SECT. 1. ARGUMENT.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SECT. 5

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.

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.

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.

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.

SECT. 7.

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.

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.

SECT. VIII.

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 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.

SECT. X.

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,

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.