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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 â—lear-sighted having suckt in this opinion with their Milk made it pass for truth Hinc contigit says Aubertin pag. 443. â—ut in sequenti saeculo quamvis literatiâ—res facti hac tamen opinione cum lacte â—mbuti illam tanquà m 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 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 it s 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 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 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 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 unvaâ—iable certainty which suits not at all with his Desires And so it falls out that he reckons
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 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 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 vâ—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 But here it s 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 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 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 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 Teâ—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 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 these Actions which should have flowed from it have not been observed by any Author And that in the telling us
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 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 Vnum 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 by a small number of Berengarians in the Eleventh Age whose Ring-leader 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 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. Nyssâ— de Babâ— Chrâ—sti Aug Serm 87. de divâ—â—sis citat à Beda â—n Epist ad Corinth c. 10.2 Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. 3. Greg. Nâ—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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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