with the Roman Church, in the Belief of the Real Presence for so many Ages, does not only shew us Tradition concerning the literal sence of the words of Jesus Christ. It also decides instant­ly the Controversie we have with the Protestants, concerning the meaning of those expressions which are found so frequent in the Books of the holy Fa­the: 1. Tertul. contra Marc. c. 4. Euseb. Caesar. in Parall. Damasc. l. 3. c. 45: Cyrill. Hierosol. 4. Catech. myst Greg. Nyss [...] de Bab [...] Chr [...] ­sti. Aug Serm: 87. de div [...]sis citat: à Beda [...]n Epist. ad Corinth. c. 10.2. Gaud. tract. 2. in Exod. 3. Greg. N [...]ss. Orat. Catech. Amb. de init. c. 4. Cyrill. Catech. 4. myst. Eu­seb. emiss. Sssrm. 5. de Pasch. 4. Justin Mart. Apol. 2. Iraen. l. 4. c. 4. Theoph. Antioch. 6. Chrys. Hom. 83. in Matth. 7. Aug. Ep. ad Ja­nua. 2. Optat. That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ. 2. That of Bread and Wine are made the [Page 221]Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. 3. That the Bread and Wine are changed, converted, and transelemented into the Body and Blood, and in to the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ. 4. That they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after the conse­cration 5. That we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. 6. That we touch and eat the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ himself. 7. That the Body of Jesus Christ enters into the mouth of Belie­vers. 8. That his Body and Blood dwells upon our Altars: That it is the proper Body of Jesus Christ: That we receive truly his precious Body: That it is true­ly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

This Controversie consists to know if these words, and innumerable others [Page 222]like them which are found in the Books of these holy Doctors, ought to be taken in the proper and literal sence, as the Catholicks maintain, or if they are to be understood in a figurative and metapho­rical sence, as the Ministers pretend. Now this Question is decided by the Agreement of all Christian Societies in the Article of the Real Presence since the Apostles, it being they could not believe that Doctrine, unless they had taken these expressions in a proper and literal sence.

I know that Aubertin strives to elude all these passages of the Fathers, which the Catholicks make use of to prove their Doctrine, by proposing other passages which seem like to them, and which both in Scripture and in Fathers are taken in a metaphorical sence: And I must avow, that if in this point he shews no great exactness of Judgment, at least he lets us see he is a man that has read very much; for that collection he makes of Expressions, seeming like to [Page 223]those he would explain, could not have been done without a great deal of la­bour: And I may say, that in taking from this Minister that comparison of metaphorical Passages, with those we make use of, we take from him all what has any show, and what might dazle simple people. Wherefore it is most important to make appear the abuse he makes of these comparisons.

And for this end there are two ways, the one longer, and the other more short. The first is, to set down precisely by Arguments the difference of these ex­pressions which he compares, and to shew that they are no ways alike; and that the one ought to have been under­stood in a metaphorical sence, and the other for simple and literal expressions: And this is what we have done in the second Tome of the Perpetuity, in a manner so convincing, as has made Mr. Claud unable to reply; and we have shewn there, that all these comparisons of expressions which Aubertin makes, [Page 224]are all false, and discovers him to have had no exactness of Judgment.

This way is no doubt very good for those who have leisure to apply them­selves to this examination, and who have their Understandings framed for these somewhat-abstract Considerati­ons: But it is long, because there are a great number of expressions and pas­sages to be explained. And it must be moreover granted, that it is not the ordinary way men uses to discern Ex­pressions by, they distinguish very well those that are different, they do not con­fuse them together, they miss not to give one meaning to the one, and ano­ther meaning to the other, without making express reflections, unless very seldom on the differences that are be­twixt them. Yea, there are many peo­ple who are not capable to make those reflections, and yet never are mistaken in the sence of these different Expressi­ons. How then do they distinguish them? By a simple view of the Under­standing, [Page 225]by an impression which makes it self be perceived, they know these Expressions have different meanings, though perhaps they would be much puzled to point out the difference be­twixt them. It's after this manner that men judges almost of the diversity of all things in the World.

It is then manifest that the common way men has to distinguish Things and Expressions, is the diversity of impres­sions they make upon the mind: So whoever is certain that Words form different impressions on the Mind, knows at the same time that they are different, whether he can or cannot ex­plain what distinguishes them: Men requires no more, and they stand not in need of that perplexity of reasoning.

Wherefore to renverse all those com­parisons of Expressions, which Aubertin has made with so much toil and labour, it is enough to answer, That Impressi­on, which is the more common and surest Rule of the distinction of Expres­sions, [Page 226]distinguishes and sets apart all those he alledges as like; because men by following their impression, have al­ways taken the one in one sence, and the others in another sence.

He says these words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, are like to those others of the Scripture, The seven Cows are seven years: The Rock was Christ: The King is the Head of Gold. But we tell him he is mistaken, and at the same time we let him see it by a certain and decisive proof; to wit, that never any person believed that the Cows were really seven years, nor that the Rock was really Jesus Christ, nor that the King Nebuchadnezzar had really a Head of Gold: But all the Nations of the World, have upon these Words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, believed the consecrated Bread to be really the Body of Jesus Christ, as we have shewn in this little Book, and consequently those Expressions are very far diffe­rent.

He says that expression of St. Gregory Nazianzen, That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, is like to that of St. Jerom, That all what we think, what we say, and what we do, is changed by the fire of the Holy Spirit; or what St. Cyril says, That we are changed into the Son of God: But with­out setting down here what is said in the second Tome of the Perpetuity, Book 6. where we have explained these Ex­pressions, and others which this Mini­ster objects, as like to whose which carries, that the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, &c. and where we have shewn the difference betwixt them: To renverse this Sophism of Aubertin, it is sufficient to say they are certainly different, seeing the one has never imprinted that idea on any person, that thoughts, words, and acti­ons were really changed into a spiritual substance, or that we are really changed into the Son of God: And that the o­thers have perswaded all the Nations [Page 228]of the World, that the Bread was real­ly changed into the very Body of Jesus Christ.

Lo here the surest Rule for the diffe­rence of Expressions, and there needs no more but to apply it to all the false comparisons of Aubertin, and other Ministers, either out of the holy Scri­pture, or holy Fathers: For still we find that the common and universal im­pression of all Nations, has so distingui­shed those Expressions which they pro­pose as like, that they never have con­founded them together; and that they have always taken the one in one sence, and the other in another.

This shews that all the subtility of the Ministers, tends onely to obscure common sence, and their way of ar­guing terminates in blindness, as well as in Heresie. Let men act according to the common impression, and they will have no difficulty to understand that when St. Chrysologue says, That Gold changes Men into Beasts; he does not [Page 229]mean that it changes them really into Beasts: & the same impression has on the contrary made them judge, that when in the Liturgies, we pray God to send his Holy Spirit to change the Bread and the Wine into his Body and Blood, we understand that we pray him to change them really and effectually: they never had the least difficulty concerning the meaning of these expressions: they distinguished them perfectly, and did always take them, the one in a Figu­rative Sence, the other in a Sence of Reality.

What then do the Ministers pretend, when they compare all these Figurative Expressions of the Scripture and Fa­thers, with that in which it's said, that it is the Body, the proper Body, the true Body, the very self same Body of Jesus Christ, &c. and endeavours to per­swade that the one and the others must be taken in the same Figurative Sence. They pretend by the exteriour and ma­terial resemblance of these Terms, to [Page 230]which they apply their minds, to smo­ther the view and clear sentiment, by which we distinguish so neatly those ex­pressions without any confusion; that is to say, they endeavour to extinguish in men, the light of common Sence, and to render them material and stupid, by filling their minds with these vain subti­lities. This is sufficient for any reaso­nable man to reject all that vain Pomp of Comparisons, in which are represen­ted as like these expressions which men have never confounded together as like. And there needs no more to overturn all what is considerable in Aubertins Book consequently the noble Victory, which Mr. Claud sayes * Answ. to the 2. Treatise ch. 1. p. 50. that Book has obtai­ned over the Roman School is no more but a meer illusion of this Minister.

Mr. Claud in his third Answer, Book 5. Chap. 10. allows of this manner of discerning expressions, and even things themselves, by the impression and sen­timent which they form, no less than [Page 631]by an exact observation of the differen­ces which distinguishes them. But he would have us to let him see that in the first six Ages, the expressions of the Fa­thers were taken in a Sence of reality; and the others which the Ministers pro­pose, as like in a Metaphorical Sence; and not to seek that difference of im­pression in the following Ages, suppo­sing that the Doctrine was changed in them. He ought then to be content seeing we have satisfied his demaund, how unreasonable soever it be, for we have proved to him in the second Tome of the Perpetuity, to which he could not answer that difference of expression of the Fathers, as like to those which we produce, and we have confirmed this Proof in the third Tome, and in the general Answer, in such a manner, as he is beaten down under it, in let­ting him see that all he could say to perswade the change he supposes in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, is the most manifest Proof of his want of sinceri­ty. [Page 232]To this comes all he has written to maintain as he has done, with an inflexible opiniatorness, that fable on which he has employed all his Elo­quence, and his big Words. There needs no more, for his silence shews sufficiently that he is convinced.


The figurative Explication, which the Calvinists give to these words, This is my Body, renders them altoge­ther incapable to prove their Belief concerning the Eucharist, to those who deny it.

THere is no Errour which the Cal­vinists have taken more pains to vindicate themselves of, than that of admitting no more but simple Signs, and without efficacy. For as the sus­picion people had, that they taught this Heresie, confirmed by the reproach made them ordinarily by the Lutheri­ans, and even by some Catholicks, ren­dered them very odious, they used all their endeavours to take it away, and shew it was a Calumny. All their Wri­tings, all their Declarations, all their Confessions of Faith are full of formal [Page 234]Condemnations and Anathema's a­gainst that Errour, that the Eucharist conrains no more but simple Figures. * Apud Hospini, hist. Sacrament. 2. part. fol. 124, 128, 135, 147.

Afrer these express Condemnations, they cannot refuse to avow that if this Errour they so earnestly con­demn, and which they charge upon the Socinians and Anabaptists, be a ne­cessary consequence of the Figurative Sence they give to the Words of Jesus Christ, and if this Sence puts them in­to an absolute inability to prove their Belief concerning the Supper; it fol­lows necessarly, according to their Prin­ciple that this sence is false; and that their explication is erroneous. Now there is nothing more easie to prove than this their inability, to justify themselves of this Errour which they condemn, and to prove their Belief to the Socinians and Anabaptists, and all who will deny it; for there needs no more but to propose, what they teach in their Confession of Faith, in [Page 235]their Catechisms, and the Books of those who are Authors of them, and then to require the Proof thereof from the Scripture, which according to them is alone sufficient to ground their Faith.

They say in their Catechism, Son­day 51, where they speak of the Sup­per that Jesus Christ represents to them by the Bread his Body, and by the Wine his Blood. And in the 37 Ar­ticle of their Confession of Faith, That in the Supper, God gives them really and in effect that which he figurates therein. In their 53 Sonday, That Jesus Christ, with whom their Souls are inwardly nowrished, is in this Sa­crament, and that they are made par­ticipant of his proper Substance; or as they speak in their own Confession of Faith, That they are therein nou­rished and quickned by the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ.

It's according to this Perswasion and Belief that Calvin, who is the Author of this Catechism, says, in the 4 Book [Page 236]of his Institutions, Chap. 17 n. 11. That in the Supper, Jesus Christ is re­ally given us under the Signs of Bread and Wine; yea his Body and his Blood by which he has purchased Salvation to us, and thereby we are made par­ticipant of his Substance. And his is conform to what Beza says in the conference of Poissy, as he relates him self in his Ecclesiastical History Tom. 1. p. 496. That the thing signified in this Sacrament is offered and given us of the Lord, as truly as the Signs of it, that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which are truly communicated to us, are truly present in the use of the Sup­per, although they are neither under, nor beside, nor in the Bread and Wine, nor in any other place but in Heaven. And in the pag 515, that we are made participant only of the fruit of Christs death.

This is the Calvinists Doctrine con­cerning their Cene or Supper, and for which we maintain they cannot give [Page 237]Proofs from the Scripture alone unless they renounce the figurative sence, they give to the Words of Jesus Christ.

The question is nor here of the man­ner according to which they say they receive all these things, whether it be by Faith, or otherwise; but of what they receive: nor is the question here of Mr. Clauds analogical and meta­physical Arguments, but of clear and precise Proofs from Scripture, seeing they are solemnly bound to shew there all their points of Faith.

If they alledge these words, Take, eat, this is my Body, a Socinian will answer them, that they should not pre­tend to receive any other thing, than what Jesus Christ has commanded to be taken, but according to them, he intended only to say Take, eat, this is the Figure of my Body, therefore they receive only the Figure, and not the Body.

If they reply, that these Words con­tain a Promise, and that Jesus Christ [Page 238]promised to give them his Body in giving them a Figure of it. The So­cinian will answer, he sees not that Promise in the Words of Jesus Christ, and he will oppose to them what Zuin­glius says Tom. 2. f. 371. That these words of Jesus Christ contain no pro­miss at all, Nihil in his nobis promis­sum est, and on the margent; Christi verba hoc est Corpus meum promissionem nullam continent. And what Calvin says in his manner of reforming the Church, pag. 122. second of his Opusc. that he who seeks in the Sacrament more than the promises contain, the Devil has bewitched him: And he will con­clude from the Principles of these two Reformers, that one ought to seek no more in this Sacrament but a Figure: unless he be bewitched by the Devil.

So that holding to Zuinglius, it must be said the Socinians have reason to laugh at the Promises the Calvinists think to find in these words, This is my Body: and in holding to what the [Page 239] Calvinists says of this Promise, all the Anathema's they pronounce against the Socinians fall back on Zuinglius himself who agrees with them, that there are no Promises in these words, This is my Body.

That is already no small advantage that the chief of all the Sacramentari­ans, he who is pretended to have been raised up by God, to re-build anew the pretended Reformed Church, is anathematized by those who call them selves his Disciples. But lest the fan­cy take them to quite Zuinglius, to preserve that promise, I maintain more­over that Zuinglius reasons well, ac­cording to their common Principles, and it is only Calvin and his Secta­tors who reason ill.

For by what subtility can they discover in these words, Take, eat, this is my Body, taken in a figurative sence, a Promise made by Jesus Christ to give truly his Body? This is a Figure of my Body, is that to say, take, eat, I [Page 240]promise to give you really my Body? Is this a reasonable Conclusion? This is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ, therefore this Figure contains or conferrs really the same Body.

Does not common sence dictate the contrary, that it is not necessary that a Figure contain, or confe [...]r the thing signified; that they are two things al­together distinct: and to use the Ex­amples themselves, alledges to prove their figurative sence; when Joseph says to Pharaoh, the seven Kowes are seven Years, did he mean that the Kowes contained the seven Years. When God said to Moses that the Lamb was the Passage, he meant ac­cording to Protestants, it was the Fi­gure of the Passage, but he meant not that the Lamb contained or conferred the Passage.

These Gentlemen, who make so great use of Logick in all their Books, should they not have acknowledged that the Conclusion depending on two [Page 241]Premisses or Propositions, that which is in question, viz. that the Eucharist contains or conferrs the Body of Jesus can have no connexion with that other, viz. the Eucharist is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ, but by an uni­versal Proposition; viz. all Figures contain or communicate the thing they signify; from which it would follow, that the Eucharist being the Figure of Jesus Christ's Body, it should commu­nicate his Body: but as that Major is extravagant, the connexion the Mini­sters would make of their consequence that the Eucharist communicats the Body of Jesus Christ, or it is effica­cious of the Body of Jesus Christ, with that Explication, that it's the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ, is no less impertinent.

I find not in all the Calvinists Books but one Argument to support this ab­surdity; which is, that it is unbeseem­ing to God to feed us with an empty Spectacle; and therefore, we must cer­tainly [Page 242]believe, that when he establishes a Sign, the verity of the thing signi­fied is also present. Whence they con­clude that God having established the Bread as the Sign of his Body, by these words, This is my Body, the ve­rity of the same Body must be joyned to the Bread, and it must be commu­nicated to us by his Spirit: for, unless one will call God a deceiver (says Cal­vin) he dare not say that a vain Sign, and void of the verity is proposed by him, (Just. book 4. chap. 17. n. 10.)

I protest hitherto it was not possible for me to find the least spark of com­mon sence in this Argument, and I can not enough admire how People who makes so solemn profession, to admit nothing but Scripture, or evident and necessary consequences drawn from it, should take the boldness to propose un­der the name of Holy Scriptures, such reaveries and dreams.

For what ground were there to ac­cuse God of deceiving, if commanding [Page 243]us to take no more but the sign of his Body, he gave no more at the same time but the Figure of his Body? Is it to cheat men, to give them precisely what is promised them? Why is it a vain delusory thing, and unbeseeming God to establish a Figure of a thing ab­sent? Was it a vain and delusory thing to make the Paschal Lamb a Figure of the Angels passing by the houses of the Israelits, when he destroyed the first born of the Egyptians? And would it be to argue in any manner supportable to say according to Calvin's opinion, that seeing the Paschal Lamb was a Figure of that passage of the Angel, therefore that passage must always have been present; otherwise God had been a deceiver in proposing false signs.

Mr. Claud in his Answer to Father Nouet, pag. 320. compares that ex­pression he attributes to the Jews, when they celebrated their Easter: This is the bread of affliction, which our Fa­thers eated in Egypt, to these words [Page 244] This is my Body; and he says, that Jesus Christ, in substituting the me­morial of the new Covenant to that of the Old, he would retain the same form of expression, and in stead of say­ing; this is the bread of affliction, &c. he has said, this is my Body which is broken for you: so that according to this Minister, this Bread of affliction are two Memorials, the one of the Old Testament, and the other of the New, expressed after the same figurative manner * See the answer to this objection of Mr. Claud, in the 2 Tome of the Per­pet. P. 196. in ascribing to the Sign the thing signified. Now it were ridiculous to conclude and say; that the bread the Jews eated in cele­brating their Easter, being the Figure and Memorial of the affliction their Fathers endured in Aegypt, ought to have been accompanied with the thing signified, and communicate to them the efficacy thereof, lest it had been a deceitful sign. It is no less ab­surd, will a Socinian say to Mr. Claud [Page 245]to pretend to prove that the Eucha­rist would be a deceitful sign, if the Body of Jesus Christ were not therein communicate and received.

The institution of Sacraments is an arbitrary thing, depending wholly on the will of Jesus Christ; he has made them the Instruments of his Graces in the New Testament, to which he was not obliged; he could, if he had plea­sed have instituted among the Christi­ans, pure signs, destitute of efficacy, as he had instituted among the Jews; these sig [...]s would neither have been vain, nor false, nor delusory, they would have pro­duced the Effect for which they should have been ordained by God; which is to represent to us the things signified, and this representation having nothing in it self but what's lawful, though God had not annexed any Grace to it, there had been no ground to say that he had deceived men by a vain or empty show. There must then be a promise of Grace joyned to the establishment of a sign, [Page 246]to conclude rationally that the thing signified is joyned with it, and con­sequently these words This is my Body, taken in the meaning of the Calvinists, containing no more but the institution of Bread, as a sign of the Body of Je­sus Christ. It's a manifest absurdity to assert they import a promise and en­gagement on God's part, to give real­ly his Body to those who should take the Signs of it.

Perhaps the Ministers will answer, true it is, the promise of that real re­ceiving the Body of Jesus Christ, which they believe is not contained in these words, This is my Body, but it's con­tained in other Passages, as in the 6 chap. of St. John, and in these words of St. Paul; 1 Cor. 10. The Bread which we break is it not the commu­nion of the Body of Jesus Christ. This is what must be examined in few words.

As to the 6 of John, it is clear they cannot make use of it to prove their [Page 247]belief concerning the Eucharist, seeing they hold with the Lutherians, that the Evangelist speaks not of this Sa­crament in all that Chapter, There is no word of the Supper here, says Cal­vin on the 53 vers. but of the continu­al communication of the Flesh of Christ which we have without the use of the Supper. And he adds, These of Bo­hemia have not adduced this passage pertinently, to prove that all in gene­ral should receive the Cup. They could not then be thought to deal se­riously, if they should alledge this Chapter to prove their belief concer­ning the Supper, since they judge the Evangelist does not speak of it there­in.

As to the passage of St. Paul, I con­fess that being taken in the true sence, which is that of the Real Presence, it includes that of receiving the Flesh of Jesus Christ, which is a consequence of that Presence: But it cannot ratio­nally be concluded according to the [Page 248] Calvinists, for first Zuinglius cuts off at one stroak all the consequences they can draw from it, by pretending that the Greek word [...] does not signifie Communion or Participation of the Body of Jesus Christ, but a com­pany of People who live upon the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that by eating this Bread, one declares himself a member of the Church, Tom. 2 fol. 211.258.342.

Besides this explication of Zuinglius whose Authority should be considerable to the Ministers, because of the rank he holds among those who have erected their Church of new. They them­selves furnish us with others, which de­stroy all the consequences they can draw from that passage: for who can hinder a Socinian to explain these words of St. Paul in a figurative sence, as themselves explain these of Jesus Christ and who can hinder him to say that these words must be so rendered. The Bread which we break is it not the sign [Page 249]or figure of the Body of Jesus Christ, as they render these others, this is the sign or figure of my Body.

Now how can they conclude from thence, that in receiving this Figure, they receive really and in effect the thing figured, unless it be by a great number of groundless suppositions, and by supplying from their own imaginati­ons what the Scripture says not at all. They must then, will they, nill they, confess that the figurative sence they give to the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body is altogether false, it be­ing so manifestly contrary not only to that which all Christians who believe the Real Presence, since the Apostles have given to them, but also to the Principles of the Ministers. They must therefore renounce it to defend their belief concerning the eating and receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in their Supper.

Here is moreover another advan­tage drawn from the main Argument [Page 250]and we cannot sufficiently admire the care the Divine Providence has had to guard this Mysterie of our Faith with so great abundance of Proofs, against the incredulity of men

For it must be observed, that altho' commonly it follows not that he who errs in one Point, errs also in another altogether distinct from it. Yet God has so disposed things, as it follows ne­cessarily, that if the Calvinists err in any one of the Points upon which we accuse them of Heresie; their Doctrine concerning the Eucharist is false, and ours is true. To be convinced of this, there needs only to consider two Prin­ciples, the one of Right, the other of Fact, both equally certain.

The first is, It's impossible the truth of the Mysterie of the Eucharist should be known only by a Society of Here­ticks, and that all other Societies should be in errour, concerning so capital and important a Point; for if this suppo­sition were possible, it would be also [Page 251]possible that the whole World might be in errour, and that there were no Orthodox Church at all, seeing that on­ly Society, which should know the truth of the Mysterie of the Eucharist would be Heretical in all other Points and all the other Societies would be He­retical in point of the Eucharist.

The second is, There is none at pre­sent in the world, but only the Society of the Calvinists, and those who have sprung from it, or have risen up with it, as the Anabaptists, the Socinians, and Quakers, who deny the Real Presence. This cannot be doubted of after the Proofs we have above set down.

Wherefore, it follows necessarily that if the Calvinists had reason to deny this Presence, all the other Societies must have been in errour as to this Point: and it being impossible, ac­cording as I have said, that the truth of this Mysterie should be known only by Hereticks, there needs no more but to convince the Calvinists of Heresig up­on [Page 252]any other Point that's common to them with the Sacramentarians to con­clude, thence demonstrativly that they are also Heriticks in matter of the Eu­charist, because otherwise it would follow, that notwithstanding of their being Herericks, they alone should know the truth of this Mysterie, which is altogether impossible.

Wherefore they are not consequen­ces only probable, but entirely certain and demonstrative: To say the Calvi­nists are Hereticks, in condemning as Idolatry, the Invocation of Saints, the Honour that's given to their Reliques, as is invincibly proved in the Answer to the writing of a Minister, upon se­veral points of Controversie. There­fore their Doctrine concerning the Eu­charist is false.

The Calvinists are Heriticks in re­jecting Prayer for the Dead, in promi­sing Salvation to their Children dead with out Baptism &c, as we have de­monstrated in the last chapter of the [Page 253] Defence of the Faith of the Church, for answer to a letter of Mr. Spon. There­fore their Doctrine concerning the Eu­charist is false.

The Calvinists are Heriticks in be­lieving that the state of the Church was interrupted, in so far as it was necessa­ry according to them, that God should raise up People, in an extraordinary manner, to erect the Church of new, This we have likewise proved, so as admits no reply, in the first part of the Answer to Mr. Spon. There­fore their belief concerning the Eucha­rist is false.

So there needs no more but to con­vince them of errour upon any Point they have taken for pretext of their se­paration from the Catholick Church, to conclude that their belief in point of the Eucharist is false.

How remote soever these particular consequences seem to be from these Principles, the two general Maxims we have fixed; That it's impossible this [Page 254]Mysterie should be known only by He­reticks; and yet the Sacramentarians only deny the Real Presence, joyns and knitts them together by an indisso­luble knot.

Wherefore all the Proofs of other controverted Points, are convictions of the errour of the Calvinists in point of the Eucharist. And this is what ought carefully to be remarked, that it's sufficient to convince them of errour upon any article of Faith whatsomever, to conclude the same of their Doctrine of the Eucharist.

As this Mysterie supports the whole Catholick Religion, so the same whole Religion supports it; all the Proofs, which establishes the several Points, that divides us from the Calvinists, meet and joyn in this, and consequent­ly forms such abundance of light and conviction, that it's impossible those who sincerely open the eyes of their Soul to look upon it, to restrain them­selves from crying out in a rapture [Page 255]with the Royal Prophet, Testimonia tu a credibilia facta sunt nimis. Psal. 92.

SECT. XI. The Conclusion.
Where once more the invincible Strength of this Argument is exposed.

I Can hardly perswade my self that the Ministers, who have so high an esteem of reasoning, as that they ground their Faith upon it, seeing they cannot find it in the Scripture, but by the help of their consequences, can re­solve so to overthrow the Rules thereof, as that not being able to find any thing of falshood either in the Major, or Mi­nor of a Regular Argument, will yet hazard to deny the conclusion of it. [Page 256]And at the same time. I can less under­stand what they can say to obscure the clearness and evidence of what was proved in the Major and the Minor. It seems then there is good ground to con­clude that they will be forced to ac­knowledge, that in the Book of the Perpetuity, it's most solidly proved. that the Faith of the Roman Church, concerning the Eucharist, which is the same with that of all the Oriental Churches, is the ancient and perpetual Faith of the Christians of all Ages, and that consequently their opinion which is contrary thereto, is a manifest He­resy.

Yet this is a thing we do not hope for, unless it be of some particular per­son, whom God may touch by his Grace: But as to the generality of the Ministers, we know their Genius better, than to promise to our self that they will yeeld to the Truth how ma­nifest soever it may be, they are too much infatuate with their ridiculous [Page 257]Opinion of being come out of Baby­lon, as to be able to resolve to return again to it. That which will seem most convincing to them, will pass in their conceit for a song of Tyre, which imi­tats the Tune of the songs of Sion, or for a crafty seducing of the Beast of the Apocalypse, whose horns are like those of the Lamb. They will rather choise to put out their own eyes than to be attentive to it. They will say Mr. Claud has given satisfaction to all that, and it's only an idle repetiti­on of what has been confuted by their most Reverend Brother, and deserves no answer. Or if they make any, it will not be in answering directly and precisely to every Article; and in re­presenting sincerely the Proofs which support all what is asserted, by referring to the Books whence they are taken, being for brevities sake, we were obli­ged not to set them down at length; but they will do nothing but confuse and ravel the Dispute by new incidents, to [Page 258]break the threed of it, and thereby hin­der the simple People of their Party, from seeing so easily the truth through the clouds, wherewith they will endea­vour to cover it.

But do what the Ministers will, I can hardly believe that these who have Wit, Conscience, and Honour a­mongst the Protestants will not be per­swaded by this Argument, that what we believe of the Eucharist, and what all those great Societies of the East, be­lieves with us, is the common and per­petual Faith of the whole Church, and consequently, that of the A­postles.

For as to the matters of fact, which shows the agreement of these Churches either in Beringarius his time, or at this time, they are too well grounded to be questioned in sincerity; so it's not like they can doubt of the truth of the Major, which is proved in Sect. 1. and 5.

And as to the impossibility of an In­visible [Page 259]Change, these matters of fact being supposed, it appears so easily of it self, as it would seem we ought not to have sought Reasons to make it be bet­ter perceived, if Mr. Claud's pertina­ciousness had not obliged us to it: But yet we needed no more, but to lay open the incredible absurdities, which are na­turally included in the imagination of this insencible change, to set the false­hood of this Fable, upon the highest Point of evidence.

All I fear, Gentlemen, is that the ad­herence you have from your Infancy, to a Religion you thought true, hinder you in the middle of this enquiry, and that by a mistaken humility, you dare not contradict your Ministers, for your Fathers did not adhere to the new Re­formers, in forsaking the Church, but because they had inspired them with that criminal presumption, that they ought not make account of the Fathers or Councils, but every one could, and ought to make himself Judge of the Fa­thers [Page 260]and Councils, by the light he should imagine to have found in the Scripture, after having invocated the Holy Spirit: it is most just you make use of the same Priviledge, in respect of your new Masters, seeing hitherto they have not taken the boldness to say they were the only men who might be followed with all security, and without any ground of fear of being misled. This is all I ask of you, your Ministers have so often told you, that you must not believe men in matter of Religion, be­cause all men are lyars. Begine at them with the Practise of this Rule, and with judging of the Rule it self, for perhaps it's not so generally true as they pretend: but making it general they cannot say it's not true in respect of them.

I doubt not but you will confess they have still represented to you Transub­stantiation, which they call a Monster, and the adoration of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, which they call Ido­latry, [Page 461] as two things unknown to the whole world, save only to the Roman Church, and that neither the Greeks, nor the Arminians, nor the Russians, nor the Jacobits, nor the Ethiopians, nor generally, any Christian beside those who submit to the Pope, believes any thing of these two Articles. These are Mr. Claud's words, (Preface of his answer to Mr. Arnaud, pag. 759) and as they all look upon him, as the great Defender of the pretended Re­formed Churches, it's very like they all speak the same Language, & though they should not so boldly maintain so great a falshood, it's most certain they are very careful to conceal from you the general agreement of all these great Societies with the Roman Church, not only in point of the Eucharist, but likewise in many other points; as the Sacrifice of the Mass, Prayer for the Dead, the Invocation of Saints, the Honour of their Images and Reliques, for which they have always induced [Page 262]you to condemn us as superstitious, and Idolaters. You cannot now doubt any more, that they have maliciously dis­guised the Truth to you, concerning all this; what confidence then can you have in them, in beholding clearly that they cheat you in matters of that im­portance, where your Salvation is at the stake.

Perhaps you will say, there is none but Mr. Claud, who is guilty of this fault, and that it's true he is much to be blamed, for denying things so un­questionable, as is the great agreement of all those Churches with the Roman, in all these Points. But as we have al­ready shown them, (Tom. 3 of the Per­petuity, pag, 805.) that it was not, ‘to take part in a procedure so unbe­seeming, and disingenuous, as is that of Mr. Claud, to have suffered in a common Cause, that he who had taken upon him their defence, should esta­blish it upon a notorious falshood, and for four or five years debate, about a [Page 263]matter of fact, which ingenuity & sin­cerity ought to have made be acknow­ledged the first day, ought they not to have publickly disaproved this proce­dure, and not have permitted, that in the enterprise of defending what they take for truth, the truth should be wounded by imposing upon the whole 'East, to believe what it believes not.’

Mean while, consider if there be a­ny Minister who disaproved Mr. Claud during so long a time as that Dispute lasted, and very far from that, there is very lately one of the most Famous and Learned Professours, (Mr. Spanhe­mius) of the united Provinces, who heaps up Praises on Mr. Claud, for the advantages he pretends he has carried in this Dispute, whereof the chief Point was to know, if the Oriental Churches, did really agree with the Roman, in point of the Eucharist, and who with a wonderful confidence, affirms that his Illustrious Brother has exposed to open view, the vanity of the suppositions of [Page 264]his Adversary, by which he can mean no other but the principal matter of fact, which the Author of the Perpetuity had taken for the ground of his whole Discourse, viz. that all the Churches of the World were united in the Faith of the Real Presence, in the time of Berengarius, as they are likewise at this present time. Lo here what Mr. Spanhemius dares call most false sup­positions, vanissimas Hypotheses, al­tho' you see with your own eyes, that they are undenyable truths. But you ought to be much more astonished to see that he is not ashamed, to make the most authentick, and most solemn atte­stations, that ever a Church did give of her Faith, pass for precarious Testi­monies, which ought not be noticed, as having been given by Mercenary Souls, who betrayed their Conscience, in letting themselves be corrupted for money, Tom. 3. of the Perpet. 806.

‘For what can you conclude from that but that among those of your Party, no [Page 265]reguard is had to the truth, and those who reigns in it, by the confidence people has in them, and by the Autho­rity they attribute to themselves, care not by what means they keep the People adhereing to them; that false­hoods are equally good to them as truths, when they produce this effect, and provyding an Author make noise, and be able to amuse the World with the sound of his words, the most in­telligent amongst the Calvinists, are glad to let him be doing, and consi­ders always as an advantage, the im­pression they make thereby upon the generality of their Party.’

But you ought not stop here, it is yet more important for you to consider that Mr. Claud did not engage him­self to the denyal of so certain matters of fact, and the other Ministers to ap­plaud his Art, to colour these falshoods, but because they saw no other way to extricate themselves from the difficulty they were in. To suppose, as they did, [Page 266]that all the Churches of the world had been for nine Ages, without believing the Real Presence, and to find them all united in this Belief at the begin­ning of the eleventh Age, without that any one perceived this change, or any mark or memory of it remaining, is a Chimere so absurd to be maintained, that they themselves were amazed at it. Therefore to give it a little more likly­hood, it was needful, to restrict this In­novation, within the limits of the Latin Church, and to pretend that all the rest had not changed, and were all Berengarians, and had always been such, when Berengarius was condem­ned in the West.

You cannot then be perswaded of the contrary (as there is no man of good sence, but ought to be, by only reading what I have said in the 1 and 2 Sect. and yet more by reading the Chap­ters I have marked of the 1 Tom of the Perpet.) you cannot, I say, be con­vinced of the agreement of the Greek [Page 297]Church of that time, but you must con­clude, that, that pretended Innovation, without which, Calvinism cannot sub­sist, is a work of the Father of Lyes, for it ought to have had place in all the Churches of the World, as well as in the Roman; which they well saw was so in­conceivable, as Mr. Claud cryes out for fear, lest he be necessitate to shew how its possible that insensible change was made at the same time, over all the World, The Question is not of the whole World, The Question is of the Occident, and of the Provinces subject to the O­bedience of the Pope.

But the condition of the Greeks at present, and of all the other Oriental Communions threw back your Mini­sters into the same difficulty: for if they had granted, that they also held all at present the Real Presence, Tran­substantiation, and the Adoration, and are perswaded they never had another Faith, whom could they have made be­lieve that this had happened four or five hundred years since, by an insen­sible [Page 268]change in all these Communions, of whom many have no connexion with one another, it being they mutually ac­cuse others of Heresie, without so much as one person perceiving the Innova­tion. Therefore it was needful to say farther, that it was false the Oriental Churches were of this Faith, and that this could not be true, but only of some Latinised Greeks, and not at all of the true Greeks.

But they are of this Faith, whether Mr. Claud will or not, you are doubt­less perswaded thereof. But beware, lest for want of application, to the most important Affair you have in the world, which is that of your Salvation, you smother the natural consequences you ought to draw from this conviction, for you ought to say,

1. Our Ministers have cheated us hi­therto, in denying many years perti­naciously, and as far as can be judged against their own Consciences, in a dispute of Religion, a thing which is [Page 269]more clear than the light of the day, we have then no reason to trust our selves to so blind guids, and so void of sincerity.

2. They deny or dissemble matters of fact, so certain and important to be known, for no other Reason, but be­cause being acknowledged to be true, the pretended Innovation in the be­lief of the Eucharist, in all the Churches of the World cannot subsist; I cannot then be convinced, as I am of the truth of these matters of fact, but I must also be convinced that that Innovation is a dream invented by Au­bertin and other Ministers, because they saw well without that they could not hinder themselves from being looked upon as Innovators and He­reticks.

3. Its not only in the belief of the Eucharist, that these great Oriental Societies agree with the Roman Church; it is also in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in Prayer for the Dead, in [Page 270]the Invocation of Saints, in the Ho­nour given to their Reliques and Ima­ges, which our Ministers incessantly represent to us, as Doctrins of Ante­christ, for which we ought to have made separation from the Roman Church, and which are the most com­mon subject of their invectives a­gainst that Church▪ Now I see clearly all that is ill grounded, since all other Christian Communions, who are not subject to that pretended Antechrist, have on all that, the same Faith which the Roman Catholicks have: I have therefore great reason to fear, that I cannot in conscience continue to stay with Calumniators and Schismaticks, and consequently, I cannot do better than to return back whence our Fa­thers ought not to have come forth:

I think there is no intelligent Person will deny these consequences to be just; yet it is so great a matter to change Re­ligion, that the conviction of the under­standing is not sufficient for that ef­fect, [Page 271]God must besides, touch the Heart with his Grace, Prayer must beg this Favour from him, and Hope must expect it from his Mercy.


Approbation of the Doctors,

WE underwritten Doctors in Theologie, of the faculty of Paris, do certify we have read [...] Book, Entituled, The Faith of the Catholick Church concerning the Eucharist, invincibly proved, &c, with a Preface in form of a Letter to the Gentlemen of the pretended Reformed Religion, by M— We have found them conform to the Rules of Faith, and most profitable for the conversion of Heriticks: The Author sets down therein, in Abridgement, what is contained in several Volumns, to the end he might facilitate the means of being instructed of the Truth of this great My­stery, to those who might not have the leasure to read these Volumns entirely. This is the judgement we [...] [...]ke of this little, but excellent Work, at Paris, the o [...] of November, 1683.

  • AUGET of the House of Sorbon,
  • RICHER of the House of Navarr.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.