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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
that all of them suffered it without any resistance to be introduced in the whole World. He must also shew it possible that all these Missioners who conversed amongst these People and who knew them to be infected with the Errour of Berengarius who all lookt upon this Errour as a damnable Heresie who instructed them carefully on this point who saw their Doctrine received by some and rejected by others could all without any apparent reason observe a silence on this point so Religious that none of them accused these Nations of the Errour of Berengarius none inserted it into the Catalogue of their Heresies none gave notice thereof to the Popes none of them made any Books for their Conversion none used any rigour against those who refused to believe the Doctrine of the Real Presence how great power soever he had to use it That none in any Book made ostentation of the success of his preaching on this point none is found to admire that astonishing aliance of so extraordinary a docility to receive this Doctrine with so inflexible opiniatorness to reject all other Doctrine inculcated to them and that finally they all conspired to deprive us of the knowledge of so great an event This is what Mr. Claud should have undertaken to perswade possible if he would have destroyed that consequence which he impugns in the Title of that second Book and which he establishes by the whole Book it self But as he durst not so much as attempt it there needs no more to renverse all that Book but to shew him what he had to prove and to make be observed that the mixture of the Missioners and the power of the Latins over the Greeks and other Oriental Christians proves very ill that they could make them receive the Doctrine of the Reaâ— Presence with these circumstances but proves perfectly that it is impossible on one hand they should not have discovered that Errour in the Greeks and other Eastern Christians if it had been amongst them and yet less possible on the other hand that they should not have upbraided it to them and endeavoured to root it out if they had discovered it Whence it follows that never having done it by Mr. Claud's own confession they must have been altogether free of it It 's the only rational conclusion can be drawn from the matter of fact alledged by Mr. Claud in his second Book and it were to lose time to refute it after another manner There needs no proof to establish a matter which Reason perceives with so great evidence SECT VIII Some Consequences which may yet bâ— drawn from this Argument and which necessarily follows from the agreement of all Christian Societies in the belief of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which iâ— proved in this Book AS the Scope of this Book was only to illustrate more the Prooâ— of the Perpetuity of the Faith of thâ— Church concerning the Eucharist 〈◊〉 think it fit to set down here some Consequences which springs from it and somâ— clearing which may be drawn from it tâ— overturn the Arguments of the Calvinists and to fortifie the Proof of the Catholicks The first of these Consequences iâ— so much the more considerable that iâ— ruines instantly the chief Objections oâ— Protestants and cuts off innumerable important Contestations which overcharging the Understanding makes it â—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 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 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 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
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