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. IX.

That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Tran∣substantiation, 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 * 1.1 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, Melchi∣sedeck 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 * 1.2 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 Sacri∣fice,

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 Savi∣our * 1.3 having abolished the Paschal Lamb, has changed the Mystery of his Pas∣sion 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, * 1.4 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 car∣ried 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 recommen∣ded to them. In his Commentary on S. Luke, explaining the words of * 1.5 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 Au∣thors * 1.6 of these Ages, as well as in those of the following. They could not ex∣empt 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 ac∣cording to the sentiments of Faith.

To make in the sense of the Authors in question a solid opposition be∣tween 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 discover∣ing 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 sen∣ses, 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 after∣wards 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 natu∣rally 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 Eu∣charist, 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 be∣ing never heard of that there was ever made a change of one thing into an∣other, 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 sub∣sists not after the Consecration; for otherwise we shall still naturally sup∣pose that the Fathers delivering themselves with an honest plainness, and far from the prospect of our Controversie have regarded this matter as sub∣sisting.

BUT supposing what I now said signifies nothing, 'tis certain the passa∣ges 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 Pas∣chal 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 Re∣mark

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 men∣tion'd, calling it Bread after the Consecration, according to the language of sense, which naturally admits not a figure, and without correcting or ex∣plaining 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 Bo∣dy, the Image of his Sacrifice, the Sacrament of his Incarnation, the Sacra∣ment of his Humanity, the Mystery of his Humanity, the Mystery of his Hu∣miliation. 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 con∣cluded 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 to∣wards 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 * 1.7 Resurrection he dies no more, Death having no more dominion over him, yet being IN HIMSELF alive, immortal, and incorruptible, he is still Sacrifi∣ced for us in the MYSTERY of the Sacred Oblation.

ISIDOR recites a prayer inserted in the Liturgy of his time, which de∣sires of God, That the OBLATION being sanctified, may be made CON∣FORMABLE * 1.8 to the Body and Blood of Christ. Brevil's Edition has these words, Ʋt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum cor∣pori 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 sup∣poses 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 be∣come the proper substance of the Body; for this would be, not a confor∣mity, 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 * 1.9 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 satis∣fied: 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 cele∣brated * 1.10 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, * 1.11 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 Al∣cuinus * 1.12 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 re∣mains 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 Sa∣crament 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 un∣derstand 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 acknow∣ledg 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 him∣self * 1.13 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 * 1.14 here. I shall only relate some of 'em. The Lord, says he, having perfor∣med 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 Re∣surrection * 1.15 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 Pre∣sence. Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel, who was a Widow and aged 84. years. This Ann, * 1.16 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 * 1.17 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 ha∣ving exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection. He designed, says he, to shew by these frequent ap∣pearances * 1.18 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 * 1.19 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 * 1.20 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: * 1.21 but as God, he did not leave them. For the same Christ who is man, is like∣wise 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 of∣fer 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 ac∣complish it. We must imagin, says he, Christians persuaded that by the * 1.22 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 * 1.23 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 * 1.24 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 * 1.25 which we receive in the Eucharist, and of which we are deprived when 'tis ta∣ken 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 attin∣gunt. And as to what he asserts, that this is the Body, the Truth, the Ori∣ginal, 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 * 1.26 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 Sa∣crament. But what does it signifie in this Author? He tells us in these fol∣lowing 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 faith∣ful 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 man∣ner 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 pas∣sionis * 1.27 illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur, ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur, When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Pas∣sion, 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 under∣stand the Body it self in substance: his reasons are, First, That 'tis the Bo∣dy 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 ac∣cording 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 Alcui∣nus, 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 al∣ledges 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 re∣presentation 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 neces∣sary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained. It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a my∣stical 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  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 Se∣ptuagint. Isidor. in alleg. Vet. Test. Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment. in Genes. cap. 12. Idem Comment. in Genes. c. 23.
• * 1.2

  Beda Expos. al∣leg. in Sam. c. 5. Idem Expos. al∣leg. in Prov. lib. 3. c. 31. Idem de Taber. lib. 2. c. 2. Idem Hom. est in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt.
• * 1.3

  Idem hom. de sanctis in Epi∣phan.
• * 1.4

  Idem Comm. in Psal. 33.
• * 1.5

  Idem Comm. in Luc. 22.
• * 1.6

  Book 8. Ch. 4. p. 75 5.
• * 1.7

  Gregor. Mag. Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 58.
• * 1.8

  Isidor. de Offici. Eccles. l. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.9

  Beda Comm. in Psal. 21.
• * 1.10

  In Esdr. lib. 2. cap. 8.
• * 1.11

  Isidor. in Gen. cap. 1. Idem in Exod. c. 23. Beda in Genes. & Exod. Exposit. in Exod. c. 12.
• * 1.12

  Beda in Cor. 11. Beda & Alcu. in Joan. 6.
• * 1.13

  Isidor. lib. 1. sentent. cap. 14.
• * 1.14

  Beda Expos. al∣legor. ipsam, lib. 1. cap. 12.
• * 1.15

  Idem Comm. in Mare. c. 13.
• * 1.16

  Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• * 1.17

  Idem Exposit. alleg. in Job, lib. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.18

  Idem Hom. ast. de temp. feria 6 Paschal.
• * 1.19

  Alcuin. in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28.
• * 1.20

  Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34.
• * 1.21

  Ibid. cap. 35.
• * 1.22

  Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737.
• * 1.23

  Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755, 756.
• * 1.24

  Isid: lib. 1. de Offic. Eccles. cap. 18.
• * 1.25

  Ibid.
• * 1.26

  Ibid.
• * 1.27

  Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel.