ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense, and not in a sense of Transub∣stantiation or Real Presence; yet in the answers we make, we do not ab∣solutely make use of this right. For before we return our answers we esta∣blish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books, so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us. Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them, and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity. There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding, when he produces some of my Answers, and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs; whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs, from which they draw their light and strength.
FOR example, when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections, which bears, That Hereticks receive not the Eu∣charist * 1.1 and the Oblations, because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins, I said that Ignatius's sense was, That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body, as if he had no real Body, which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks; as appears by Tertullian's Disputes against Marcion, but that the Bread is the Sacra∣ment of this true Body, which died and rose again. This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers, which I had already produced, and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh, or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist, not the substance of this Flesh, but the Sacrament or Symbol of it, which is in it self Bread. To take this Answer alone sepa∣rate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards, that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs, is a thing that is neither ho∣nest nor ingenuous. Moreover, what I said touching these Hereticks be∣lieving our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body, as having no true Body of his own, is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opini∣on to Marcion, who (as every one knows) follow'd in this the ancient He∣reticks; and 'tis to no purpose to say, That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist, and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it. For 'tis certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist, celebrating it in their manner, but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution, which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ, who suffered death and is risen again, because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh, affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm. If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon, besides that I can tell him my Answer will be no less good, in the main, when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist, I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin, who expresly says touching this passage, That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the * 1.2 Sacrament of the Eucharist, as the mystery of the Incarnation; for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh, was, because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh; Mr. Arnaud