were still called Blind by that way of speaking If yow ask me what he invited them to drink when he said to his Disciples Math. 26. Drink ye all of this I answer be invited them to drink a cup of Blood for the Wine was converted into Blood afore they drunk the cup for the cup's being the cup of his blood was the reason he brought to move them to drink it now we do not bring the reason to move a man to do a thing after he has done it but before Also the demonstrative particle This as it does not demonstrate a thing that is not yet neither does it demonstrate a thing that is past but joyned to a verb of the present tence with a full sense it demonstrates a thing present If Chrict had meant of what they had drunk afore he would have said That was and not Tkis is so you may suppose he did not give them the Cup afore he had ended his speach But why does S. Mark chap. 14. Set the consecration after the drinking Answer it 's a figurative speach we call Histerologia when we relate first that which was done last As when S. Math. in the 27 chap. relates the Resurrection of the bodies of the Saints afore the Resurrection of Christ who nevertheless rose first Again by the same figure S. Math. Chap. 11. from the 2 verse to the 20 relates concerning Iohn Bap. the things that fell out afore the mission of the Apostles which mission he had related before in the 10. Chap. Nay I hope Mr. Rodon will not have our Saviour to have consecrated or blissed the wine by saying this is my blood when it was in the disciples stomacks Mr. Ro. urges When a thing is converted into another wee cannot see the property of the thing converted but only that into which it is converted Answer In a natural conversion which is not a Sacrament I grant in a supernatural which makes a Sacrament I deny for the Eucharist being a signe of our spiritual nourishment it is such by the species of Bread which nourishes the body Also the property of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist which is to nourish the soul by Grace being an object of saith is seen by the understanding but not by the eye of the Body so Abraham saw by faith that those who appeared to him Gen. 18. like men were Angels For brevities sake to his saying In everie substanstial conversion c. Answer in every substantial conversion which is not of the whole substance there must be a subject to passe from on substance to another I grant if it be of the whole as Transubstantiation I deny for God's almighty power is able to change the matter as well as the form of a thing when it pleases him Neither is it a Creation because the accidents are something common to both and the Body of Christ was before existent To his saying that Transubstantiation destroyes the nature of Accidents this I deny because the nature of an accident is not to inhere actually but to have an exigency or an innate appetite of inhering which a substance hath not because naturally a human nature demandes a human subsistance would Mr. Rodon have said that there is a human person in Christ To his saying that Transubstantiation destroyes the nature of Sacraments that I also deny and shew the contrary Because the Body of Christ as it is united to the species of Bread is the Sacrament which hath not only an absolute being but also a relative Sacramental and significative being as Mr Ro. requires for as the species of Bread represent and signify to us bread which nourishes the Body so do the same species by the Consecration of the Host represent to us the Body of Christ which nourishes the soul by the grace it produces in it Thus you see 1. In the species an Analogie or relation to the thing signified viz. Nourishment 2. A double being of the Sacrament the absolute being in the Bodie of Christ and the Relative being in the Species And so you see that Transubstantiation does not any wise destroy the being of a Sacrament ar Sign Note that the substances of Bread alone or Wine alone are not signs for substances do not fall under or affect our senses but by their accidents so the whole force of signifying is in the species which move our senses and consequently 't is not required that the formal signs be such that they may nourish our Bodies to save the likeness between the Sacrament and nourishment signified by it It 's enough that the species signifie nourishment in the Eucharist as they did afore in the Bread in the Bread nourishment of the Body by Bread in the Eucharist nourishment of the Soul by the Body of Christ If you say the Body of Christ under the species cannot nourish the Soul I answer Materially and corporally I grant Effectively and Spiritually producing grace in it I deny To Mr. Ro. saying The Council of Trent commands the adoration of the Eucharist And therefore the accidents of Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Answer The accidents are not a part of the Sacrament I deny they are not the whole Sacrament I grant The Sacrament is said to be adored when the cheif part of it the Body of Christ united to the Divinity is adored for the species they are only adored per accidens as the garment of Christ by him who adored his person To his saying a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace But in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ are not visible Therefore in the Eucharist they are not the Sacrament Answer I distinguish the minoâ— They are not a visible sign alone I grant joyned to the species I deny Neither do we say That the Body and Blood alone are the Sacrament nor the species alone but the Body and Blood joyned to the species are the Sacrament and that whole is a visible sign To his saying that nothing can be both the sign and thing signified Answer Nothing can be the sign and the thing signified in the same manner in which it is the sign I grant in an other manner I deny Did not the Angel give the sheepheards for a sign of our Saviour Born that they should find a Child in a manger who was the Saviour himself He in the qualitie of a Child in a manger is a sign of himself as the Born Saviour So Christ in the Eucharist may be a sign of himself on the Cross Also a loafe of Bread exposed in a window is a sign of it self to be sold But to give you more the Body united to the accidents of Bread is a visible sign not of Christ's Body but of the invisible grace which this Sacrament produces in the Soul so the sign and the thing signified are different CHAPTER IV. Against the real presence of Christ's Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer SECTION I. A
God hath revealed it and my senses do not controll it your faith is lame not able to stand alone and consequentlie is an unworthie sacrifice of your understanding to the word of God What would the King say to that Noble man who should distrust his relation made in presence of all his courtiers of a thing done by his Majestie upon his Royal word who should I say distrust it because he heard it controlled by a foot-boy or some such mean person of as little credit As humane faith requires I rely upon the sole testimony of a man so does divine faith require I rely upon the sole testimonie of God shall I trust the word of a man somtimes contrarie to sensible appearance as when I trust upon the word of a Doctor or a Surgeon that that which I feele hurts me will do me good and shall not I trust the word of God because my senses seem to control it But be not mistaken neither sense nor reason controles the real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist For sense after the consecration finds its whole object colour taste c. Just as before the consecration unchanged and meddles not to judge whether the Body of Christ or the substance of bread be under the accidents as a thing belonging to the understanding and not within the compass of its object And reason tels us that altho all the accidents of a substance be present nevertheless their substance is not there if the author of nature has revealed that he hinders its presence to them and therfore does not controle our saying that the substance of Bread is not in the Eucharist after the consecration because the author of Nature hath revealed the contrarie No more then it controles Protestants saying that those three who appeared to Abraham Genes 18 with all the accidents of men were not men but Angells because God has revealed it was so 3. Christ by his almightie power could change Bread into his flesh and he tells us Math. 26. in these words This is my Bodie that he hath done it why shall not I believe it O but it seemes strange to our apprehension must God then in that thing in which he will make to all men a memoriall of his wonders Psal 110. v. 4. do nothing but what is within the reach of meaner wits and falls under their senses this clame is too proud therefore in humilitie which gives light I answer which is a negative way of proving Monsieur de Rhodon's objections SECTION II. Negative Proofs Ob. 1. IF Christ had meant the real presence of his Bodie in the Host he had spoken to the contrary usage of the world Answer 1. What then altho he had done so when he was giving man a testimonie of his prodigious love and mercie to him If the action itselfe was an expression oâ—â—ove infinitely exceeding the common usage of the world why might there not be somthing extraordinary in the way of expression Answer 2. Speaking so he spoke not contrarie to the usage of the world in practical or factive propositions which make their objects Such as these are This is my Body Math 26. Let there be light Genes 1. Thy Son lives Io. 4. v. 50 This ring is yours The first turnes Bread into Flesh The second changes Darkness into light The third the noble-man's Son's sickness into health The fourth makes the Ring which was not yours yours to wit when I gift a person with a Ring in those words Reflect then well upon the difference between a purely Enunciative and a practicall proposition that presupposes the whole existence of its object this does not presuppose it but makes it Mr. Ro. Urges Wordes are Images of Conceptions and Conceptions the Images of Things Therefore things must be such before we can conceive them to be such or say they are such I answer dist the consequent Things must be alwayes actually a fore words and conceptions which are Images of them I deny for my idea of a thing which I invent supposes the thing never to have been and by this idea of it I am moved to try to make it and give it a being Things must be possible before we can conceive them I grant Also the thing which is made by words as the object of factive propositions can not be actually before the words because an effect can not be before its cause And consequently that which our Saviour gave his discipels saying This c. was not there before these words This is my Body were pronounced because it was made to be there by them Neot In a factive proposition a thing must not be such the whole time the proposition is pronuncing as it will be at the end of the proposition because the whole proposition maks it and gives it its being Mr. Ro. Urges farther A proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question but when Christ taking bread in his hand said This is my Body the thing in question was bread therefore the proposition ought to be expounded according to the nature of bread the nature of which is to be not the real bodie but only the figure of the Body of Christ Answer I deny the minor proposition that the thing in question was bread and say that the thing in question was that which Christ meant by This and that which he meant by this was that which he intended to make by his whole proposition which was his true body as we gather out of the following words Which is given for you It 's another thing when a man in a painters shop pointing at the Kings picture sayes this is the King the thing in question there or signyfied and meant by This is the picture because we know he cannot mean otherwise unless he were distracted his words not being of power to change the picture into the King's person as the almighty words of Christ were of power to change bread into his body Note the article This alone signifies nothing present because to signifie present past or to come is the property of Verbs So when I pointing to a book say This is you know not yet what I mean till I say English Good paper a wittie book Also when Christ said to his disciples Jo. 15. v. 11. This is my Commandement they knew not what he meant till he added That you love one another Wherefore This in Christs proposition before he added is my Body signifying nothing present did not signifie the Bread which was then in his hand but joyned to the rest of the proposition signified his true Body Obj. 2. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body then it is not his true Body I answer 1. dist the antecedent The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body Intransitively i. e without passing from the Sacrament to the Body of Christ as to a different thing or so that the Sacrament and Christ's Body be one and the same substance I grant
Circumscriptively in different places when being in Heaven he stood beside Paul at the same time upon Earth Act. 23. v. 11. A reason also is easily given why the Ocean is not one single drop of Water to wit because one drop is not naturally in innumerable places but only by a miracle which God does not ordinarily and for nothing Neither is God and Nature to be said to do in vain when they do according to the natural exigence of a drop of Water which is to be only in one place at once Is God bound to do all he can do Neither might one man replicated in 10000. places beget in one night 10000. Children because his force is limited to the power of one man the second and third Ubication giving him no new force but only a new place Add to all this that God is in places divided from one another viz. in France and England both at once You 'l say he is a Spirit but I reply the reason that makes seem impossible for a Body to be together in divers places is not so much it's bulk as its Unitie But the Spirit is as much one Spirit as one Body is one Body You 'l say again that God at the same time that he is in France and England is in all places between I Answer What if God by his almighty power should annihilate or destroy both as to matter and form Sea Earth and Aër between France and England would he cease to be in both If not he would be in two divide◠places The same may be said of a reasonable Soul remaining in a member separated from the rest of the Body if God by his almighty power conserve it there SECTION III. More of Mr Rodon's Objections against the Real presence answered Object 6. JESUS CHRIST cannot be in divers places at once if another Man cannot be so too But Peter cannot be at Paris and Rome at the same time for it is impossible that Peter should be a man and not a man at the same time but this might fall out if he were at Paris and Rome at the same time because he might be wounded and dye at Paris and live at the same time at Rome And so at the same time be a live and not a live which is to be a man and not a man Answer In that supposition that Peter ceases to live at Paris while he lives at Rome he could not be said absolutely not to live and consequently not to be a man but a Carcass for 't is not enough not to live at Paris where the Ubication of the Union between the Body and Soul ceased by a wound if he live at Rome as is supposed to say absolutely he doth not live Because a particula negativa restricta as summolists speak ad non restrictam From a negative particle restrained to the same not restrained it does not follow For example Peter is not an English-man then he is not a man So he doth not live at Paris it doth not follow then he doth not live Altho it follow A particula affirmativa restricta ad non restrictam from an affirmative particle restrained to the same not restrained For example Peter is an English-man then he is a man So it follows he lives at Rome then he lives And consequently he is not to be called dead simply when the Parisian Ubication of the union between his Body and his Soul ceases to be if the Roman Ubication of the same union remaines because to be dead at Paris 't is not enough that the Ubication of the Union cease to be at Paris but moreover 't is required that the Union it self which was at Paris cease absolutely to be between the Body and the Soul but if he live yet at Rome the Union does not cease to be between the Body and the Soul tho not at Paris therefore he is not to be called simply dead Apply this principle of a particle restrained to it self not restrained to his other instances of that nature In the mean time all this discourse of Mr. Rodon supposes Peter of whom he speaks to have both at Paris and at Rome Situal quantity or Extent which Christ's Body has not in the Eucharist and therefore I give him the foresaid answer without necessity To his Army made of one man replicated or put in a thousand places all at once I Answer 'T would appear many men but would be only one with the limited force of one man unless God should give him a supernatural force whom two men in that case might overcome Say the same of a candle as to light and a drop of water replicated in order to carry or bear up a Boat which it could not do having the limited force in order to bearing of one drop For Ubication gives to a Body meerly to be in a place and nothing else Obj. 7. Christ's Body is not seen in the Host therefore it is not there Answer 'T is not seen with the eye of our understanding elevated by Faith I deny With our corporal eye I grant and the reason is because it is not there in a way proportioned to our corporal sight or in its own shape and it is so for the exercise of our Faith which would cease if we saw it in Glory Was not Christ's Body glorious after his resurrection and yet did the Disciples see its Glory the fourty days he conversed with them afore his Ascension The reason why Christ's Body is not seen in the Eucharist by our Corporal eye is because it has there no Extent and is all in a point not because it 's under the accidents which hide it or in another place then the accidents they being above and it below nor do Philosophers mean any such thing when they say that substances are under their accidents because pure substances have no proper places they mean only that the substances sustentate or support the accidents in as much as the accident naturally depends of its proper subject which support from the substance of Bread or Body of Christ in its place is supplied to the accidents in the Eucharist by the almighty power of God Just then as substances possess no place but by reason of their accidents so the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is in no place but by reason of the species which are in a place And as substances which are under their accidents according to this way of speaking of Philosophers are not seen so neither the Body of Christ in the Eucharist under the species is seen Mr. Rodon asks how can Christ's Body be without posture and without external form seing as we say it is whole and entire in the whole host and in every part of it Answer Because altho Christ's Body hath in the Eucharist all its essential extension or all its parts in order to themselves in the whole host and in every part of the host which we call to be whole and entire in the
whole host and in every part of the host as our Soul is all in every part of the Body and only all in the whole Body Yet it hath not local extension in order to place which is a separable property of essential extension as actual heat is a separable property of fire as was seen by the almighty power of God in the furnace of Babilon where as he suspended the operation of that element to manifest his glory so he hinders the local extension of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the light of its glory to exercise our faith And this answer 's all Mr. Rodon's whimsical questions of the postures of Christ's Body in a whole or divided host since division as well as the posture of a Body depends of Local Extension For if God put all the parts of a Body after a spiritual manner as the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist in a point and a point cannot be devided in that case how will you devide that Body and without deviding it you cannot make it appear less how much so ever you devide the host In a word a visible Body of a man is a man's Body in its shape which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist for want of Local Extention and therefore is not visible there Obj. 8. Christ in the Host can act or not Answer He can act know and love altho he hath not there the disposition of Organs fit for those operations which require Local extention We gratefully to him avow that his Body in the H. Host is Modo mortuo after the fashion of one dead and this is the change the Preist makes of this victime in his oblation of it to the eternal Father in the dayly Sacrifice of the Mass And as Christ does not exercise there the operations which depend of situal Extension neither would the World reduced to a point or the parts of it the Sun and Moon c. act as they do now for want of situal disposition to such operations Neither do we say that Christ's Body is as big and as tall in the H. Host as on the Cross as Mr. Rodon inconsideratly alleadges for that bigness on the Cross comes from the situal extension he had there and wants in the H. Host Obj. 9. A Body can not cease to be in a place without being destroyed or going to some other place but the species being consumed Christs Body is neither distroyed nor goes to another place therefore it was not in the Eucharist Answer I deny the major universally speaking and ask when a mans Leg is cut off does the soul go to another place or is it destroyed yet it ceases to be there Reason the same way of the Body of Christ which is in the Eucharist with the property of a Spirit and as it came thither by the sole production of a new presence so it ceases to be there by the sole destruction of the same Obj. 10. The properties of one species or of one nature are incommunicable to every other species or nature but 't is the property of a spirit to be all in all and every part of a place therefore the Body of Christ can not be all in all and in every part of the Host Answer I grant the major and distinguish the minor 'T is the property of a spirit to be all in all c. by Exigence I grant by accident I deny For example water has heat by accident which Fire alone has by exigence and therefore the exigence of heat is the property of Fire and not the actual having of it which is communicable to water The clame and exigence of seing God as he is in himself is the property of God flowing from his Essence in communicable to a creature but the actual only seing of God as he is in himselfe will be favorably communicated by him to happy men in the other world 1. Io. 3.2 And therefore rigidly speaking is not his property So then what a spirit has by exigenbe the Body of Christ without confounding different species may have by accident in the Eucharist Quaeres wherefor to be actually all in all and all in every part of an improper place is cal'd the property of a spirit and not of a Body largely speaking Answer Beeause a spirit has a natural appetite of that way of existing which a Body has not also because a spirit is indivisible and has no partes Answer .. 2. I distinguish the major The propertie of a species that is the exigence of one species is incommunicable to an other I grant the act of the exigence is incommunicable I deny For example Heat is the act of the exigence of Fire and is communicated to water Hence I grant that naturally Bodies are in places circumscriptively that is the parts of the Body are in the parts of the place and not the whole Body in every part But not so if it please the author of nature to put them by his almighty power in places definitively or Sacramentally that is in an equivocal or improper place which in rigour is no place without local extension I said definitively or Sacramentally because the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not limitated according to a rigid definitive way of existing as the soul is in the Body bounded with a certain continued place but is without limitation in as many discontinued sacramental places as the Consecration is made in SECTION IV. The rest of Mr. Rodon's objections against the real presence answered Object 11 IF the Body of Christ were in the Eucharist 't would be subject to many ignominies to be eaten with mice burned stolen c. thererefore it is not there Answer I retort his argument thus If he whom we call Christ was God God was subject to many ignominies to be called a Seducer a Blasphemer a Drinker of Wine a Glutton to be scurged at a post like a rogue and hanged like a theef therefore he was not God Is this a good inferrence No. Neither the other Monsr Rodon speaking of the Eucharist sayes as it is a God that cannot keep himselfe from being stolen so neither can he keep himself from heing burned Answer 1. did not the Jews deride Christ the same way upon the Cross Save thy self If thou art the Son of God come down from the Cross Math. 27. v. 40. I Answer 2. then he could have come down from the Cross and can hinder also the Host from being prophaned But the first he suffered for the love of man the second he suffers for the exercise of our faith Note the Body of Christ ceases to be in the stomack when the species are altered there but did it joyn with the excrements they could not annoy or hurt him no more then a dung-hill defiles the beams of the Sun Nay the Body of Christ now impassible were not worse in Hell it self than at the right hand of his father To Claude de Xainte's saying