The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

The fourth Consequence.

THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth, which is, * 1.1 That most of the expressions which the Ministers pervert against the Real Pre∣sence and Transubstantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine. The equi∣ty, says Mr. Arnaud, of this Consequence is apparently visible. For why must these terms subsisting, in Authors that lived since the seventh Century, with the persuasion of the Real Presence, be inconsistent with this Doctrine in the six preceding Ages? And why must not nature which has put later Authors upon making use of them without prejudice to their sentiment produce the same effect in the first Ages? And in fine, what difficulty is there in understanding these terms of the Fathers of the first Ages, in a sense that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine, provided this sense be found authoriz'd by the consent and practice of the ten following Ages.

Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD seeming to forget the distinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made, and which he himself has sometimes used, con∣cerning a natural language, and one that is forced, will not I suppose take it ill if I remember him of it, and use it against his pretended Consequence. There is a difference between the expressions which the Fathers use on the subject of the Eucharist, and the same expressions in Authors of later Ages. The last borrowing sometimes the expressions of the Fathers have at the same time declared themselves in favour of Transubstantiation, or the Real Presence; the former have done nothing like this. The first have left their expressions in the full extent of their natural sense without any mistrust of their being abused. The last have commonly restrained and mollified them by violent expositions, and such as are contrary to their natural sense, as well knowing they may be used against themselves. The first have used them indifferently in all occasions, because they contained their real opini∣on, but the last have used 'em only accidentally as the necessity of their discourse required. The first have likewise used without any difficulty other emphatical expressions which the last dared not use, for, dare they say for example what Theodoret and Gelasius have said, that the Bread lo∣ses not its nature or substance: dared they say what Facundus said, that, the Bread is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ, but is so called because it contains the mystery of it? whence it appears that when they use any of the Fathers expressions, 'tis by constraint, because they must endeavour to accommodate, as much as in them lies, their stile to the stile of the Ancients, whereas the Ancients delivered themselves in a natural manner. We must then make another judgment of these expressions when we find them in the Fathers, than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages since Transubstantiation has been established. There they explain the real Be∣lief of the Church, here they are expressions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief, which is expounded in another manner. There they must be taken in their natural signification, here in a forced and forein one.

THE natural sense of these words of Justin, Ireneus, Cyril of Jerusalem and some others, that the Eucharist, is not mere Bread, common Bread, is, that it is in truth Bread, but Bread that is Consecrated. The strained sense of these words is, that 'tis only Bread in appearance, and in respect of its accidents.

THE natural sense of these words which are frequently used by the Fathers, that our Lord called the Bread his Body, that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body, that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body. That our Saviour made an exchange of names, giving to the Bread the name of his Body, and to his Body that of the Bread. Their natural sense is, I say, that the Bread without ceasing to be Bread, has assumed the name of Christ's Body; the forced sense is, that the Bread takes the name of it, because the substance is really changed into the substance of this Body.

THE natural sense of the passages of the Fathers which assert the Bread and Wine are symbols, signs, figures, images of our Lords Body and Blood, is, that by the consecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of be∣ing

the mystical signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, without losing their own nature. The forced sense is either that the Body of Jesus Christ is the sign of it self, or that the accidents, that is to say, the appearances of Bread and Wine, are signs.

IT is the same in respect of other expressions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their stile, in giving 'em strained senses and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients. To take from us the liberty of making use of them, we must first be shew'd that the Fathers themselves have taken them in this extraor∣dinary and distorted sense. Otherwise we shall still have reason to use them according to their natural and ordinary one.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Book 10. Ch. 4.