The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Tranſubſtantiation, nor the Subſtantial Preſence.
WE may judg by theſe paſſages which I now alledged, as from a ſampler, what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General. That of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries in particular will ſoon diſcover it ſelf upon the leaſt obſervation.
WE ſhall not find therein either ſubſtantial Preſence, or converſion of ſubſtance, nor exiſtence of a Body in ſeveral places at once, nor accidents without a ſubject, nor preſence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit, nor concomitancy, nor adoration of the Euchariſt, nor any of thoſe things by which we may comprehend that the Church in thoſe times believed what the Roman Church believes in theſe.
WE ſhall find, on the contrary, as I have already obſerved, that the Greg. Mag. Iſidorus. Beda Haymo & alii paſſim. Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Pſ. 3. & in queſt. in 2 Reg. cap. 3. & in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin. de Septuagint. Iſidor. in alleg. Vet. Teſt. Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment. in Geneſ. cap. 12. Idem Comment. in Geneſ. c. 23.Authors of thoſe Ages commonly called the Euchariſt, The myſtery of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, the figure of Chriſt's Body, which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Paſſion. Who in another place aſſures us, That the Lord gave and recommended to his Diſciples, the figure of his Body and Blood. And Charlemain to the ſame effect, That he broke the Bread, and delivered the Cup, as a figure of his Body and Blood.
WE ſhall therein find that this Sacrament, or figure, is Bread and Wine properly ſo called, without any equivocation. The Sacrament, ſays Iſidor, of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, that is to ſay, the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world. Elſewhere, Melchiſedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Goſpel; inaſmuch as he offered in ſacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine. Again in another place, Jeſus Chriſt is a Prieſt according to the order of Melchiſedeck, by reaſon of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Chriſtians to celebrate; to wit, the Oblation of Bread and Wine: that is to ſay the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. The multitude of Corn and Wine, ſays he in another place, is the multitude which Jeſus Chriſt gathered to the Sacrament of his Body and Blood.
BEDE explaining how the Church has every day our Saviour with Beda Expoſ. alleg. in Sam. c. 5. Idem Expoſ. alleg. in Prov. lib. 3. c. 31. Idem de Taber. lib. 2. c. 2. Idem Hom. eſt in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt.her, ſays, 'Tis becauſe ſhe has the Myſteries of his Fleſh and Blood in the Wine and Bread: elſewhere applying to the Church what Solomon ſays of the virtuous woman, that ſhe eats not her bread in idleneſs. She eats not, ſays he, her bread in idleneſs, becauſe receiving the Sacrifice of our Lords Body, ſhe carefully imitates in her actions what ſhe celebrates in his Miniſtry; taking care leſt ſhe eat our Lords Bread, and drink of his Cup unworthily. The ancients, ſays he moreover, celebrated our Lords Paſſion, by which, both they and we have been redeemed by the blood and fleſh of Sacrifices; and we celebrate it by an Oblation of Bread and Wine. Elſewhere he aſſures us, That our Saviour has eſtabliſhed under the New Teſtament the ſame kind of Sacrifice, idem ſacrificii genus; as that of Melchiſedeck, to be the Myſtery of his Body and Blood. In his Homily on the Epiphany, he ſays, that our Saviour Idem hom. de ſanctis in Epiphan.having aboliſhed the Paſchal Lamb, has changed the Myſtery of his Paſſion into the creatures of Bread and Wine. In his Commentary on the 33d. Pſalm he applies what is ſaid of David, that he changed his countenance, Idem Comm. in Pſal. 33.and he expreſſes himſelf in this ſort, He changed his countenance before the Jews, becauſe he converted the Sacrifices of the Law, which were according to the Order of Aaron, into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, according to the Order of Melchiſedeck. In the ſame place he ſays, That our Saviour carried himſelf (in ſome ſort) in his own hands, at his laſt Supper, when he gave to his Diſciples the Bread, which he bleſſed, and which his mouth recommended to them. In his Commentary on S. Luke, explaining the words of Idem Comm. in Luc. 22.our Saviour, This is my Body, this my Blood. Inſtead of the fleſh and blood of the Lamb, ſays he, he has ſubſtituted the Sacrament of his Fleſh and Blood, IN THE FIGURE OF BREAD AND WINE. And to ſhew wherein conſiſts this myſtical figuration, he adds, That our Saviour did himſelf break the Bread, to ſignifie the fraction he was voluntarily to make of his own Body. And a little further, The Bread ſtrengthens the Fleſh, and the Wine creates Blood in our Bodies; and therefore the Bread myſtically alludes to the Body, and the Wine to the Blood.
WE find in truth, ſays Mr. Arnaud, the language of ſenſe in the Authors Book 8. Ch. 4. p. 75 5.of theſe Ages, as well as in thoſe of the following. They could not exempt themſelves from uſing it, whatſoever their opinion was otherwiſe. But to judg of that which they had in effect, we muſt conſider what they tell us of the Euchariſt, when they explain to us what they believe of its nature and eſſence, when they do not deſign it, but teach what it is, when they do not only denote to us the matter which God has choſen, but tell us what God does in this matter, when they do not ſpeak of it according to the impreſſions of ſenſe, but according to the ſentiments of Faith.
To make in the ſenſe of the Authors in queſtion a ſolid oppoſition between the language of ſenſe, and that of Faith, it ought to be made appear, that according to them, theſe two languages juſtle one another; that they cannot be both of 'em true in the main, and that that of ſenſe is deceitful and illuſory, if taken according to the letter. But this is that which Mr. Arnaud does not demonſtrate. We know our ſenſes tell us, that 'tis bread, we know their depoſition is literal, for 'tis literally and without a figure that our ſenſes tell us that the Euchariſt is Bread and Wine. As often then as we find the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries ſpeaking according to ſenſe, reaſon will guide us to the underſtanding of their language according to the letter, unleſs we are ſhew'd that according to theſe ſame Fathers, our Faith muſt correct this language; that ſhe declares it to be falſe, being taken according to the letter, and does not allow of it unleſs under the favour of an interpretation and a figure. Were this ſhew'd us, I confeſs then we ought to lay aſide this language of ſenſe, as being very improper for the diſcovering to us the true opinion of Authors. But till then, we have liberty to take it according to the purport of the ſenſes themſelves, which is to declare to us that the Euchariſt is real Bread and Wine. For unleſs it be ſhew'd us that thoſe who have uſed it, had an intention contrary to that of their ſenſes, we ought to ſuppoſe they have had even no other than that, for we muſt ever ſuppoſe in favour of nature and the general rule. That if afterwards there be met with in the expreſſions of Faith ſomething that ſeems contrary to thoſe of ſenſe, 'tis more reaſonable to attribute a figure to the language of Faith which can well bear it, than to that of ſenſe which naturally cannot ſuffer it. So that comparing theſe two kinds of expreſſions, Bread, and Wine, Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, one with the other, we muſt ever take the firſt in a literal ſenſe, and the ſecond in a figurative one, unleſs as I ſaid, we are ſhew'd the contrary by ſome expreſs declaration.
TO make likewiſe an exact oppoſition, between the matter of the Euchariſt, and its eſſence or nature, it muſt firſt be ſhew'd that this matter does no longer ſubſiſt, but ceaſes to be in the very moment wherein the Euchariſt is made. For if it ſubſiſts, it makes one part of the eſſence, or nature of the Sacrament; to wit, the material part, and we ſhall always have right to uſe for our advantage the paſſages which call the Sacrament Bread and Wine, altho they deſign the marter of it, ſeeing this matter ſubſiſts. Now of theſe two ſuppoſitions, either that the matter ſubſiſts, or does not ſubſiſt, that which affirms it ſubſits, is natural, in favour of which by conſequence we muſt always prejudicate, till ſuch time as the contrary is eſtabliſht by good proofs. I ſay, that the ſuppoſition that the matter ſubſiſts is the natural one. Firſt, Becauſe that in all the changes which happen in the world, there is ever a common ſubject which ſubſiſts, it being never heard of that there was ever made a change of one thing into another, where the whole ſubſtance of this firſt thing has abſolutely ceaſed to be. Philoſophy can give us no inſtance of this, and even miracles wrought by the Almighty Power of God furniſh us not with any. Secondly, All the changes wrought by Grace leave the matter ſtill ſubſiſting. There's made according to the Scriptures and Fathers, a new Heaven, and a new Earth, a new Creature, and a new Man. A Temple is made of a Houſe, an ordinary Man is made a Biſhop, a Stone an Altar, Wood or Metal a Croſs, Water, and common Oyl Sacraments, without the matters ceaſing to be.
IT ſubſiſts on the contrary in all theſe inſtances. If then we may not draw advantage from the expreſſions of the Fathers which call the Euchariſt Bread and Wine, under pretence they deſign thereby the matter of it, we muſt be ſhewed that according to theſe Fathers themſelves this matter ſubſiſts not after the Conſecration; for otherwiſe we ſhall ſtill naturally ſuppoſe that the Fathers delivering themſelves with an honeſt plainneſs, and far from the proſpect of our Controverſie have regarded this matter as ſubſiſting.
BUT ſuppoſing what I now ſaid ſignifies nothing, 'tis certain the paſſages which I produced which deſign the matter of the Sacrament, do of themſelves eſtabliſh the ſubſiſtence of it, for they all conſider it after the Conſecration, and ſpeak of it as being ſtill the ſame as it was before, to wit, Bread and Wine. They ſay that 'tis an Oblation of Bread and Wine, an Oblation of the ſame kind as that of Melchiſedeck, Bread and Wine, which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, Bread which the Church eats, Bread with which is celebrated our Lords Paſſion, as the Ancients Celebrated it by the fleſh of Victims, Bread that came in the room of the Paſchal Lamb to be the myſtery of Chriſt's Paſſion, Bread which has ſucceeded Aarons Sacrifices, Bread which our Lord held in his hands after he had bleſſed it, and by means of which he did in ſome ſort carry himſelf; to wit, inaſmuch as he held in his hands his own Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud's Remark might take place, did they only ſay that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is made of Bread, or that the Bread becomes, and is made this Body; for then one might diſpute whether the Bread be made this Body, either in ceaſing to be Bread, or in remaining ſo. But ſpeaking in the manner I now mention'd, calling it Bread after the Conſecration, according to the language of ſenſe, which naturally admits not a figure, and without correcting or explaining themſelves, is a ſufficient evidence they meant 'twas real Bread in ſubſtance.
YET let us ſee what they ſay of the Euchariſt, when according to Mr. Arnaud they deſign not the matter, but expound the nature and eſſence of it. Beſides what I already ſaid, that they commonly call it the Myſtery of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Sacrament of this Body, the Figure of this Body, the Image of his Sacrifice, the Sacrament of his Incarnation, the Sacrament of his Humanity, the Myſtery of his Humanity, the Myſtery of his Humiliation. Beſides this I ſay, 'tis certain they often explain themſelves in ſuch a manner that they eſtabliſh a formal diſtinction between the Sacrament, and Jeſus Chriſt himſelf repreſented by it, and leave it to be plainly concluded they held not this ſubſtantial Preſence which the Church of Rome teaches.
IT is in this ſenſe that Gregory the firſt Biſhop of Rome, who lived towards the end of the 6th. Century, and about the beginning of the 7th. wrote, That this Myſtery reiterates the Death of Chriſt, and altho ſince his Gregor. Mag. Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 58.Reſurrection he dies no more, Death having no more dominion over him, yet being IN HIMSELF alive, immortal, and incorruptible, he is ſtill Sacrificed for us in the MYSTERY of the Sacred Oblation.
ISIDOR recites a prayer inſerted in the Liturgy of his time, which deſires of God, That the OBLATION being ſanctified, may be made CONFORMABLE Iſidor. de Offici. Eccleſ. l. 1. c. 15.to the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Brevil's Edition has theſe words, Ʋt oblatio quae Domino offertur ſanctificata per ſpiritum ſanctum corpori Chriſti & ſanguini confirmetur; but this has no ſenſe: and 'tis evident we muſt read conformetur, as Caſſander rightly obſerves, who thus recites it, Ʋt oblatio quae Domino offertur ſanctificata per ſpiritum ſanctum corpori Chriſti & ſanguini conformetur.
NOW howſoever we underſtand this conformity, 'tis certain it ſuppoſes a formal diſtinction between the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and the Oblation of the Euchariſt; whence it appears, that the ſenſe of the then Church was, not to deſire of God that the ſubſtance of Bread might become the proper ſubſtance of the Body; for this would be, not a conformity, but an intire and perfect identity.
IT is in the ſame ſenſe that Bede expounding theſe words of the 21th. Pſalm, The poor ſhall eat and be ſatisfied, makes a difference between the Beda Comm. in Pſal. 21.Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, and the true Body or Blood of Chriſt; for he introduces our Saviour Chriſt ſpeaking thus, The poor, that is to ſay, thoſe who deſpiſe the world ſhall eat of my Vows. They ſhall really eat of them, in reference to the SACRAMENT; and ſhall be eternally ſatiſfied: for by this BREAD AND WINE which are viſibly offer'd to 'em, they will underſtand ANOTHER INVISIBLE THING, to wit the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of our Lord, which are really meat and drink, not ſuch as fill the belly, but which nouriſhes the mind. And in his allegorical expreſſions on Eſdras, ſpeaking of the Paſſover which the Iſraelites celebrated In Eſdr. lib. 2. cap. 8.after their return from the Babyloniſh Captivity, The immolation, ſays he, of this Paſſover repreſents the glory of our Reſurrection, when we ſhall eat altogether the Fleſh of the immaculate Lamb, I mean of him who is our God and our Lord, no more IN A SACRAMENT, as Believers, but IN THE THING IT SELF AND IN THE TRUTH, as Spectators.
SHOULD we proceed further, we ſhall find, that theſe ſame Authors acknowledg but one true manducation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; to wit, that which is particular to the Faithful, and which neceſſarily and only communicates Life and Salvation: whence it follows they knew not of this oral manducation of the ſubſtance of this Body, which is common as well to the wicked as the good, and will not be neceſſarily attended with Salvation. It is on this ground Iſidor ſays, That the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt is the food of the Saints, of which if any one eats he ſhall never die. And in another place, It is the Living and Celeſtial Bread, the food of Angels with which the Word nouriſhes corruptible men after an incorruptible manner. He was made fleſh and dwelt amongſt us, to the end men might eat him, Iſidor. in Gen. cap. 1. Idem in Exod. c. 23. Beda in Geneſ. & Exod. Expoſit. in Exod. c. 12.and that ſuch as do it may live ſpiritually.
WE read the ſame words in Bede, who has without doubt taken 'em from Iſidor; for 'twas the common cuſtom of the Authors of thoſe days to copy out one from another. He ſays moreover in another place expreſly, That no Infidel can eat the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt, and that all thoſe whom he has redeem'd by his Blood muſt be his ſlaves circumciſed in reference to Vice, and ſo eat the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt. And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profeſſion to be S. Auſtin's Diſciples, ſo they have not ſcrupled to tranſcribe into their Books ſeveral paſſages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man, which confirm the ſame thing. Bede amongſt others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences, collected by Proſper, He that is not of the ſame mind as Jeſus Chriſt, neither eats his Fleſh, nor drinks his Blood; altho for the condemnation of his preſumption he receives every day the Sacrament of ſo great a thing. And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda & Alcu. in Joan. 6.have borrow'd from his Treatiſe on S. John theſe words, Jeſus ſaid to them, this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has ſent. This is then what is meant by eating the meat which periſhes not, but remains to life everlaſting. Why prepare ye your teeth and belly, believe, and ye have eaten it: this is the Bread which came down from Heaven, to the end that he which eats of it may not die. This is meant of the virtue of the viſible Sacrament. He that eateth internally, not externally, that eateth with the heart, not with the teeth. And a little further, our Saviour explains what 'tis to eat his Body and drink his Blood; He that eateth my Fleſh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him. To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jeſus Chriſt, and to have Jeſus Chriſt dwelling in us. So that he that dwells not in Jeſus Chriſt and Jeſus Chriſt in him, does not eat ſpiritually his Fleſh, altho he ſenſibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood; but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of ſo great a thing. And again, The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank, is, that he dwells in Jeſus Chriſt, and has Jeſus Chriſt dwelling in him. We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body, and he dwells in us when we are his Temple. And a little lower, The words which I tell ye are ſpirit and life. What is the meaning of that, They are ſpirit and life? That is, they muſt be underſtood ſpiritually. If ye underſtand them ſpiritually, they are ſpirit and life, if carnally this hinders not but they are ſpirit and life, but not to you.
IN ſhort, we find theſe Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries acknowledg no other Preſence of Jeſus Chriſt on Earth than that of his Divinity, of his Grace, or Providence, and in no wiſe that of the ſubſtance of his Body. Jeſus Chriſt aſcending up into Heaven, ſays Iſidor, has abſented himſelf Iſidor. lib. 1. ſentent. cap. 14.as to the fleſh, but is ever preſent in reſpect of his Majeſty, according to what he has ſaid, I am with you to the end of the world.
THE paſſages of Bede on this ſubject, are too many to be mentioned Beda Expoſ. allegor. ipſam, lib. 1. cap. 12.here. I ſhall only relate ſome of 'em. The Lord, ſays he, having performed the duties of his Oeconomy, returned into Heaven, where he is aſcended in reſpect of his Body, but viſits us every day by his Divine Preſence, by which he is always every where, and quietly governs all things. There is his Fleſh, which he has aſſumed, and glorified for our ſakes. Becauſe he is God and man, ſays he again, he was raiſed up into Heaven, where he ſits (as to his Humanity which he aſſumed on Earth.) Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity, by which he fills both Heaven and Earth. Elſewhere he ſays that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Goſpel, who leaving his houſe went a journey into a far Country, is our Saviour Chriſt, who after his Reſurrection Idem Comm. in Mare. c. 13.aſcended up to his Father, having left (as to his bodily Preſence) his Church, altho he never ſuffered it to want the aſſiſtance of his Divine Preſence. Interpreting myſtically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel, who was a Widow and aged 84. years. This Ann, Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2.ſays he, ſignifies the Church which is (as it were) a Widow, ſince the Death of her Lord and Spouſe. The years of her widowhood repreſent the time in which the Church, which is ſtill burthened with this body, is abſent from the Lord, expecting every day with the greateſt impatience that coming concerning which it is ſaid, We will come to him, and make our abode with him. 'Twas to the ſame effect that expounding theſe words of Job, I have comforted the heart Idem Expoſit. alleg. in Job, lib. 2. c. 14.of the Widow, he ſays, that this Widow is the Church our Mother, which our Saviour comforts, and that ſhe is called a Widow, becauſe her Spouſe has abſented himſelf from her; as to his corporeal Preſence, according to what himſelf tells his Diſciples, The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.
IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other preſence of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt than a Preſence of Divinity, and Grace. For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Diſciples after his Reſurrection. He deſigned, ſays he, to ſhew by theſe frequent appearances Idem Hom. aſt. de temp. feria 6 Paſchal.that he would be ſpiritually preſent in all places at the deſire of the faithful. He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre, he will be likewiſe preſent with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his abſence. He appeared (whilſt they broke bread) to thoſe who taking him for a ſtranger gave him entertainment, he will be likewiſe with us, when we liberally relieve the poor and ſtrangers. He will be likewiſe with us in the fraction of Bread, when we receive the Sacraments of his Body, (which is the living Bread) with a pure and chaſt heart. We find here no mention of any other preſence in the Sacrament, but that of the Divinity.
ALCƲINƲS teaches the ſame Doctrine, for expounding theſe words of our Saviour, The poor ye have ever with you, but me not always. He ſhews, ſays he, we muſt not blame thoſe that communicated to him their good Alcuin. in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28.things, whilſt he converſed amongſt 'em, ſeeing he was to remain ſo ſhort a a time with the Church bodily. He introduces our Saviour elſewhere thus, ſaying to his Church, If I go away in reſpect of the abſence of my Fleſh, I will Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34.come by the preſence of my Divinity, by which I ſhall be with you to the end of the world, He retired from them, ſays he again, as to his manhood: Ibid. cap. 35.but as God, he did not leave them. For the ſame Chriſt who is man, is likewiſe God. He left them then as to his manhood, but remained with 'em as to his Godhead. He went away in reference to that by which he is but in one place, yet tarried with 'em by his Divinity which is every where.
LET Mr. Arnaud reflect, if he pleaſes, on theſe paſſages, and, on I know not how many others like 'em with which his reading will furniſh him, and tell us faithfully (ſeeing on one hand there's not to be found in Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, either Tranſubſtantiation, or a preſence of ſubſtance, or any natural conſequences of theſe Doctrines; and ſeeing on the other ſo many things to be met with in them contrary thereunto, as thoſe I now mention'd) whether he believes 'tis likely we ſhall by the force of his preparations, ſuppoſitions, reticencies, and ſupplements, acquieſce in his Aſſertion, that the then Church held conſtantly and univerſally, as he ſpeaks, the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation. 'Tis certain we muſt offer great violence to our minds, and after all when we have endeavoured to imagin what Mr. Arnaud would have us, we ſhall never be able to accompliſh it. We muſt imagin, ſays he, Chriſtians perſuaded that by the Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737.words of the Conſecration the Bread and Wine were effectually changed into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. This Doctrine was known diſtinctly by all the faithful. I know not where Mr. Arnaud has found any of theſe fanciful people, that are able to perſuade themſelves what they liſt. As to our parts, we are not ſuch maſters of our imaginations; and in an affair of this nature he muſt pardon us if we tell him that we cannot fancy a thing to be true, when it appears ſo plainly to us to be falſe.
BUT leſt he ſhould again accuſe us as indocible, we'l ſee what he has to offer us from theſe Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, when they expound the nature and eſſence of the Euchariſt. S. Iſidor, ſays he, calls Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755, 756.the Euchariſt the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body, and if we deſire to know in what manner 'tis the Sacrament of it, he'l tell us, That the Bread we break is the Body of him who ſays, I am the living Bread. He further adds, That the Wine is his Blood, and is the ſame meant by theſe words, I am the true Vine. But he ſhould not ſuppreſs what he likewiſe immediately adds, But the Iſid: lib. 1. de Offic. Eccleſ. cap. 18.Bread is called the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe it ſtrengthens the body, and the Wine alludes to the Blood of Chriſt, becauſe it produces blood in our fleſh. Theſe two things are viſible, yet being ſanctifi'd by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacrament of this Divine Body. Is this the language of a man that believes a real converſion of ſubſtance.
HE expreſly aſſerts, ſays moreover M. Arnaud, that this Body of Chriſt Ibid.which we receive in the Euchariſt, and of which we are deprived when 'tis taken from us is the Fleſh of Chriſt, concerning which 'tis ſaid, If ye eat not the Fleſh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, ye have no life in you; and that this is the Body, the truth, the original repreſented by the ſhadows and types in the Old Teſtament. I anſwer, that S. Iſidor ſuppoſes we eat the Fleſh of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, which is true. He likewiſe ſuppoſes that if we eat not this Fleſh we remain deprived of Salvation, and this is moreover true. From whence he concludes men ought not to abſtain long from the uſe of the Sacrament, becauſe a total neglect of this means which Chriſt has ordained for the eating of his Fleſh and drinking his Blood, will put us in danger of being wholly deprived of them, for without eating and drinking this Fleſh and Blood, there is no hope of ſalvation. This is Iſidor's ſenſe, whence there can be nothing concluded in favour of the Theſis which Mr. Arnaud defends. For we ſpiritually eat our Lord's Fleſh in the due uſe of the Sacrament; and 'tis this manducation which S. Iſidor ſpeaks of, as appears from what he there ſays. Manifeſtrum eſt eos vivere qui corpus ejus attingunt. And as to what he aſſerts, that this is the Body, the Truth, the Original, repreſented by the ancient Figures, we grant it; but deny it ought to be hence concluded, that the Sacrament is the Body it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt in ſubſtance. I have ſufficiently elſewhere diſcourſed in what manner the ancient types related to our Sacraments, and thoſe that pleaſe to take the pains to read the firſt Chapter of the third part of my Anſwer to Father Nouet, will find there, if I be not miſtaken, enough to ſatisfie 'em in that particular.
BEDE, adds Mr. Arnaud, ſays, that the creatures of Bread and Wine Ibid.are changed through an ineffable virtue, into the Sacrament of his Fleſh and Blood. This is one of the expreſſions which ariſes from the nature of the Sacrament. But what does it ſignifie in this Author? He tells us in theſe following words. And thus, ſays he, the Blood of Chriſt is no more ſhed, by the hands of Infidels for their ruine, but received into the mouths of the faithful for their ſalvation. But this is a very weak objection. The ſenſe of Bede is, that the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt is received by the mouths of the Faithful, becauſe they receive the Wine which is the Sacrament of it. Which is the meaning of this term. And thus ſicque, for he ſhews in what manner the mouths of the Faithful receive the Blood, to wit, inaſmuch as they receive the Sacrament of it. Gregory the Great ſaid before Bede in the ſame ſenſe, That we drink the Blood of the Lamb, not only with the mouths of our bodies, but with the mouths of our hearts. Quando ſacramentum paſſionis Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel.illius cum ore ad redemptionem ſumitur, ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur, When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Paſſion, and inwardly apply our ſelves to imitate his great Saviour.
I ſhall elſewhere in its due place examine what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Amalarius, Florus, Drutmar, and ſome other Authors of the 9th. Century, Contemporaries with Paſchaſus. It only remains for the finiſhing of the diſcuſſion of the 7th. and 8th. to anſwer ſome ſlight Obſervations which he has made on a paſſage in the Book of Images, which goes under the name of Charlemain's, The Author of this Book will not have the Euchariſt be called an Image, but the Myſtery or Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Myſtery or Sacrament, we muſt underſtand the Body it ſelf in ſubſtance: his reaſons are, Firſt, That 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is repreſented by the types in the Old Teſtament. Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in queſtion, that which was repreſented by theſe ancient figures. Secondly, That 'tis the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is the truth oppoſed to Images. Now according to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it, but the truth in oppoſition to the image. Thirdly, That the reaſon why he will not have it to be an image is, that our Saviour did not ſay, This is the image of my Body, but this is my Body. Fourthly, That 'tis of the Euchariſt we muſt underſtand what he ſays, That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himſelf.
BUT 'tis no hard matter to anſwer theſe objections. The Sacrament of the Euchariſt may be conſidered in two reſpects, either in oppoſition to the thing it ſelf, of which 'tis the Sacrament, or in conjunction with this ſame thing. In the firſt reſpect, 'tis a ſign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. Charlemain himſelf calls it ſo in one of his Epiſtles to Alcuinus, as we have already ſeen, and Bede gives it ſeveral times this title. But in the ſecond reſpect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure, becauſe he would diſtinguiſh it from the legal figures which were only bare repreſentations and ſhadows which did communicate the Body, or reality of that which they repreſented; whereas our Euchariſt communicates the Body and Blood it ſelf of Jeſus Chriſt ſacrificed for us on the Croſs, and repreſented by the ancient figures. He would have us call it then the Myſtery or Sacrament of this Body, and the reaſon which he alledges for it is, that 'tis not a bare repreſentation of a thing to come, as were thoſe of the ancient Law, 'tis the Myſtery of the Death of Jeſus Chriſt, of a Death I ſay that was really conſummated; and moreover, 'tis not a bare repreſentation of this Death, but a Myſtery which communicates it to us. This is the ſence of the Author of the Book of Images, from whence it does not follow that the Euchariſt is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in ſubſtance, as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude. For, for to conſider the Sacrament, in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament, 'tis not neceſſary that the thing be locally and ſubſtantially therein contained. It is ſufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a myſtical and moral manner. Now 'tis certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful; and altho the manner of it be ſpiritual and myſtical, yet is it real and true. This is ſufficient for a man to ſay as the Author of that Book does, That the myſtery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now, not an image, but the truth, not a ſhadow but a body, not a figure of things to come, but the thing repreſented by the figures. Becauſe that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal ſhadows. For this reaſon a man may ſay that this myſtery is the truth in oppoſition to the images of the ancient Teſtament; becauſe that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types. This is ſufficient whereon to ground this remark, That our Saviour did not ſay, this is the image of my Body, but this is my Body that is given for you. Becauſe that in inſtituting this Sacrament he never deſign'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration, but his Body. In fine, this is ſufficient for a man to ſay with reaſon and good ſenſe, and with reſpect too to the Euchariſt, That our Saviour did not offer for us an image, but himſelf in ſacrifice; becauſe that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Croſs, he offers, and gives it us in the Euchariſt. In a word, Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is, in imagining that our Saviour Chriſt and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us, unleſs we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper ſubſtance of them. I ſay, this is a miſtake exceedingly diſtant from the Doctrine of the Fathers, who tell us we receive Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Goſpel, in Baptiſm, as well as in the Euchariſt.