The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 8

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part · Book 5 · Chapter 8

p. 71CHAP. VIII.

An Examination of theſe Expreſſions of the Fathers, That the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt, properly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the true Body, or truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

IT is now eaſie to perceive that all theſe preparations, with which Mr. Arnaud would clog his Readers mind, is only a handſom excuſe for the weakneſs of his proofs; and an authentick declaration that he could not find the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence in Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries: for had he any thing to alledg that was conſiderable, 'tis evident he would never have taken ſo many circuits; and this is a certain ſign, that theſe Doctrines were neither eſtabliſhed nor known in the Church, during thoſe ages; and this will appear more clearly if we caſt our eyes on the paſſages he has produc'd, there being never a one of 'em that preciſely contains the Converſion of the ſubſtance of Bread, or ſubſtantial Preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, nor from whence they can be neceſſarily inferred.

FIRST, They cannot be infer'd from all thoſe clauſes of the Liturgies which term the Euchariſt, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and Mr. Arnaud could Lib. 8. Ch. 3.not buſie himſelf to leſs purpoſe than to collect, as he has done, all theſe paſſages drawn from the Roman Order, the Liturgy called The Maſs of Illyricus, The Book of the Sacraments, which Menard a Benedictin Monk publiſhed. Not to ſay the Book of the Roman Order, as we have it at this day is a Treatiſe made by an Author of the 11th. Century, as appears by the Teſtimony of Honorius D' Autun, who attributes it to Bernoldus, or Bertoldus Honor. Auguſt. de Script Eccl. Joan. Morin. Exercit. 9. de Diacon. cap. 1. pag. 169. col. 2. ſ. 5.a Prieſt of Conſtance that lived in the time of Henry IV. which was towards the end of the 11th. Century. This Bernoldus is he that continued the Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus to the Year 1100. and wrote ſeveral Tracts in defence of Pope Gregory VII. which ſhews us that his Book cannot be alledged in this Diſpute. So likewiſe Morin acknowledges 'twas written after the Year 1000. And Menard who will not have Bernoldus to be the Author, yet grants he was the Corrector of it; and that he put in and Menard Praef. in lib. Sacram. Gregor.out, what he thought good, to make it more according to the reliſh of the Church in his time. Neither ſhall I inſiſt upon the Liturgy publiſhed by Illyricus, being a very uncertain piece, either as to its antiquity, or purity, as Menard has obſerved.

BUT not to enter into this diſcuſſion, it ſuffices me to ſay that the name of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt attributed to the Euchariſt, does no wiſe conclude what Mr. Arnaud pretends, which is, that 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in proper ſubſtance. Does he think we have forgot ſo many illuſtrations which the Fathers, even thoſe of the 7th. and 8th. Century have given us Iſid. hiſp. Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19. De Officii Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 18. Beda Comment. in Marc. 14. & in Luc. 22. Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom.Mark 14Luke 22touching this way of ſpeaking: as for inſtance what S. Iſidor ſays, That by the command of Chriſt himſelf, we call Body and Blood that, which being the Fruits of the Earth, are ſanctified and become a Sacrament. And elſewhere, The Bread is called the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe it ſtrengthens the Body; and that the Wine refers to the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe it makes the p. 72Blood in the Veins. Bede holds the ſame language, The Bread and Wine do myſtically repreſent the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe the Bread ſtrengthens the Body, and the Wine produces Blood in the Fleſh. The ſame Author, on the 6th. of the Romans, teaches after S. Auguſtin, That if the Sacraments had no reſemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments; that 'tis by reaſon of this reſemblance we give them the names of thoſe very things which they ſignifie; and that as the Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Sacarment of his Blood, his Blood, ſo the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. One of theſe paſſages is a thouſand times more conſiderable and deciſive of our Queſtion, than whatſoever Mr. Arnaud can produce from the Liturgies; becauſe theſe paſſages are formal explications of theſe other expreſſions which attribute to the Euchariſt the name of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; and any man of ſence will never be prevail'd on by this confuſed heap of Citations wherein the name of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or of the Body of our Lord is given to the Sacrament, as ſoon as he ſhall hear Iſidor, Bede, or ſome other famous Author of thoſe Ages in queſtion, who explains to him theſe ways of ſpeaking. We muſt rather believe thoſe Authors when they expound themſelves, than Mr. Arnaud who heats himſelf to little purpoſe, and would prepoſſeſs the world with his own notions and fancies.

MOREOVER, Can Mr. Arnaud imagine the world takes no notice of ſo many other expreſſions ſo frequent in the Liturgies, and Authors of theſe ſame Centuries, mentioned by us, which call the Euchariſt, the Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the myſtery of our Lords Body, the Sacrament of his Incarnation, the Sacrament of his Humanity, the myſtery of his Humiliation, the Sacrament of his Paſſion, the image of his Sacrifice, which the Church Celebrates in remembrance of his Sufferings. It is certain that theſe paſſages wherein we find theſe expreſſions, are as ſo many Commentaries that help us to a right underſtanding of the others, whence Mr. Arnaud would draw advantage; becauſe 'tis very ordinary and natural to give to a Sacrament, which is a ſign, a memorial, and an image, the name of the thing which it repreſents, according to the obſervation of S. Iſidor himſelf, We are wont, ſays he, to give to Images the names of thoſe things which they Iſidor Com. in lib. 1 Reg. cap. 20.1 Kgs 20repreſent. Thus are Pictures called by the name of the things themſelves; and we ſtick not to attribute to them the proper name. As for inſtance, We ſay this is Cicero, that Saluſt, that Achilles, this Hector, this the River Simois, this Rome; altho theſe are only the Effigies or Pictures of them: The Cherubins are heavenly powers, and yet theſe Figures which God commanded to be made on the Ark of the Teſtament to repreſent ſuch great things were not otherwiſe called than Cherubins. If a man ſees in a dream a perſon, he does not ſay I ſaw the Image of Auguſtin, but I ſaw Auguſtin, altho Auguſtin in this moment, knows nothing of this Viſion; and Pharaoh ſaid he ſaw ears of Corn, and Kine, and not the images of theſe things.

'TIS eaſie to comprehend the meaning of the terms of Sacrament, and Bela hom. eſtiu. de temp. Dom. 13. & Dom. 17. & Dom. 24. & alibi paſſim id Expoſ. Alleg. in Cantic. Cantic. cap. 3. & de tab. lib. 2. cap. 3. Aug. in Pſal. 3.Song 3Ps 3Myſtery of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, for they ſignifie, that the Bread and Wine are ſigns or figures that repreſent the Body and Blood which Jeſus Chriſt aſſumed for our ſakes; abaſing himſelf ſo far as to be our Brother, and ſuffering the Death of the Croſs to Redeem us. Thus muſt we underſtand the title which Bede gives very often to the Sacrament, calling it the myſtery or the Sacrament of our Lords Incarnation; for he means 'tis an action wherein by myſtical Symbols men repreſent his Incarnation. We p. 73cannot give another ſenſe to that which he calls ſeveral times, the Sacrament, or myſtery of his Paſſion; for his paſſion is only therein figured or repreſented. We muſt then underſtand by the Sacrament or the myſtery of his Body, the figure or repreſentation of his Body. And in effect what S. Auſtin ſaid on the third Pſalm, That Jeſus Chriſt gave to his Diſciples the Figure of his Body. Iſidor expreſſes in this ſort, That Jeſus Chriſt gave to Iſidor. in lib 2. Rog. cap. 3. Bed. queſt in 2 Reg & in Pſ. 3.Ps 3his Diſciples the myſtery of his Body. And Bede in two places of his works expreſſes himſelf in the ſame manner as S. Auſtin, that he gave the figure of his Body, which ſhews they took theſe terms, the Myſtery of the Body, the Sacrament of the Body, the Figure of the Body for one and the ſame thing. Now theſe expreſſions give us eaſily to underſtand what the Church of thoſe Ages pretended, when ſhe applyed to the Euchariſt the term of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; for ſhe deſigned only to attribute the name of the thing it ſelf to the ſacred ſign it repreſents: and there's no likelihood, that Authors of thoſe times that made ſo ſcrupulous a profeſſion to follow S. Auſtin, even to the copying out his Writings to inſert them in their own in proper terms, as appears from Iſidor's Books, Bede's, Alcuinus; I ſay there's no likelihood they would forget what their Maſter had ſaid touching this Myſtery, the Lord ſcrupled not to ſay, This is my Body, when he gave the Aug. contr. Adimant. c. 12.ſign of his Body.

'TIS to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus, Proeſta Domine Jeſu Chriſte fili Dei vivi, ut qui corpus & ſanguinem Ch. 3. p. 749, 750.proprium pro nobis datum edimus & bibimus fiat nobis ad ſalutem, & ad redemptionis remedium ſempiternum omnium criminum noſtrorum. Which he thus tranſlates, O Lord Jeſus Chriſt grant to us, that having eaten thy proper Body, and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howſoever unworthy, that this Communion may be to us a ſpring of Salvation, an eternal remedy for the redemption of us from all our crimes. Corpus & ſanguinem proprium do only ſignifie Corpus & ſanguinem tuum, thy Body and Blood, not the Body and Blood of another, as the ancient Prieſts cauſed to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body. For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us, gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament; nor that our mouths receive their proper ſubſtance, the Liturgy does not ſay ſo, but becauſe they receive the ſigns and tokens of 'um, whilſt our ſouls receive this Body it ſelf and Blood ſpiritually.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would perſuade us theſe paſſages of the Liturgies which term the Euchariſt the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Preſence. To prevent, ſays he, Ch. 3. p. 751, 752.the peoples miſtakes by all theſe terms of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Prieſts muſt have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt, they meant only its figure. This ſenſe muſt have been expreſly explained in all the Liturgies, and an Officer appointed to make it thus underſtood by the people; for otherwiſe 'tis impoſſible but they muſt fall into the opinion of the Real Preſence. And this effect being neceſſary and inevitable, it ought to have been the chiefeſt care and buſineſs of the Fathers to hinder it, had they not themſelves been of this opinion.

ALL this diſcourſe has nothing in it but what may be eaſily anſwered. We have already ſufficiently replyed to it. 'Tis true this term of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt taken ſeparately imprints immediately the Idea of the natural Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but this ſame term applyed to the Euchariſt, p. 74(which both ſenſe and reaſon ſhew us to be Bread, which Religion makes us comprehend as a myſtery that repreſents the Incarnation and Paſſion of our Saviour) does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. There needs no Officer appointed on purpoſe to give notice of this to the people, nor ſound of Trumpet to publiſh it, (as Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks in another place.) Senſe, Reaſon and the common notions of Religion were Officers ſufficient to give this Idea, and publiſh this to be the ſenſe of this term when applyed to the Euchariſt. When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun, the day Star from on High, the light of the World, the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world, I do not find that it ſetled Officers on purpoſe to give notice, that it meant not a corporal Light, or Sun, but a Myſtical one. I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give notice to the people, that that Lamb commonly called the Paſſover, that is to ſay, the paſſage, was not really a paſſage but only the commemoration of a paſſage. S. Paul did not make uſe of one when he wrote, that we are buried with Chriſt by Baptiſm, that we are made the ſame plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Reſurrection, that we are new Creatures, that there is a new man formed in us; and I know not how many other expreſſions which are eaſily underſtood by the bare conſideration of the matter to which they are applyed. The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor, Jeſus Chriſt, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, the ſame Jeſus Chriſt that ſhed his Blood for us, who was delivered and put to death for us, not his Prophets but he himſelf. Neither have they employed one when they called the Church, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, properly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the undoubted Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, not his Veſtment, but himſelf; nor when they ſaid, that we are one and the ſame perſon with him, the ſame Body, the ſame ſubſtance by Faith, that we are transformed into him, changed into his Fleſh, changed into his Body. Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world muſt have a great many Officers; for there's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical uſe of theſe terms, but even the exaggeration of them.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpoſe whatſoever paſſages he could find here and there not only amongſt the Latines now in queſtion, but likewiſe from amongſt the Greeks, Copticks, Ethiopians, Armenians, Neſtorians, which bear that the Euchariſt is the very Body of Jeſus Chriſt, his proper Body, or properly his Body, his real Body, his true Body. I ſhall reply to this heap of paſſages in two manners, firſt in general, and ſecondly in particular.

IN general, I ſay, there is not one of theſe expreſſions which is ſufficient from whence ſolidly to conclude that thoſe which have made uſe of them believed the ſubſtantial Preſence which the Roman Church teaches, either becauſe there is not one of 'um but is uſed on other ſubjects wherein evidently there's neither Tranſubſtantiation nor the Real Preſence, becauſe they are all capable of another ſenſe, and that they may have been employed in other reſpects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them.

To begin by that of the Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt, we now ſee the Fathers have uſed this term on occaſion of the poor, God, ſays Chryſoſtom, Hom. 15. in Rom.has given his Son, and you refuſe to give bread to HIM HIMSELF p. 75who was given for you, who was ſlain for you; the Father has not ſpared him for your ſakes, altho he was his only Son, and you neglect him altho he dies with hunger. And in another place, When we give Alms let us give it as to Hom. 89. in Matt.Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, for his Word is more ſure than our ſight. When then you ſee a poor body, remember what he has ſaid, that 'tis HIMSELF whom you feed. For altho that which appears be not Chriſt, yet is it HE HIMSELF that receives and asks under this ſhape. And moreover in another place, Somebody perhaps will ſay to me, bring me a Prophet and I will willingly entertain him; promiſe me then this and I will bring you a Prophet: what ſay I a Prophet? I will bring you the Maſter HIMSELF Hom. in Eli. & vid. Valerian. Hom. 7.of the Prophets Jeſus Chriſt our God, our common Lord. Know, ſays Valerian, that he whom you ſee naked, blind, and crooked is Jeſus Chriſt HIMSELF. We have already likewiſe ſhewed that this expreſſion is uſed by the Fathers in the ſubject of the Church. We are not enjoyned, ſays De Sacerd. l. 4.Chryſoſtom, to diſtribute our Corn, or Oats, nor to take care of Sheep or Oxen, or ſuch like things, but to take care of the Body IT SELF of Jeſus Chriſt; for the Church of Jeſus Chriſt, according to the words of S. Paul, is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. S. Auſtin ſpeaks often to the ſame effect, The Body IT Auguſtin in Pſ. 87. Serm. 49. De verb. Dom.Ps 87SELF of Jeſus Chriſt, ſays he, cries out in a Pſalm, They have aſſaulted me even from my youth. And in another place, Behold the charity of our Lord, He is now in Heaven, and yet is in labour here below when the Church is in affliction. Jeſus Chriſt is an hungred and a thirſt, he is naked, a ſtranger, ſick, a priſoner; for he has ſaid, he ſuffers whatſoever his Body ſuffers, and at the end of the world when he ſhall gather together his Body IT SELF at his right hand, &c. And again in another place, You hold an eminent Serm. 53. De verb. Dom.rank in the Body IT SELF of Jeſus Chriſt, not by your Merits, but by his Grace. Jeſus Chriſt HIMSELF, ſays he in another place, that is Sedul. lib. 5. oper. Paſ. 6. 13.to ſay, his Body diſperſed through the whole world preaches Chriſt. They ceaſe not, ſays Sedulius, to rend by their Schiſms the Lord Jeſus Chriſt HIMSELF. Let us worſhip, ſays Damaſcen, the ſign of the Croſs, for HE HIMSELF Damaſ. l. 4. de fid. Orthod. c. 12. Alcuin. lib. 2. in Joan. Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.is there where the ſign is. His Body IT SELF, ſays Alcuinus, in the midſt of the afflictions of this world glories and ſays, now my head is exalted above mine enemies. The Son is man, ſays Etherius and Beatus, he is the Head of his Church which is joyned to this Head, and ſo becomes whole Chriſt, that is to ſay, the Head and the Body one only perſon.

AS to the terms of proper and properly, we ſhall find them likewiſe applied to ſeveral ſubjects wherein we cannot literally underſtand them. Origen expounding thoſe words of our Saviour concerning the Euchariſt, This is my Body, Jeſus Chriſt, ſays he, receiving always of his Father this Bread, Orig. in Mat. hom. 35.and breaking it gives it to his Diſciples, according to what every one of them is able to receive, ſaying to 'um, Take, eat; and when he fed them with this Bread, he ſhewed that 'twas his PROPER BODY. SO Heſychius expounding theſe words of Moſes, If any one has vowed and conſecrated to Heſych. in Lev. lib. 7.God the Field of his poſſeſſion, it ſhall be valued according to the meaſure of the ſeed: No body doubts, ſays he, but the Field is the holy Scripture. Jeſus Chriſt is PROPERLY the Vine of this Field, and the Father is the Vine dreſſer. Deſpiſe not the poor whom you behold on the ground, ſays Greg. Nyſſ. Or. 1. …r. am.Gregory of Nyſſe, as if they were vile and abject perſons; conſider rather who they are to know their worth. They are cloathed with the perſon of Jeſus Chriſt. For this gracious Lord hath given them his PROPER perſon. Good people, ſays S, Auſtin, are properly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. We might produce Aug. con. Fauſt. lib. 13. cap. 16.a thouſand ſuch like inſtances, for there's nothing more common in the p. 76Fathers than the uſe of theſe expreſſions in paſſages wherein there is no literal ſenſe.

THE term proper has ſeveral ſignifications. 'Tis true that ſometimes it is oppoſed againſt metaphorical or figurative, an improper or abuſive ſenſe; as when we ſay of an expreſſion that it muſt be underſtood, in a proper ſenſe, that is to ſay, in a literal; but it is oppoſed ſometimes to that which is foreign to us, which is not ours, which belongs not to us; as when we ſay, every man takes care of his proper buſineſs, proper houſe, proper family, proper perſon, in oppoſition to the affairs, houſe, and family of others. And then we ſcruple not to joyn this term to other metaphorical ones. We ſay for example of a man that miſuſes his Children, that he tears his own Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. Greg. Nyſſ. Orat. 2. in illud faciamus hominem, &c. Iſidor. Peluſ. Epiſt. lib. 1. Epiſt. 397.proper bowels; of a Husband that hates his Wife, that he hates his own proper fleſh. It is in this ſenſe Clement Alexander ſaid, The Church was the proper Spouſe of Jeſus Chriſt. And Gregory of Nyſſe, That God formed our bodies with his proper hand. And S. Iſidor, That the Law baptized with ſimple water, but our Saviour Chriſt iniates or conſecrates us by his proper Blood. Sometimes this term is oppoſed to that of common; as when we ſay to a man that 'tis of him we properly ſpeak, that 'tis properly to him to do ſuch a thing: or when we ſay that 'twas properly in ſuch a place, or in ſuch a time wherein ſuch a thing hap'ned. And then moreover we do not ſcruple to joyn this term to other figurative terms, as when Origen ſaid, That God Origen Hom. 1. in Mat. Greg. Nyſſ. hom. 7. in Cant.the Father is called properly the fountain of life. And Gregory of Nyſſe, That thoſe who at this day take upon 'um the office of Prophets in the body of the Church are properly called the eyes. It is certain then Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from theſe expreſſions, unleſs he ſhews that theſe two laſt ſignifications cannot take place in the paſſages which he alledges, and that we muſt unavoidably take them in the firſt ſenſe; that is to ſay, for that which is literal and not figurative.

THE terms of true and truly are likewiſe often uſed in occaſions wherein they cannot ſignifie either a literal verity, or a reality of ſubſtance; and Mr. Arnaud does himſelf acknowledg that we find in the Fathers, That Jeſus Ch. 5. p. 781.Chriſt is truly the gate and houſe of Refuge, that he is truly the Rock and the Fire, that he is truly Bread, truly a Shepherd, truly an Altar; that his Incarnation is truly a flame, that he which imitates the works of Abraham, is truly the Son of Abraham, that the knowledg of God is truly a fountain; that he that meditates on the Law of God is truly a tree planted by the waters ſide, that Jeſus Chriſt is properly and truly the light, that he is Noah in truth.

TO hinder us from making advantage of theſe examples, Mr, Arnaud ſays, That when of two things, the one ſtands for a figurative truth, and the p. 780.other ſerves only for a figure, men commonly uſe the word true and proper when even the term to which 'tis joyned is metaphorical. Thus, adds he, We ſay the Chriſtians be the true Iſraelites, that Jeſus Chriſt is the true Melchiſedec, that the Church is the true Spouſe of Jeſus Chriſt, that Jeſus Chriſt is the true Sun, the true light, the true Vine, becauſe that the carnal Iſraelites were but the figure in reſpect of the Chriſtians, that Melchiſedec was the figure of Jeſus Chriſt, that the viſible Sun is only the image of the inviſible Sun, which is Jeſus Chriſt, that the terreſtial Vines repreſent to us the coeleſtial one, that humane Marriages are the figure of the union of Jeſus Chriſt with the Church. And the reaſon of theſe expreſſions is moreover the ſame as that of others. For 'tis clear the thing figured contains more truly the quality denoted by the figure, p. 77which has it only in repreſentation. Let a man but read, ſays he moreover, the other examples, and he'l find that 'tis always the figure which is affirm'd of the thing figured, and that the word verè, which is thereunto added, ſignifies that this thing figurated does really contain the quality which the figure poſſeſſes only in repreſentation: and therefore it is that theſe expreſſions cannot be changed. 'Tis ſaid that Jeſus Chriſt is truly a ſtone, that he is truly a door, truly the light, the true Noah. But we do not ſay the ſtones, the doors, the light, &c. are truly Jeſus Chriſt. We ſay the Apoſtles are the true Iſraelites, but we do not ſay the Iſraelites are truly Apoſtles. 'Tis ſaid that a good man is truly a Tree planted by the Rivers ſide; but not that a Tree planted by the River ſide is a good man. We may ſay then according to this ſenſe, that Jeſus Chriſt is truly Bread, truly Wine, becauſe he poſſeſſes by way of exeellency the qualities figured by the Bread and Wine; but we cannot ſay in this ſenſe that the Bread and Wine of the Euchariſt are truly the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt; becauſe the Bread and Wine do not ſtand here for a thing figured, nor the Body of Jeſus Chriſt for a figure.

THE firſt reflection to be made on this diſcourſe is, that he refutes and overthrows the Argument which the Doctors of the Roman Church do commonly draw from our Saviours words in the 6th. of S. John, My fleſh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink: For if the term of truly may be applied to the thing figured, to ſignifie that it contains by way of excellency the qualities of the figure, the meat and drink ſtanding for a figure, and the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt ſtanding for the thing figured, there's no longer any reaſon to conclude from theſe words that the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are meat and drink properly in a literal ſenſe, than there would be to conclude from thence that Jeſus Chriſt is literally a Door and a Sun, Noah, and Melchiſedec; that a good man is really a Tree, and that the Chriſtians are literally Iſraelites under pretence there's uſed in 'um the term of truly. When then we ſhall be offered this expreſſion of our Saviour, My fleſh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink, we need only deſire that Mr. Arnaud may be the judg of this difference; for what he now ſaid decides clearly the queſtion in our favour.

IN the ſecond place, ſuppoſing what he offers were abſolutely true, yet the conſequence which we draw from theſe examples would for all that be good and ſolid; for 'tis ſufficient for us to ſhew that the terms of true and truly comprehend not always a reality of ſubſtance, and that very often they only ſignifie a reality of virtue or quality. Now this is what apears clearly by theſe examples. 'Tis ſaid of Jeſus Chriſt that he is truly a Sun, a Stone, a Door, becauſe the qualities of the Sun, of a Stone and a Door are in Jeſus Chriſt, and that he has in our reſpect the vittue of all theſe things. Mr. Arnaud confeſſes it, why may we not then as well ſay, that the Bread of the Euchariſt is truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, by ſuppoſing that this Bread hath the virtue and efficacy of it? I grant it cannot be ſaid of a figure that 'tis truly the original; this cannot be unleſs when we conſider it as a meer figure under the reſpect of a repreſentation only; but what hinders us from applying this term to a thing which has all the virtue of another, and which will make us feel all the effects of it, whether it be otherwiſe the figure of it or not? The Goſpel does not contain the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but only its virtue; and yet Etherius and Beatus aſſert, that 'tis truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. What is this Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.Bread, ſay they, which we every day pray for, which is ours, and which yet p. 78we do not receive, unleſs we ask it? 'Tis truly the Body, know ye, 'tis he himſelf that is our daily bread. Ask it, receive it, eat it every day. Read we the holy Scriptures, and we ſhall find therein this Bread. I believe that the Goſpel, the Scriptures, the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, are the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. For when our Lord ſays, He that eateth not my Fleſh, nor drinketh my Blood, &c. Altho theſe words may be underſtood ſpiritually and myſtically, yet the daily bread which we ask corporally, and which is TRULY the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and his Blood, is the word of the Scriptures, the Divine Doctrine; and when we read it, we eat the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt and drink his Blood. The Author of the Commentary on the Pſalms attributed to S. Jerom, has ſo little believed that, the term of truly applyed to the Euchariſt, when 'tis ſaid that 'tis truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ought to be underſtood of a truth of ſubſtance, that he has not ſcrupled, comparing the Euchariſt with the words of the Goſpel, to affirm that its words are more truly this Body. I believe, ſays he, that the Goſpel is the Body of Com. in Pſal. 147.Ps 147Jeſus Chriſt, his holy Scriptures I ſay and his Doctrine. And when he ſays, he that eateth not my Fleſh, nor driuketh my Blood; altho this may be underſtood of the myſtery, yet the Scriptures, the Divine Doctrine is MORE TRULY the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

THIS term of truly applies it ſelf not only to a thing which hath the virtue of another, and which communicates it to us ſpiritually ſuch as is the word of the Goſpel in reſpect of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, it applies it ſelf likewiſe to a thing which is not another, but only by imputation. Chryſoſtom ſpeaking of a poor body, and calling him a man, corrects Chryſoſt. hom. 11. in Rom.immediately his expreſſion, as if it were not juſt. A man, ſays he, or to ſpeak better Jeſus Chriſt, foreign, which his interpreter Brixius has thus rendred, Hominem autem, ſeu verius dicam Chriſtum ipſum. In effect this correction foreign, denotes the ſence of Chryſoſtom is, that a poor body is more truly Jeſus Chriſt than a man, and yet it cannot be ſaid he is truly Jeſus Chriſt in verity of ſubſtance. He is only ſo by imputation; inaſmuch as Chriſt our Saviour accepts whatſoever is done to the poor as done to himſelf. S. Hierom in his Commentary on the Epiſtle to the Galatians uſes the ſame term of truly on the ſubject of the Church, altho it be not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt but myſtically and morally. The Church, ſays he, is taken in two reſpects, either for that which has neither ſpot nor wrinkle, and which is TRƲLY the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or that which is aſſembled in the name of Chriſt without the fulneſs or perfection of vertues, which Claud Biſhop of Auxerrus, or rather of Turin, who was an Author of the 8th. Century, has inſerted word for word in his expoſition of the ſame Epiſtle, The Church, ſays he, which has neither ſpot nor Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl. all… gor. in Tobiam.Gal 1wrinkle, and which is TRƲLY the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. The ſame expreſſion may be met with in Bede, As our Lord, ſays he, is the Head of his Church, and the Church is TRƲLY his Body, ſo the Devil is the head of all the wicked, and the wicked are his body and members.

IN all theſe examples I now alledged, concerning the Goſpel, the Poor, and the Church, Mr. Arnaud cannot ſay that Jeſus Chriſt, or his Body ſtand for a figure; nor that theſe things, ſtand for figured truths. For the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is not the figure of the Goſpel, nor our Saviour the figure of a poor man; and the Church, to ſpeak properly, is not the truth figured by the Body of our Lord. Yet do the Fathers aſſure us that this Goſpel, and this Church are truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Poor p. 79are truly Jeſus Chriſt. Whence it follows, there's nothing more vain than Mr. Arnauds remark, That we cannot ſay the Bread and Wine of the Euchariſt are truly the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe the Bread and Wine ſtand not for a thing figured, nor the Body of Jeſus Chriſt for a figure. On this Maxim the Fathers could not ſay the Church is truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Goſpel truly this Body; nor that the Poor are truly the Lord himſelf; and yet they have ſaid it as well as that the Euchariſt is truly the Body. Granting Mr. Arnaud one cannot ſay a figure, as a figure, is really the thing it ſelf which it repreſents, he can hence conclude no more but this, that what the Fathers have ſaid of the Bread of the Euchariſt, viz. that it is truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, they did not ſay this in reſpect of the Bread being a figure; but this does not hinder 'um from ſaying it on other accounts, either inaſmuch as that the Bread is accompanied with the whole virtue of the Body, or inaſmuch as it communicates this virtue ſpiritually to our ſouls.

THERE are ſo many ſeveral reſpects wherein we may ſay the Sacrament is the true Body, or truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, without any regard to its ſubſtance, that 'tis matter of real wonder to me Mr. Arnaud ſhould ſo vehemently urge thoſe terms, and pretend 'um to be ſuch a great argument. For example, thoſe that conſider the Hereſie of the Marcionites, and Manichees who denied our Saviour Chriſt aſſumed a true Body, and allowed only a phantaſm, might not they ſay of the Euchariſt that 'tis our Lords true Body, to ſignifie it to be the myſtery of a true Body, and not the myſtery of a falſe and imaginary one, ſuch as theſe Hereticks attributed to him, in the ſame ſenſe as a Roman Catholick who has regard to the falſe Idea which the Jews form to themſelves of a temporal Meſſias may well ſay of a Crucifix, or another image of our Saviour, that this is the true Meſſias who was to come into the world, in oppoſition to the fantaſtical Meſſias of the Unbelievers.

THOSE that reſpect the truth of the words of our Saviour, who called the Bread his Body, might not they likewiſe ſay, 'tis truly his Body, not to determine the ſenſe of theſe words, but to eſtabliſh only the certainty of them, and repreſent 'um true beyond all queſtion, in the ſame ſenſe in reference to prophane perſons who ſcoff at the words of S. Paul, who tells us that we are buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, and made one and the ſame plant with him through the conformity of his Death and Reſurrection, I would not ſcruple to ſay that Baptiſm is truby our death, our Burial and Reſurrection with Jeſus Chriſt, to ſignifie only that the words of the Apoſtle are very true, being rightly underſtood.

SUCH as conſider the figures and legal ſhadows which repreſented the Body of Chriſt very imperfectly, which gave only a confuſed and obſcure Idea of it, and communicated only faintly the virtue of it, might not they ſay, in comparing them with our Euchariſt, that this here is the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to ſignifie that it gives us a true, lively, diſtinct and perfect Idea of it, that it fully communicates it to the hearts of the faithful, and makes it fell all the virtues of it, in the ſame ſenſe as Cyril of Jeruſalem comparing the ancient figures with our Baptiſm, did not ſtick to call this here the truth in oppoſition to the figure. Paſs we, ſays he, from Cyril. Hieroſ. Catech. myſt. 1.old things to new, and from the figure to the TRƲTH. There Moſes was ſent from God into Egypt, here Jeſus Chriſt who was ſent from the Father, p. 81is come into the world. There Moſes was ſent to deliver the people from the oppreſſion of Egypt; here Jeſus Chriſt was ſent to deliver us from the bondage of ſin. There the Blood of a Lamb ſtopt the deſtroying Angel, here the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, the Lamb without ſpot or wrinkle, protects us againſt the Devils. There the tyrant purſued the people to the Red Sea, here the Devil purſues us as far as the ſalutiferous waters. There the Tyrant was drowned in the Sea, here the Devil is ſuffocated in the water of Salvation.

THOSE that conſidered the effect of the conſecration of the Bread which makes it to be really, and not by a ſimple imagination, the myſtery of our Lord's Body, might they not ſay that 'tis truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in truth, not to inſinuate it to be ſo in proper ſubſtance, but to ſignifie its being the myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, is not a thing which has no other foundation than our own imagination, but that which is grounded on the things themſelves, either becauſe our Saviour Chriſt has thus ordained it in inſtituting his Holy Sacrament in the Church, or foraſmuch as the Eternal Father has ratifi'd this Inſtitution, or that the Holy Spirit really deſcends on the Bread to conſecrate it. An adopted Son conſidering his adoption was real, and not illuſory or conceited, may rightly ſay that he is truly the Son of ſuch a one; and in this ſenſe every faithful perſon may ſay with aſſurance, he is truly the Son of God. 'Tis in this ſame ſenſe that S. Baſil tells us, That if our fleſh be worthy of God, it becomes Baſil. in Pſ. 14. Theophyl. in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroſcal. myſt. 3. Hierom in Epiſt. ad Gal. c. 4.Ps 14John 10Gal 4truly his Tabernacle. And Theophylact, That the Jews were truly blind in reſpect of the Soul. And Cyril of Jeruſalem. That we have been truly anointed by the Holy Spirit, and that Jeſus Chriſt is truly the Primitiae, and we the maſs or lump, And S. Hierom, That we be all truly one Bread in Jeſus Chriſt. For they would ſay, not that theſe titles of Tabernacle, and Blind, this Unction, theſe Primitioe, this Maſs, and this Bread, ought to be underſtood in a literal ſenſe; but that their metaphorical ſignification was grounded on the things themſelves, and may be found entirely true.

THOSE in fine who conſider the opinion of the Greeks, that the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt by an union with the natural body; and by way of growth and augmentation, may not they likewiſe ſay that 'tis truly this body, and yet not eſtabliſh 'tis the ſame numerical ſubſtance which our Saviour has in Heaven; but to ſignifie that this ſubſtance here, and that there, are not two different Bodies, but one and the ſame Body; as we have already more than once explained; in the ſame ſenſe as the augmentations which are made to a Houſe or Ground become truly this Houſe, or this ground, or the Kings Conqueſts added to his Kingdom become truly his Kingdom, by virtue of their union.

ALL which clearly ſhews that Mr. Arnaud has much miſreckoned himſelf when he believed there were but two occaſions wherein men uſed theſe terms of true and truly, the one when they affirm the figure of the Original; as when we ſay that our Saviour Chriſt is the true Melchiſedec, the true Son, the true Vine; and the other when we would prevent any kind Ch. 5. p. 780.of doubt or conteſt; as when we ſay of a ſuſpicious piece of Gold that 'tis true Gold, or a Pope that has an Anti-Pope for his rival, that he is the true Pope. This enumeration is defective, and the concluſion which he pretends to draw hence is void, and refuted by what I now offer'd. The Fathers might ſay that the Bread of the Euchariſt is truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt without intending the prevention of any doubt.

BUT ſuppoſing they deſigned to prevent a doubt; can there ariſe no other from the ſubject of the Euchariſt, but what relates to Tranſubſtantiation, or the ſubſtantial Preſence? May not a man doubt of the truth of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt conſidered in it ſelf, and in reference to the Incarnation? All thoſe ancient Hereticks, Marcionites, Manichees, have not only doubted of it, but boldly affirmed that 'twas only a Phantaſm. The Eutychiens have affirm'd, and do ſtill affirm, that this Body was ſwallowed up in the abyſs of the Divinity. Cannot a man doubt of the truth of Jeſus Chriſt his words? The Jews and Pagans do not only doubt of them, their impudence proceeds ſo far as to make a mock at 'um; and how many impious and prophane wretches are there amongſt ſuch as profeſs Chriſtianity that mock at 'um in their hearts? Cannot a man doubt of the efficacy and ſpiritual virtue of this Bread? We have already obſerved from Palladius that this was preciſely the doubt that poſſeſſed the mind of a Religious. And how many weak perſons are there, who ſeeing only Bread and Wine, cannot imagine we ought to attribute to them ſo great an efficacy. There is nothing, ſays Tertullian, that more perplexes mens minds, Tertul. de Baptiſmo. Ch. 5. p. 783.than to ſee the ſimplicity of the Divine operations when they are celebrated, and to hear the magnificent effects iſſuing from them.

THIS doubt, ſays Mr. Arnaud, muſt have two qualities. For firſt, As this expreſſion has been generally received by all people; this muſt therefore be a general doubt, and muſt naurally ariſe in the minds of all men. Secondly, As no body ever made uſe of this expreſſion, but only on the ſubject of the Euchariſt, this muſt be a particular doubt belonging to the Euchariſt, and which cannot be extended to all the other Sacraments. How excellent is Mr. Arnaud at engroſſing of objects. He has gathered here and there, from ſeveral Authors that lived in ſundry Churches, and at divers times ſome thirty paſſages taken in a counter ſenſe that ſpeak differently, one in one manner, others in another, in different ſignifications, and this he makes to be the language P. 774.of all people, In another place, he aſſures us this is the language of all Nations and all Ages. A man cannot ſay an expreſſion has been generally received by all people, and in all ages, unleſs he has run over the Authors of all Ages, and ſhew'd that this expreſſion was received by the greateſt part amongſt 'um; for which purpoſe thirty paſſages gathered at random are not ſufficient. Moreover the expreſſion in queſtion ſhould appear in all the paſſages, and not one in ſome of 'em, and another in others. Beſides the expreſſion muſt be uſed every where in the ſame ſenſe. But we find no ſuch thing here. We have only about ſome thirty paſſages, in one of which there's the term of ſame, in another that of proper, or properly, in another that of true, or truly, and they are uſed in different ſenſes too, as will appear from the particular examination we ſhall make of them. How can this then be called an expreſſion generally received by all people, the language of all Nations, and that of all ages? For my part I call it an illuſion.

BUT ſuppoſing the expreſſion of true, or truly to have been generally received by all people, as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes it was, why muſt it needs proceed from a general doubt that naturally ariſes in the minds of all men? May it not happen that the ſame expreſſion has been uſed in divers ages and amongſt divers people under different reſpects, and yet have been uſed for different ends, and on different occaſions. 'Tis not good reaſoning to conclude there has been an univerſal and uniform reaſon in all Ages and amongſt p. 82all people that has obliged them to make uſe of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times uſed. For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in uſe, altho the reaſon of their being at firſt uſed no longer ſubſiſts? The uſe of terms is a thing unaccountable enough, and ſufficiently ſubject to change, either in regard of divers People, or Ages, and the occaſions, the reaſons or principles of this uſe are no leſs unaccountable too.

SUPPOSING this expreſſion has been generally received by a general reaſon, why muſt this reaſon be a general doubt that naturally ariſes in the minds of all men? Is it not ſufficient that it was a general intereſt which all Chriſtians had to eſtabliſh the truth of the Nature and Humane Subſtance in the Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, and to make thereof a common confeſſion in the Sacrament it ſelf of his Incarnation, I mean in the Euchariſt, for ſo the Fathers have called it? Is it not ſufficient 'twas a general intereſt which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a profound reſpect the words of Jeſus Chriſt, who has ſaid of the Bread, This is my Body, and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them? Theſe two intereſts are general, belong to all times, and all Nations, and are a ſufficient reaſon of this expreſſion in queſtion, were it as general as Mr. Arnaud ſays it was.

BUT in fine, ſuppoſing it was a general doubt that occaſion'd theſe terms of true and truly, I ſay 'tis ſufficient 'twas a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak perſons, and not neceſſarily in thoſe of all men. For there have been weak Chriſtians at all times, and in all places, the Church having never been without 'um, and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken. Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Euchariſt, that it can ſpiritually communicate to us the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that it procures us the remiſſion of our Sins, the Grace of Sanctification, the hope of Everlaſting life, that by it we obtain the Communion of our Saviour; this doubt, I ſay, eaſily ariſes in the minds of weak perſons, who, as I have already ſaid, are ſufficiently puzled at the ſimplicity of this Sacrament, wherein there only appears Bread and Wine. Suppoſing then one ſhould ſay that the terms of the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or of truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, were only uſed to prevent this doubt, to ſtrengthen the weak in this regard, and conciliate more reſpect to the Sacrament, what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reaſonable, and conformable to the ſenſe of the Church.

WERE there any body now, ſays he, tempted with this doubt, and Page 783.needed to be ſtrengthened againſt it, does not common ſenſe ſhew that he would expreſs it in proper terms to make himſelf underſtood, and diſacknowledg it by expreſſions which are directly contrary to it. He will ſay for example that he doubts whether God works on our ſouls by means of the Bread of the Euchariſt, and whether he fills it with his efficacy. He will ſay that he does not doubt but the Euchariſt is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; but he will never think of expreſſing this doubt in theſe terms, I doubt whether the Euchariſt be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, nor of rejecting it in theſe here, I believe the Euchariſt to be the true and proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleaſes why theſe pretended doubters (whom he introduces without any occaſion, or reaſon) would not conſult p. 83common ſenſe whereby to expreſs their doubt in intelligible terms, ſuppoſing they doubted of Tranſubſtantiation, or the ſubſtantial preſence. Why ſhould they not ſay, We doubt whether the ſubſtance of Bread be changed into the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or we doubt whether the ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt be contained under the vail of the appearances of Bread. Thoſe that have now their minds poſſeſſed with theſe doubts, do they think of propoſing them in theſe equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them, We doubt whether the Euchariſt be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt? Clear and proper terms are not ſo hard to be found, had the Church then believed the ſubſtance of Bread to be converted into the ſubſtance of Jeſus Chriſt, and the common opinion it ſelf againſt which they would form their doubts would have furniſhed them with requiſite expreſſions. Let Mr. Arnaud likewiſe tell us why this doubt was not repelled in formal terms, by ſaying, We muſt believe that the ſubſtance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper ſubſtance of this Body. Let him ſhew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requiſite terms according to the ſenſe he gives it, and I will ſhew him that which he finds ſo ridiculous ſtated according to my ſenſe in Palladius, How are the gifts, ſaid a Religious Pallad. Hiſt. Lauſ. cap. 75.perſon, able to ſanctifie me? I will ſhew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore deſign'd to be prevented, as appears by Cyril of Alexandria; God, ſays he, changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Fleſh, Apud, Vict. Ant. Miſſ.AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE: and by Elias of Crete, God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Fleſh, Elias Cret. in Greg.AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE. Let him ſhew us the Fathers have ſaid that the Euchariſt is the true Body, or truly the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in reference to the queſtion of the Converſion, and the ſubſtantial Preſence, and I will ſhew him they have ſaid it in reference to the queſtion touching the virtue. For Walafridus Strabo, an Author of the 9th. Century, having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book, De Virtute Sacramentorum, ſays afterwards in the Text of the ſame Chapter, Valafridus Strabo, de rec. Eccleſ. cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10.Sir 17Matt 10by way of confirmation, That the Myſteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert, altho he lived in the 12th. Century, that is to ſay, in a time wherein Tranſubſtantiation had introduced it ſelf into the Latin Church, yet ſaid, That the Bread is rightly called and is TRƲLY the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe in reference to us it effects the ſame thing as the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, Crucified, Dead and Buried. Moreover Mr. Arnaud has no reaſon to be ſo poſitive in affirming that the doubt was rejected in theſe terms, I believe the Euchariſt to be the true and proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt, nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages ſpake in this ſort. The term of true may be met with in ſome paſſages which Mr. Arnaud alledges, and that of proper in others, and both of theſe are therein uſed in ſenſes far different from that which he gives them; but he muſt not under this pretence form this propoſition, That the Euchariſt is the true and proper Body of Jeſus Chriſt, for there's a great deal of difference between theſe terms being ſeparate, (which offer themſelves in divers paſſages, and in divers Authors) and theſe ſame terms joyned together by way of exageration. I confeſs that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly; but beſides that Nicephorus is not all Ages, nor all Nations; we have already ſhew'd that he ſpeaks only thus upon an Hypotheſis far different from that of Tranſubſtantiation, or the ſubſtantial Preſence; and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any advantage of what he ſays.

p. 84AND theſe are my general anſwers to Mr. Arnaud's paſſages. Should we deſcend at preſent to the particular examination of theſe paſſages, we muſt firſt lay aſide thoſe of Anaſtaſius Sinait, of Damaſcen, of the ſecond Council of Nice, of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, the profeſſion of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th. Century, and that of the Horologium of the Greeks; for they have been all of 'em already ſufficiently anſwer'd: 'tis only needful to remember what I have already eſtabliſhed touching the real Belief of the Greek Church. There muſt likewiſe be retrenched thoſe that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians, ſeeing we have already anſwered them. We have alſo anſwer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armenians, or to ſpeak better, the Armenians themſelves have anſwer'd it.

IF thoſe of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord and Saviour, there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the reſt of the Armenians, who formally declare, as we have already ſeen, that they mean nothing elſe by theſe terms, than a true myſtery of this Body and Blood, and in effect it is ſaid in the ſame Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quotation, that the Prieſt ſays in Communicating, I eat by Faith, O Lord Jeſus Apud Caſſand. i… Liturgicis.Chriſt thy holy living and ſaving Body. I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood.

THE paſſage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Neſtorians, mention'd by Strozza, is impertinently alledg'd, for two reaſons: Firſt, That theſe are the words of a man that reconciled himſelf with the Church of Rome, who in embracing its Religion, wrote in Rome it ſelf under the inſpection of Pope Paul V. and from whoſe words by conſequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Neſtorian Church. Secondly, That what he ſays concerning our eating the true Body of God, but of God Incarnate; that we drink truly the Blood of a Man, but of a Man that is God, relates not to our queſtion, nor is not ſaid in this reſpect, but in regard of the Error of the Neſtorians, who will have the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to be the Body of a mere man, and not the true Body of God Incarnate. What's this to the queſtion, to wit, Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the ſubſtance it ſelf of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt?

WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Chriſtians that added to the ſaying of our Saviour theſe words, In veritate, ſaying, Hoc eſt in veritate corpus, hic eſt in veritate ſanguis meus is a thing very doubtful. 'Tis not likely Alexis Meneſez the Arch-biſhop of Goa who laboured to reduce theſe Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have retrenched from their Liturgy theſe words in veritate, had he in truth found them in it. Thoſe that wrote the actions of this Arch biſhop, ſay, this addition was made by a Biſhop that came from Babylon. Mr. Arnaud tells us we muſt not much heed what they relate. This is a mere Chaos wherein a Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500.man can comprehend nothing. The Deacon, ſays he, ſings ſtill in their Maſs, Fratres mei ſuſcipite corpus ipſius filii Dei dicit Eccleſia. But what conſequence can be drawn from theſe words. 'Tis certain that this corpus ipſius filii Dei, is a clauſe added by Meneſez againſt the Error of the Neſtorians, who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man; for every one knows this was the Hereſie of the Neſtorians. There remains p. 85ſtill in this Liturgy (as correct as 'tis) ſeveral paſſages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church, as what the Prieſt ſays, Jeſus Miſſae Chriſt. apud Indos Bibl. patr. tom. 6.Chriſt our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our ſalvation, and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Paſſion, Death, Burial, and Reſurrection, receive this Sacrifice from our hands. Were the Sacrifice Jeſus Chriſt in his proper ſubſtance, there's no likelihood they would offer it to Jeſus Chriſt himſelf. Having read the paſſage of S. Paul, That whilſt we are in this Body we are abſent from the Lord, that we deſire to be out of the body, to have his preſence, that we deſire to pleaſe him whether preſent or abſent, &c. rehearſed the Creed, the Prieſt ſays, This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Paſſion, Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt. Then praying for the Conſecration, O Lord God, ſays he, look not upon the multitude of my ſins', and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes, but by thy ineffable Grace Conſecrate this Sacrifice, AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS, to the end that when thou ſhalt at laſt appear in that humane form which thou haſt been pleaſed to take on thee, we may find acceptance with thee. On one hand he reſtrains the Conſecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the aboliſhing of our ſins; and on the other formally diſtinguiſhes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jeſus Chriſt, in which he will appear ar the laſt day. Immediately after he calls the gifts, the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. And then beſeeches God, they may be made worthy to obtain the remiſſion of their ſins by means of the Holy Body which they ſhall receive by Faith. Again, he ſays, That he Sacrifices the Myſtery of the Paſſion, Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt; and prays to God, That his Holy Spirit may come down, and reſt on this Oblation, and ſanctifie it, to the end it may procure them the remiſſion of their ſins. He ſays not to the end it may change the ſubſtance of it, and convert it into that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which yet muſt have been ſaid, or ſomething equivalent thereunto, were this the formal effect of the Conſecration. Having recited our Lords words, This is my Body, this is my Blood, he adds, This ſhall be a pledg to us to the end of the world. And a little further, Eſay touched a live coal, his lips were not burnt with it, but his iniquity pardon'd. Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT ſelf; and this fire preſerves their bodies, and conſumes only their ſins. 'Tis eaſie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it ſelf, he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and reſt on the Oblation. Explaining afterwards what this Myſtery is, Approach we all of us, ſays he, with fear and reſpect to the Myſtery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour, and with a pure heart, and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Paſſion and Reſurrection; and let us clearly comprehend them. For, for our ſakes the only Son of God has aſſumed a mortal Body, a ſpiritual reaſonable and immortal Soul, and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth, and at the end of his Oeconomy, offered on the Croſs the firſt fruits of our nature, he is riſen from the Dead, aſcended up into Heaven, and has left us his Holy Sacraments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has beſtowed on us. Was not here a fitting place to make ſome mention of his corporeal Preſence in the Euchariſt; and having ſaid that he is aſcended up into Heaven, does it not ſeem, that inſtead of adding, he has left us his Holy Sacraments, he ſhould have ſaid, he yet preſents himſelf on the Altars, in the ſubſtance of his Body. Let Mr. Arnaud himſelf judg whether this Liturgy favours him.

p. 86AS to the ancient Liturgy of France, which bears that Jeſus Chriſt gives us his proper Body, I have already anſwer'd that theſe terms of proper Body, ſignifie only his Body; and I apply the ſame anſwer to the paſſages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus, Juvencus, Gaudencius, and of S. Chryſoſtom, who likewiſe uſe the ſame term of proper foreign proprium corpus, ſignifies ſuum corpus, his Body, not that of another, but his own; for this is often the ſenſe of this term, as we have already ſhew'd.

S. Hilary ſays, There's no reaſon to doubt of the truth of the Fleſh, and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he ſpeaks of this Fleſh inaſmuch as 'tis communicated to us in the Sacrament; but I ſay alſo he means the ſpiritual Communication which Jeſus Chriſt hath given us in the act it ſelf of the Sacramental Communion: and that Hilary's ſenſe is, we muſt not doubt but this Fleſh is really communicated to us, inaſmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it.

EPHRAM of Edeſſe ſpeaks likewiſe of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jeſus Chriſt God and Man, when he ſays, that we eat the Lamb himſelf entire.

WE may return the ſame anſwer to the paſſages of Gelazius of Cizique, Heſychius, and the Hiſtory of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew.

GELAZIƲS of Cizique ſays very well, That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jeſus Chriſt; not only becauſe the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood, but likewiſe becauſe this Communion conſider'd in oppoſition to the Sacramental Communion, is the only true one.

HESTCHIƲS ſays, That the Myſteries are the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chhiſt, ſecundum veritatem, according to truth, becauſe that in effect the myſtical object repreſented, and communicated to our Souls, in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord; and this is what he underſtands by the truth or virtue of the Myſtery, as we have already obſerved elſewhere.

The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew, makes this Saint ſay, not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him, That he Sacrific'd every See Ethe. and Beatus, who relate this paſſage, Bibl. patr. tom. 4.day to God the immaculate Lamb, but, that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS, the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipſe theſe words, on the Altar of the Croſs, to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Euchariſt; whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jeſus Chriſt on the Croſs, to wit, in meditating on this Croſs, and preaching it to the people. He adds, That all the people who are Believers eat the Fleſh of this Lamb, and drink his Blood, and yet the Lamb which was ſacrific'd remains whole and alive; and altho he be truly ſacrific'd, and his Fleſh truly eaten and drank, yet he remains whole and alive. This is an alluſion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews, which was firſt ſacrific'd, and afterwards eaten by the people, which was a figure of our Saviour, the true Lamb of God that was ſacrific'd on the Croſs; and whoſe Fleſh was eaten, and Blood ſpiritually drank by thoſe that believe in p. 87him by Faith. The Lamb being divided, and not riſing again after he was ſlain, our Saviour Chriſt has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being ſacrific'd and eaten, without ſuffering any diviſion. But whether we conſider this manducation abſolutely in it ſelf, or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb, it is true. For on one hand it is neither falſe nor illuſory, and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews.

THE paſſage of S. Leo, which ſays, We muſt in ſuch a manner draw near to the Divine Table, as not to doubt, in any wiſe, of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, is very impertinently alledged. Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo diſcourſes againſt the Eutychiens, who denied our Saviour had a real Body; and his ſenſe to be, that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we muſt not doubt but our Saviour has in himſelf, in his proper perſon, a real Body and Blood, and is real man.

'TIS now plainly ſeen, that this heap of paſſages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the conſent of all Nations and Ages, is but a meer illuſion, and that his deſign in wand'ring thus ftom his ſubject, was only to colour over the weakneſs of his proofs touching the 7th. and 8th. Centuries now in debate. He had ſo little to ſay concerning theſe Centuries, that he thought it neceſſary to take the field, and circuit about to amuſe his Readers, and fill up his Chapters. But his ſubject matter is ſo little favourable to him on what ſide ſoever he turns himſelf, and howſoever he uſes it, that we may well ſay he loſes both his time and his pains.

WOULD we really know what has been the ſentiment of the ancients, the way to be informed, is not to take paſſages in a counter ſenſe, and captiouſly heapt up one upon another: but to apply our ſelves to the teſtimony of the Ancients themſelve…, produced ſincerely, and faithfully, ſome of which are theſe.

TERTULLIAN. Thoſe of Capernaum having found our Saviours Tertull. de reſur. car. c. 37.diſcourſe hard and inſupportable, as if he deſign'd to give them TRƲLY his Fleſh to eat. To manifeſt to 'em the means he uſes for the procuring us ſalvation were ſpiritual, he tells them, 'tis the Spirit that quickens.

ORIGEN. There is in the New Teſtament, a letter which kills him that Origen. hom. 7. in Levit.does not underſtand ſpiritually the meaning of it: For if we take theſe words in a literal ſenſe, if you eat not my Fleſh, and drink not my Blood, THIS LETTER KILLS.

S. ATHANASIUS. The words of our Saviour Chriſt were not carnal, Athanaſ. in illud ſi quis dixerit, &c.but ſpiritual. For to how few perſons would his Body have been ſufficient, and how could he be the food of the whole world? Therefore he mentions his Aſcenſion into Heaven, to take them off from all carnal thoughts, and to ſhew them he gave his Fleſh as meat from above, heavenly food, a ſpiritual nouriſhment.

EUSEBIUS of Ceſarea. Our Saviour taught his Diſciples that they muſt underſtand SPIRITƲALLY what he told them concerning his Fleſh Euſeb. lib. 3. de Theol. Eccleſ. cap. 12.Eccl 12and Blood. Think not, ſays he to 'em, that I ſpeak of this Fleſh which I now p. 88have on, as if ye were to eat it, nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this ſenſible and corporeal Blood, know that the words I ſpeak to you are ſpirit and life.

THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew, under the name of Author. oper. imperf. in Mat. hom. 11.S. Chryſoſtom, If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uſes the ſacred Veſſels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not contained, but the MYSTERY of his Body, how much more the veſſels of our body, which God has prepared as an habitation for himſelf?

S. AMBROSE. The ſhadow was in the Law, the IMAGE is in the Ambroſ. lib. 1. de officiis, c. 48.Goſpel, THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN. The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb, an Heifer; now Jeſus Chriſt is offer'd, he is offer'd as a man, as capable of ſuffering, and he offers himſelf as a Prieſt. HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE; but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate, THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH.

S. AUSTIN. Before the coming of Chriſt, the Fleſh of this Sacrifice Aug. contr. Fauſt. lib. 20. cap. 21.was promiſed by Victims of Reſemblance. In the Paſſion of Jeſus Chriſt this Fleſh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF. After his Aſcenſion it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION.

IN another place, You ſhall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU Aug. in Pſ. 98.Ps 98SEE, nor drink this Blood which thoſe that are to crucifie me will ſhed. I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT, if ye receive it ſpiritually it will quicken you.

AGAIN elſewhere, The Body and Blood will be the life of every one Aug. Serm. 2. de ver. Apoſt.of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT, ſi quod in Sacramento viſibiliter ſumitur, in ipſa veritate ſpiritualiter manducetur, Spiritualiter bibatur.

THE Author of the Commentary on the Pſalms attributed to S. Jerom. Hieronym. Com. in Pſal. 147.Ps 147Altho what Jeſus Chriſt ſays, (He that eateth not my Fleſh nor drinks my Blood) may be underſtood in reference to the Myſtery, yet the word of the Scriptures, the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

FACUNDUS. The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jeſus Facundus def. trium capit. l. 9.Chriſt, nor the Cup his Blood; but they are ſo called becauſe they contain the myſtery of them.

RABAN. Of late ſome (that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTIMENT) Raban in paenitent.have ſaid of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, that 'TIS THE BODY it ſelf and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary.

OECUMENIUS. The ſervants of the Chriſtians had heard their Oecumen. in 1 Pet. cap. 2.1 Pet 2Maſters ſay that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and they imagin'd that 'twas INDEED fleſh and blood.