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
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
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
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
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
eaten at the same time for it would be eaten in the host by the Priest and at the same time it would not be eaten in heaven Also it would be in a point and not in a point at the same time for in the host it would be in a point and in heaven it would not be in a â—…oint at the same time Therefore seeing it is impossible that one and the same body at one and the same time should be eaten and not eaten should be in a point and not in a point It is also impossible that Christs body should be both in heaven and in the host at the same time Answ. Before I answer this argument I presuppose with all Philosophers that a thing may move or be moved two manner of ways viz. by a motio per se that is its own proper motion and by a motio per accidens that is by its accidental motion by reason of the motion of another thing wherein it is contained sor example when a man is in a ship his own proper motion or motio per se is when he goes up and down the ship and his motio per accidens or accidental motion is his being carried by the ship towards his intended voyage and this is the difference between these two motions that what moves or is moved by a motio per se is never at quiet or rest while it is in that motion But that which is moved only by a motio per accidens although it be carried from one place to another yet it may be at rest and quiet in it self and without any proper moving or stirring so may a block or a stone be accidentally moved in a cart and yet not moved at all in it self but quiet and still iâ—… it s own proper place Likewise the self same thing viz. the same man may at the same time move two contrary ways at once he may move westwards towards his journey by his accidental motion in the ship wherein he is carried that way and yet at the same time he may walk from the west part of the ship to the east part of it by his own proper mâ—…tion and so the same thing may at the same time move and yet be quiet and also move two contrary wayes by these different motions This doctrine which very experience shews us to be true being presupposed I answer the Mounsieurs argument thus first by denying his supposition viz. that Christs body is movable in the Sacrament because it is in it by reason of its substance and all substances secundum se as schoolmen call it that is in themselves are immovable for all things that are properly moved from one place to another are moved by reason of their quantities and not of their substances and therefore because Christs body is in the Sacrament immediatly by reason of its substance or of the substantial conversion of the bread and wine immediatly into his substance it follows evidently that it is immovable in it I answer secondly and distinguish his major thus to move and not to move at the same time with a motio per se his own proper motion is contradictorie I confess the major to move and not to move at the same time but an accidental motion that is to say if a body be at the same time moved by reason of the motion of another thing wherein it is contained as in its improper place I deny the major and the reason is clear for then only is a true and formal contradiction betwixt opposit things or propositions when there is an affirmation and negation of the same thing at the same time and after the same manner but noâ—… if the thing time oâ—… manner be different as for example There is no contradiction in this viz. that Peter should speak and Paul should hold his peace at the same time because they are not one and the same man Nor in this that Peter should be a Bachelour now a married man next year because although he be the same Peter yet it is not at the same time Nor also in this that Peter should be at the same time an Embassadour in France no Embassador in England because though he be the same Peter and at the same time yet he is not after the same manner Even so we say of Christs body in heaven and in the Sacrament for it is in heaven in its proper shape and place and may remain there quiet and still without any motion and yet it may be in the Sacrament in another manner viz. Sacramentally and move there per accidens by the motion of the Sacramental species in which it is contained and which is but its improper and equivocal place Just as we now said that a man may go eastwards in a ship and yet at the same time be carried westwards by the same ship at the same time or as a stone or block may be moved pâ—…r accidens by the motion of a cart or ship and yet remain unmoved in its own proper place all which we know by experience doth often happen without any contradiction because the manner of moving is not the same the one being a motio per se or proper motion and the other being but an accidental improper motion of the body that is in the cart or ship although their motions are proper and per se unto them This solution concerning motion may serve also concerning been eaten being in a point in a place because Christs body in the Sacrament is in a quite other manner then as it is in heaven in its own proper natural humane shape for it is in heaven with its quantitative dimensions and in its proper univocal place but it is in the Sacrament by the dimensions of the Sacramental species only and in its improper and equivocal place which in rigour is no place at all and though the Sacramental species may be said to be in their proper place by reason of their quantitative dimensions yet Christs body cannot be said to be so in them because it is in them Immediately by reason of its substance and consequently as in a point for substances per se that is as they are in themselves possess no place from hence is seen that all the Mounsieurs examples are to no purpose for their force is only bent against a natural and circumscriptive being and place and not against a Sacramental being or place Since this arrow had no better luck he outs with his fourth Rodon 8. Two relatives are allwaies different as the father and the son the husband and the wife c. and relation is alwaies between two things that really differ as the equality between two ells the resemblance between two crows c. In a word nothing can have relation to it self but whatsoever hath relation must necessarily have it to some thing else as appears by the definition of relation But to be distant is a relative and not
at the same time iâ—… sundry Sacramental places yet Christs body in the Sacrament and mans soul in his body agree as to this viz. that neither of them is in a proper and univocal place but only in an equivocal one which in rigour is no place at all but if this Philosopher forgets not himself he confesses that although the body and soul of a man are different yet they are not distant from one another and 't is true because the soul is in her body only definitively that 's to say in her equivocal or improper place Therefore also I say because Christs body is in the host but Sacramentally which is but its equivocal place it is not distant from it self in heaven in its natural place although its manner as it is in heaven and as it is in the Sacrament be different If the Mounsieur be a Christian Philosopher he must confess that Jesus Christ when he was incarnate and descended from heaven into the Virgin Mary's sacred womb and that his divine person was then different from the persons of God the father and God the holy Ghost but dare he say that their persons were then also distant from one another Christ was then here upon earth 33. years in his circumscriptive place and yet was not distant from the other two persons who remained in heaven because the other two persons are pure spirits and have no circumscriptive place wherefore then may not Christs glorified body remain in its humane shape in heaven and yet be Sacramentally or after a spiritual manner in the host without being distant from it self verily no other but a dropsical brain would ever contradict this most true doctrine Therefore in answer to his impertinent and ridiculous replies and dropsical sequels I grant and say with him that a plurality of things really different is no true and real division and consequently that there is no such thing as an entitative division without a respect or relation to an univocal place But that which I flatly deny is that a body can be divided or separated either from it self or from any other body or that it can touch it self or any other body or be near to it self or any other body or lastly that it can be distant from it self or from any other body but while it is in its univocal place and the other bodies in their univocal places also And therefore since Christs body in the host is not in its univocal place it is neither divided near to nor distant from his body in heaven I confesse also that things which are divided locally if they be divided by a proper or univocal local division such things are divided entitatively also but I deny that things for being in their improper or equivocal places as Christs body in the Sacrament is but in its equivocal place are at all distant from themselves or from any thing else I grant also that if a body be divided or separated from bodies which it toucheth it is also divided from bodies which it doth not touch but I deny that a body in its improper or equivocal place can touch or be touched by any other body whether these bodies be separated or not separated from one another Lastly I acknowledge that local division causeth entitative division but I deny that there is any proper local division between Christs body as it is in heaven and as it is in the host because he is not in the host as in his proper place and though I grant Christ can put the whole Ocean into one drop for it implys no contradiction in it self nor imperfection in God so to do as he can make a camel passe through the eye of a needle and put life into the least grain of dust or sand yet I deny that reason obligeth us to believe he did really so or that God and nature by doing otherwise should work in vain because God and nature are not obliged to do all that they can do God can create another world and yet he is not obliged to do it and never will create another and since he created the ocean and ordained it should be in its proper and univocal plaee it follows not that all sea-battels were fought in one drop of water nor so many thousands of men were drowned in one drop of water nor that all the people from Adams time drank but of one drop of water all which sequels of the Mounsieur are but dropsical nonsensical and ridiculous and yet it follows that because Christ did put his body in the host sacramentally only it is there as our souls are in our bodies all in the whole host and all in every point of it without being near distant or divided from his body as it is naturally in heaven but one and the same and consequently as the Mounsieurs proofs are nonsensical and ridiculous sâ—… this arrow of his iâ—… forever lost Now then to his sixth Rodon 7. Iesus Christ cannot be in divers places at once as he is man if another man cannot be so too because Iesus Christ as he is a man Was made like unto us in all things sin only excepted as the Apostle to the Hebrews observes But another man cannot be in divers places at once for example Peter cannot be at the same time at Paris and at Rome which I prove thus It is impossible that Peter should be a man and no man at the same time But if Peter could at the same time be at Paris and at Rome he might at the same time be a man and no man which I prove thus He that may be at the same time dead and alive may at the same time be a man and no man because he that is alive is a real man and he that is dead is no real man but a carcass but if Peter could at the same time be at Paris and at Rome he might be both alive and dead at the same time for he might be mortally wounded at Paris and die there and at the same time not hurt at Rome but alive and making merry there Besides Peter may be divisibly at Paris and indivisibly at Rome as Christs body according to our adversaries is divisibly in heaven and indivisibly in the host but if in Paris where he should be divisibly his head should be cut off and so he should remain at the same time a living and real man which is á contradiction In a word Peter might be at Paris in the midst of flames and be burnt reduced to ashes consequently should die be no man whereas at the same time he might be at Rome in the river Tiber sound and brisk and consequently be a true and living man Whence it follows that he might be a man and no man which is a contradiction To this may be added other absurdities that would follow from this position that one body may be in divers places at once viz. that one candle lighted might give
drink of it until as I was told they are fudled I know no reason for it nor no more do I think the Mounsieur does himself unless it be because they believe there is nothing of sanctity in it more then in other ordinary bread and wine for otherwise I know not how they can excuse themselves from committing open sacriledge for prophaning theiâ—… consecrated hosts But I pray good Mounsieur iâ—… a man may be so bold as to ask you a question tell us why may not you and your party be suspected to be those false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of more then we for you and your doctrine are much later then ours you are divided into many sects and opinions amongst your selves and every sect of you hates and condemns the other and thinks that he alone found out Christ none of you all can shew such marks â—…or your Churches as those I shewed for ours or if you can I pray let us see them and we will willingly shake hands with you to rid ourselves from persecution and troubles But if you cannot wheresore without convincing us by reason do you force us with vour penalties and heavy laws to abjâ—…e our faith against our consciences and the light we find within us or do you think by forâ—…ing us thus if we should yield to your terrours and tortures we could be saved while we go against our consciences which we cannot help to please you and save our lives and estates verily this is a strange and extraordinary way to make orthodox Christians a way to prefer this life before the next and this world before God and his heavenly kingdom and riches a way I say quite contrary to that Christ taught us while he conversed upon earth as S. Luke tells us in his 14. chap. If any man come to me and hateth not his father and mother and wife and children and bretheren and sisters yea and his own life besides he cannot be my disciple Now Mr. de Rodon I having fully answered all your arguments and your Quiver being wholly exhausted in vain against our Diana to conclude this chapter I think we may well answer you as Diogenes if I be not mistaken or some other of the ancient Philosophers answered a certain unskillful archer who shooting at a Butt and the Philosopher seeing how far he used to shoot off the mark ran quickly to the mark and stood before it while this archer was ayming to shoot at it with his bow who spying the Philosopher in his light called to him bid him be gone and askt him if he was not mad for standing at the mark while he was shooting But the Philosopher bid him shoot on freely and that he stood there for his more security of being hit by his arrow Even so is the case betwixt us our Diana and Mr. de Rodon for we can be never securer from his arrows then while we stand before our Diana while he aymâ—… at her and so endeth this Chapter CHAP. V. Against the adoration or worshiping of the host MR. de Rodon not being able to keep Christs body out of the Sacrament yet he will not have it adored there for these three reasons the first is this Rodon 1. We are not obliged to adore or worship God every where or in all places where he is at least not with external adoration but we are only obliged to worship him in all placâ—…s where he appears in his glorious Majesty The first part of this Proposition viz. that we are not obliged to worship God in all places where he is appears by the practise of all Christians for God being every where and consequently in stones trees beasts devils and all other creatures there is no man so extravagant as to fall on his knees before a tree an Ass or a devil that he may worship God in them who is really present in them as he is in heaven The second part of this proposition viz. that we are only obliged to worship God both with internal and external adoration in all places where he appears in his glorious Majesty is proved first by the commands which Iesus Christ gave his Apostles when they asked him how they should pray for he answers them thus when ye pray say Our father which art in heaven S. Luke 11. why doth he say which art in heaven and not which art on Earth or in the Sea or in the Air seeing God is equally in all places but only because God appears in heaven in his glorious Majesty and there crowns all the blessed spirits with his glory Secondly when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush which was not consumed he said to him Take thy shoos from off thy feet for the place wherein thou standest is holy ground Exod. 3. why is this ground called holy and Moses commanded to approach it with reverence submission and adoration seeing any other ground is equally Gods creatures and that he is equally present every where but only because God did manifest somewhat of his power and glory in that place by causing the bush to burn without being consumed Thirdly Josua and the Isralites did prostrate themselves before the Ark of the Covenant Josua 7. 6. because God appeared there in a peculiar and glorious manner for from the Mercyseat which covered it he gave his oracles and made known his will Exod. 25. 22. Numb 7. fourthly when the Priest celebrates Mass a little before consecration he recommends the sursum Corda that is the lifting up of their hearts why the lifting them up seing God is equally above and below but only because God appears above in heaven in his glorious Majesty and consequently it is thither that we must direct our vows our Prayers and our worship Answ. These passages I confess do provâ—… that God ought to be adored and worshipped with internal and external adoration when he appears in his glorious Majesty But they prove not at all that he is not to be worshipped in the host also or that he ought not to be adored but when or while he appears in glory which notwithstanding is the conclusion our Mounsieur undertakes to prove However the better to satisfie the Reader we acknowledge that God is present in all his creatures though not in every of them after the self same manner for otherwise he should be with the devils in hell manifesting his glory there unto them as he doth to his Angels and saints in heaven and consequently the devils should be as happy as the Angels and saints are we also acknowledg that wheresoever God is his glory is alwaies with him though not alwaies manifested to his creatures and therefore we say God is in all places but differently he is in the whole universe with a general kinde of presence and power conserving it in its being he is in hell shewing those that are there the Attribute of his Justice only he is with the just upon earth more peculiarly shewing them his favours
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
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
alive we count to be an inhuman tyranny and most horrid and execrable act We then believing our Mass is alive and will be untill the worlds end cannot but censure and accuse Mounsieur de Rodon of inhuman tiranny unless he demonstrats that he killed the Mass before he made the funeral that he is sure to do by destroying Transubstantiation and therefore ayms at it with his first arrow thus Rodon 1. In every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwaies newly produced for example when seed is converted into an animal that animal is newly produced when Iesus Christ turned the water into wine the wine was newly produced c. But the body and bloud of Iesus Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The second proposition viz. that the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced I prove thus that which is newly produced receives a new being because to produce a thing and give it a being is the same thing but the body and bloud of Christ cannot receive a new being which I prove thus A man cannot receive that which he hath while he hath it and therefore cannot receive a being while he hath a being for as it is imposible to take away a being from that which hath no being so is it imposible to give a being to that which hath a being already and as you cannot kill a dead man so you cannot give life to one that is living But the body and bloud of Christ have and will allwaies have a being therefore they cannot receive one and consequently cannot be reproduced in the Eucharist Answ. To this argument I first answer that in every substantial conversion there must be some thing newly produced or adduced and so we say bread and wine are converted substantially into Christs body and bloud by an adductive action because by vertue of the words of consecration Christs body which is in its humane shape in heaven is brought into the Sacramental Species and remains in them in a Sacramental manner without any new production of his body which was produced already Secondly I answer to the said major thus In every substantial conversion that thing c. is alwaies newly produced entitatively or modally I confess entitatively only I deny And to his minor thus but the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist entitatively and in his humane shape I confess modally or Sacramentally I deny the minor and the consequence also and all Mr. de Rodon's ensuing proofs militate against an entitative production only which we grant him but not at all against a modal or Sacramental production Therefore we say that Christs body being already produced as to its entity and natural being the same entity is not newly reproduced in the Sacrament in order as to give his body a new essential being because he hath that already in heaven But we say that the entity of his body is newly produced or rather adduced into the Sacrament in order to a sacramental or modal being against which modal being Mr. de Rodon's proofs are of no value or force and so his first arrow has miss't the mark Rodon 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed for example when the water was turned into wine the wine was destroyed But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine are not destroyed by the consecration which I prove thus In the celebration of the Eucharist there is breaking giving eating drinking after the consecration as appears by the very practise of our adversaries who after consecration break the Host and divide it into three parts give nothing to the communicants but consecrated Hosts and eat and drink nothing but what was consecrated But the Scripture saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist bread is broken and bread and wine are given and that bread is eaten and wine drunk as appears by these following passages S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. saith the bread which we break is it not the communion of Christs body and 1. Cor. 11. S. Math. 26. S. Mark 14. and S. Luke 22. it is said that Jesus Christ took bread brake it and gave it and S. Mark 14. and S. Math. 26. Iesus Christ after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine and 1. Cor. 11. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. Answ. To this argument I answer granting the major and distinguishing the minor thus But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the accidents of the bread and wine are not destroyed I confess the substance of the bread and wine are not destroyed I deny To what he farther urgeth viz. that there is breaking giving eating and drinking after the consecration as concerning their accidents I grant as concerning their substances I deny for their substances are converted into Christs real body and bloud by vertue of the words of consecration though their accidents remain un destroyed and are sustentated supernaturally by the power of God for we hold of no transaccidentation in the Sacrament but only of Transubstantiation As concerning the passages by him alledged out of Scripture to prove that â—…t is bread that 's broken that it is bread and wine that are given I answer that in every of these passages the words bread and wine must be taken Analogically not litterally because Christ in other places calls them expresly his flesh his bloud and his body and all orthodox Christians from the first institution of this Sacrament for many ages did without controulment hold as we do that after the words of consecration the bread and wine are converted into the real body and bloud of Christ. Therefore although because of the symbolls or accidents of bread and wine which still remain in the Host after consecration they retain the denomination of bread wine yet they are not really but Analogically only bread and wine and really the true body and bloud of Christ and they are analogically called bread and wine because of the Analogy or likeness real bread and wine have with this Sacrament the one nourishing the body the other the soul but now to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 3. When Iesus Christ said to his disciples drink ye all of this Math. 26. that is drink ye all of this cup either he commanded to drink of a cup of wine or of a cup of bloud if he commanded them to drink of a cup of wine then it follows that they drank nothing but wine because it is certain that they obeyed Iesus Christ for it is said Mark 14. that they all drank it or if he commanded them to drink a cup of bloud then it follows that the wine was already changed into his bloud because it
though in a point there be nothing above or below To this I add quoth he that if it could be seen in the host it would appear as big as the host because it would occupy the whole space of the host and it would appear round because it would be bounded by the space that the host occupies which is round Besides if the host should be divided into two equal parts it would appear less by one half and in the form of a half circle because it would be whole and intire in the half of the host and occupy the space of it It would also appear a hundred thousand times lesse and in a hundered thousand several forms for as they say it is whâ—…le and entire in a hundred thousand parts of the host and occupies the spaces of them In a word there was never such a monstrous thing seen in the world as Christs body would be if it were really in the host in such a manner as our Adversaries affirm it to be Answ. To these impertinencies I answer that according to all Philosophers a body may be taken two manner of ways viz. either substantially as it belongs only to the Predicament of substance and is placed directly in that line or series or Quantitatively as it belongs to the Predicament of Quantity a body in the first acception has no extension at all and is not properly in a superfice or any other part of its accidents as in an univocal place but it only sustentates both the superfice and all the other parts of its accidents for no accident can be naturally without its proper subject and therefore Philosophers commonly say that substances are under their accidents and yet they say not as the Mounsieur doth that their accidents are above them nor that they and their subjects are in different places the accidents above and the substance under because they know substances has no proper places But if they express themselves not sufficiently I give our Mounsieur leave to correct them however I had rather follow their common way of expression then his If a body be taken in the second acception then I say Christs body in the host is in every part of it and in its superfice also with its quantitative extension in order to his parts as they are in themselves which kinde of extension is essential to all quantitative bodies but I deny that Christs body is in the host with its local extension for a local extension or extension of the parts of a quantitative body in order to a place is only a property that flows from the former essential extension this common and solid Philosophical foundation being laid I answer all his impertinencies in these few words that Christs substantial and quantitative body is in the host really without any situation or posture because situation and posture do depend of extension in order to a place not of the essential extension in order to the parts of a quantitative body as they are in themselves Therefore if he asks us in what posture or situation Christs body is in the Sacrament we will ask him where was the heat of the fire that was set under the furnace to destroy Sydrach Misach and Abdenego if he answers as he should do that God hindred and suspended its operation because heat is only a property of fire and God can hinder the effects of Properties although the essences from whence they flow remain undestroyed so we can answer him that God can hinder local extension which is but a property of quantitative essential extension in order to the parts of a quantitative body as they are in themselves without destroying the quantitative body and consequently we can say that Christs body is in all parts of the hoâ—…t and in its superfice extent in its parts as they are in order to themselves though not as they are in order to their local extension and being situation and posture depends only upon local extension because Christ is not in the Sacrament with his local extension it followeth evidently that he is not by situation or poâ—…ture although his quantitative body be really in it with its parts as they are extent in themselves from whence also followeth that all the rest of the Mounsieurs pretty and witty questions about great host little host half host round host c. are but meer childish and foolish quibbles Lastly it followeth that Christs body appears not more or less for dividing and subdividing and hundreddividing the host because division depends upon a local extension that is to say if a body be in a place extended oâ—… strecht out then if you divide it it will appear less but if a body be not at all extended in a place as we say Christs body is not extended in the Sacrament then break the host into never so many pieces Christs body will be intirely in all of them and yet will not appear in them more or less In a word Mr. de Rodon tells a monstrous lie in saying that there was never such a monstrous thing seen in the world as Christs body would be if it were really in the host in such manner as we â—…ffirm it to be for we say only that he is there in his Essence and quantitie though not after a quantitative but spiritual manner that is to say not with its local extension but as the soul is in the body because the Apostle saies speaking of a glorified body seminatum est corpus animale surget corpus spiritale 't is sown a natural body it will rise a spiritual body 1. Cor. 15. that is to say with spiritual qualities as I shall hereafter prove and so this arrow is also set by Rodon 11. Either the manhood of Iesus Christ which is pretended to be in the host can act there or it cannot if it cannot â—…hen it follows that it cannot see hear know or love or exercise any other function of the sensitive or rational soul. But if the manhood of Christ in the host knows nothing nor loves nothing then it followeth that it will not be happy because happiness chiefly consists in the knowledg and love of God Also the manhood of Christ in the host will be different from his manhood in heaven for it will know in heaven and at the same time know nothing in the host it will love in heaven and love nothing in the host it will see in heaven and see nothing in the host But if Christs manhood can act in the host as it doth in heaven then it will follow that it will open its eyes and move its feet in a point because according to our adversaries it is whole and entire in every point of the host and being as they tell us God can easily put the whole world into a point as he doth the whole manhood of Christ into a point of the host it will follow that all the parts of the world existing in a point may do in it
all those actions which they now do in a vast space as the parts of Christs manhood existing in a point of the host can do in it all those actions which they do in heaven and so in a less space then is occupied by a grain of corn the sun may move from east to west and the sea may have its flouds and ebbs and the English may have a seafight with the spaniards In a word a sparrow may easily swallow all the world seeing the world will not occupy so much place as a grain of corn doth and yet the world which it shall swallow will be as great as it is at present even as Christs body is as big and as tall in the host as it was on the Cross as our adversaries affirm Answ. Here you see Mr. de Rodon foâ—… lows the hare still with his hare-braind sequels though he is like never to catch him But the thing which I must wonder at is this that the Mounsieur is not only an enemy to Diana and seeks to distroy her but seekâ—… also to distroy and pearce Gods omnipotency through her side The first article of our creed is to believe in God the father almighty if we believe God is almighty then we must believe he can do all things that imply no contradiction in themselves nor imperfection in him as all divines and Philosophers do unanimously assert Therefore until Mr. de Rodon can demonstrate that it is impossible to God or that it argues an imperfection in him to put the whole world into a point we have no reason to doubt but that he is able to do it Neither will he be ever able to perswade us but that Christ as man because his manhood is united to his divinity can do more then all other men can do notwithstanding his likeness to them in all things sin only excepted But although Christ can put the world into a point and has power being in the host to act as he doth while he is in heaven yet it follows not that he doth or will act while he is in the host as he acteth in heaven All Philosophers nay and I am sure the Mounsier himself hold that a consequence a potentia ad actum from the power to the act or execution of that power is never good for example this is no good consequence viz Peter can go to Ierusalem therefore he will go thither as no more is this Christ can open his eyes in the Sacrament therefore he will open them in it when I say Christ can put the world into a point or Christ can act in a point I mean not that Christ can act in a point or that the world can act in a point reduplicatively that is to say precisly while they are in a point but my meaning is that Christ and the world also being in a point can act specificatively that 's to say Christ and the world also existing in a point have power also while they are in a point to act when they are out of a point From whence follows that Christs body is as glorious and happy while it is in the Sacrament as it is in heaven it being the same body in both though not in the same manner for certain it is and no Christian can deny it that Christs body while it was patible by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity was alwaies as happy and glorious in it self as t is now in heaven and yet while it was a patible body it was not a glorified one reduplicatively for to be patible and impatible at the same time is impossible nevertheless even while it was a patible body it was a glorious body specificatively that 's to say the self same body that was then but patible could and had the power to make it self glorified when Christ pleased as he did once for a short time at his Transfiguration Even so it is now we say with his body in heaven and in the Sacrament These terms Reduplicative and specificative are expounded otherwise by the Divines who by the word Reduplicative understand sensus compositus a compound sense that is a sense that joyneth power and act together at the same time In this sense we say it is impossible to move or be able to move in a point By the word specificative they understand sensus divisus a separated sense or a sense that separates and divides the power from the act for example Peter standing has a power to sit in a compound sense this proposition is false because it signifies that Peter should both stand and sit together which is a thing impossible but in a separated sense the proposition is true because it signifies that Peter while he is standing has power to sit afterwards though not of standing and sitting together or at the same time Even so we say of Christs body in the Sacrament that in a compound sense it cannot be in a point and act in it because it is impossible to act in a point but in a separated or divided sense we say his body may be in a point and yet have power even while it is in the point to act out of it By this solution is easily seen how it is impossible the sun should move from east to west reduplicatively or in a compound sense while it is in a point or that a sea-fight should be fought in a point reduplicatively or that a sparrow could easily swallow all the world reduplicatively though if the sun the sea or the world were by Gods power put into a point the same specificative sun sea or world have power even while they are in a point to be extended as great or greater then they are now not jointly while they are in a point but separately being extended afterwards for the power of being extended remains still in them also while they are in a point though the act of extending them is not jointly together with that power and so the hare escaped this arrow Now to his ninth Rodon 12. As a body cannot be in a place except it be produced there or that it comes or be brought thither from some other place so a body cannot cease to be in a place without being destroyed or going to some other place and consequently if Christs body ceaseth to be in the host after the consumption of the accidents it must necessarily either perish or go to some other place but Christs body cannot perish for Iesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. and Christs body goes to no other place for if it should go to any other place it would go to heaven but it cannot go to heaven because it is there already and a man cannot go to a place where he is already Therefore Christs body doth not cease to be in the host whence it follows that either Christs body remains still in the host and that it is impossible that it should be consumed or else that it was never in the
host but every man knows by experience that the hosts are eaten and consumed and that Christs body cannot be there after the consumpsion of the accidents of the bread Therefore it never was in the host Answ. To this argument I answer thus that as a body is produced or brought into a place so it can leave or cease to be in that place Therefore since as I said in answer to Mr de Rodons first argument of his third Chapter Christs body is not newly produced in the Sacrament in order to its entitative being which was produced already but only produced or rather adduced in order to a Sacramental modal being which is as much as to say that the self same eutity of Christs body which is already produced and now in heaven in its natural shape by vertue of the words of consecration hath a sacramental existence and equivocal place in the host since also there is no proper coming going or bringing of a body but to or from a proper and univocal place And lastly since a thing cannot perish unless its entitie be destroyed although it may cease from being in a place or leave its place after the same manner as it came into it without going away after another manner Therefore I say Christ not coming into the Sacrament as into his univocal place by way of a proper local going and being not reproduded in it in order to a new entity or essence having his entity in heaven before but only in order to a new sacramental existence and for that he is uncapable of perishing because his body is now glorious It follows that as he came into the Sacramental species without any proper or local motion or reproduction that he can also leave or cease to be in them after the consumption of the accidents without any local recession or perishing either whence it follows also that after the species are taken and consumed Christs body remains there no more and finally it follows that although as experience shews the host be consumable nevertheless the Mounsieur concludes falsly by inferring inconsequently that Christs body was never there whereas for my reasons to the contrary no such lawful consequence can follow and so his ninth arrow is also blown have at us now with his tenth but before he lets it fly he wisely layes this platform of doctrine that he may shoot with the better aym Rodon 13. The properties of a species are incommunicable to every other species For example the Properties of a man are incommunicable te a beast for seeing the properties flow from the essence or are the very essence it self it is evident that if the essence of a species be incommunicable to another species then the properties of a species are also incommunicable to another But the body and the spirit are the two species of substance therefore the properties of the spirit cannot be communicated to the body as the properties of the body cannot be communicated to the spirit But there are two principal properties which distinguish bodies from spirits The first is that spirits are substances that are penetrable amongst themselves that is may be together in one and the same place but bodies are impenetrable substances amongst themselves that is they cannot be together in one and the same place The second is that bodies are in a place circumscriptively that is all the body is in all the place but all the body is not in every part of the place but the parts of the body are in the parts of the place But spirits are in a place definitively that is all the spirit is in all thâ—… place and all the spirit is in every part of the place because a spirit having no parts must necessarily be all wheresoever it is whence I form my argument thus That doctrine which gives to a body the properties of a spirit changes the body into a spirit and consequently destroys the nature of a body seeing properties cannot be communicated without the essence but the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host gives to a body the properties of a spirit because it affirms that the quantitie of Christs body penetrats the quantity of the bread and is in the same place with it that all the parts of Christs body are penetrated amongst themselves and are all in one and the same place and that Christs body is all in all the host and all in every part of the host Therefore the doctrine of the Romish Church touching the pretended presence of Christs body in the host destroys the nature of Christs body Answ. Mr. de Rodon endeavouring to save Christs body harmless hits his Apostle directly with this arrow and gives him the lie in his teeth for the Apostle in his 1. Cor. 15. hath these express words It is sown a natural body it will rise a spiritual body Now I ask the Mounsieur whether according to the Apostles words the body shall rise a spirit or a body spiritualized if he says it will rise a spirit then it will not rise a real body for he himself here in his platform doctrine doth confess that a body and a spirit are two different species of substance If he says it will rise spiritualized that is with the properties and qualities of a spirit that is the contradictory of his own argument for he says that the properties of a spirit are incommunicable to a body and the properties of a body are likewise incommunicable to a spirit But to save Christs body our Diana and the Apostle harmless from this keen arrow I answer that as it is the property of a natural or patible body to be corruptible lumpish and obscure to be impenetrable with another body to be circumscribed and commensurated by another body and to have all its parts corresponding with the parts of its proper place so it is the property of a glorified body to be subtil impassible quick and luminous or clear for as the state of the soul is â—…ltered though not her essence so will the state of her body be altered its essence remaining the same The Mounsieur himself says that the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light like to that which it had upon Mount Thabor which is nothing else but the dowry or gift of clarity and yet it is certain that charity or brightness is not the property of a natural or patible body which is rather properly obscure and dark wherefore then may not penetrabilitie be communicable to a glorified body by reason of the dowry of subtillity as brightness is communicable to it by reason of the dowry of clarity from whence follows that the state of the soul being altered the properties of her body especially its secondary properties as are impenetrability and circumscription are altered also and so likewise this arrow follows the rest without hurting Christs body Diana or the Apostle His eleventh arrow
appear thus Rodon In every true sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was before as Bellarmine saith in express terms in the place above-cited But in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass Christs body and bloud are not destroyed for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass the body and bloud of Christ are not the thing sacrificed Answ. In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was bofore If by ceasing to be what it was before he intends ceasing to be in the manner as it was before I confess the major If by ceasing to be c. he intends ceasing to be the entitie or same thing it was before I deny the major And Bellarmins words in the place alledged do express no more for these be his words in the same place And destroies something that is sensible and permanent for by the word something a mode or manner may be as well understood as an entitie or nature and so we say it is in the Sacrament we say that the sensible accidents of bread and wine with the substantial sacramental Presence of Christs body and bloud which is the only thing produced by the words of consecration are destroyed But we say not that the entitie of Christs body and bloud which is rather adduced then produced in the Sacrament or that his body and bloud in their proper shape are destroyed in the Sacrament because the words of consecration doth not put them so into it And so both Mr. de Rodons huge Milstones with all their following absurdities are quite shattered and split Now then to his third Principal Argument drawn from the Apostles words Hebr. 9 which is this Rodon Hebr. 9. the Apostle saies Allmost all things are by the law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission it was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these from which words I form this argument There is no propitiation or remission of sinns without shedding of bloud as the Apostle saith But in the Mass there is no shedding of bloud for it is called an unbloudy sacrifice Therefore in the Mass there is no propitiation or remission of sins and consequently no propitiatory sacrifice This argument may be thus confirmed under the old Testament there was no propitiation or purification without shedding of bloud and the types of heavenly things were so purified as the Apostle saith Heb. 9. Therefore under the new Testament also there can be no propitiation or purification without shedding hf bloud and heavenly things being represented by the legal Types must be purified by a more excellent sacrifice viz. by the shedding of Christs bloud And although the Apostle useth the word sacrifices in the plural number yet we must understand the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross because when one thing is opposed to many it is often expressed in the plural number as whem Baptism which is but one is called Baptismes Heb. 6. 2. But the only sacrifice of the Cross of Christ in the text above-cited Heb. 9. 23. is opposed to the old sacrifices which were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Cross. Answ. I grant that unless Christ had shed his bloud for us there had been no propitation or remission of sins and consequently that there was no expiation or remission of sinns in any types or sacrifices of the old law but only in relation and reference to Christs bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross which is all the Apostle meant in the forementioned Passage But all this concerns not the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass at all which is not a bare type or shadow of Christs bloudy sacrifice as all the sacrifices of the old Law were and no more for the sacrifice of the Mass is not only an immediate type of that of the Cross but also a proper Idea memorial nay as the holy fathers say the self-same sacrifice of the Cross reiterated after another manner viz. unbloudily because it is not convenient that Christs body being now glorious and impassible should suffer again and by reason it is a perpetual memorial or repetition of the bloudy sacrifice it hath a reference or relation to it from whence followeth evidently that because it is the self-same sacrifice essentially with that of the Cross and it hath an immediate relation to it and remembrance of it It followeth I say evidently that it is propitiatory for the living and the dead as that of the Cross is for if it be the same body and bloud that is now offered and was offered upon the Cross as Christ himself says t is his body and the fathers of the Church say it is the same sacrifice with that of the Cross it imports not at all as to the essence of the sacrifice whether it be offered bloudily or unbloudily because to be bloudy or unbloudy is not essential to a sacrifice there being some sacrifices offered in the old Law whereof some were bloudy and other strict sacrifices also offered which had no bloud in them Therefore to make the Mass a proper and strict sacrifice it is sufficient that in the Mass there be sensible symbols viz. the accidents of bread and wine containing Christs body and bloud really personally and â—…bstantially present and that at the destruction of these symbols or signes Christs body ceaseth to be substantially and personally present there any more though he ceaseth not because of the destruction of the species to be absolutely and in his humane shape in heaven Finally I say that God the father knows and accepts of the sacrifice of his sons body offered unto him by us for our sinns as our Mediatour whether the said body be offered to him bloudily or uubloudily Rodon The Apostle Heb. 10. 16. saith this is the Covenant which I will make with them after these days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their harts and in their minds will I write them and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin whence I form this argument where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle faith But in the Christian Church by vertue of the new Testament or new Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ there is remission of sins Heb. 10. 16. 17. Therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an obligation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Answ. Mr. de Rodon the better to draw his argument out of Scripture salsifies the text in two places for where the text says This is
Therefore whether you will or no Mounsieur you must confesse accoridng to this Text that our Saviours glorified body did penetrate the doors of the room where his disciples were or else say that he entred while the doors were open and shut together which is both non-sensical and contradictory Neither do your clear passages out of Act. 5. and the 12. avail you a jot for first there is a very great difference between Christs glorified body and the Apostles patible body as it was when he lay in prison and therefore to let a patible body go out of prison it was necessary the doors should be opened by an Angel or some body But Christs glorified body needed no such help Secondly because the Text says not that Peter went out of prison the doors being shut as it is said that Christ entred to his disciples while the doors were shut therefore these passages of Scripture are nothing to your purpose Rodon Secondly I answer that the Virgin Mary was a true Virgin both before and after her delivery if by being a Virgin he meant not to have had the company of a man but it is certain that Iesus Christ came out of the Virgins belly by opening her womb for it is said Luke 2. that Joseph and Mary carried Iesus Christ to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law Every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord. Answ. Concerning our B. Ladies virginity your answer Mounsieur is also impious and false for strict and rigorous virginitie such as the mother of Gods is consists in the integrity of a virginal inclosure Therefore it is so far from being certain that it is a false and an arrant lie that Jesus Christ came out of the virgins womb by fraction or overture for that is contrary to virginal integrity But most certain it is and a thing questionlesse that de Rodon deserves a double fee one for vilifiing Christs Sacraments and another remarkable brand upon his ungodly tongue or lips for speaking blasphemously against the B. virgins virginal integrity which according to his impious doctrine would not be as entire as that of ordinary young little maidens is The Scripture which you alledge for it helps you not out also for although Ioseph and Mary carryed Iesus to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law Every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord yet it follows not nor proves at all that Christ at his birth did open his virgin-Mothers womb for when Iesus and Mary came to the Temple and he was to be presented there to the Lord it was not for any obligation he or she had to the Law for as they were both most free from sin so were they exempted from the Law also which was made only against sinners But he was pleased to be presented at the Temple like a sinner because all other males but he that openeth the womb were really sinners and consequently subject to the Law But he as he said of himself came not into the world to destroy the Law but to fullfill it and therefore for to give no occasion of scandal unto others he was pleased to be presented to the Lord like unto a sinner although both himself and his most blessed mother were clear from all sorts of sins and consequently not subject to the Law he was also perhaps pleased to be presented in the Temple to the Lord the better to conceal himself from the devil for the same reason as Martyr Ignations gives why he chose rather to be born of a Married woman then of a virgin unmarried because the devil only suspected and guest who he was and was not quite certain of it as it evidently appears by these words of S. Math. 4. If thou art the son of God command that these stones be made bread where as one may clearly see the devil spoke doubtfully So that as Jesus Christ was exempted from the Law and yet fulfilled the Law even so he came out of his mothers belly without opening her virginal womb as all other males when they are born do open their mothers wombs Certain it is therefore and most certain too that as Jesus Christ was conceived in the virgins womb without any detriment to her virginal integrity so he also came out of her womb leaving her as pure and entire a virgin as she was before his birth and consequently as entire as any little mayden virgin and this susliceth to refute de Rodons blasphemous answer against the B. virgins Integrety Rodon Thirdly I answer that Iesus Christ did not penetrate the stone that was layd on his sepulchre for it is said S. Math. 28. that the Angel of God rolled it back from the door of the sepulchre Answ. Neither will this text serve your turn Mounsieur for the stone was not rolled by the Angel to make way for Christs body to come out of the sepulchre as de Rodon falsely glosseth it and heaps curses more and more upon his own head by so doing But the stone was rolled for the Maries who came to visit our Lords sepulchre and he rose before they came for when they came with oyntments to anoynt his body they found the sepulchre shut and S. Mary Magdalene said quis revolvet nobis lâ—…pidem who will roll the stone for us S. Mark 16. Therefore the stone was rolled for them and not for Christ to come out of his sepulcher because he could and did make way for himself by his own proper might and vertue without needing the help or administry of his Angels as he assended into heaven without their aid or help Rodon 14. fourthly I answer that when it is said Heb. 4. that Iesus Christ penetrated the heavens we must understand it improperly in the same manner as it is commonly said that an Arrow penetrates the Air that is the Air gives way to the Arrow that Passeth through the Air and so Iesus Christ penetrated the heavens because the heavens gave way to his body and not that the heavens and his body wère in one and the same place But why Mr. de Rodon when the Apostle says plainly and exnresly that Jesus Christ penetrated the heavens why I say must we understand his words improperly do you think that Penetration is an impossible thing to God have you an Augustine a Hierome an Ambrose a Gregory a Chrysostome or any of the ancient Fathers to second you or have you any Text of Scripture or General Council that backs you in it if you have produce them in the name of God if you have not as I am sure you have not is it not a very great presumption and audacity in you to offer to interpret clear passages of Scripture and turn them to what sense you please upon your own bare word and authority or finally do you not see your own heretical Pride in offering to perswade the world to
service for you contradict his word his plain express word is that Bread and wine after the words of consecration are converted into his real body and bloud for his express words upon the bread and wine he took in his hand be these this is my body this is my bloud And you say no it is not his body but the signe or Sacrament of his body only and you have no more reason to misbelieve this then you have to misbelieve the Mysteries of his Incarnation and of the Blessed Trinity because his word or Testimony for this is as clear if not clearer then for any of the other two grand Mysteries of our Belief and Gods word or Testimony is the only ground and motive of our faith and as you misbelieve his word in this point so you misbelieve his Church in many things more notwithstanding his express word commands you the contrary as in S. Math. 18. he bids you hear the Church And in S. Luke the 10th speaking to his Church representative he sayes he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me a lesson which every good Christian ought to heed very well It is also one of the Articles of our Creed to believe in the Catholick Church In a word because you believe not him nor obey his Church your preaching the Gospel and your unchristian Religion whereof you so much boast and wherein as in your selves be many failings and absurdities are very far from being pure and clean and consequently the sacrifices you here mention though as they are offered by the orthodox people while they are in the state of grace be pure and acceptable to God yet your schismatical or rather heretical sacrifices are neither pure nor pleasing to him for you like rotten or withered branches are excommunicated and quite cut off from his Church and so will still remain until you be reconciled unto her according to Christs command That your doctrine and preaching and consequently your sacrifice and service to God are not clean and pure but rather putrid and stinking appears manifestly by these your own words which be these And although the faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed with many infirmities and that their Religious actions be accompanied with divers failings yet their persons and works may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy before God for it is these S. Peter speaks of in Ep. 1. c. 2. who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And so you say your sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Jesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holyness so that the defects of them are not imputed to you This I say is very impure and stinking doctrine for it contradicts Gods word who Proverb 15. sayes the victims of the impious are abominable to our Lord. God is no acceptor of persons if a drunkard a whoremaster a murderer or a thief offer him never so many sacrifices while he is out of the state of Grace although he offers them in Christs name they are not pleasing or acceptable to God but rather odious and abhominable and much less are the sacrifices of disobedient and stubborn heretical spirits pleasing unto him for Obedience is with him better then victims and consequently to be obedient to his Church is more acceptable unto him then any victims or sacrifices we can offer him in whose name soever Therefore until Mr. de Rodon can prove that his is the only universal Church of Ood which he will never be able to accomplish he ought not to brag or boast of his sacrifices for all the sacrifices that are offered to God out of his Church as the Jewes offer him sacrifices too are odious and abhominable unto him Certain then it is Mr. de Rodon that you nor any of your party are those persons the Apostle meant in the fore-alledged passage and certain also it is that Christ never covers or hides your or any bodies else his nasty sins and abominable sacrifices which be always more loathsom to him then any cloose-stool or carrion is to us and much less whatever you presume your selves to be are you his members being now as dead branches lopt of from a tree cut off from his Mistical body the Church for no soul can be a living member of Christ before she be renst and washt by vertue of his pretious bloud which boiles in his Sacraments that are the spiritual salves which must be applied unto her to wash and take away all the filth of her sins Then when she is throughly cleansed and purged from sin Christ enters and inhabits her afterwards he beautifies and adorns her with a bright ray of inherent Justice and finally after well seasoning and sweetning her with the fragrant odour of divine Grace he incorporates her unto himself and makes her his mystical member Therefore Mr. de Rodon you grosly wrong Christ by saying that he covers or hids your filthiness and sins because you are his members for Christ hath no commerce with dirt he is no patron protectour or coverer of iniquity or sin he hates it from his very heart and there is nothing that causes a separation or divorcement between him and his creatures but only sin therefore if he does but only cover the sins of his mystical members and not quite wash them and take them away it follows that the dirt of their sins will stick to them also when they are in heaven for Mr. de Rodon says their sins are but covered by Christ and consequently that their sins will follow them into heaven although holy writt says that no dofiled thing shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven by this discourse the Reader may well see how stinking and impure this doctrine of the Mounsieur is as also that neither he nor his party with their confessed failings are those the Apostle spoke of and much less that they are members of Christ and consequently that their sacrifices are not acceptable to God Therefore the Apostle meant only the orthodox Catholicks that offer sacrifice unto God while they are in the state of Grace and yet the sacrifice the Apostle speaks of here is not a strict and proper sacrifice but an improper one for otherwise something must have been destroyed To what you farther answer viz. that besides the perfect purity which you have by the imputation of Christs rightiousness you have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost of which S. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost I answer that you are far deceived in this your proud fancy
out of Scripture or fathers to over-ballance them give us leave to hold them for probable and considerable in themselves and for demonstrative by reason of the holy fathers Testimonies Rodon 25. Fifthly I answer that the principal reason which our Adversaries bring to prove that Melchisedeck offered unto God bread and wine viz. because it is in the hebrew text for he was Priest is a manifest falsification for it is in the hebrew text and he was Priest Also the old latine Interpreter and the Greek Septuagint translate it as we do viz. and he was Priest And it is very probable that this Passage hath been corrupted in S. Jeroms latine translation because in his hebrew Questions and in his epistle to Evagrius he translates it and he was Priest S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Caecilius and S. Augustine Book 4. of Christian doctrine chap. 21. and elswhere translate it and he was Priest So that although the hebrew particle used by Moses do sometimes signifie for yet seeing that both its proper and common signification is and and that for one place where it signifies for there are a thousand at least where it signifies and and that there is nothing that obligeth us to translate it for it is evident that the argument of our Adversaries is of no force at all Therefore it is more pertinent to refer these words and he was a Priest to what follows viz. and blessed him then to what goes before viz. brought bread and wine for as Melchisedeck being a liberal King brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people so as he was a Priest much more excellent then Abraham he blessed him And though it should be translated for he was a Priest yet it would not follow that Melchisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine unto God for it might be said that Moses would shew the reason of the good will of Melchisedeck towards Abraham viz. it was very fit that he that was Priest of the most high God should testify his kindness to so eminent a servant of God as was Abraham by presenting bread and wine to him whereof he thought there was need Answ. It is more then you can do Mounsieur to make this a manifest falsification or a probable falsification either for S. Ierome was ever counted for a better latinist then you or I are and yet this is not the first and only place of Scripture where for his elegancy in the latine tongue he translated and into for In the 20th of Gen. where the hebrew text hath Lo thou shalt die for the woman that thou hast and she hath a husband S. Ierome translates it thus for she hath a husband and in Gen. 30. where the hebrew text hath I have learned by experience and God hath blessed me he translates it thus I have learned by experience that he hath blessed me which is as much as to say for he hath blessed me and again in Isai. 64. the hebrew text hath Behold thou art angrie and we have sinned he translates it Behold thou art angrie because we have sinned which because signifies the same thing as for doth so that S. Ierome in his latine translation for the elegancy of the latin Phrase doth often use for for and for he attends not to the meaning of every word verbatim in his translation as no man else ought to do when he translates a book into another language but he attends to the sense and meaning of the whole sentence Therefore it is not probable that this passage hath been corrupted in S. Ieroms latin Translation as Mr. de Rodon says because S. Ierome attending to these words that went before viz. bringing forth bread and wine he purposely changed and into for because he understood that the word for related to the antecedent words viz. bread and wine and not to the subsequent viz. blessed him or and he blessed him as Mr. de Rodon would have it to be And for the better confirmation of what is here said it is to be noted that not only in the hebrew text but also in the Caldean Greek and latine texts immediatly after these words viz. and he was a Priest there is set a full stop or point which sort of stop the hebrews call soph pasuch and it perfectly ends the whole sentence which termination proves evidently that these words for he was a Priest relate only to the precedent words viz. bread wine not to the subsequent viz. and he blessed him But what need I stickle with Mr. de Rodon about these two words for and whereas I have already referred our main question to his own translation and yet as I have shewed before he benefits nothing by it Rodon 26. Sixthly I answer that from what is said ps 110. and Heb. 7. viz. that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever it will not follow that he must offer himself every day in the Masse under the species of bread and wine by the ministry of Priests for the Apostle writing to the hebrews placeth the perpetuity of the Priesthood partly in this viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more seeing by one oblation he hath consecrated for ever those that are sanctified and partly in this viz. that being exalted far above the heavens he intercedes continually for us for the Priesthood consists in certain functions and in the vertue and efficacy of them And seeing there are two parts of Christs Priesthood whereof one relates to the oblation of himself which he offered on the Cross and the other to his Intercession it is certain that the vertue and efficacy of the oblation is eternal and that the Intercession will coâ—… unto the end of the world Answ. Do noâ—… you know Mounsieur that the Royal 〈◊〉 sayes that Christ is not only a Priest after the order of Meichisedec but also that he is a Priest for ever after that order that is to say until the worlds end And do not you know that if he be a Priest for ever there must be an everlasting sacrifice answerable to his Priesthood and corresponding with the order of his Priesthood because Priest and sacrifice are correlatives and convertible terms If Christ then be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec it must necessarily follow that a sacrifice is to be offered for ever after the same order but that sacrifice cannot be his bloudy one for although its effect will last for ever yet the sacrifice it self was offered but once and besides it was a bloudy sacrifice and so not after the order of Melchisedec therefore the everlasting sacrifice must be unbloudy and since we know of no other sacrifice bloudy or unbloudy that Melchisedec offered but bread and wine nor of any other kind of sacrifice that is offered in Gods Church but that of the Mass under the species of bread and wine we conclude that this is the sacrifice whereof the Royal psalmist and the Apostle
is his sâ—…h he said noâ—… this bread is the barâ—… signe or figure of his flesh but his real flesh for it was his real flesh and not its bare figure that was offered or sacrificed for the lifâ—… of the world therefore this bread is â—…ot a meer signe only of Christs body but his very real substantial body for it was his real body and not its type only that was sacrificed for the life or salvation of the world After our saviour said to the Jews I am the bread of life I am the bread which descended from heaven and the Jewes thereforâ—… murmured and gâ—…umbled among themselves saying is not this the son of Joseph whose father and Mother we know and again how câ—…n this man give us his flesh to eat our saviour to confirm that it was his real body assevered it by oath or intermination saying Amen Amen for that was his usual teste I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you here he calls it all along his flesh and his bloud and not the signes only of his flesh and bloud and for the farther confirmation thereof he adds for my flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed What is but a figure or type of a thing cannot be the thing it self really and indeed Therefore if Christs flesh be truly and really our meat in the Sacrament or Sacramental species the Eucharist must needs be the true and real body and bloud of Christ indeed and not in type or signification only S. Paul 1 Cor. 10. in clear terms shews it The chalice quoth he of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of our Lord he sayes not the communication or participation of any signs or types but of his real body and bloud And in his 11th chap. to the said Cor. he mentioneth that our Lord took bread and giving thanks brake said take ye and eat this is my body which shall be delivered unto you These words I am sure cannot be understood of a figurative or typical body for it was not a typical body that was offered or delivered for us as the Maniâ—…hees falsly commented but the real and substantial body of Christ for it is certain the Apostle Rom. 8 when he said proprio filio non pepeâ—…cit c. he hath spared not also his own son but for us all delivered him spoke not of a bâ—…re type or figure but of his â—…eal body as all these clear passages so well cohering do manifestly demonstrate This is also confirmed by these words of the said Apostle 1 Cor. 11. Quiâ—…unque manduâ—…averit panem vel biberit calicem domini indigne reus â—…rit corporis sangâ—…is domini Therefore whosoever shall â—…t this bread or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord how can this be if it be but the figure or signe of his body and bloud and not his real body and bloud those that did eat the Manna and the Paschal Lamb were not said to be guilty of his body and bloud for eating them unworthily and yet they were signes of his bloudy sacrifice Therefore for eating or drinking of a meeâ—… signe or for tearing and destroying the meer â—…mage or picture of any man it is a very hard and severe Law to condemn him or make him guilty of his death Therefore it is for eating and drinking of our Lords real body and bloud unworthily and not for eating and drinking the signes only of his body and bloud that the Apostle sayes a man is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. Hence any man of judgment may see how clear and express these texts are for the real presence of Christs body in the hoâ—…t and how improperly and wrongfully our adversâ—…ries extort upon the clear Texts to wrest them and draw them to their own sense of a signe or type But seeing scripture is so clear of our side Let us see what the holy fathers the spiritual beacons and true interpreters of Gods word say to it I will begin with ancient Tertullian who saith Tertul de resurr carn n. 7. our flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatted therefore they shall both have one reward at the resurrection Next follows Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14. whose words be these how do they affirm that our bodies be not capable of life everlasting which are nourished by the bâ—…dy and bloud of our Lord S. Greg. Nyssene also â—…aith in orat cathec magna that lively body entring into our body changeth it and maketh it like and immortal Allexander 1. that venerable Prelate and Martyr saith There can be nothing greater in sacrifices then the body and bloud of Christ To these I add the renowned S. Hylarie there is no doubt left of the verity of the body and bloud of Christ for now both by Christs own confession and by our belief it is truly flesh and truly bloud If God was pleased to be made man quoth Damascene lib. 4. de fide orth c. 14. and take flesh of the most pure bloud of the virgin without seed can he not make bread his body and wine and water his bloud Great S. Augustin lib. sentent Prosper adds his susâ—…rage to these in these words But we under the species of bread and wine do honour invisible things viz. flesh and bloud S. Ambrose lib. de sacram sides also with the rest in these plain and express terms it is ordinary bread at the Altar before the sacramental words But when it is consecrated then of bread it is made Christs flesh To these I add S. Ierome writing to Edibius S Cyril of Alex de consecr di 2. c. necessario S. Greghom Pasch. S. Crysost 3. dial de dignit sacerd c. 4. Theophilact in comment super Ioh. S. Anselme and in a word all the holy fathers and general councils that ever treated of this mistery Therefore all the greatest and most famous lights of Gods Church do hold with us as to this main point And although this Mystery be above humane reason yet because it is not contrary nor destructive to reason our divinos do give plausible congruityes and reasons for it The first whereof may be this it is the nature of goodness to impart or communicate it self to others because as the Philosophers says bonum est communicativum sâ—…i Goodness is communicative of its own self and to say the truth we know not a good or liberal man from a niggard but by imparting of his goodness and liberality to others If then it be the nature of goodness to impart it self to others it must be the nature of the highest and chiefest goodness to impart and communicate it self to others in the
Consecration ought to be understood according to their immediate sense p. 17. The B. Sacrament is the New Testament in Christs Blood not only of his Blood p. 22. These words This is my Body signifie a substantial being and not a Sacramental only p. 23. The Protestant Communion exhibits not Christs Body Blood to the Believers p. 27. The Sacramental Species receiveâ—… worthily makes the receiver a Mystical Member of Christ. p. 30. Faith alone insufficient for this Sacrament Ib. Faith is no mouth literally or metaphoâ—…ically p. 31. Christs glorified Body never damnified by the receiver of the B. Sacramenâ—… p. 32. To verifie a proposition it sufficeth the thing be as the proposition says it is p. 35. Iâ—… is the Sacrament that is the chief and whole cause of our spiritual refreshment and the thing which the Soul principally hungers and thirsts after Faith is only a conâ—…ition requisite so is Hope and Charity also for to receive worthily p. 38. Christs Body worthily received works spiritually upon the Soul p. 40. These words of St. Aug. To eat the â—…lesh of Christ is a Figure c. which De Rodon alledges against us expounded p. 43. Cardinal Cajetans Authority alledged against us expounded p. 45. The action whereby we obtain remission of sins anâ—… sanctification ending in gloâ—…ification consists not in the spiritual eating or drinking by Faith only p. 5â—… In these words My Flesh is meaâ—… indeed no Figure falls upon the word Meat p. 55. Christs Flesh is a corporal food that nourishes spiritually only p. 57. Objects of Divine Faith not to he levelled by our reason and sense p. 59. Christ comeâ—… into the Sacrament by an adductive power p. 66. He is not produced there entitatively but modally only p. Ibid. Certain passages of Scripture alledged aâ—…ainst us by De Rodon viz. That there is â—…reaking givinâ—… eaâ—…ing and drinking after Consecraâ—…ion answered p. 68. When Christ said Drink ye all this Mat. 26. he meant his Blood p. 71. Why the eâ—…ects of the Sacramental Species â—…emain after Transubstantiation p. 73. Transubstantiation is a total substantial conversion and not a formal substantial conversion only p. 75. The Sacâ—…amental Species are something Subâ—…ect liâ—…e p. 77. Transubstantiation destroys not the nature of Acciâ—…ents p. 79. Transubstantiation destroys not the Nature oâ—… Sacâ—…aments p. 84. Corporal nourishment in the Sacramental Sâ—…ecies nâ—…t requisite p. 85. The Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be adored with a Latria p. 88. If our adversaries give not a Latriacal adoration to their Communion Bread it may be lawfully given to Dogs p. 89. If they adore their Communion they are greater Idolaters than we p. 91. Christ gave power to Priests to Consecrate p. 97. Christs Body is in the Sacrament immediately by reason of its substance p. 99. It s quantity is also there though not with its quantitative dimensions p. 100. The definition of a proper place and how many manner of ways both Christian Divines and Philosophers hold a thing may be in a place p. 103. A glorious Body may be in its equivocal place p. 109. The Iacobins and the Jesuits opinion concerning Christs Body to be brought or produced in the Sacrament saved p. 112. Christs Body is in all things subject to his Soul as his Soul is subject to his Divinity p. 117. Why the local extension of Christs Body in the Sacrament is hindred p. 119. De Rodons Argument of to move and not to move at the same time c. answered p. 121. Wherein a formal contradiction consists p. 123 De Rodons ridiculous quibbles and Unphilosophical illations answered p. 129. Distance is only betwixt corporal things whilst they are in their univocal places p. 130 A Sacramental place is properly no place at all p. 133. De Rodons Dropsical Argument of a drop of water that drowned many thousands c. mouldred p. 136. Division is only between corporal things in their proper places p. 138. God and Nature are not obliged to do what they can do p. 140. De Rodon shoots at Christ through Diana's side p. 143. Christ is seen in the Sacrament by the Spiritual Eye of our understanding supported by the light of Faith p. 146. It is not convenient we should see Christ visibly with our Corporal Eyes in the Blessed Sacrament p. 148. Substances possess no place p. 151. Christs Body in the Sacrament whether taken substantially or quantitatively has no posture or scituation in it p. 154. His Body appears not more or less for dividing or sub-dividing the Host p. 156. Christ is as glorious and happy in the Host as he is in Heaven p. 161. What these terms Reduplicatively and specificatively what sensus compositus and divisus mean p. Ibid. As Christ comes into the Host without local 〈◊〉 so he leaves it without local â—…e 〈◊〉 p. 165. De Rodon gives the Apostle the lie p. 167. Christ Diana and the Apostle saved from De Rodons keen Arrow p. 168. De Rodon jumps with the Iews against Christ p. 170. His Thunderbolt or Coelestial Arrow shivered p. 172. According to De Rodons Principles there ought to be no Sacrament of our Lords Supper at all p. 174. Clâ—…ud de Xaintes defended against De Rodon p. Ibid. Exorcismes p. 176. De Rodons miraculous Arrow put by p. 179. Christ really in Heaven and really in the Blessed Sacrament at the same time p. 182. He is not in the Sacrament impanated p. Ibid. He gave himself to Iudas also p. 18â—… Bellormine and Peron defendeâ—… p. 186. The Sacraments of the old Testament had a relation to those of the new p. 187. The Moâ—…sieurs Scripturistical Arrows shatâ—…ered p. 190. The marks of the Roman Church p. 193. The Seven Sacraments expounded p. 195. Why we keep the Eucharist in our Pixes and 〈◊〉 p. 197. Monsieur and his Party the false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of p. Illid God many manner of ways in his Creatures p. 202. External Adoration due to Christ where he is known to be personally present p. 203. Hereticks uncivil both to God and Man p. 206. According to De Rodons Principles we may adore the Devil instead of Christ p. 209. VVhy External adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament more than in the VVater of Baptism p. 210. Heaven and Hell destroyed by the Monsieurs Principles p. 211. The Monsieurs third Foundation built upon Quick-sands p. 215. De Rodons very considerable Argument pernicious to all mankind p. 218. Destructive to Goâ—…s Providence p. 222. A moral certitude of being Christned sufficient p. 223. Pope Adrian defended against De Rodon p. 226. Apostate Priests and Monks in credit and spiritual jurisdiction with De Rodon and his Party p. 228. The Pâ—…imitive Church adored the Host p. 233. Proved by the Testimonies of sundry Holy Fathers p. Ibid. Our Diana or Mass holds it out from all Ages maugre De Rodon and all Hereticks p. 237. Diana vindicated against Idolatry p. 238. The Church makes no new Articles of
takes its force from heaven viz. from Christs glory and unless it be waved will descend like a thunderbolt upon Diana's head and crush her in peeces if the Mounsieur can but hit right now she is utterly destroyed and Popery too out comes this celestial dart thus Rodon 14. Iesus Christ being sat at Gods right hand is in a glorious estate and yet the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host subjects him to divers ignominies viz. that his body goes into peoples bellies and among their excrements that it is subject to be eaten by his enemies yea by Mice and other beasts Hear what Claude de Xaintes a famous Romish doctor saith of it Repet 5. Chap. 2. Of all these we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lords flesh in the Sacrament let him be Turk Athiest Infidel or Hypacrite yea though he should be the Devil himself incarnate It is also subject to be stoln for about 25. years since a thief was executed at Paris for stealing out of a Church a chalice and this God in it and the Priest went to the prison in his sacerdotal ornaments and falling on his kneâ—…s before the Thives pocket pulled his God out of it And as it is a God that cannot keep himself from being stolen so neither can he keep himself from being burnt as it appeared when the Pallace-hall at Paris was burnt In short the host or God of the Mass hath been seen in the hands of one possessed by the Devil and consequently in the devils power yea there are charms made by the Romish Priests to compel the devil to restore God to them a horrible and prodigious thing to put God into the devils power and into a capacity of being eaten by the devil incarnate especially being he is now glorious in heaven Answ. While de Rodon pretends to vindicate Christs glory in heaven he blaspheâ—…nously derides him just as the high Priests and scribes did when he was crucified alios salvos fecit seipsum non potest salvum facere he saved others said they but he cannot save himself and as it is a God quoth the Jewish-like Mounsieur deriding the B. Sacrament that cannot keep himself from being stolen so neither can he keep himself from being burnt These Jewes believed not that Christ was the son of God because he descended not from the cross when they uttered therein geering tants against him and yet all Christians believe that if Christ would it was in his power then also to save himself from that ignominious death De Rodon believes not Christ is really in the consecrated host because the host is liable to be stoln or burnt and yet all orthodox believers are certain that if Christ would it is in his power to hinder both So that as you see the Jewes derided Christ upon the Cross even so is he derided by this godly Mounsieur in the Sacrament for as the Jews argued that he was not the son of God because he could not descend from the cross so he argues that he is not in the Sacrament because he cannot save it from being stolen and burnt and consequently thus far he jumps with the Jews against Christ. Now then to his Thunderbolt or celestial arrow The doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host subjects him says the Mounsieur to divers ignominies That I deny it goes into our bellies and among our excrements quoth he suppose it doth what ignominy is that to a glorified body as much as it is to the sun to cast itâ—… beams upon a dunghil Certain it is that Christ ordained this Sacrament for to be eaten by us that by receiving it into our bodies we may become his mystical members as the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. insinuats by these words For being many we are one bread one body all that participate of one bread what can incorporate us mystically unto Christ more then his body taken in the form of bread was not this the food Christ meant when speaking to one of his favorits he said cibus sum grandium cresce manducabis me nec ego mutabor inâ—…e sed tu mutaber is in me I am the food of the great ones encrease and thou shalt eat me I shall not be changed into thee but thou shalt be changed into me and S. Ciril of Ierusalem Catechesi Mistagog 4. says non siâ—… haec attendas velim tanquam sint nudus simplex panis nudum simplex vinum corpus enim sunt sanguis Christi I would not have you take these things so as if they were but bare and simple bread and bare and simple wine for they are the body and bloud of Christ. Thus this holy father understood what the B. Sacrament is thus all the rest of the holy fathers understood it thus all General Councils that ever treated of this matter defined it Christ did institute it as a mean to incorporate us into himself mysticaly and says it shall not be changed into us but we into it what ignominy or hurt then can our bellies or excremenrs do it more then the sun or its beams receive from a dunghil the Mounsieurs thunderbolt I think will prove but a Buggbeare at last to terrifie children or ignorant childish witts for Christs divinity and glorified body also are incapable of ignominy or being hurt by any thing It is says the Mounsieur subject to be eaten by his enemies yea by mice and other beasts What of that so was his body also while t' was patible subject to be abused and ignominiously treated by his enemies and although Christ could hinder them yet he did not however though he foresaw the ignominies that should happen to his sacred humanity he was nevertheless pleased to become Incarnate can the Mounsieur find fault with him therefore even so although Christ was pleased to bequeath his body now glorified and consequently incapable of ignominy to his Church in the Sacrament for to be her spiritual food and to incorporate her unto himself because forsooth the Sacramental species are liable to some accidental mischances which reflect not at all upon his glorified body to do it any annoyance or hurt it being incapable thereof therefore Mr. de Rodon thinks it a horrible prodigious fault that his body should be really in the host But his communion bread and wine are as liable to these ignominies at least to some of them as our Sacrament is Therefore he must either think it is of no value or worth or if he thinks there is any thing of divine in it he must needs grant that it is a horrible and prodigious thing to expose it to those ignominies it is liable to and so consequently lest we should fall into prodigious crimes and sacriledges we must have no Sacrament of the Eucharist at all O brave Mounsieur As to Claude de Xaintes if his words be rightly understood they import not any the least