The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
An Examination of the Conſequences which Mr. Arnaud draws, from the pretended Conſent of all the Chriſtian Churches, in the Doctrines of Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence.
Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Conſequences.
WE may juſtly lay aſide Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book, ſeeing it conſiſts only of Conſequences, which he draws from the conſent of all Churches, in the Doctrines of the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, by ſuppoſing he has proved this conſent ſince the 7th. Century to this preſent. For having overthrown as we have done his Principle, we need not much trouble our ſelves about its conſequences. Yet that we may not neglect any thing, I ſhall make ſome Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book, and that as briefly as I am able.
The firſt Conſequence.
THE firſt Conſequence bears, That the conſent of all Churches in the Book 10. ch. 1.Faith of the Real Preſence, explains and determines the ſenſe of our Saviours words. To eſtabliſh this Propoſition, he ſays that the Miniſters endeavour to ſtretch theſe words, This is my Body, to their ſenſe, by an infinite number of metaphyſical Arguments, which have only obſcure and abſtracted principles. That they uſe long diſcourſes to expound ſeparately each word as the term this, the word is, and the word Body. That by this means that which yields no trouble (when a man follows ſimply the courſe of nature and common ſenſe) becomes obſcure, and unintelligible. That ſuppoſing in like manner a man ſhould philoſophiſe on theſe words, Lazarus come forth, it's no hard matter for a man to entangle himſelf with 'em; for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body ſeparately, nor the Soul and Body together, but a mere nothing. Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave. That our Saviour did not ſpeak to be only underſtood by Philoſophers and Metaphyſicians, ſeeing he intended his Religion ſhould be followed by an infinite number of ſimple people, women and children, perſons ignorant of humane learning. That we muſt then judg of the ſenſe of theſe words by the general and common impreſſion which all theſe perſons receiv'd without ſo many reflections. That to find this ſimple and natural impreſſion we muſt conſult the ſenſe wherein they have been effectually taken for the ſpace of a thouſand years, by all Chriſtians in the world which never had any part in our Diſputes. That our Saviours intention was rather to expreſs by theſe words the ſenſe in which they have been effectually taken by all Chriſtians in the world, which was not unknown to him; than that in which they have been underſtood in theſe latter days by a few Berengarian & Calviniſtical Philoſophers. That he has right to ſuppoſe as a thing certain, that ſince the 7th. Century, all Chriſtians throughout the whole earth have held the Doctrine of the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, and that this conſent of all people for a thouſand years is ſufficient to ſhew what the ſimple impreſſion is, and conſequently the real ſenſe of Chriſts words. This is the ſummary of his firſt Chapter.
The firſt Reflection.
THE deſign of this whole diſcourſe tends to caſt men into horrible confuſions. I grant our Saviour intended not to ſpeak ſo as to be underſtood only by Philoſophers, but on the contrary, that his Religion ſhould be embraced by infinite numbers of ignorant people, women, and children, and perſons uncapable of deep reaſoning. But if the ſenſe of theſe words muſt be ſought in the conſent of all Churches, theſe women and children, and ignorant people will be hard put to it to find it. How few perſons are there capable of themſelves to make this inquiſition, for which they muſt have skill in Languages, read two hundred Volumes, or more, attentively examine 'em, diſtinguiſh the times, places and occaſions, conſider the circumſtances of paſſages and drift of Authors, compare the various interpretations, and do in a word a thouſand things neceſſary to prevent their taking one thing for another? And as for thoſe that ſhall take this task upon 'em under the guidance of another, how many cheats are they to beware of? How ſhall they be certain that they ſhall have no falſe Authors impoſed upon 'em for true ones, forged Writings attributed to Authors, or falſe Paſſages, corrupt Tranſlations, and falſe Explications to give them another ſenſe than the natural one, that they ſhall not be impoſed on by captious Arguings or frivolous Anſwers, yet well coloured; that they ſhall not be tired with fruitleſs diſcourſes to wear out their patience, and attention, and by this means make 'em fall into the Net. All this has been hitherto done, and I do not find ſuch as be guilty of this do amend whatſoever complaints have been made. I grant one may find the true ſenſe of our Saviour's words in the conſent of all Churches: But is it not a more ſhort, ſure, and eaſie way to ſeek it by conſidering the words themſelves, by comparing them with other Sacramental Expreſſions, by the nature of the Ordinance which our Saviour inſtituted, by the circumſtances that accompanied it, the deſign he propoſed in it, by his ordinary ways of expreſſing himſelf, by the other words he added, by the ſenſe wherein, according to all probability his Diſciples underſtood him, by the explanations which S. Paul gives of it, and in ſhort by the genius and univerſal Spirit of the Chriſtian Religion. Whether a man makes this inquiſition by himſelf, or under the direction of another, 'tis certain that the way which we offer is far leſs troubleſome and dangerous, eaſier and better accommodated to the capacity of the common people, than that of the conſent of all Churches. Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes this conſent from the 7th. Century to this preſent, becauſe he believes he has proved it. But were this ſuppoſition as certain and true in the main, as 'tis falſe and imaginary, it can reſide no where but in the imagination of thoſe that have read his Book. And how many are there in the rank of the ſimple people that never read it? Of thoſe amongſt 'em that have read it, how few have been capable to underſtand and Judg of it? Are they able to diſcern whether his citations be true or no, whether his Paſſages be faithfully tranſlated, his Arguments concluſive, his Atteſtations allowable; and whether he has not concealed ſeveral things which ought to be known on this ſubject, for a man to be throughly informed in it? After all, reaſon requires 'em to ſuſpend their judgments till ſuch time as they have ſeen my Anſwer. And ſuppoſing my Anſwer does not ſatisfie 'em, how know they but that my weakneſs or ignorance has prejudiced the Cauſe I defend? In the mean time what will become of the Faith of theſe ſimple perſons, if they will make it depend on the conſent of all Churches, touching the ſenſe of our Saviours words. Mr. Arnaud under pretence of ſearching ſhort ways, throws men into ſuch labyrinths out of which 'tis impoſſible to get out.
Second Reflection.
I grant that the true ſenſe of our Saviours words muſt be the ſimple and natural one. We diſpute touching this ſimple and natural ſenſe. Mr. Arnaud will needs have it to be that of Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence, we affirm 'tis the Sacramental or figurative one. Suppoſing we could not on either ſide find out this ſimple and natural impreſſion which theſe words do of themſelves make in the minds of men, by reaſon of our Diſpute, and that we muſt go ſearch it amongſt thoſe that be free from theſe prejudices, it is not reaſonable we ſhould ſtop at thoſe that lived ſince the 7th. Century till now, to the prejudice of the firſt ſix ages. We muſt on the contrary begin from the ſix firſt. Tradition, ſaid one, not long ſince, In the Remarks on the requeſt of M. D' Ambrun, 9th. Remark.whoſe word ought to be regarded, muſt begin from the Apoſtles, and paſs on till this preſent by an uninterrupted ſucceſſion. The firſt then that are to be conſulted, for the finding this ſimple impreſſion, muſt be the Apoſtles that heard immediately theſe words from our Lords own mouth. We muſt ſearch the Hiſtory of the Goſpel to ſee whether there be any thing that diſcovers they took 'em in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation, whether they have been ſurpriz'd by any aſtoniſhment, or raviſhed with admiration, or troubled with ſome doubt, whether 'tis likely they were imbued with principles on which this ſenſe is eſtabliſhed; as that a body ſhould be in ſeveral places at once, and accidents ſubſiſt without their ſubſtance, &c. And whether they were not on the contrary imbued with ſome maxims very oppoſite to this ſenſe: as for inſtance, that to drink Blood was a crime ſtrictly forbidden by Moſes's Law, that the ſigns were called after the name of the things which they ſignifi'd, and whether it appears from any of their words or actions, that they adored the Euchariſt. And 'tis here I think we ought to begin, and afterwards come to S. Paul, and examine whether in what he has ſaid on this ſubject, or any others, there be any thing that ſhews he believed Tranſubſtantiation. We muſt afterwards diſcuſs age after age, what the Fathers of the ſix firſt Centuries have written on it, conſult the Commentaries which they have expreſly made on theſe words, and in ſhort endeavour by an attentive meditation throughly to diſcover their ſenſe. But to lay aſide the Apoſtles, and the firſt ſix Centuries, to begin this enquiry after the ſimple and natural impreſſion which theſe words have made in mens minds by the 7th. and 8th. following ones. 'Tis as if a man ſhould go out of Paris to learn the news of France, in the furthermoſt parts of that Kingdom. But 'twill be reply'd, theſe Centuries were not prepoſſeſſed by our Diſputes: I grant it. But they may have had other prejudices which have diſturbed this ſimple and natural impreſſion which we ſeek. What likelihood is there of finding it pure, according as we deſire it, in Greece, ſince the fancies of Damaſcen have been in vogue, whom the Greeks eſteem as another S. Thomas, according to Mr. Arnaud; but whom Mr. Arnaud durſt not follow himſelf no more than we, whether Damaſcen believed the aſſumption of the Bread, or only the union of it to the Body of Chriſt in the manner I have proved and explained? How can it be expected to be found pure amongſt the Copticks, Armenians, Jacobites, Neſtorians, Egyptians, ſince theſe people have fallen into ignorance, groſs Errors and Superſtitions wherein they ſtill remain. A man that is acquainted with the Hiſtory of the Emiſſaries ſent from the Latins into all theſe Countries ſince the 11th. Century till this time without intermiſſion, may not he juſtly ſuſpect that the Emiſſaries have troubled the purity of this Impreſſion? Howſoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the ſix firſt Ages than in the following ones, and conſequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries ſince that time.
The third Reflection.
Mr. ARNAƲD unjuſtly accuſes the Miniſters for embroiling the ſenſe of theſe words, This is my Body: But we may with greater reaſon charge the Scholaſticks and Controvertiſts of the Roman Church with it, who have made I know not how many gloſſes, and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambroſe Catarin has written of it, Let the Reader conſider, ſays he, the labour and anguiſh which Ambroſ. Cat…r, Tract. de verb. quibus conficitur, &c.almoſt all Writers have undergone, when we demand of 'em the ſignification of this Pronoun, This; for they write ſuch a multitude of things, and thoſe ſo contrary to one another, that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too cloſely conſiders 'em. The Miniſters give theſe words a ſenſe very plain and natural, which neither depends on obſcure and abſtracted Principles, nor metaphyſical notions. If they argue either to eſtabliſh their ſenſe, or ſhew that theſe words can ſuffer no other, their arguings lie in obſervations which are clear and intelligible: as for inſtance, the word this cannot ſignifie any thing elſe but this Bread, and that the whole propoſition muſt be taken as if our Saviour had ſaid, this Bread is my Body; and to make this propoſition intelligible, we muſt neceſſarily give it a figurative ſenſe, for one and the ſame ſubject cannot be literally both Bread and Body. I grant we muſt not Philoſophiſe on theſe words, Lazarus come forth. Neither is there ever a one of us that ſets himſelf to Philoſophiſe on 'em; we underſtand ſimply by Lazarus a perſon whom our Saviour raiſed from the dead in the very moment he called him, as God made light at that very inſtant wherein he ſaid, Let there be light. The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expreſſions are affected difficulties. But thoſe which ariſe from the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones, not by abſtracted and metaphyſical arguments, but becauſe never man ſaid, this is ſuch a thing, to ſignifie that the ſubſtance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the ſubſtance of another, humane language will not ſuffer it.
The fourth Reflection.
Mr. ARNAƲD in vain oppoſes the ſenſe of Philoſophers and Doctors to that of ſimple perſons, and ſuch as are not capable of any deep reaſoning, to find out the true natural impreſſion which our Saviours words make on the minds of men, without ſtudy and reflection. This natural impreſſion ſince a thouſand years to judg thereof only by Hiſtory is a thing abſolutely unknown and undiſcernable to us for two reaſons; the firſt, that the ſimple are not guided by the moſt natural impreſſion, they are led by that which their Doctors and Philoſophers give them, for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people uſually believe what their guides teach 'em, and not what their firſt ſenſe dictates to 'em. The other reaſon is, that whatſoever we can know of the belief of Churches ſince a thouſand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands. Now theſe Books were wrote by Doctors and Philoſophers, who may have given us their Speculations, and thoſe of the ſame opinion with them, what they have learn'd in the Schools, or what they themſelves have imagin'd, rather than the ſimple and natural impreſſion of people.
The fifth Reflection.
'TIS ill reaſoning to ſay that the ſenſe which ſeems to have prevail'd ſince the 7th. Century, be it what it will, (for I examine not at preſent what that is) muſt neceſſarily be the true ſenſe of our Saviour, under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words, in this Century, and in the following ones. The myſteries of his preſcience, and thoſe of his providence touching the errors wherein he ſuffers men to fall are unknown to us. Neither is it permitted us to pry into them. He has ſuffered men to underſtand in the three firſt Centuries what is ſaid in the Revelations touching his reign of a thouſand years, in the ſenſe of a terreſtial Kingdom. He has permitted men in the 4th. and 5th. Centuries to underſtand commonly theſe words, If ye eat not the Fleſh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, ye will have no life in you, of the neceſſity there is of receiving the Euchariſt to be ſaved. The ways of God are beyond our reach, and we muſt never judg of the true ſenſe of his word, by the opinions which are prevalent amongſt men.
Second Conſequence.
Mr. ARNAƲD's ſecond Conſequence is, That the conſent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2.Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Preſence during the eleven laſt Ages being proved, determines the ſenſe of the words of the Fathers of the ſix firſt Ages. His Arguments are the ſame which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd. That 'Tis againſt nature, ſenſe, and reaſon to ſuppoſe the ſame expreſſions were uſed for ſix hundred years ſpace in a certain ſenſe by all the Chriſtian Churches, and that in all the other enſuing Centuries, they have been uſed in another ſenſe, without any bodies perceiving this equivocation. That 'tis contrary to nature to ſuppoſe all the maſters of one opinion, and all the Diſciples to be of another, and yet ſtill to ſuppoſe they followed the ſentiments of their Maſters.
The firſt Reflection.
THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the ſtate of the Latin Church in the 11th. Century (when the conteſts of Berengarius hapned) to determine that of the whole Church ſince the Apoſtles time. Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches conſent ſince the 7th. Century determines the ſenſe of the Fathers of the ſix firſt. We have likewiſe ſeen in the 7th. Chapter of his Book that he aſſerts that to judg rightly of the expreſſions of the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, we muſt ſuppoſe they conſtantly and univerſally believed Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence, and that this ſuppoſition muſt determine the ſenſe of their words. What can we think of all theſe circuits, but that they are illuſions, which plainly enough ſhew that theſe Gentlemen find but ſmall ſatisfaction in their inquiries into the firſt ſix ages. Were Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence apparently taught in them, what occaſion would they have of making them enter by machins, and mount up to them from the later Ages. It is then certain that theſe ways of reaſoning, theſe ſuppoſitions and arguments from the bottom to the top, are ſo far from perſuading us what Mr. Arnaud deſires, that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion, which is, that theſe Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church.
The ſecond Reflection.
'TIS conſonant to reaſon to imagin, that in the laſt Ages the queſtion whether the Euchariſt be the ſubſtance it ſelf of our Saviour's Body, or not, having been agitated with great heat, thoſe who held the affirmative have abuſed the general expreſſions of the ancient Fathers, and endeavoured to turn them to their ſenſe. This is a thing that happens every day in the ſmalleſt conteſts, in which every one deſires to ſet off his ſentiments and confirm them by paſſages taken out of the Fathers to ſhelter himſelf thereby from the reproach of innovation. It is likewiſe eaſie to imagine that thoſe who but ſlightly apply themſelves to the ſtudy of Theological Points are ſoon cheated by falſe appearances. We ſee but too many examples of this. It is in ſhort eaſie to conceive that Diſciples may deviate from the Doctrine and ſenſe of their Maſters under divers pretences. The Diviſions of Chriſtians in points of Religion have almoſt all of 'em hapned in this manner, the Diſciples were not content to keep pace with their Maſters but have went beyond 'em, and often overrhrown their real ſentiments under pretence of explaining and illuſtrating what they ſaid with leſs perſpicuity. When Scholars are become Maſters, they no longer look upon themſelves as Scholars, but Doctors, and in this quality 'tis no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions, which they endeavour to eſtabliſh on the teſtimony of thoſe that preeeded them; and for this effect take their words in a contrary ſenſe: The people eaſily receive what their Doctors teach 'em; and as to the Doctors, there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty. One ſingle perſon may ſometimes impoſe on a whole aſſembly, and engage them into his opinions, which afterwards ſhall paſs for the true Doctrine of the Church.
The third Conſequence.
Mr. ARNAƲD's third propoſition is conceived in theſe terms, Lib. 10. cap. 3.That all the ſeveral inſtances of expreſſions produced by Aubertin to ſhew that a man may take in a metaphorical ſenſe the paſſages by which the Catholicks eſtabliſh the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation are in no wiſe alike. To eſtabliſh this propoſition, he ſays, there are two ways by which we may know whether the expreſſions which appear at firſt alike are in effect different. The firſt is to mark preciſely by reaſoning the difference of theſe expreſſions, and to ſhew they are not alike. The ſecond is to diſcern them by opinion, by a ſimple view of the mind, and by an impreſſion which makes it ſelf felt altho it cannot be expreſſed. Applying afterwards this remark to his ſubject, he ſays, that the expreſſions of the Fathers touching the Euchariſt having been taken in the ten laſt Centuries in a ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation and reality, and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical ſenſe, there muſt of neceſſity be a great difference between them ſeeing they have made ſuch different impreſſions, and that opinion has ſo well diſtinguiſhed them. This is the ſummary of his third Chapter.
The firſt Reflection.
WE are agreed concerning this manner of diſcerning the expreſſions, and the things themſelves, by opinion, as well as by an exact remark of the differences which diſtinguiſh them. But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may ſerve as a principle to draw thence certain concluſions, he muſt ſuppoſe that this ſentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by falſe prejudices, nor ever be deceived by eſtabliſhing imaginary differences, where there are no real ones. I grant that in the laſt Ages the expreſſions of the Fathers have been taken in a ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation, whereas never any man underſtood thoſe which we ſay are alike but in a metaphorical ſenſe; this is a ſign they were regarded in thoſe Ages as different expreſſions; but it does not follow that they be different in effect, unleſs it be ſaid that the ſentiment of thoſe Centuries is infallible. It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in reſpect of one thing, and at the ſame time fall into error in reſpect of another whatſoever conformity there may be between them. A man may be ſometimes miſtaken by confounding, as if they were alike ſuch expreſſions as are not ſo, and then again take for different expreſſions ſuch as be alike. As we never pretended that the men of theſe later ages are miſtaken in all things, ſo Mr. Arnaud muſt not pretend they are right in every thing.
The ſecond Reflection.
THE method which Mr. Arnaud propoſes for the diſcerning the different expreſſions of the Fathers from thoſe which are alike, is deceitful. For if we muſt for this end rather follow the way of ſentiment than that of reaſon, 'twill be then at leaſt juſt to conſult the ſentiment of thoſe Ages wherein the Fathers lived, and that of perſons to whom they ſpake, and not the ſentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been diſturb'd by new notions. Let Mr. Arnaud then ſhew us if he pleaſes that in the firſt ſix Ages the expreſſions of the Fathers touching the Euchariſt were taken in a ſenſe of reality and Tranſubſtantiation, and the others which we produce as being alike, in a metaphorical ſenſe, and we will ſee what uſe we muſt make of his Rule. But to ſeek this difference of impreſſion or ſentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed, will be an apparent deceiving of our ſelves, ſeeing 'tis not poſſible but what he calls the ſentiment or impreſſion has been altered by the change of Doctrine.
The fourth Conſequence.
THESE three firſt conſequences are attended by a fourth, which is, Book 10. Ch. 4.That moſt of the expreſſions which the Miniſters pervert againſt the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine. The equity, ſays Mr. Arnaud, of this Conſequence is apparently viſible. For why muſt theſe terms ſubſiſting, in Authors that lived ſince the ſeventh Century, with the perſuaſion of the Real Preſence, be inconſiſtent with this Doctrine in the ſix preceding Ages? And why muſt not nature which has put later Authors upon making uſe of them without prejudice to their ſentiment produce the ſame effect in the firſt Ages? And in fine, what difficulty is there in underſtanding theſe terms of the Fathers of the firſt Ages, in a ſenſe that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine, provided this ſenſe be found authoriz'd by the conſent and practice of the ten following Ages.
Reflection.
Mr. ARNAƲD ſeeming to forget the diſtinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made, and which he himſelf has ſometimes uſed, concerning a natural language, and one that is forced, will not I ſuppoſe take it ill if I remember him of it, and uſe it againſt his pretended Conſequence. There is a difference between the expreſſions which the Fathers uſe on the ſubject of the Euchariſt, and the ſame expreſſions in Authors of later Ages. The laſt borrowing ſometimes the expreſſions of the Fathers have at the ſame time declared themſelves in favour of Tranſubſtantiation, or the Real Preſence; the former have done nothing like this. The firſt have left their expreſſions in the full extent of their natural ſenſe without any miſtruſt of their being abuſed. The laſt have commonly reſtrained and mollified them by violent expoſitions, and ſuch as are contrary to their natural ſenſe, as well knowing they may be uſed againſt themſelves. The firſt have uſed them indifferently in all occaſions, becauſe they contained their real opinion, but the laſt have uſed 'em only accidentally as the neceſſity of their diſcourſe required. The firſt have likewiſe uſed without any difficulty other emphatical expreſſions which the laſt dared not uſe, for, dare they ſay for example what Theodoret and Gelaſius have ſaid, that the Bread loſes not its nature or ſubſtance: dared they ſay what Facundus ſaid, that, the Bread is not properly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but is ſo called becauſe it contains the myſtery of it? whence it appears that when they uſe any of the Fathers expreſſions, 'tis by conſtraint, becauſe they muſt endeavour to accommodate, as much as in them lies, their ſtile to the ſtile of the Ancients, whereas the Ancients delivered themſelves in a natural manner. We muſt then make another judgment of theſe expreſſions when we find them in the Fathers, than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages ſince Tranſubſtantiation has been eſtabliſhed. There they explain the real Belief of the Church, here they are expreſſions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief, which is expounded in another manner. There they muſt be taken in their natural ſignification, here in a forced and forein one.
THE natural ſenſe of theſe words of Juſtin, Ireneus, Cyril of Jeruſalem and ſome others, that the Euchariſt, is not mere Bread, common Bread, is, that it is in truth Bread, but Bread that is Conſecrated. The ſtrained ſenſe of theſe words is, that 'tis only Bread in appearance, and in reſpect of its accidents.
THE natural ſenſe of theſe words which are frequently uſed by the Fathers, that our Lord called the Bread his Body, that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body, that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body. That our Saviour made an exchange of names, giving to the Bread the name of his Body, and to his Body that of the Bread. Their natural ſenſe is, I ſay, that the Bread without ceaſing to be Bread, has aſſumed the name of Chriſt's Body; the forced ſenſe is, that the Bread takes the name of it, becauſe the ſubſtance is really changed into the ſubſtance of this Body.
THE natural ſenſe of the paſſages of the Fathers which aſſert the Bread and Wine are ſymbols, ſigns, figures, images of our Lords Body and Blood, is, that by the conſecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of being the myſtical ſigns of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, without loſing their own nature. The forced ſenſe is either that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is the ſign of it ſelf, or that the accidents, that is to ſay, the appearances of Bread and Wine, are ſigns.
IT is the ſame in reſpect of other expreſſions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their ſtile, in giving 'em ſtrained ſenſes and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients. To take from us the liberty of making uſe of them, we muſt firſt be ſhew'd that the Fathers themſelves have taken them in this extraordinary and diſtorted ſenſe. Otherwiſe we ſhall ſtill have reaſon to uſe them according to their natural and ordinary one.