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.

CHAP. VIII.

An Examination of these Expressions of the Fathers, That the Eucha∣rist 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 * 1.1 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 Illy∣ricus, The Book of the Sacraments, which Menard a Benedictin Monk pub∣lished. 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 Ber∣toldus * 1.2 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 conti∣nued 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 * 1.3 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 con∣clude 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 * 1.4 touching 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

Blood 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; be∣cause 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 ex∣pound 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 Humi∣liation, 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 * 1.5 represent. 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 Si∣mois, 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 * 1.6 Mystery 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 un∣derstand 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

cannot give another sense to that which he calls several times, the Sacra∣ment, or mystery of his Passion; for his passion is only therein figured or repre∣sented. 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 * 1.7 his 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 * 1.8 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 & sangui∣nem * 1.9 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 un∣worthy, that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation, an eternal re∣medy for the redemption of us from all our crimes. Corpus & sanguinem pro∣prium 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 passa∣ges 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, * 1.10 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 Offi∣cer appointed to make it thus understood by the people; for otherwise 'tis impos∣sible 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 bu∣siness 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 na∣tural Body of Jesus Christ, but this same term applyed to the Eucharist,

(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 Sacra∣ment 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 pub∣lish 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 no∣tice 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 bu∣ried 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 expressi∣ons 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 cal∣led 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 Offi∣cers; 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 be∣lieved the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches, either be∣cause there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evident∣ly 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, * 1.11 has given his Son, and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF

who 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 * 1.12 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 * 1.13 of the Prophets Jesus Christ our God, our common Lord. Know, says Vale∣rian, that he whom you see naked, blind, and crooked is Jesus Christ HIM∣SELF. We have already likewise shewed that this expression is used by the Fathers in the subject of the Church. We are not enjoyned, says * 1.14 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 * 1.15 SELF 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 * 1.16 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 * 1.17 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 HIM∣SELF. Let us worship, says Damascen, the sign of the Cross, for HE HIM∣SELF * 1.18 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 ex∣alted 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 ap∣plied to several subjects wherein we cannot literally understand them. Ori∣gen expounding those words of our Saviour concerning the Eucharist, This is my Body, Jesus Christ, says he, receiving always of his Father this Bread, * 1.19 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 ex∣pounding these words of Moses, If any one has vowed and consecrated to * 1.20 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 * 1.21 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 * 1.22 a thousand such like instances, for there's nothing more common in the

Fathers than the use of these expressions in passages wherein there is no li∣teral 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 fami∣ly, 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 * 1.23 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 pro∣per 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 wa∣ter, 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 * 1.24 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 con∣clude 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 where∣in 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 Je∣sus * 1.25 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 Incar∣nation 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 * 1.26 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 Melchise∣dec, 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,

which 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 chan∣ged. '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 qua∣lities 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 excel∣lency 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 consi∣der 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 sub∣stance 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 * 1.27 Bread, say they, which we every day pray for, which is ours, and which yet

we 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 Je∣sus 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 Di∣vine 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 attribu∣ted 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, compa∣ring 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 * 1.28 Jesus 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 un∣derstood 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 ap∣plies it self likewise to a thing which is not another, but only by imputati∣on. Chrysostom speaking of a poor body, and calling him a man, corrects * 1.29 immediately his expression, as if it were not just. A man, says he, or to speak better Jesus Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which his interpre∣ter Brixius has thus rendred, Hominem autem, seu verius dicam Christum ipsum. In effect this correction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, denotes the sence of Chrysostom is, that a poor body is more truly Jesus Christ than a man, and yet it can∣not 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 Epi∣stle 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 mo∣rally. 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 perfe∣ction 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 ex∣position of the same Epistle, The Church, says he, which has neither spot nor * 1.30 wrinkle, and which is TRƲLY the Body of Jesus Christ. The same ex∣pression 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

are 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 ve∣hemently urge those terms, and pretend 'um to be such a great argument. For example, those that consider the Heresie of the Marcionites, and Ma∣nichees 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 refe∣rence 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 Resurre∣ction 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 * 1.31 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 Fa∣ther,

is 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 sub∣stance, 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 con∣sidering 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 be∣comes * 1.32 truly 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 be∣come 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 * 1.33 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 pre∣tends to draw hence is void, and refuted by what I now offer'd. The Fa∣thers 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 Transubstan∣tiation, 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 Incar∣nation? All those ancient Hereticks, Marcionites, Manichees, have not on∣ly 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 Je∣sus 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 Chri∣stianity that mock at 'um in their hearts? Cannot a man doubt of the effi∣cacy and spiritual virtue of this Bread? We have already observed from Palladius that this was precisely the doubt that possessed the mind of a Re∣ligious. 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, * 1.34 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 Eu∣charist, 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 Au∣thors that lived in sundry Churches, and at divers times some thirty passa∣ges 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 * 1.35 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 par∣ticular 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 con∣clude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst

all 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 unaccount∣able too.

SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a ge∣neral 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 Eucha∣rist, for so the Fathers have called it? Is it not sufficient 'twas a general in∣terest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a pro∣found 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 in∣terests 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 Eucha∣rist, 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 Sa∣viour; 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 Sa∣crament, 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 strength∣en 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 * 1.36 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 Eucha∣rist, 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

common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms, suppo∣sing 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 sub∣stance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appea∣rances 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 ex∣pressions. Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repel∣led 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 sta∣ted according to my sense in Palladius, How are the gifts, said a Religious * 1.37 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 Alex∣andria; God, says he, changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh, * 1.38 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, * 1.39 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 sub∣stantial 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 Cha∣pter, * 1.40 by 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. Ar∣naud 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 un∣der 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 exage∣ration. 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 on∣ly thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation, or the substantial Presence; and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any ad∣vantage of what he says.

AND 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 Coun∣cil 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 al∣ready sufficiently answer'd: 'tis only needful to remember what I have al∣ready 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 Armeni∣ans, 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 ef∣fect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quota∣tion, that the Priest says in Communicating, I eat by Faith, O Lord Jesus * 1.41 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 doubt∣ful. '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 re∣trenched 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 ad∣dition 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 * 1.42 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 Ne∣storians, 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

still 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 * 1.43 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 Sa∣crifice, 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 assu∣med 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 Sa∣craments 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 Hea∣ven, does it not seem, that instead of adding, he has left us his Holy Sa∣craments, 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.

AS 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 like∣wise 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 ef∣fect 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 ob∣served 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 * 1.44 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

him 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 whe∣ther 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 Bo∣dy 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 Centu∣ries, 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 testi∣mony of the Ancients themselve••, produced sincerely, and faithfully, some of which are these.

TERTULLIAN. Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours * 1.45 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 salva∣tion were spiritual, he tells them, 'tis the Spirit that quickens.

ORIGEN. There is in the New Testament, a letter which kills him that * 1.46 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 car∣nal, * 1.47 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 nou∣rishment.

EUSEBIUS of Cesarea. Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITƲALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh * 1.48 and Blood. Think not, says he to 'em, that I speak of this Flesh which I now

have on, as if ye were to eat it, nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sen∣sible 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 * 1.49 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 con∣tained, 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 * 1.50 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 capa∣ble 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 * 1.51 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 * 1.52 SEE, 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 * 1.53 of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT, si quod in Sa∣cramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, Spi∣ritualiter bibatur.

THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Je∣rom. * 1.54 Altho 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 * 1.55 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 SENTI∣MENT) * 1.56 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 * 1.57 Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and they imagin'd that 'twas INDEED flesh and blood.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 8. Ch. 3.
• * 1.2

  Honor. August. de Script Eccl. Joan. Morin. Exercit. 9. de Diacon. cap. 1. pag. 169. col. 2. s. 5.
• * 1.3

  Menard Praef. in lib. Sacram. Gregor.
• * 1.4

  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.
• * 1.5

  Isidor Com. in lib. 1 Reg. cap. 20.
• * 1.6

  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.
• * 1.7

  Isidor. in lib 2. Rog. cap. 3. Bed. quest in 2 Reg & in Ps. 3.
• * 1.8

  Aug. contr. Adimant. c. 12.
• * 1.9

  Ch. 3. p. 749, 750.
• * 1.10

  Ch. 3. p. 751, 752.
• * 1.11

  Hom. 15. in Rom.
• * 1.12

  Hom. 89. in Matt.
• * 1.13

  Hom. in Eli. & vid. Valerian. Hom. 7.
• * 1.14

  De Sacerd. l. 4.
• * 1.15

  Augustin in Ps. 87. Serm. 49. De verb. Dom.
• * 1.16

  Serm. 53. De verb. Dom.
• * 1.17

  Sedul. lib. 5. oper. Pas. 6. 13.
• * 1.18

  Damas. l. 4. de fid. Orthod. c. 12. Alcuin. lib. 2. in Joan. Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.
• * 1.19

  Orig. in Mat. hom. 35.
• * 1.20

  Hesych. in Lev. lib. 7.
• * 1.21

  Greg. Nyss. Or. 1. 〈…〉〈…〉r. am.
• * 1.22

  Aug. con. Faust. lib. 13. cap. 16.
• * 1.23

  Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 2. in illud faciamus homi∣nem, &c. Isidor. Pelus. Epist. lib. 1. Epist. 397.
• * 1.24

  Origen Hom. 1. in Mat. Greg. Nyss. hom. 7. in Cant.
• * 1.25

  Ch. 5. p. 781.
• * 1.26

  p. 780.
• * 1.27

  Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.
• * 1.28

  Com. in Psal. 147.
• * 1.29

  Chrysost. hom. 11. in Rom.
• * 1.30

  Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl. all••∣gor. in Tobiam.
• * 1.31

  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. myst. 1.
• * 1.32

  Basil. in Ps. 14. Theophyl. in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroscal. myst. 3. Hierom in Epist. ad Gal. c. 4.
• * 1.33

  Ch. 5. p. 780.
• * 1.34

  Tertul. de Ba∣ptismo. Ch. 5. p. 783.
• * 1.35

  P. 774.
• * 1.36

  Page 783.
• * 1.37

  Pallad. Hist. Laus. cap. 75.
• * 1.38

  Apud, Vict. Ant. Miss.
• * 1.39

  Elias Cret. in Greg.
• * 1.40

  Valafridus Strabo, de rec. Eccles. cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10.
• * 1.41

  Apud Cassand. i•• Liturgicis.
• * 1.42

  Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500.
• * 1.43

  Missae Christ. apud Indos Bibl. patr. tom. 6.
• * 1.44

  See Ethe. and Beatus, who relate this passage, Bibl. patr. tom. 4.
• * 1.45

  Tertull. de re∣sur. car. c. 37.
• * 1.46

  Origen. hom. 7. in Levit.
• * 1.47

  Athanas. in il∣lud si quis di∣xerit, &c.
• * 1.48

  Euseb. lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles. cap. 12.
• * 1.49

  Author. oper. imperf. in Mat. hom. 11.
• * 1.50

  Ambros. lib. 1. de officiis, c. 48.
• * 1.51

  Aug. contr. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21.
• * 1.52

  Aug. in Ps. 98.
• * 1.53

  Aug. Serm. 2. de ver. Apost.
• * 1.54

  Hieronym. Com. in Psal. 147.
• * 1.55

  Facundus def. trium capit. l. 9.
• * 1.56

  Raban in paeni∣tent.
• * 1.57

  Oecumen. in 1 Pet. cap. 2.