had risen with a spiritual entity it could be no more a true real body but a spirit which to affirm is plain heresy Therefore according to the Apostle glorified bodies will rise again with their corporal substances but endowed and qualified with spiritual dowries redounding from their souls From whence followeth that by reason of their subjection to the souls and because they shall be no clog to them that they can in an instant move from heaven to earth with an equivocal motion following the instantanean motion of the minde from whence also followeth that Christs glorified soul being in heaven and having a thought or desire to be in an instant upon earth and in a thousand equivocal places there sacramentally at the same time without passing through any intermediate place which she can do by reason of her hypostatical union to the divinity that his body because of its perfect subjection to his soul can pass with a Motus discretus or equivocal motion and accompany her in all her sacramental places together and be really in every of them not after a quantitative or circumscriptive but after a sacramental or spiritual manner as the soul is in a mans body all the soul in the whole body and all the soul in every point and particle of the body for as a spirit possesseth not a place quantitatively or superficially so also may a glorified body being spiritualized be in a place after a spiritual manner By this solution Mr. de Rodons first arrow is not only shivered and broken but his following proofs also eluded and enerved For all their force is bent only against the bringing or being of Christs body in the host circumscriptively and into its natural and univocal place all which we grant cannot be supposing the heavens are to contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts. 3. But they make nothing at all against its being or being brought in the host sacramentally and in its equivocal place for such a being or coming depends not upon a proper and univocal place as all divines and Philosophers confess And consequently Mr. de Rodons ayery existence of Christs body is but a meere â—…himera Though we grant Christ hath a natural existence in heaven and a sacramental one upon Earth which we say is but one and the self same of him as he is in several manners For if he should change himself into the form of a child or into any other form whatsoever as he can do his natural existence and that would be one and the self same By this solution is also seen how Christs body may be brought into the Sacrament as the Iacobins say or produced in it as the Jesuits say without his leaving to be in heaven in his human shape for no body leaveth its proper place wherein it is but by its proper local motion from the proper place wherein it was into another proper place But a proper local motion belongs only to circumscribed bodies when they are brought circumscriptively to their proper and univocal places Therefore since Christs body is not brought so into the Sacrament it may keep its connatural station and situation in heaven and yet notwithstanding be brought or produced in the host being he comes nor is produced there by local motion nor is in the Sacrament as in its proper place but only in an improper and equivocal one as we have often said before Rodon 4. Secondly Christs body cannot be reproduced in the consecrated host because a thing that is produced already cannot be produced again without a preceding destruction for as a dead man cannot be killed nor that be annihilated which is annihilated already so neither can that be produced which is produced already nor that receive a being which hath one already This common conception of all men is founded upon this Principle that every action whether it produceth or destroyeth a thing must necessarily have two distinct terms the one called in the schools Terminus a quo that is the term from which the thing comes and the other Terminus ad quem that is the term to which it comes But according to this Principle that cannot be annihilated which is so already nor that receive a being which hath one already because the term from which it should come and the term to which it should come would be one and the same thing contrary to the maxim already laid down viz. that the terms of Action must necessarily be distinct and that one of them must be the negation or privation of the other Answ. To this argument I answer that that which is produced already cannot be reproduced as to its entitative and essential being but that which is produced already as to its essential being may be produced or rather adduced as to its modal being and so we say Christs body is in the Sacrament because his essential being as he is in his natural human shape in heaven hinders not his Sacramental or modal being here upon earth for neither his entity nor his Sacramental existence depends upon any univocal place or space Rodon 5. Here perhaps it may be objected that by Transubstantiation the substence of Christs body is not newly produced but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was But to this I answer that in all substantial conversions and actions a new substance must be produced as in accidental a new accident must be produced But Transubstantiation according to the Romish doctors is a substantial conversion Therefore by Transubstantiation a new substance must be produced And seeing that the new presence of Christs body in the place where the bread was is not a substance but an accident of the Cathegory which the Philosophers call ubi it is evident that by Transubstantiation the presence of Christs body only is not produced in the place where the substance of the bread was and seeing that the substance of Christs body is not produced there as hath been proved in the preceding number we must conclude that there is no Transubstantiation nor real presence of Christs body in the host which hath been already refuted in number the third Answ. Mounsieur you need not bragg much of your refutations in both your said numbers for they are clearly answered by me in their due place And the objection you make for us here is very true for it is not the essential substance of Christs body that is newly produced by transubstantiation but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was for that essential production was made at his Incarnation and will abide for ever however we say that his body hath a substantial and essential existence in the host by reason of its Sacramental presence there and you speak very unskillfully and unphilosophically when you say that Christs presence in the Sacrament is an accident of the Cathegory which Philosophers call ubi for his Presence
shape in heaven in his proper place and in the Sacrament he is but in his improper and equivocal place to which distance hath no relation at all it followeth evidently that his body in heaven is not different or distant from it self in the Sacrament no more then two Angels or spirits are distant from one another which yet no good Philosopher will acknowledge because of their incapacity of being circumscribed for want of supersices By this solution is clearly seen how frivolous ridiculous and impertinent all Mr. de Rodons ensuing Instances and witty quodlibetical questions are and how wide they are from the mark for they all aym and strike at one body the same time in two or more circumscriptive places but they touch or concern not at all one body at the same time in its natural place and in its sacramental place which is the only question we are about Therefore according to good Philosophy he argues unskilfully and impertinently by arguing from an univocal place to an equivocal one or vice versa for I grant him that the same body at the same time cannot be circumscriptively in two places but what is this to our present controversie Therefore I am mistaken if I have not according to the judgment of any indifferent Philosopher answered the Mounsieurs argument pertinently and Philosophically as all other Philosophers would have done and not absurdly and ridiculously as he is sure it could not be answered otherwise and to his ridiculous questions I say that if Christ or Peter should meet themselves in their sacramental or equivocal places they may walk by themselves freely without passing through themselves or making a Ianus or two faces for when our saviour gave himself sacramentally to himself and to his Apostles he made neither a Ianus or double face because as I have a hundred times repeated it over and over a body sacramentaly or equivocaly in a place which properly and in rigour is no place at all cannot stop or hinder a circumscribed body from going unto any proper place Neither do we allow of any nearness or distance but between circumscribed bodies in their univocal places from whence I conclude that these questions are more ridiculous and impertinent then any answer could have been given them and so this arrow is also lost Now then to his 5th Rodon 6. It is a perfect contradiction that a body should be one and not one But if Christs body should be at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it would be one and not one for it would be one by our adversaries own confession and it would not be one which I prove thus that a thing may be one it must neither be divided in it self nor from it self as appears by the definition of unity And it is certain that nothing is divided and separated from it self But if Christs body be at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it will be diviâ—…ed and separated from it self that which is in heaven â—…eing separated and divided from that which is upon earth because it 〈◊〉 not in the space between both Here again it may be objected that a body in divers places is divided from it self locally because the places in which it is are divided but not entitatively because it is still one and the same entity of body To which I answer 1. that entitive division which is nothing else but a plurality of beings or a plurality of things really different is no true division for then the three divine Persons which are really different would be also really divided and the body and soul of a living man which do really differ would also be really divided Secondly I say that if a body be divided and separated from bodies which it toucheth it is also divided and separated from bodies which it doth not touch and if a body be divided and separated from bodies to which it is near it is also divided and separated from bodies that are far distant from it but especially the division is true when between two there be bodies of divers natures to which there is no union Therefore seeing that between Christs body which is really in heaven and the same body which is pretendedly upon earth in the consecrated hosts there be divers bodies of divers natures to which it is not united it is evident by our adversaries own doctrine that Christs body is really divided and separated from it self And seeing it is impossible it should be separated from it self it is also impossible that it should be in heaven and in the host at the same time Thirdly I say that local division takes away entitive division and things that are divided locally are also divided entitatively that is they are also really different else no reason can be given why two glasses of water taken from the same fountain â—…are really different seeing these waters are like in all things except in reference to place and there can no reason be given why the ocean is not one single drop of water only reproduced in all places occupied by the ocean except it be that one drop of water cannot be reproduced in all those places but if it be possible then reason obligeth us to believe that it is really so because God and nature do nothing in vain and it is in vain to do that by many things which may be done by one thing and if it be really so then it follows that all the Sea-battells that ever have been were fought in one drop of water and many thousands of men have been drowned in one drop of water and all people since Adam have drunk but one drop of water which things are absurd and ridiculous Answ. Yet more impertinencies Mr. de Rodon and more of your foolish merry conceited ridiculous sequels I doubt not gentle reader but this famous Philosophy-professor was excellently well pleased at this witty and merry conceited drop of water that drains the ocean drowned so many thousands and refreshes us all But who knows that the Philosopher took not a harty draft or two of good wine to season his brain before this great drop presented it self to his whimsical nodle Therefore lest he should grow frantick with his dropsical conceit I moulder his argument and its sequels thus by denying his minor viz. that in that case he puts Christs body would be one and not one and to his proof I deny also his second minor viz. that if Christs body were at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it would be divided and separated from it self because Christs body is in the host but Sacramentally only just almost in a manner as our souls are in our bodies and the difference is this that our souls are pure spirits and his body is a true body spiritualized and that his body is not confined and limited to one equivocal place as the soul is to the body but it may be
same time that the bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ which were before that accidents may be without a subject c. And the passages that are impertinently alledged to prove such a presence and such a change have a sense very commodious and very rational for the avoiding all these contradictions as appears in this and in the former chapter where I have rationally expounded those two passages which the Romish doctors impertinently make use of for this subject Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational sense which we have given them and to reject the doctrine of the real Presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the Host and the doctrine of Transubstantiation Answ. How much this grave consideration of the Mounsieur can work upon ignorant illiterate people upon heathens Jews or Turks or upon brute beasts of best sensation if they had intellectual or cogitative faculties agreeing with their sensation I know not But sure I am that no good Christian or man of learning or knowledg ought to regard or value it for all Christians and all rational and learned men do know that objects of divine faith such as this is ought not to be levelled or measured by our reason and senses for otherwise some beasts and birds whose sensitive faculties surpass mans must also surpass him in faith And if the best reason should carry away the cause then the best Philosophers would be the best believers and so Plato and Aristotle who were far more Eagle-sighted concerning objects of natural reason then many millions of poor Christians are would surpass all these Christians in divine faith a thing both impious and ridiculous to assert amongst Christians neither do seeming contradictions unless they be real ones validate or strengthen this his profound consideration for many things may seem impossible to us which are not so really to God This the Mounsieur I am sure must grant unless he maintains that man can comprehend Gods omnipotency which to say is open Blasphemy However for disputation sake we let pass the major but we deny the minor as to all its parts first we deny that the real Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is repugnant to reason and sense though it be above them so we say that the raising of a dead man to life and all miracles are only above reason and sense but not repugnant or against them for what is repugnant or contrary to reason and sense quite destroyes them as to be and not to be at the same time and after the same manner is impossible and destroyes reason and sense but we deny Transubstantiation to be of that kind Secondly we deny that it implyes or seems to imply a contradiction that a human body should be Sacramentally in a point without any local extension though we grant it cannot be circumscriptively in a point Thirdly we deny that Christ to be in his human shape in heaven and to be at the same time sacramentally upon earth or for him to be sacramentally in ten thousand places together upon earth is at all any contradiction because to be sacramentally in a place or places requires no local extension for as in true Divinity if Christ should assume and suppositate hypostatically three several humane natures altogether to his Divinity they would all in that case have but one person without any implicancy or contradiction so Christ may also without any contradiction be at once sacramentally in several places who is then able to penetrate and dive into the infinite power of God finally we grant that accidents cannot be naturally without their connaturall subjects but supernaturally they can as Christs humane nature is now without any other but the divine personality of Christ and yet naturally it should have a humane person which no body can say it hath without being an heretick for otherwise he must own that there are two persons in Christ a divine and a humane one and consequently say there is a quadrinity in the mystery of the blessed Trinity Even so I say that as Christ without contradiction supplyeth the human personality with his divine so can he also without contradiction supply the connatural subjects of bread and wine with his infinite power Therefore since this answer is well grounded in true divinity and Phylosophy and that all the holy fathers and General Councils that ever have been in Christs Church and treated of this matter were of the same belief concerning the real presence as we are of and since it is more consonant both to reason and faith that the substance of Christs body is more nourishing to the soul then the bare entities of bread and wine are Farthermore since the question here in agitation is above though not repugnant to reason and sense it being an object of divine faith which Christ revealed unto his Church and she ever practised from the Apostles time as all Ecclesiastical histories do testify Neither could our adversaries ever shew what year or in what place or country the Mass crept first into the Church nor who were the orthodox fathers or general Councils that ever opposed it untill many hundred years after it was in practise throughout the Christian world and finally since the first oppo ser of it was presently cried down by all the orthodox for a publick heretick For these and sundry other such reasons I say no rational or learned man ought to value the groundless and weak consideration of Mr. de Rodan which hath no other prop to uphold it but frail human reason wherewith he intends to inveagle and deceive the poor ignorant illiterate sort of people who ought rather submit their judgements and understanding humbly to the common belief of the Universal Church concerning matters of faith then rely upon either their own or the grave Mounsieurs deep reason and wit This ancient and universal doctrine of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist do the Romish Doctors must solidly and pertinently maintain and desend against all the enimies of Christs Church against Luther Calvin Rodon and all his impertinent sophisms nay and against all the devils of hell if they should come to assist him and furnish him with their arguments Neither hath he hitherto in this nor in his former chapter said any thing against it which I have not fully and sufficiently answered as I leave any indifferent impartiall Reader to judge CHAP. III. Against Transubstantiation BY destroying Trasubstantiation which is the life of the Mass the Mass must perish also Mr de Rodon considering this picks out of the storehouse of his Philosophy his keenest arrows wherewith having as he questions not in this Chapter hit the the mark home although he conceits he is the killer himself yet he is pleased to bestow the funeral exequyes as the Title of his book shews To bury the dead I confess is with us one of the seven works of corporal mercy but to bury one
the Romish heresies and I leave the decision and arbitration of our contest to the verdict of any judicious and 〈◊〉 Reader But lo here he comes with his first keen arrow Rodon 2. If a thing be created in a place either it must be produced there or it must come or be brought thither from some other place for it is impossible to finde out a third way of putting any thing in a place And the Romish Doctors have hitherto been able to invent but one of these two waies of putting Christs body in the host The Jacobins telling us that it is brought thither from some other place and the Iesuiâ—…s that it is produced there But the body of Christ can neither come nor be brought thither into the host nor can it be produced there Therefore the body of Christ is not in the host Answ. To this argument I answer denying Mr. de Rodons supposition viz. that Christ body is created in the Sacrament but only the bread and wine Transubstantiated or converted into his body and bloud at which conversion one substance succeedeth another so that Christs body is in the Sacrament immediatly and formally by reason of its substance and not by reason of its quantitative dimensions But all Philosophers agree in this that a thousand substances can be altogether in one point without taking up any proper place And yet we confess that where his substance or body is that there his quantity is also by concomitance though not with its quantitative dimensions in order to its parts as they are extended in a place for extension of parts in order to a place is but a property of quantity or of a quantitative body and the essence of quantity consists in the extension of the parts of a quantitative body as they are in order to themselves and if the Mounsieur ask us how this is feasable or how can a body be without being in a place we will ask him how Sydrach Mysach and Abednego could be in the Babilonian furnace without feeling the heat of the great fire that was put under it and if he sayes as he ought to say that God supplied or hindred the heat notwithstanding the fire remayned because heat is only a property and not essential to fire the same thing say we also of quantity or of a quantitative body and of its parts as they are extended in order to a place Therefore since Christs body is really in the Sacrament by reason of a substantial conversion and no substance is properly in a place by reason of its own self but only by reason of its quantitative dimensions since Christ hinders or obstructs the quantitative dimentions of his body in the Sacrament as he did obstruct the heat of the fire of the Babilonian furnace it follows evidently that Christs body in the Sacrament is there without being in any proper place Rodon 3. The body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the host from any other place because it can come from no place but heaven being no where but in heaven But Christs body neither comes nor is brought from heaven into the host which I prove thus when a body comes or is carried from one place to another it must leave its first place for example if a man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris but the body of Iesus Christ never leaves heaven for the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts. 3. Therefore Christs body neither comes nor is brought from heaven into the host Besides it is impossible that Christs body should come or be brought into the host without passing through the space that is between heaven and earth where the consecrated hosts are because a man cannot pass from one extream to another without passing through the space that is between them But the space between heaven and earth is too vast to be passed through in a moment for these doctors will have it that immediatly after pronouncing these words This is my body the body of Christ is brought into the host Moreover it must in a moment be in all the heavens and in all he Aires between the highest heavens and this earth where the hosts are because a man cannot pass through a place without being there and then it would have three sorts of existences at once viz. one natural and glorious existence in heaven one Sacramental existence in the hoji and one ayery existence in the Ayr But sâ—…ing all thâ—…se things are absurd we must conclude that Iesus Christs body neither comes nor is brought into the host Answ. I told you just now Mounsieur that Christs body is not in the Sacrament as in its proper place for the reason all Philosophers give viz. that no substance is in a place but by reason of its quantitative dimensions which dimensions we say Christs body has not in the Sacrament but is in it immediatly by reason of the substantial conversion wherein one substance immediatly succeeds the other and so according to this answer we deny that Christs body is either brought from another place into the Sacrament or produced in it as in its propor place but rather that it exists in it without any local dimensions as all other substances if they were without their quantitative dimensions would exist in and by themselves without taking up any place yet since you are so acute a Philosopher or at least taken by your party to be so and do make use of Philosophical principles against us I think it not amiss for the clearer understanding of my answer first to set down the common definition which all philosophers give of a place as also to let the Reader know how many manner of ways all divines and Christian Philosophers do acknowledg a thing may be in a place As to the first they unanimously own a proper place to be defined thus Ultima superficies corporis continentis immobilis primi The last superfice or overmost part of the first immovable containing body for example my proper place is the next hollow superfice of the air surrounding my body and the proper place of water in a vessel is the next hollow superfice of the vessel not the exterior but the interiour superfice Where note that according to Philosophers a proper place hath also these two properties or faculties in order to the thing that it contains first it circumscribes and environs the thing placed of all sides and round about Secondly a proper place is a preservative of the body which it contains and therefore it is that every corporal thing hath a natural inclination to tend to its own proper place and center So we see fire hath a natural inclination to ascend towards its own Element and when it is there in its proper center and place it rests and is quiet Water also tends naturally towards the sea and until it be in its Element center is never at rest so is it also
there is no Cathegorical or Predicamental ubi but a substantial and Sacramental one because all Predicamental ubies must result from univocal and not from Sacramental places as all good divines and Christian Philosophers do unanimously teach And consequently your proofs can be of no force or value amongst them whatever you would have them be amongst the illiterate vulgar people whom you intend to delude and deceive with your Philosophical quibbles The Mounsieurs first arrow being thus vainly shot he pulls oâ—…t his second which is this Rodon 6. In a true humane body such as Christs body is there is somthing above and something under right and left before and behind for the head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders the shoulders above the breast the breast above the belly c. But all the world knows that in a point there is nothing above or under right or left before or behind Therefore Christs body is not in a point and consequently it is not in every point or part of the host To this I add that the quantity and greatness of Christs body is nothing else but its extent as we all know and a body is extended when it hath its parts one without another as all the Iesuits expound it But the doctrine of the presence of Christs body in the host puts all its parts one within another because it puts them all in a point Therefore such a doctrine takes away its extent and consequently its quantity Answ. This arrow follows his former directly for if Christs body could have no other place but an univocal one nor no being in it but a circumscriptive being the arrow would hit right But seeing Christs body is in all things subject to his soul as his soul is to his divinity and that his soul is as ours are all in his whole body and all in every point and part of his body it follows that his body now glorified and spiritualized by reason of its spiritual qualifications and dowries may be not only naturally in its univocal place as our bodies are in their natural places but that it may also be in an equivocal or Sacramental one as pure spirits are without any dependency of an univocal or proper place and consequently that it may be in every part and point of the host as our souls are in every point and living part of our bodies But here I ask the Mounsieur if he ever was in heaven and saw the situation of Christs glorified body there because he says some part of it must be above and some part under some before and some behinde some on the right side and some on the left I would fain know of him where is above and under in heaven where is the right and left hand there and where the before and behinde or is there any other body in heaven above the heaven where Christ and his Angels and saints are to denotate high and low right and left before and behind sure it is theâ—… that â—…he never was there and unloss he changed his opinion before he died I fear never will be and sure also it is that this his argument oâ—… arrow is but a very pittiful miserable one for comparing and liking the situation of Christs glorified body unto ours as if Christ would not situâ—…te himself in heaven or upon Earth but after our circumscriptive material manner Certainly if he can do no more then what we apprehend or understand and cannot transcend our weak capacity in his works he is no God and there is no such thing as an object of divine faith Therefore forsooth because Mr. de Rodon cannot with his Philosophy comprehend or understand how a man cannot be without his head above his shoulders and his shoulders above his breast Christ cannot be really in the Sacrament an unanswerable reason and a keen killing arrow I confess to ignorant illiterate people of no belief but to the learned and faithfull it has no more force then a broken straw To his addition I say that he that can make a Camel pass through a needles eye can also put his own quantity into a point To his lastly or last I answer that the quantity of Christs body as also of all other bodies is nothing else essentially but the extent of its parts as they are in order to themselves and not as they are extended in order to any place for that extension is onâ—…y a property of the former extension aâ—…d may be hindered supernaturally as the heat of the forementioned Babilonian â—…urnace was which heat although it was the property oâ—… the fire that was set under the furnaâ—…e and wroughâ—… its effect upon the standers by yet God could and did suspend its operation upon the three holy young men that were put into it and it â—…either burnt or hurt them at all even so can he do and doth with Christs body in the Sacrament for the substance of his body is there with its essential quantitie by concomitance although the properties of his essential quantity whereof extension of its parts in order to a place is oâ—…e be hindred and suspended for being the Sacrament was instituted for us that we should receive and eat it it was necessary that the local extension of Chriâ—…s body in it should be hindred Therefore as Christ when he said this is my body could and did put his body substantially in the Sacrament in the species and form oâ—… bread and wine for to attemperate it to our natures that we may receive it without any loathsomeness so he did also suspend and hinder its local extension sor to accomodate it to our bodies for our spiritual nourishment and so this arrow follows the other Now to his third Rodon 7. To move and not to move at the same time to be eaten and not to be eaten at the same time to be in a point and not to be in a point at the same time to occupy a place and not to occupy a place at the same time arâ—… contradictory things But if the body of Christ were in diverse consecrated hosts it would move and not move at the same time for example when a Priest carries a consecrated host to a sick person the body of Christ which is pretended to be in it moves with the host for it leaves the Altar and goes with the Priest towards the sick persons house and at the same time the body of Christ which is pretended to be in the other host that remains at the Altar moves not and so the same body of Christ at the same time moves and moves not which is a contradiction Seeing then it is impossible that one and the same body at one and the same time should move and not move it is likewise impossible â—…hat Christs body should be in divers hosts at the same time In like manner if Christs body were at the same time in heavâ—…n and in the host it would be eaten and not
an absolute term for when we conceive an absolute term we conceive but one thing as when we conceive a crow but when we conceive a relative term we necessarily conceive two things for example we connot conceive a crow to be like without conceiving something else to which it is like seeing then we cannot conceive a thing to be distant without conceiving something else from which it is distant it is evident that to be distant is a relative term and that distant things are relatives and consequently are really different whence I form this Argument Relative things are really different as hath been proved but the body that is at Rome is distant from that which is at Paris by reason of the space of 300. leagues that is between these two cities the body that is in the highest heavens is distant from that which is upon earth by reason of the many thousands of leagues that are between heaven and earth Therefore the body that is at Rome is different from that which is at Paris and that which is in heaven is different from that which is upon earth and consequently one and the same body cannot be at the same time at Rome and at Paris in heaven and upon earth else one and the same body might be distant and different from it self which is a contradiction Therefore seeing Iesus Christ is not distant and different from himself it follows that he cannot be at the same time in heaven and in the host nor at the same time in the consecrated host at Rome and at Paris But perhaps it may be said that a body being at the same time in two distant places is not distant from it self but that the places only are distant and therefore that Christs body in heaven is not distant from it self in the host but it is the places only viz. heaven and earth where the host is that are distant To this I answer that it is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in those distant places for example the reason why Peter at Rome is distant from Paul at Paris is not because they are two things really different else they would be alwaies distant even when they are in one bed together for they are alwaies really different but all the reason of their distance is because they are in two distant places Seeing then according to our Adversaries that Christs body is in two distant places at once viz. in heaven and in the host at Rome and at Paris in divers hosts it follows that Christs body is distant and different from it self it is evident that it cannot be in two distant places at once and consequently not in heaven and in the host Besides suppose that Peter could be at Rome and at Paris at once and that Peter that is at Rome should have a minde to go to Paris and should go accordingly and that the same Peter that is at Paris should have a minde to go to Rome and should go accordingly it is certain that Peter would draw near to himself and meet himself but things that draw near to each other must of necessity have been at a distance before and therefore if a body draw near to it self it is certain that it was distant from it self before and hereupon I would fain ask our Adversaries whether when Peter should meet himself he would let himself pass or not and if he should let himself pass whether Peter going to Rome would step aside and give way to himself going to Paris or else the contrary but if he should not step aside and give place to himself I would ask whether he would hinder himself from passing or not and if he should not hinder himself from passing whether he would passe through himself and so make another Janus with two faces c. whatsoever answers they will make to these questions must I am sure be very absurd and ridiculous Answ. I am sure the answers I shall make to these your questions and argument also will appear to any learned man to be both solid and sound and better grounded in true Philosophy then all your sophismes are and they will manifestly evince that these unphilosophical illations and as you think witty conceited interrogations of yours are but meere ridiculous quibbies and impertinent foolish trifles not at all touching our Diana which is the mark you ought to aim 〈◊〉 with your arrow Therefore to give your argument or arrow the more vent and force I grant two Relatives are different and that Relation is alwaies between two things that differ really or modally I also grant that two crows and two Jackdaws too although they are like in colour and shape do differ in their entities and that nothing hath a relation to it self while it is taken in the same formality Finally I confess that this word distant is a relative and not an absolute term Now all this being granted I hope the Mounsieur will hit right thus he shoots Relative things are really different But the body that is at Rome is diâ—…tant from that which is at Paris therefore the body which is at Rome is different from that is at Paris Before I shatter this vain and ill-leveled arrow I must let the Reader know that although this word distant be a relative term that signifies an interval betwixt different things yet because there is no distance between corporal things by reason of their proper and univocal places therefore distance cannot extend it self beyond the sphear of an univocal place So that there can be no proper distance but betwixt bodies and only betwixt such bodies too as are circumscribed and are in their univocal places for no body can rightly and properly say that two angels or two spirits are distant from one another because they have no bodies and consequently no univocal places to circumscribe them and the whole reason is because distance depends wholy upon an univocal place so that where there is no proper place there can be no distance This sure ground thus layd I confess the Mouusieurs Major and distinguish his minor thus But the body which is at Rome is distant from c. The body which is circumscriptively at Rome is distant from the body which is circumscriptively at Paris I confess the minor the body which is sacramentally or in its equivocal place at Rome is distant from the body that is at Paris or in heaven either I deny the minor and consequence also Therefore we say that it is not to be in two equivocal places nor in twenty also together that causes two bodies to be near or distant Nay more then that although one of those bodies were in its proper place and the other but in an equivocal one we say those two bodies would not be properly near or distant because nearness and distance has no relation at all to equivocal places but only to univocal ones Since then Jesus Christ is in his natural
should be so as he expresly said But although we believe he is glorious as he is in the Sacrament too yet we confess we see him not there with our corporal eyes shining in glory because he hides it from us there for he knows it is neither expedient nor requisite that he should manifest his glory unto us here upon earth that our merit should be the more by believing his plain and express word This was the reason why that during the time while he was conversant with men in his patible body although his soul was also then alwaies glorious by reason of the Hypostatical union yet this glory of hers never redounded to his body but once at Mount Thabor and then but transeunter for a short time only to animate Peter whom he designed to be his Vicar on earth as also Iames and Iohn who were his neer kinsmen and of the chief of his Apostles that these three being eye-witnesses of his glorious Transfiguration should be the more confirmed in their own and the better strengthen the rest of the Apostles and disciples in their belief concerning the death of their dear master and the grand Mistery of his Resurrection Therefore while we are members of the Church militant it is not expedient we should see the body of Christ shining in glory with our corporal eyes although we are bound to believe his glorified body is really in the Sacrament Neither is brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light more proper and principal to a glorified body then are impassibility subtility and agility which are likewise dowries of a glorious body and yet the Apostles saw none of these three other dowries of Christs body in the Mount though his body had them there so also although Christs body in the Sacrament has all the same dowries and properties after his Resurrection yet it is neither expedient or necessary that every one of us should see them with our corporal eyes theâ—…e but it is enough we believe it from whence follows not evidently as the Mounsieur says that they are not there for an argument from a corporal visible not seeing to an intelligible spiritual not being concludes but against ignorant people and misbelievers not against any learned or faithfull Rodon 9. But quoth Mounsieur helping us out it may be said that Christs body is under the accidents of bread and wine and that these accidents hide it from us To which answer he replies very Philosophically and acutely as he is wont thus But the substance of the bread and wine was not under the accidents and the accidents were not upon their substance for then the substance of the bread and its accidents had been in different places above and under being two several differences of place and that which is under is not above Therefore Christs body cannot be under the accidents of bread and consequently the accidents do not hide it from us O Philosophy Philosopher Answ. But who can but admire to hear such a silly reply from so famous a Professor as Mr. de Rodon is esteemed and cryed up to be amongst his admirers and applauders I pray tell me Mr. Rodon whether the substance of your own body be over or under its accidents or no if you say I then your body which consists of substance and accidents is at the same time in two places for according to you over and under are differences of several places and consequently according to your Philosophy one body may be naturally in two places at once for I suppose your body is but one and its situation is not a supernatural one now then if under and above be differences of divers places and your substance is under your accidents it follows manifestly that your body is naturally in two places at once which is more then we affirm of Christs body for we say it is in the Sacrament not naturally that is after a natural manner but supernaturally If your answer be no then I pray tell us where the substance of your body is is it in the accidents then why may not we also say that the substance of the bread before the consecration and the substance of Christs body after the consecration are in the Sacramental species which if so then they are all but in one place and consequently the substance being in the accidents for ought this reply can contradict the substance is absoonded in them and so are really all substances hidden from our corporal eyes for we never see the substance of any body but only its outermost superfice But in true Philosophy substances separated from their accidents have no over nor under and consequently possess no place but by reason of their accidents or quantity So that according to all good Philosophers Mr. de Rodon only excepted a thousand substances may be together in one point from whence followeth that the Mounsieur is either the only Philosopher himself or else that this reply is meerly nonsensical he speaking contrary to the usage of all Philosophers Neither is his second reply more pertinent then the former was though more ridiculous for he plays the fool with Philosophy in it These be his words Rodon 10. And seeing as our adversaries say Christs body is in every part and point of the host it must needs be in the supersice and consequently cannot be hid or covered by the accidents of the bread then he helps us out again here again it may be said that Christs body is glorious luminous and visible of it self but God hinders us from seeing it To this I answer that if God hinders it it is only because he is pleased so to do and consequently if he were pleased not to hinder he would not do it but would permit it to be seen in the same posture as it is in the host then he comes up with more of his witty merry interrogations again viz. in what posture it would be seen there whether sitting standing lying or in any other posture or whether it would be in any posture at all If it be in no posture it must be without any external form because posture or situation absolutely depends upon external form But how can a man be seen without an external form of a man and without being in any posture of a man and how can Christs body be without posture and without external form seeing as our adversaries say it is whole and entire in the whole host and occupies the whole space of a great host But if it be sitting or standing or in any other posture and with the external form of a man and if as they say it be whole and intire in a point of the host Then it will follow that a man may be seen sitting or standing in a point and seeing a man that is standing hath his head above and his feet below it will follow that Iesus Christ will be seen in a point of the host with his head above and his feet below
Therefore God communicates or câ—…n communicate to the creature viz. to a body a finite extent whereby it may sill divers places and occupy several places oâ—… once whence it follows that Christs body may be in divers plâ—…ces at the same time viz. in heaven and in the host Answer Rodon 12. To this I answer that as God cannot be in two places for example in heaven and upon earth without being in all those places that are between both for then he would be distant and separated from himself so Christs body cannot be in two distant places viz. at Paris and at Rome in heaven and upon earth in the host without being in all those places that are between both for then it would be distant and separated from it self which is impossible as hath been sufficiently proved Therefore since Christs body is not in all places between Paris and Rome and between heaven and earth it follows that it is not in heaven and upon earth in the host nor at Paris and Rome in consecrated hosts so that to make a creature for example the body of Christ partaker of Gods extent or immensity it is sufficient that as God by his infinite extent occupies all places so Christs body should by its finite extent occupy some place But if to make it partake in a finite degree of this divine Attribute of Immensity it must be in divers places yet it is sufficient that it be in divers places successively and not at once Or if to make 〈◊〉 partake of this Attribute it must be in divers places at once yet it is sufficient that it occupies them by its several parts fâ—…r example that the head be in one place and the feet in another c. In a word that it be without discontinuance or separation as God is every where without discontinuance Thus the learned Master Brugier then answered and much better but I cannot remember his full and compleat answer Answ. Mr. de Rodon your learned Brugier shews no learning in this answer which is but very simple and false but if you think his answer to the question was full and compleat you had better say that you cannot remember one word of it for if he and you rely upon this answer and take it to be a compleat and satisfactory one you both shew that you are but a couple of very ignorant fellows that go against all Philosophers and learned men which I demonstrate evidently thus The reason you give why God cannot be in two places together without being in all those places that are between both is because he would otherwise be different and separated from himself But this reason is false and stark naught which I prove thus God is a pure spirit but betwixt pure spirits there can be no proper distance or separation by reason of the difference of material places for while Christ was upon earth his diviniry which was also here was not distant nor separated from the divinitie of the father and of the holy Ghost which was at the same time in heaven also Neither doth any Philosopher or learned man say that two Angels are properly distant or separated from one another by reason of their material places and the general reason is because distance as I proved before is proper only to corporal things that are in their corporal and material places by reason of their superfices and of the superfices of their places so that pure spirits as Gods is a most pure one having no superfices are consequently incapable of being circumscribed by any material place and consequently also incapable of any proper distance or separation for otherwise since the measure of any thing in the way or line of commensuration is more perfect then the thing which is measured it would follow that a material place which is but a corporal thing if it should measure or commensurate a spirit would be more perfect in the way or line of commensuration and regulation then any spirit would be which is both absurd and impious to assert Therefore if there be any reason why God cannot be in two places at once without being in all those places that are between it is not for the distance or difference of the places but rather because of his Immensity or infinite ubication for without his ubicacation the other intermediate places would desist to be because their being doth wholy depend upon his ubication But Christs body may be in a thousand and ten thousand places together personally with his sacramental ubication without being in the intermediate places personally because all those intermediate places may be preserved in their being by vertue of the common divine ubication or presence And whereas a sacramental presence or ubication as I have formerly proved is a spiritual presence or rather the real Presence of Christs glorified body spiritualized according to the Apostles saying Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body it shall rise a spiritual body I say because it is a spiritual or spiritualized body and presence it has no dependance from corporal places nor consequently from their distances or differences All the learned Master Bruguiers and all profound Master de Rodons other petty answers to this objection are frivolous if not ridiculous for they grant no more to Gods being able to communicate his Attributes finitely to Christs glorified body then what we see he doth communicate unto our lumpish mortal bodyes for our bodies do possess some place and our bodies can be successively in two places and our bodies though they be not in two places at once yet we possess them by our several parts viz. our head in one place and our feet in another or if he meaneth by possessing two several places at once that our heads feet and our whole bodies are at the same time in both several places then he gives us more then we ask for we say not that one body is circumscriptively and according to its natural situation in two places together But that the same body may be circumscriptively in one place viz. in heaven and also at the same time sacramentally in another viz. here upon earth or that the same body may be sacramentally at once in divers places which is far easier then for a body to be at the same time in two different places circumscriptively But that God imparts and communicates his gifts and Attributes unto Christ and to his body now glorified more then he doth unto us and to our corruptible lumpish bodies is a thing most certain for without doubt Christ partakes more of the divine wisdome Power Justice mercy goodness bounty c. then we do and his body partakes now of the gifts or dowryes of subtillity impassibility Agility and clarity which ours do not why then I pray cannot God make Christs body partake more of the Attribute of his Immensity then ours doth questionless he doth and consequently it can be in more places at once then our heavy lumpish bodies
Missa Triumphans Or The Triumph of the Mass WHEREIN All the Sophistical and wily Arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice Venerable Sacrifice in his funestuous Tract by him called The Funeral of the Mass are fully formally and clearly Answered Together with an Appendix by way of Answer to the Translators Preface By F. P. M. O. P. Hib. Beware lest any deceive you by Philosophy and vain fallacy Col. 2. v. 8. Permissu Superiorum Printed at Louain 1675. The last Will c. Know all men by these presents that I IOhn Presbyter Knight by Countrey a Scotch-man of the Tribe of Rabshekah of the Linage of Iudas being of perfect memory onely a litle troubled with melancholy and a disease called The particular Charge of the Army doe ordaine this my last Will and Testament to stand in full force and vertue Imprimis I give and bequeath my soule into the hands of him that gave it and whereas I have alwayes in my life time been used and taught all others to plunder and rob both God and Caesar of their dues yet at my death I detest all such horrid Actions Equivocations and mentall Reservations and will not rob the Devill of his Therefore in plaine English Devill take thy due For my body I bequeath to the earth provided first That it bee first decently wrapped in six sheets of the Directory and then reverently coffined up in the sacred Ordinance for Tithes and so with all solemnity carried from the Temple to Westminster by the C L asses Doctor Burges Doctor Gouge Master Edwards and Byfeild being close Mourners and going before the Corpes and the wicked Elders following after weeping howling and knashing of their teeth as if they were already in the fire which such stinking Trees were made for upon one of which Iudas my great Gransire hanged himselfe You may read more of them in the History of Susanna with a slow motion and in the midst of the streets that my body may be seene by all and let your sorrow so much abound that you may take up that Lamentation of old Wisdome crying out in the streets but â—…e regardeth hâ—… my will is That my learned Countriman Doctour Cybballs teach at my Funerall in a deplorable tone of language according to his speciall gift my will being that he preach upon that Text in the 89. Psal. ver 44. The dayes of my youth hast thou shortened â—…nd covered me with dishonour Next I desire that Mr. Calamy and Mr. Case may be sent up to desire a conference with both Houses to procure an Ordinance that there may be a day of Humiliation appointed and set apart to deplore my sad losse and that a Message be prepared and sent with all speed into Scotland to give them timely notice thereof that they may humble themselves with you and that whereas wee have continued a Monthly Fast for the distressed Protestants in Ireland and wee our selves having revoked the Protestant Religion and instituted the Presbyterian and now finding our owne distresses to be above or equall with theirs we conclude that our Prayers have not beene availeable for them and may now change the day and fast and pray as long or longer for our selves And likewise that they may be pleased to put it to the Vote whether my corps may not be interred neare his Excellency their late Lord Generall and Mr. Iohn Pym and so hereafter all Parliament men disceasing that wee our selves may as well now as hereafter take up all the resting places of the Saints and so leave no roome for either the King or his evill Counsell or Popish Bishops they having formerly engrossed that place only for themselves that an Ordinance may be speedily drawne up to this effect Thirdly I will and bequeath vnto Doctour Burges to have the diâ—…sing of all fat Benefices whatsoever provided that the said Dr. Burges hold and freely enjoy as many of the said Benefices as he himselfe pleaseth and the rest to be by him disposed of to such persons as he shall thinke quallified and indued with gifts befitting so great a Cause as the present Reformation shall require to which end for the better incouragement of him the said Dr. therein I do freely give and bequeath unto the said Dr. Burges all the scaffolds and loose stones in or about or belonging to the Church of Pauls to pull downe take carry away and dispose of as he shall thinke fitting Fourthly I give and bequeath unto my Reverend Son Dr. Gouge the full sum of 500 l. for these religious uses following viz. 20 pounds to find his Parish Bell-ropes and in case his said Parish shall not have any use thereof that he or any of the rest of the venerable Assembly shall have full power and authority to use them at their owne discretions That one hundred and 50 pounds shall be by the said Dr. Gouge disbursed in sea-coale whilst they are cheap and by him sellered up as lately he did most of his Parish can justifie the same and by him againe sould out to the poore of his Parish or any other poore Christians at 10. d. the Bushell cleare gaines And I ordaine that he imploy the remaining sum in like manner or if he thinkes it fitting to put it to use at 10. in the hundred and not under and the gaines thereof arising to be distributed equally to Mr. Wil. Priâ—… and Dr. Bastwick that they may be the better encouraged to Query against the Army to raile against Independents to rout out Monarchy and to prove Presbytery jure Divino provided that the principall remaine intire to Dr. Gouge himselfe without any other fraud or deceit Fifthly I give and bequeath to my deare Child Mr. Edwards 500. Acres of Bishops Lands with all the timber growing thereon to be by him converted to Gibbets to hang up the Independents and in case the said Independents shall resist the holy Synod as it is probable they will That then it shall be lawfull for any of the Assembly being already furnished with hempe if not enough in my former Legacy the Common people of England questionlesse will supply their needs to hang themselves and to fulfill the old Proverbe give them halter enough and thei le hang themselves Sixthly I give and bequeath all my plundered Books and Libraries lately tane from the Bishops to Mr Calamy Mr Sedgwick and Mr. Case it being likely the Case may suddenly be altered and my sonne Calamy feele Calamity for I feare destruction is â—…igh and my son Sedgwick will shortly â—…leat like one of Ieroboams Calves to his Country-men in Essex in one only single poore Benefice Seventhly I give and bequeath all my Charity to the Aldermen of the City and by them to be disposed of to the Parliament as they shall have need thereof Eightly All my wisdome and learning to the Common Councell that they may preserve the City as I and my Children have preserved the Church and brought it to the great
seeing that his own personal presence was necessary both in heaven and upon earth in heaven to glorify his Church triumphant on earth to assâ—…t his Church militant he ascended into heaven and â—…ays there in his natural glorious shape and yet at the same time he gives us his body under the form or species of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment Now supposing this saying of Christ Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world Math. 28. and this other saying of his This is my body Math. 26. and Luke 22. and comparing these two passages with that of the Prov. 8. viz. and my delight 's to be with the Children of men he said not his representation figure or signe but his real self it follows evidently that he is to be also really upon earth until the consâ—…mation of the world And since he cannot be in his natural glorious shape in both places at once it follows that he is in his natural shape in heaven and sacramentally with us here upon earth And whereas he saw our nature abhors to eat and drink raw flesh and bloud he found it necessary to attemperate and accommodate his body and bloud which he instituted for our spiritual food to our nature and therefore exhibiteth himself unto us in the likeness or shape of bread and wine which be our natural and ordinary food But to do this he saw t was necessary the substances of bread and wine should vanish and that the substance of his body should come in and supply their place he saw also 't was necessary that the accidents should remain undestroyed to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment And because Christs body is not in the Sacrament impanated that is in bread as Luther falsely asserts for Christ said not This bread is my body or This is my body and bread or This is my body in bread it was necessary the Accidents of bread and wine should be in the Sacrament without their connatural subjects therefore by vertue of his omnipotent word he gives the Sacramental species a substance-like existence in and by themselves without any subject and he props them miraculously with his own infinite power though still with this difference that the sacramental species retain their aptitudinal inherence which substances do not Moreover it was necessary seeing he is in his humane shape in heaven that he should be sacramentally on earth for to verify his above mentioned saying viz. that he would be with us unto the consummation of the world he then being sacramentally with us it follows that he may be in an equivocal place and consequently in a point as the soul is in the body And whereas this Sacrament was instituted to be our spiritual food and we are commanded to eat it we being in a thousand million of places together it was necessary that the Sacrament may be in so many places together also for us to be fed therewith It is also necessary it should be obvious to the good and wicked for to make the good better and to make the wicked people good and devout the which if it doth not alwaies it is no fault of Christ or of the Sacrament but our own fault As no more is an Apothecarys shop the worse for having all sorts of excellent medicines and druggs in it although some of them may chance to kill here and there some people that take them undisâ—…reetly In like manner although some Iudas-like people receive the B. Sacrament unworthily and to their own spiritual ruine and damnation yet it is necessary that it should be ministred to all sort of people to the wicked as well as to the faithfull being it was instituted for us all as also because the Priest who is the right minister of this Sacrament cannot discern the worthy from the unworthy for if Christ himself who knew Iudas his heart gave him his body to eat though he was sure he would receive it unworthily why may not Christs minister not knowing the unworthi ness of the receiver give it him in hopes it would make him better Christ gave his own body to Iudas though he knew it would work his damnation because though he knew Iudas to be wicked and unworthy yet his sins were not publick and known to the world but only secret sins viz. of avarice or theft even so doth our holy Mother the Church to whom the administration of this Sacrament is left she bars no body for his private sins from receiving it knowing that as Christ was tender of Iudas his fame and reputation though he was a vile sinner concealedly and therefore denied not him his body because he was to communicate publickly with the rest of the Apostles so she ought also to deal in this matter with her children But unto publick sinners or Excommunicated persons she flatly and openly denies this Sacrament before they become wholly reconciled and penitent at lest exteriorly to the sight of the world And although it be not necessary that a devil incarnate or a beast should eat it or that it should be stoln burnt or taken away by the devil yet because it is very necessary in it self for our spiritual nourishment and because we are not Gods but only his unworthy ministers to discern a devil incarnate from a meer man also because we know not what future accidents may chance by reason of fire water thieves or bruit beasts and especially because we believe and are sure no annoyance or harm can come to a glorified body from any of all those forementioned things we hold it necessary and not at all inconvenient to keep the B. Sacrament in decent Tabernacles deputed and consecrated meerly for that use and nothing else for to have it always ready at hand in time of need for the spiritual refreshment and nourishment of the faithfull especially of those who are very sick and like to take their leave of this world And as our Tabernacles are only for this purpose so are our Churches for no other use but prayer and offering this Sacrifice whatever use the Mounsieur and this confederate reformers put their Churches to as also those of ours which they wrongfully wrested out of our hands notwithstanding our quiet and peaceable enjoyment of them for many hundred years successively even since their erection by our Ancestours who built them and planted Christian Religion here in England Nay all this the very Protestant chroniclers themselves assert and cannot deny That the devil ever ventured immediately upon the Sacrament either to touch it or take it away I never read nor heard as yet and therefore believe not Mr. de Rodon as to that point But that Jews witches thieves or such like rabble may have carried it away and abused it and also of stupendious Miracles and exemplary punishments that often happned unto the malefactours in sundry ages and countries I have read in several grave and credible Authors Therefore all the
in the secret chambers I answer that the Mounsieur and his party ought to take good heed they are not these Prophets themselves for it is most certain and evident that these words cannot concern us because popery has its being from the very beginning of the Evangelical Law as all Ecclesiastical histories can testifie Therefore if popery and the Mass be convertible terms as our adversaries say they are the Mass must be as ancient as popery is for all convertible terms according to dialecticks are simultanean or together But certain it is that the Evangelist meant by the last days the last days of the Evangelical Law and not of any other Law therefore sinâ—…e it is well known to all the Christian world that Popery and consequently the Mass for they are convertible terms began not in the last days of the Evangelical law but had been standing ever since the beginning of the primative Church it follows I say evidently that these words of the Evangelist concern not at all either Popery or the Mass. Moreover although we hold that some eminent great saints of the Popish Religion had the gift of Prophecy bestowed on them yet all Priests and Papists profess not themselves Prophets neither do they hold their Religion upon any other prophecies but such as are authentical by the old and new Testaments we ground our Religion next under the holy writ upon the antiquity of our Church because Christ himself said that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church and we endeavour to maintain prove out of Church-Annals and by the Testimonies of holy fathers that ours is the only Church or congregation of Christian believers that were seen and known through all ages since Christ spoke these words We ground our Religion also upon the uâ—…iversality of our Church that is that amongst all congregations of people who own Christ to be the son of God there is not one congregation so numerous and ample that has so spread and enlarged it self and Christs Gospel through all Natioâ—…s and Countries from all ages as ours hath from whence followeth that ours is the Catholick Church for Catholick and 〈◊〉 are synonims or the same thinâ—… whâ—…e note that S. Athanasius Creed whiâ—…h Protestants also hold warneth us that above all things it is necessary we hold the Catholick or universal faith the which faith the saâ—…e saint says in the last sentence of the said Creed unless every one doth faithfully and firmly believe questionless he must everlastingly perish But it is impossible there should be two universal or Catholick Churches at once for there is but one faith as the Apostle tells us and when we â—…ay our creed we say not I believe in the Catholick Churches but in the Catholick Church Therefore Mr. de Rodon and his party must either snew that their Congregation is and hath been more numerous and universal then ours is which I am sure they will never be able to perform or else they will be forced to lay down the â—…udgells and flatly deny S. Athanasius his creed which to the world they nevertheless seem to profess Thirdly we ground our Religion upon unity or consent for knowing that there is buâ—… one faith and that without that one faith it is impossible to please God as the Apostle saith Therefore concerning all points of faith viz. concerning Transubstantiation praying to saints praying for the dead relative worshiping of Images Purgatory Indulgences Justification c. we all from the highest to the lowest from the doctor to the peasant agree as to the main point and object of our belief submitting our selves wholy to the definitions of our Church because Christ said that those that hear not the Church ought to be esteemed as heathens and Publicans Lastly we ground our Religion upon the sainctity of our Church which we believe is not only holy by reason of her doctrine laws and pious exercises but also for the seaven sources of grace I mean the seven Sacraments dipt in our Saviours bloud which continually run in her and refreshes spiritually all her children of what age or condition soever for by these Sacraments Christ left to his spouse the Church militant a medium or mean to provide for us all By Baptism both great and little are regenerated and from being conceived and born in sin made members of Christ By confirmation we are strengthened and confirmed in the â—…aith we professed in our Baptism when we are come to the use of understanding and by vertue of that holy unction we are made champions to fight Gods battle against our common enemies the devil the world and our own flesh and bloud as also to endure persecutions and bear crosses couragiously for the love of Christ. By the Sacrament of Pennancâ—… we are cured and absolved from our spiritual wounds Christ promising unto us that he would ratify in heaven what his ministers do upon earth if the penitent puts no obstacle to the ministers sentence By the Eucharist our souls are spiritually fed and nourished By holy orders some of us are empowred and sanctified to administer Sacraments to themselves and to the rest of thâ—… faithfull By Matrimony a provision is left in the Church for the lawful propagation of mankind that one woman having but one man at the same time care should be the better taken for the education of the issue that comes from them to have it brought up in the love and fear of God Lastly by extream unction new vigour and grace is given to the faithful combatant while his body is weak and feeble and his soul fulâ—… of anâ—… and care to fight couragiously against his enemies the devils who then sets upon him more eagerly then ever in hopes to bring him to despair for now the devil thinks or never is the time to conquer this soul and therefore sets upon her with all power and fury imaginable and to resist this fierce shock or brunt Christ left unto his Church this soveraignâ—…â—…emedy for these reasons and chiefly for her Sacraments we believe our Church oâ—… congregation of faithful to be more holy then Mr. de Rodons or any other Church and congregation whatsoever that pretends to believe in Christ is Therefore the Mounsieur fasly belyes us and himself also by impeaching us to be those false propheâ—…s the Evangelist mentioned in his 24. câ—…ap for we never did or do pretend to be Prophets although some great saints of our Church had the gift of Prophecy also given them which is more then ever we or they themselves read or heard that any of their Church had yet unless they count Iames Nailor or some such like mad braind fellow who sprouted out of their Church to be one Why we keep the Eucharist in our pixes and decent Church-Tabernacles I gave reason before But why Mr. Rodon and his party keeps the leavings of their Communion bread and wine in cupboards baskets â—…laggons botles or cellars and eat and
with all other Elementary and mixt bodies As to the second all Philosophers agree in this that a thing may be in a place two manner of ways viz. circumscriptively and definitively corporal things circumscriptively and spiritual things as an Angel or mans soul definitively that is to say they are not in every place as God is but in some finite or limited place wherein they operate and yet they are not circumscribed by the place wherein they are because they are no bodies nor have any superfice nor also depend of their places in order to their conservation as corporal things do Besides these two manner of ways of being in a place which all Philosophers own the divines hold of a third way viz. to be Sacramentally in a place from whence we have from both divines Philosophers that a thing may be in a place 3 manner of ways viz. circumscriptively definitively sacramentally what is in a place circumscriptively is properly in its place because the superfice of the place touches surrounds the superfice of the body which it contains so the hollow superfice of the vessel touches and surrounds the water which is within the vessel What is in a place definitively or Sacramentally is not properly in any place because the superfice of the place and of the thing contained touch not one another immediatly as all proper places ought to touch immediatly all the things properly contained in them for an Angel and a soul have no superfices wherewith to touch the superfices of the place wherein they are contained for they are pure spirits and only corporal things have superfices however they are said to be in a place improperly because they are contained within some limits of bounds where they operate or else they would be in all places as God is like unto corporal things which are contained strictly within the immediat limits of their proper places yet with this distinction still that spiritual things never touch the superfice of their proper places and consequently are not circumscribed by them as corporal things touch and are circumscribed by their proper places All proper places are called by divines and Philosophers univocal or circumscriptive Places and all improper places they call Equivocal places such as are definitive and sacramental oneâ—… for properly and in rigour they are no places at all because the definition of a proper place agree not with them for want of a superficial manner of containing the things that are said to be within them This received doctrine of all divines and Philosophers presupposed I answer the Mounsieurs major with this distinction the body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the host circumscriptively as into its proper and univocal place I confess the major sacramentally as into its equivocal place I deny the major Therefore I say that Christs body is really in the host but not as in any proper place for to be in an equivocal place is as much in a manner as to say in no place at all and certain it is that an equivocal place is no more a proper place then an equivocal or painted man is a proper and reall man so that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the body and bloud of Christ without any circumscriptive motion or bringing it circumscriptively from one proper place to another as our circumscriptive bodies move from one place to another but by vertue of the effective words of consecration and omnipotent power of God his substance succeeds the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated host without any proper local motion for he is there by reason of his substance and substances are incapable of any proper motion and although his quantity be where his substance is by concomitance yet it is not there with its quantitative dimensions for these are hindred in the Sacrament as I sayd before the heat of the Babilonian fire or surnace was hindred supernaturally and being Christs body is in the host as we say by reason of its substance it is in it in one respect like as our souls are in our bodies that is to say totus in toto totus in qualibet parte all Christ in the whole host and all Christ in every point and particle of the host as all Philosophers say the whole soul is in the whole body and the whole soul in every part and point of the body yet the manner of Christs body being in the host differs from the manner of the souls being in the body in this viz. that the soul is in the body but as in one definitive or limited improper place but Christs body is in the Sacrament as in its improper place not definitively or limited to one host as the soul is to one body but Sacramentally that is to say in all places where the words of consecration are uttered upon the bread and wine and this Sacramental existence Christs body hath by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity which is in all places and yet the Sacramental ubication or existence differs from the the divine general ubication in this that the Sacramental ubication is but where the words of consecration are uttered and the general divine ubication is in all places for without it the creatures would desist to be But here the Mounsieur may object that there is a great difference betwixt Christs body and an Angel or mans soul for an Angel and a soul are pure spirits and therefore be not capable of an univocal place but only of an equivocal one But Christs body is a true real body and therefore it can have but an univocal circumscriptive place To this I answer and confess that Christs body is a true real body no spirit yet I deny but that it may have an equivocal place in the host because it is now a glorified body and as it were spiritualized with spiritual qualities which redound into it from his glorified soul which spiritual qualities the Divines call dotes corporis gloriosi the dowries of a glorified body as are subtility impassibilitie Agility and clarity By reason of the all manner of subjection a glorified body hath to its soul in so far that it neither cloggs nor burthens her as our lumpish bodies do our souls here the body may move in an instant by the instantanean motion of its soul or of her minde and by reason of the Hypostatical union betwixt the divinity and soul of Christ and of his glorified body it may accompany them into ten million of equivocal places at once according to the Apostles saying 1. Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body it shall rise a spiritual body that is to say a real body endowed with spiritual qualities such as those of the soul are not with a spiritual entity or substance because the substance of a spirit and the substance of a body are two different entities essentially differing the one from the other so that if Christs body