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. VI.

The Tenth Proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating Term, when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ. The Eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eu∣charist, do receive the Body of Jesus Christ. The Twelfth from their believing the dead, and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce, do receive the same as we do in the Communion.

ALTHO the Greeks do frequently call the Eucharist the Body of Je∣sus Christ, yet must we not thereupon immediately conclude that they are in this respect of the same opinion with the Church of Rome; and adopted Transubstantiation or the substantial presence amongst the Articles of their Faith. One Proof of the contrary of this, is, that sometimes, when they mention the consecrated Bread, and give it the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, they add a Term of Diminution, which shews they do not mean that it is his Body in propriety of Substance. Which appears by a passage taken out of Balsamon on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles. This Canon ordains a punishment to those that shall fast with the Jews, and celebrate their Feasts; and Balsamon takes hence an occa∣sion to inveigh against the Feasts of unleavened Bread, in these words. If a * 1.1 man deserves to be deposed only for eating unleavened Bread with the Jews, and expelled the Christian Communion; what punishment do they not then deserve that partake of it, as of the Body of our Lord, and celebrate the Passover after the same manner as they do?

MATTHEW Blastarius, speaks almost to the same purpose, in Arcudi∣us. They, say's he, that celebrate the mystical Sacrifice with unleavened Bread, * 1.2 do greatly offend against the Christian Customs; for if they who only eat the un∣leaven'd Bread of the Feast of the Jews, ought to be deposed and excommunica∣ted, what excuse can they make for themselves, who receive it as if it were the Bo∣dy of our Lord.

SIMEON of Thessalonica expounding that passage of the Liturgy, where the Priest perfumes the Gifts, in saying these words, Be thou exalted, O God,

above the Heavens, and be thou glorifi'd thro out all the Earth; the Priest, say's he, speaks of the Ascension of our Lord, and the Glory he re∣ceived when he was preached to every Creature; as if, he spoke to our Saviour himself, and said to him, Thou art descended to us, thou hast ascended into Hea∣ven, and fillest the whole Earth with thy Glory. And therefore do we celebrate these Holy Mysteries, and partake of and possess thee eternally. Wherefore have we this (as if) he spoke to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Goar has well translated, Quasi cum salvatore dissereret. How comes it to pass, I * 1.3 say, we have this, quasi, if in effect our Saviour was present, and the Priest spake to him? It may be alledged the passages I come from producing have some ambiguity, for it may be doubted whether by the aforemention'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is meant, as being the Body of our Lord, or as if it were the Body of our Lord, that is to say, as if it were in the stead of our Lord's Body. But first of all this ambiguity is void in respect of the passage of Simeon, who tells us, that the Priest does, as it were speak to our Saviour; for it cannot be alledged, that this is either a quasi of quality or of Identity, if I may so speak, nor give it another sence than this, to wit, that the Priest speaks no otherwise, than if he had our Saviour himself in Person before him, and directed his Discourse to him, in the same sence, as he says, Let us see our Saviour speaking in the * 1.4 Gospel, and that he is, as it were, present, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and elsewhere, That the Priest holding the Gospel in his hand, gives it to be kissed by him that takes upon him the Christian Profession, as if it were our Saviour himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and says to him, behold Jesus Christ is invisibly present in the midst of us. Now this contributes to the resolving of whatsoever may seem doubtful in the other passages.

MOREOVER the reasoning of Balsamon and Blastarius clears the difficulty: for if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation, we cannot give any tollerable sence to their Discourses. In effect, either they acknow∣ledged that the Azyme was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, as well as the leavened Bread, or deni'd it; if they acknowledged it, their sence is, that 'tis a great crime to eat the proper Body of Jesus Christ, under the Ac∣cidents of an Azyme. Now this is absurd: for if the Body of Christ be really under the Accidents of the Azyme, what crime is there in thus eating of it? For that which is eaten is no longer a real Azyme, but the Substance of the Body it self. Wherefore moreover should they be judged more worthy of condemnation than those who mix themselves with the Jews when they celebrate their Feast, and eat unleavened Bread with them? For the latter of these do really eat an Azyme, whereas the others receive only the Accidents of it, which serve as a vayl to the proper flesh of our Lord. If it be said they do not acknowledge the Azyme to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, as the leavened Bread is, their sence will be that 'tis a greater Crime to eat an Azyme, in supposing it to be the Body of Jesus Christ, than to eat the same Azyme, wittingly and willingly, in the Communion of the Jews. Now this is no less absurd, for the intention, and belief, which the first have, lessens their fault, whereas the knowledge and intention of the o∣ther aggravates it. They that eat the Azyme with the Jews, mean only to eat an Azyme; whereas those that eat it in imagining they eat the Body of our Lord, pretend nothing less than to eat an Azyme; so that it cannot be said in this respect, but that the crime of these last is greater than that of the others. It must then be granted that to give a likely sence to Balsamon and Blastarius, their quasi must be a quasi of comparison and not of Identity, and that they mean, that for a man to eat unleavened Bread in stead of the Body

of Jesus Christ, is a greater crime than to eat it simply with the Jews, be∣cause this is an introducing of Judaism in the Christian Religion, and to make of that which is accursed, the Mystery of our Lord's Body. Mr. Ar∣naud will without doubt reply, that they dispute against the Latins, and so by consequence this quasi ought to be taken in the sence of the Latins. Now the Greeks know very well that the Latins do not receive the Bread of the Eucharist instead of the Body of Jesus Christ, but as being really and in ef∣fect this Body it self. I answer that Balsamon and Blastarius do not dispute in particular against the Latins, whom they do not so much as mention in the Commentary they wrote on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles; but establish in general this Rule, that we ought not to eat unleavened Bread in this Mystery. So that this subterfuge will not serve Mr. Arnaud's turn, for their quasi must be taken in the sence of the Greeks, and not in the sence of the Latins. But supposing there be still a great deal of ambiguity in this Term; yet is it fully cleared by the expression of John Citrius in a passage cited by Allatius; We offer, say's he, leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice instead of * 1.5 the Body of our Lord. And this is the meaning of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Greeks, as the Body, that is to say, instead of the Body.

IT is in the same sence that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, say's, That as often as we eat this Bread, and drink of this Cup, we confess the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that in this Belief we eat the Bread, and drink of the Cup, AS of the Flesh of the Son of God, confessing his Death and Resurrection. We find the same Particle used by Nicetas Choniatus; Our Saviour, say's he, is AS it were eaten after his Resurrection.

ST. Athanasius used this Particle, AS a great while before him, Our Saviour, say's he, after his Passion and Resurrection sent his Apostles, to gather * 1.6 together the Nations, having spread his Table, which is the Holy Altar from which he gives the heavenly and incorruptible Bread, to wit, his Body, and Wine that makes glad the heart of man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mingling, AS it were his Blood in the Chalice. These quasi's have such a bad rellish with them, that Father Noüet, alledging this passage of St. Athanasi∣us, has thought good to leave it out, and 'tis the same antipathy to quasi's that obliged the Translators of Mons to leave out one, which they found on another Subject in the Text of St. Paul in his Third Chapter of the First E∣pistle to the Corinthians Verse 15. For whereas the Greek reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, which they have translated, he shall be saved, but must pass thro the fire. The respect due to St. Paul could not save his quasi from the fury of these Gentlemen. And thus do they deal with the Holy Scripture, when it speaks not according to their mind.

I know not whether the quasi's of Balsamon, Blastarius, Simeon of Thessa∣lonica, Germane, Nicetas, and those of Athanasius are less distastful to 'em, than that of St. Paul: But howsoever these diminutive Terms do sufficiently evidence the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, for th••se that do be∣lieve it study rather to strengthen by clear and precise expressions the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, which is given to the Eucharist, than to weaken it by restrictions and diminutions.

BUT to go on with our Proofs, It is an opinion generally received a∣mongst the Greeks, That the wicked who participate of the Eucharist, do not

receive the Body of Jesus Christ. And that they do hold this opinion may be proved by the Testimony of several good Authors.

PRATEOLUS expressly mentions this amongst their Errors. They affirm, say's he, that those who live in the practice of any known sin do not re∣ceive * 1.7 the Body of Jesus Christ, altho they draw near to the Table of our Lord, and receive the consecrated Bread from the hands of the Priest.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit confirms the same thing, They err, says he, * 1.8 in affirming those that are defiled with sin do not receive the Lord's Body when they come to the Altar.

NICHOLAS Cabasilas does fully set forth the Belief of the Greek Church touching this Point. The causes, say's he, of our sanctification, or if * 1.9 you will the dispositions which our Saviour requires of us, are purity of Soul, and love of God, an earnest desire to partake of the Sacrament, and such a thirst after it as shall make us run to it. These are the things which procure our Sanctificati∣on, and with which it is impossible but those that come to the Communion must par∣take of Jesus Christ, and without which it is impossible they should. And a little further endeavouring to prove that the Souls seperate from their Bodies, do receive the same as the Faithful which are living in this World of the Sa∣crament. If the Soul, say's he, has no need of the Body whereby to receive Sanctification, but on the contrary the Body has need of the Soul, what more of the Mystery do the Souls receive which are clothed with their Bodies, than those which are stript of them? Is it that they behold the Priest and receive the Gifts from him? But the Souls that are out of the Body have the Eternal Priest, who is to them more than all these things, being the same likewise that administreth it to them alive, who receive it as they ought to do. For all those to whom the Priest administers it, cannot be said truly to receive it. The Priest administers it to all that come to him, but our Saviour gives it only to those that are worthy to partake of it: Whence it clearly appears that 'tis our Saviour alone, who by means of this Sacrament consecrates and sanctifies the Souls as well of the living as the dead.

LEO Allatius has made a Catalogue of Simeon the Abbot of St. Ma∣mant's Works, who lived about the end of the Eleventh Century, and whom the Greeks call Simeon the Divine. Now in one of his Treatises there is a Hymn expressly relating to this Subject before us, to wit, that the wicked do not partake of the Body of Jesus Christ when they receive the Sacrament. Allatius tells us that he has seen this particular piece, (being a Manuscript) in a certain Library in Italy, and that the Title of it is, That they which receive unworthily the Sacraments do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And 'tis unto this whereunto relates what Nilus say's in his Sentences, Keep your selves from all corruption, and partake every day of the Mystical Supper, * 1.10 for 'tis after this sort, that the Body of Jesus Christ becomes ours. And what we find in the Verse of Psellus on the Canticle of Canticles, Jesus Christ gives his Body to the Children of the Virgin, that is to say, to the Church, for thus does he speak to them, (but 'tis Only to those that are worthy) whom he calls his near Kindred, come my Friends eat and drink, and be merry my brethren, you * 1.11 that are my brethren in good Works, eat my Body and drink my Blood. And these words of Joanicius Cartanus, the Saints are made partakers of holy things, not they that are unworthy, and sinners who having not cleansed themselves from * 1.12 their sins remain still polluted, and elsewhere, when we shall draw near unto God with Love, Fear, Reverence and Repentance, and be in charity with all men, then

shall we be meet partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ.

NOW if you would know of what importance the Argument is, which we draw from this Doctrine of the Greeks, you need but read what Chifflet the Jesuit and others have written touching a passage of the Confession at∣tributed * 1.13 to Alcuinus which bears, That the virtue of this Sacrifice is so great, that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ only to the just sinners, tanta est virtus hujus Sacrificii ut solis justis peccatoribus Corpus sit & Sanguis Christi. If the Sacrifice, or Sacrament, say's this Jesuit, be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to some only, and not to all, what remains then but to confess, that Alcuinus has been the Forerunner of Berengarius and Calvin: and that he has denied the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? He tells us this passage has given him no small trouble, and endeavours to expound it, saying, that Alcuinus speaks of the Body and Blood of Christ in respect of their saluti∣ferous effect which appertains only to the Just. But the Authors of the Of∣fice of the B. Sacrament; having told us, that it seems we must read, tanta * 1.14 est virtus Sacrificii ut solis justis, non peccatoribus Sanguis sit & Corpus Christi, they have added, that this expression has not been used since the Heresie of Beren∣garius, and that the Schoolmen who have been more scrupulous as to Terms, have (after the rise of the Heresies touching this Mystery) avoided it. Which is as much as to say, in my opinion, that if we believe Transubstantiation, as the Church of Rome has believed it since the time of Berengarius's condemnati∣on, we cannot be of this Belief, that the Eucharist is only the Body of Jesus Christ to the faithful and not to the wicked. And in effect if the Substance of Bread be really changed into that of Christ's Body, it hence evidently fol∣lows that all those that communicate thereof (be they either righteous or wicked) do receive this Body as it is, that is to say, in its proper Substance, covered with the vail of Accidents. So that the Greeks asserting the Eucha∣rist not to be the Body of Christ to Sinners; (as I have already shew'd) makes the Proof I draw hence concerning their not believing of Transub∣stantiation to be solid and convincing.

YET may there be two Objections made against my Argument; the First, That what the Greeks say concerning Christ's Body, is to be understood only in respect of its salutiferous effect, as has been declared by the Jesuit Chifflet, and not in respect of its Substance, which is to say, their meaning is, that the wicked do indeed receive the real Substance of this Body and Blood, but receive thereby no advantage: The Second, that the Bread re∣assumes its former Substance, when a wicked man approaches to receive the Communion, and that that of the Body of Jesus Christ withdraws it self. But first, I say to make people of good sence contented with this explicati∣on, they must be shewed these kind of meanings in the Writings of the Greeks themselves, which without question would be met withall, did they hold Transubstantiation. It cannot be denied but this Doctrine they teach concerning the wicked does manifestly oppose that of the Substantial con∣version, and furnisheth us with this conception, that if the Eucharist be not the Body of Jesus Christ to the wicked, how can it then be said, that the Substance of the Bread has been changed into that of this Body? This scru∣ple does naturally arise in the mind of those that believe Transubstantiation, as appears by the example of the Jesuit Chifflet, by that of the Authors of the Office of the blessed Sacrament, and by the pre-caution of the School∣men and Lattin Writers who carefully shun these kind of expressions. We need not doubt but if the Greeks believed the conversion of the Substances

they would do one of these two things, either they would renounce this o∣ther Opinion, and deliver themselves after another manner, or at least they would so expound and mollifie it as to shelter thereby Transubstantiation. But besides this, I say, if we examine these pretended illustrations in parti∣cular one after another, we shall find they are vain and ill apply'd to the Greeks. In effect the first cannot be of any use, because the Latins impute to them the Doctrine here in question, as an Error. Now this would not be an Error in respect of the Latins, if the Greeks understood it only in this sence, that the wicked do not receive the salutiferous effect of the Body of Je∣sus Christ in the Communion, altho they received the Substance of it, for even this is believed in the Church of Rome. Yet Possevin does not only af∣firm they err, but he opposes moreover against their Error a contrary Pro∣position to be held, and on which he grounds his censure. They err, say's he, * 1.15 for the wicked do really receive the Body of Jesus Christ, although they receive it unworthily, and to their condemnation.

AS to the other Objection, 'tis certainly groundless, for not to take no∣tice of the extravagancy of this Opinion, that the Substance of the Bread is changed into that of Christ's Body, and again that of the Body into that of the Bread, the Terms of Cabasilas are so clear that they admit not any evasion, for he distinguishes two Persons that give the Communion, one the Priest, and th'o∣ther our Saviour Christ, and he attributes to our Saviour alone the glory of giving his Body and Blood, 'tis likewise he himself, say's he, that administers to * 1.16 them amongst the living who truly receive. For all them to whom the Priest gives it, do not truly receive it. He himself; that is to say, immediately and without the Priests sharing in the honour thereof. The Priest has the honour to di∣stribute the Bread, but not of giving the Body and Blood. Now this does wholly overthrow Transubstantiation, and refutes the second Objection which I examine, for if the Bread were transubstantiated, there would be no need of having recourse to our Saviour himself, in order to his giving the Faithfull his Body and Blood, the Priest would give it them, for that which he holds in his hands and communicates to the Faithful, would be this Body and Blood in propriety of Substance, and Cabasilas would have no reason to oppose our Sa∣viour to the Priest.

BUT before we leave this passage of Cabasilas, it is necessary to observe two things, one of which respects the Proposition he would establish, and th'other the means he makes use of for this. The Proposition he would esta∣blish is, That the dead receive the same as the living when they partake of the Eucharist. The purity of the Soul, say's he, the Love of God, Faith, an earnest desire to partake of this Holy Mystery, a secret joy which accompanies this desire, a fervant appetite and thirst which makes us run to it, these are the things which procure our Sanctification, with which qualifications it is not possible but those that approach the Communion do partake of Jesus Christ, and without which it is im∣possible * 1.17 they should. Now all these things depend only on the Soul, and are not corpo∣real. There is nothing then which hinders the Souls of the dead from having these things as well as the living. If then these Souls are in the state and dispo∣sition requisite for the receiving of the Mystery, if he to whom it belongs to be∣stow Sanctification and Consecration is always willing to sanctifie, and ever desires to communicate himself in all places, what can then hinder this participation? And a little further, It is evident, say's he, by the things I now mention'd, that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common as well to the dead as living, and a little lower, the participation of the Holy Gifts is a thing which necessarily at∣tends * 1.18

the Souls after death. If their joy and repose sprang from any other Prin∣ciple; it might be said that even this would be the reward of that purity where∣in they are, and this Table would be no longer needful to them. But it is certain that whatsoever makes up their delights and felicity, whether you call it Paradice, or Abraham's bosom, or those happy seats free from sorrow and cares, or that you call it the Kingdom of Heaven it self, all this I say is no more than this Bread and Wine. For these things are our Mediatour, who is entred as our Fore∣runner into the Holy Places, who alone conducts us to the Father, who is the only Sun of our Souls, which at this time appeareth and communicates himself to all them that are in the Bands of the Flesh in the manner he himself pleases, but he shall then visibly manifest himself without a Vail, when we shall see him as he is, and shall gather together the Eagles about the dead Body. He afterwards proves that the Souls seperate from the Bodies, are far more fit to partake of the Mysteries, than when cloathed with their Flesh, that whatsoever rest or recompence they enjoy, is nothing else but this Bread and this Cup, of which the dead have as much right to participate as the living, and for this reason, our Saviour calls the Saints felicity a Supper, to shew us thereby, that 'tis no∣thing else but this Table. And this already gives us great cause to suspect that Cabasilas did not believe that which we eat in the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ; for we must not ima∣gine he thought the Souls of the dead did really partake thereof. They do indeed participate of the Body and Blood of Christ, but after a spiritual manner, which is accomplished without our Saviour's Substance entring in∣to them. Yet Cabasilas say's the dead receive the Holy Gifts, that they re∣ceive the Mystery, and that which makes up their felicity, is this Bread and Cup, that they partake of it, and that whatsoever appertains to this Mystery is common to them with the Living. All which is well enough understood provided it be supposed we have no other Communion with our Saviour Christ in the Eucharist than what is Spiritual, for the Souls seperate from the Body have this as well as we, and partake of our Bread and Cup, not in re∣spect of their Substance and Matter, but in respect of the Mystery they con∣tain and Grace they communicate, and thus it is certain that whatsoever be∣longs to this Mystery is common to them with the living. But if we suppo∣sed the Substantial Conversion, how could it be said, They partake of the Holy Gifts, that they receive what we receive, that we have nothing more in the Mystery than they, and that whatsoever appertains to the Mystery is common to them with us? For in fine we should really receive the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which they do not.

BUT to manifest more clearly this Doctrine of Cabasilas and put it out of doubt, we should consider the course he takes for the strengthening of his Proposition. For it will appear that this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, which he makes common both to the dead and living, respects not only the thing of which we partake, but likewise the manner of partaking of it; and in a word, he means we communicate thereof no otherwise than Spiritually. First, then he always speaks of the Sanctification which is made by way of participation and reception of the Body of Jesus Christ, as of one and the same thing, without the least difference, which is justifi'd by the bare reading of his whole Discourse. Now this shews us, he means not that we receive in the Sacrament the proper Substance of the Body of our Lord, for if it were so, the wicked would receive it without receiving Sanctification, as the Church of Rome it self does acknowledge, and the reception of this Sub∣stance, and the Sanctification, could not be considered but as two distinct

things. Yet Cabasilas confounds them, and thereupon immediately considers this difficulty; how the dead which neither eat nor drink can be sanctifi'd by this participation. Are they, say's he, in a worse condition in this respect than the living? No sure, say's he, for our Saviour communicates himself to them in * 1.19 such a manner as is best known to himself. He afterwards inquires into the causes of the sanctification of the living, and their participation of Jesus Christ, and say's, 'tis not to have a Body, nor to come with feet to the Holy Ta∣ble, nor to receive the Communion with our hand and mouth, nor to eat or drink, but that 'tis the purity of the Soul, Faith, Love of God, and other motives of Pie∣ty, these are the things, say's he, which make us necessarily partakers of Jesus Christ, and without which it is not possible to be so. Whence he concludes that the Souls seperate from the Body are capable of this participation, and that in effect they have it seeing they have all these good affections. Now it hence plainly appears that he grants the living but one kind of participation of Jesus Christ which is Spiritual; and which they have in common with the dead, and which immediately respects the Soul. For if they be only the good dispositions of the Soul which make us partakers of Jesus Christ, and that without them it is not possible for us to be so, and that the dead have the same advantage we have, it cannot then be said, we receive the pro∣per Substance of the Body, seeing on one hand according to the Hypothesis of the Church of Rome, the want of these dispositions hinders not men from receiving it, and on the other that the dead with all these their qualifications cannot receive it.

THIS appears by the Sequel of his reasoning, for what he say's con∣cerning the dead, the same he say's concerning the living which dwell in De∣serts, and that cannot personally come to the Lord's Table. Jesus Christ, * 1.20 say's he, sanctifies them invisibly with this Sanctification. How can we know this? I answer, because they have the life in themselves, and they would not have it, were they not partakers of this Mystery. For our Saviour himself has said, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. And for a further confirmation of this, he has caused to be brought to several of these Saints, the Gifts, by the Ministry of Angels. It is evident, he attributes to these Inhabitants of Deserts, the same participation of Jesus Christ, the same manducation of his Flesh and Blood which we receive in the Sacrament without the least difference, whence it follows, that our Com∣munion with Jesus Christ by means of the Sacrament is purely Spiritual, and that our eating of his Flesh is Spiritual likewise, there being no need of adding the reception of his Substance into our Stomacks.

BUT yet this does more plainly appear by what follows. The Gift, say's he, is indeed communicated to the living by means of the Body, but it first passes to the Substance of the Soul, and afterwards communicates it self to the Bo∣dy, by the Ministry of the Soul. Which St. Paul meant when he said, that he that is joyned to the Lord, is one and the same Spirit with him, because this Union and Conjunction is made first of all in the Soul. This being the Seat of this San∣ctification which we obtain by the exercise of our virtues. This is likewise the Seat of Sin. 'Tis here wherein is the Band of Servitude, by which the Sacra∣ment links us to God. The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul, and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart, from the heart likewise comes its Sanctification; as well that of the Virtues, as that of the Myste∣ries. If then the Soul has no need of the Body, to receive Sanctification, but the Body on the contrary of the Soul, why then must the Souls which are yet cloathed with their

Bodies be greater partakers of the Mystery, than those stript of them? We must be strangely prepossessed with prejudice, if we do not acknowledge that this Author only establishes the sanctifying and spiritual Communion, and not that of the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, for if we suppose the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue, it is easie to comprehend what he means, but if we suppose Transubstantiation, how shall we then understand what he say's, viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body, but it immediately passes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it self from the Soul to the Body? Does not the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack, and does it not remain there till the change of the Species? How then shall we understand him when he say's, that our Com∣munion with Jesus Christ is first established in the Soul? For 'tis certain, that to judge of it, in the sence of Transubstantiation, it would be establish∣ed on the contrary first of all in the Body, which would be the first Subject that would receive the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. How shall we understand the Conclusion he draws from all this Discourse, to wit, that the Souls of the dead are no less partakers of this Mystery than those of the living, for the living do communicate after two manners, Spiritually and Substantially, whereas the dead only in one? How in fine, shall we under∣stand what he means in saying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Mystery, than that which comes to it from the Soul? Is it no wise sanctifi'd by touching the proper Substance of the Son of God.

CABASILAS stay's not here, for concluding by way of Interroga∣tion, that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Mystery than those which are stript of them, he continues to demand what they have more. Is it, say's he, that they see the Priest, and receive from him * 1.21 the Gifts? But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Priest, who is to them all these things; It being he indeed that administers to them that truly receive. Was there ever any man that betrayed such a want of memory as this man does, should it be supposed he believed Transubstan∣tiation? Could he not remember that the living have not only this advan∣tage above the dead to behold the Priest, and receive from him the Gifts, but likewise to receive the proper Substance of their Saviour? Could not he call to mind, that the Spiritual Communion, remaining common both to the one and the others, the Substantial was particularly to the living? Moreover, what does he mean in saying, that as 'tis Jesus Christ that administers it to the dead, so it is he likewise that gives it to the living that effectually receive it? Is it that the Priest who gives the proper Substance of Jesus Christ does not truly and effectually administer it? Is it that this Substance which is called with so great an Emphasis, the Truth and Reality, and which Mr. Ar∣naud always understands, when he finds these kind of expressions, the real Body, and Blood of Jesus Christ? Is it, I say, that this is not a Truth?

MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all these difficulties when he pleases, and 'tis likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Transubstantiation, seeing he himself has heretofore written, that God ad∣mits * 1.22 us to the participation of the same Food which the Elect feed on to all E∣ternity, there being no other difference betwixt them and us, but only that here he takes from us the sensible taste and sight of it, reserving both one and the o∣ther of these for us when we come to Heaven. He will tell us there's no body doubts, but that he is of the number of Transubstantiators, seeing he has

with so much honour vanquished the Minister Claude, and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the discourse of Cabasilas. I do verily believe his single Proposition has almost as much force as whatsoever I have mention'd from Cabasilas, for if there be no other diffe∣rence between the participation of the Faithful on Earth, and that of the Elect in Heaven, than that of the sight and sensible taste, which we have not here, nor shall have but in Heaven, I do not see any reason wherefore Mr. Arnaud should so bestir himself to shew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies, and which enters into our Stomacks, is the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, seeing 'tis certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jesus Christ in such a manner. But it being no ways reasonable that what Mr Arnaud has said at one time contradictorily to what he has said at another, should serve me as a Rule for the understanding of Authors, all that I can do in his favour is this, freely to offer him to lay aside the Proof taken from Cabasilas, when he shall have made his Proposition to be approved of in the Court of Rome.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Balsam. in Canon. 55. A∣post. Can 70.
• * 1.2

  Areud lib. 3. cap. 6.
• * 1.3

  Goar in Eu∣chol. p. 153.
• * 1.4

  Apud. Allat. de perp. cons. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• * 1.5

  Apud Allat. lib 3 ••e perp. C••ns cap 12.
• * 1.6

  Athan. disp. hab. in Concil. Nic. V••l ali∣us sub nomine Athanas••.
• * 1.7

  Prateol. Elen. Heresic. lib. 7. cap. de Graecis.
• * 1.8

  Possevin in Mosc. p. 43.
• * 1.9

  Gabisil. in ex∣plicat. Litur. cap. 22.
• * 1.10

  Apud Allat. de Simeon Nil. in Par. Bibl. Patr. Graeco-lat. Tom. 2.
• * 1.11

  Comm. trium. Patr. in Cant. Cant.
• * 1.12

  Apud Allat. de perpet. Cons. lib. 3.
• * 1.13

  Chifflet. prae∣fat. ad Lector. in Confess. Alcu.
• * 1.14

  In their Histo∣rical and Chronologi∣cal Table un∣der the title of B. Alcuin.
• * 1.15

  Possevin ubi Supra.
• * 1.16

  Gabasilas ubi Supra.
• * 1.17

  Cap. 42.
• * 1.18

  Cap. 43.
• * 1.19

  Cap. 42.
• * 1.20

  Ibid.
• * 1.21

  Cap. 43.
• * 1.22

  Of frequent Com. part. 3. P. 725.