with all other Elementary and mixt bodies As to the second all Philosophers agree in this that a thing may be in a place two manner of ways viz. circumscriptively and definitively corporal things circumscriptively and spiritual things as an Angel or mans soul definitively that is to say they are not in every place as God is but in some finite or limited place wherein they operate and yet they are not circumscribed by the place wherein they are because they are no bodies nor have any superfice nor also depend of their places in order to their conservation as corporal things do Besides these two manner of ways of being in a place which all Philosophers own the divines hold of a third way viz. to be Sacramentally in a place from whence we have from both divines Philosophers that a thing may be in a place 3 manner of ways viz. circumscriptively definitively sacramentally what is in a place circumscriptively is properly in its place because the superfice of the place touches surrounds the superfice of the body which it contains so the hollow superfice of the vessel touches and surrounds the water which is within the vessel What is in a place definitively or Sacramentally is not properly in any place because the superfice of the place and of the thing contained touch not one another immediatly as all proper places ought to touch immediatly all the things properly contained in them for an Angel and a soul have no superfices wherewith to touch the superfices of the place wherein they are contained for they are pure spirits and only corporal things have superfices however they are said to be in a place improperly because they are contained within some limits of bounds where they operate or else they would be in all places as God is like unto corporal things which are contained strictly within the immediat limits of their proper places yet with this distinction still that spiritual things never touch the superfice of their proper places and consequently are not circumscribed by them as corporal things touch and are circumscribed by their proper places All proper places are called by divines and Philosophers univocal or circumscriptive Places and all improper places they call Equivocal places such as are definitive and sacramental oneâ—… for properly and in rigour they are no places at all because the definition of a proper place agree not with them for want of a superficial manner of containing the things that are said to be within them This received doctrine of all divines and Philosophers presupposed I answer the Mounsieurs major with this distinction the body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the host circumscriptively as into its proper and univocal place I confess the major sacramentally as into its equivocal place I deny the major Therefore I say that Christs body is really in the host but not as in any proper place for to be in an equivocal place is as much in a manner as to say in no place at all and certain it is that an equivocal place is no more a proper place then an equivocal or painted man is a proper and reall man so that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the body and bloud of Christ without any circumscriptive motion or bringing it circumscriptively from one proper place to another as our circumscriptive bodies move from one place to another but by vertue of the effective words of consecration and omnipotent power of God his substance succeeds the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated host without any proper local motion for he is there by reason of his substance and substances are incapable of any proper motion and although his quantity be where his substance is by concomitance yet it is not there with its quantitative dimensions for these are hindred in the Sacrament as I sayd before the heat of the Babilonian fire or surnace was hindred supernaturally and being Christs body is in the host as we say by reason of its substance it is in it in one respect like as our souls are in our bodies that is to say totus in toto totus in qualibet parte all Christ in the whole host and all Christ in every point and particle of the host as all Philosophers say the whole soul is in the whole body and the whole soul in every part and point of the body yet the manner of Christs body being in the host differs from the manner of the souls being in the body in this viz. that the soul is in the body but as in one definitive or limited improper place but Christs body is in the Sacrament as in its improper place not definitively or limited to one host as the soul is to one body but Sacramentally that is to say in all places where the words of consecration are uttered upon the bread and wine and this Sacramental existence Christs body hath by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity which is in all places and yet the Sacramental ubication or existence differs from the the divine general ubication in this that the Sacramental ubication is but where the words of consecration are uttered and the general divine ubication is in all places for without it the creatures would desist to be But here the Mounsieur may object that there is a great difference betwixt Christs body and an Angel or mans soul for an Angel and a soul are pure spirits and therefore be not capable of an univocal place but only of an equivocal one But Christs body is a true real body and therefore it can have but an univocal circumscriptive place To this I answer and confess that Christs body is a true real body no spirit yet I deny but that it may have an equivocal place in the host because it is now a glorified body and as it were spiritualized with spiritual qualities which redound into it from his glorified soul which spiritual qualities the Divines call dotes corporis gloriosi the dowries of a glorified body as are subtility impassibilitie Agility and clarity By reason of the all manner of subjection a glorified body hath to its soul in so far that it neither cloggs nor burthens her as our lumpish bodies do our souls here the body may move in an instant by the instantanean motion of its soul or of her minde and by reason of the Hypostatical union betwixt the divinity and soul of Christ and of his glorified body it may accompany them into ten million of equivocal places at once according to the Apostles saying 1. Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body it shall rise a spiritual body that is to say a real body endowed with spiritual qualities such as those of the soul are not with a spiritual entity or substance because the substance of a spirit and the substance of a body are two different entities essentially differing the one from the other so that if Christs body
had risen with a spiritual entity it could be no more a true real body but a spirit which to affirm is plain heresy Therefore according to the Apostle glorified bodies will rise again with their corporal substances but endowed and qualified with spiritual dowries redounding from their souls From whence followeth that by reason of their subjection to the souls and because they shall be no clog to them that they can in an instant move from heaven to earth with an equivocal motion following the instantanean motion of the minde from whence also followeth that Christs glorified soul being in heaven and having a thought or desire to be in an instant upon earth and in a thousand equivocal places there sacramentally at the same time without passing through any intermediate place which she can do by reason of her hypostatical union to the divinity that his body because of its perfect subjection to his soul can pass with a Motus discretus or equivocal motion and accompany her in all her sacramental places together and be really in every of them not after a quantitative or circumscriptive but after a sacramental or spiritual manner as the soul is in a mans body all the soul in the whole body and all the soul in every point and particle of the body for as a spirit possesseth not a place quantitatively or superficially so also may a glorified body being spiritualized be in a place after a spiritual manner By this solution Mr. de Rodons first arrow is not only shivered and broken but his following proofs also eluded and enerved For all their force is bent only against the bringing or being of Christs body in the host circumscriptively and into its natural and univocal place all which we grant cannot be supposing the heavens are to contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts. 3. But they make nothing at all against its being or being brought in the host sacramentally and in its equivocal place for such a being or coming depends not upon a proper and univocal place as all divines and Philosophers confess And consequently Mr. de Rodons ayery existence of Christs body is but a meere â—…himera Though we grant Christ hath a natural existence in heaven and a sacramental one upon Earth which we say is but one and the self same of him as he is in several manners For if he should change himself into the form of a child or into any other form whatsoever as he can do his natural existence and that would be one and the self same By this solution is also seen how Christs body may be brought into the Sacrament as the Iacobins say or produced in it as the Jesuits say without his leaving to be in heaven in his human shape for no body leaveth its proper place wherein it is but by its proper local motion from the proper place wherein it was into another proper place But a proper local motion belongs only to circumscribed bodies when they are brought circumscriptively to their proper and univocal places Therefore since Christs body is not brought so into the Sacrament it may keep its connatural station and situation in heaven and yet notwithstanding be brought or produced in the host being he comes nor is produced there by local motion nor is in the Sacrament as in its proper place but only in an improper and equivocal one as we have often said before Rodon 4. Secondly Christs body cannot be reproduced in the consecrated host because a thing that is produced already cannot be produced again without a preceding destruction for as a dead man cannot be killed nor that be annihilated which is annihilated already so neither can that be produced which is produced already nor that receive a being which hath one already This common conception of all men is founded upon this Principle that every action whether it produceth or destroyeth a thing must necessarily have two distinct terms the one called in the schools Terminus a quo that is the term from which the thing comes and the other Terminus ad quem that is the term to which it comes But according to this Principle that cannot be annihilated which is so already nor that receive a being which hath one already because the term from which it should come and the term to which it should come would be one and the same thing contrary to the maxim already laid down viz. that the terms of Action must necessarily be distinct and that one of them must be the negation or privation of the other Answ. To this argument I answer that that which is produced already cannot be reproduced as to its entitative and essential being but that which is produced already as to its essential being may be produced or rather adduced as to its modal being and so we say Christs body is in the Sacrament because his essential being as he is in his natural human shape in heaven hinders not his Sacramental or modal being here upon earth for neither his entity nor his Sacramental existence depends upon any univocal place or space Rodon 5. Here perhaps it may be objected that by Transubstantiation the substence of Christs body is not newly produced but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was But to this I answer that in all substantial conversions and actions a new substance must be produced as in accidental a new accident must be produced But Transubstantiation according to the Romish doctors is a substantial conversion Therefore by Transubstantiation a new substance must be produced And seeing that the new presence of Christs body in the place where the bread was is not a substance but an accident of the Cathegory which the Philosophers call ubi it is evident that by Transubstantiation the presence of Christs body only is not produced in the place where the substance of the bread was and seeing that the substance of Christs body is not produced there as hath been proved in the preceding number we must conclude that there is no Transubstantiation nor real presence of Christs body in the host which hath been already refuted in number the third Answ. Mounsieur you need not bragg much of your refutations in both your said numbers for they are clearly answered by me in their due place And the objection you make for us here is very true for it is not the essential substance of Christs body that is newly produced by transubstantiation but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was for that essential production was made at his Incarnation and will abide for ever however we say that his body hath a substantial and essential existence in the host by reason of its Sacramental presence there and you speak very unskillfully and unphilosophically when you say that Christs presence in the Sacrament is an accident of the Cathegory which Philosophers call ubi for his Presence
shape in heaven in his proper place and in the Sacrament he is but in his improper and equivocal place to which distance hath no relation at all it followeth evidently that his body in heaven is not different or distant from it self in the Sacrament no more then two Angels or spirits are distant from one another which yet no good Philosopher will acknowledge because of their incapacity of being circumscribed for want of supersices By this solution is clearly seen how frivolous ridiculous and impertinent all Mr. de Rodons ensuing Instances and witty quodlibetical questions are and how wide they are from the mark for they all aym and strike at one body the same time in two or more circumscriptive places but they touch or concern not at all one body at the same time in its natural place and in its sacramental place which is the only question we are about Therefore according to good Philosophy he argues unskilfully and impertinently by arguing from an univocal place to an equivocal one or vice versa for I grant him that the same body at the same time cannot be circumscriptively in two places but what is this to our present controversie Therefore I am mistaken if I have not according to the judgment of any indifferent Philosopher answered the Mounsieurs argument pertinently and Philosophically as all other Philosophers would have done and not absurdly and ridiculously as he is sure it could not be answered otherwise and to his ridiculous questions I say that if Christ or Peter should meet themselves in their sacramental or equivocal places they may walk by themselves freely without passing through themselves or making a Ianus or two faces for when our saviour gave himself sacramentally to himself and to his Apostles he made neither a Ianus or double face because as I have a hundred times repeated it over and over a body sacramentaly or equivocaly in a place which properly and in rigour is no place at all cannot stop or hinder a circumscribed body from going unto any proper place Neither do we allow of any nearness or distance but between circumscribed bodies in their univocal places from whence I conclude that these questions are more ridiculous and impertinent then any answer could have been given them and so this arrow is also lost Now then to his 5th Rodon 6. It is a perfect contradiction that a body should be one and not one But if Christs body should be at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it would be one and not one for it would be one by our adversaries own confession and it would not be one which I prove thus that a thing may be one it must neither be divided in it self nor from it self as appears by the definition of unity And it is certain that nothing is divided and separated from it self But if Christs body be at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it will be diviâ—…ed and separated from it self that which is in heaven â—…eing separated and divided from that which is upon earth because it 〈◊〉 not in the space between both Here again it may be objected that a body in divers places is divided from it self locally because the places in which it is are divided but not entitatively because it is still one and the same entity of body To which I answer 1. that entitive division which is nothing else but a plurality of beings or a plurality of things really different is no true division for then the three divine Persons which are really different would be also really divided and the body and soul of a living man which do really differ would also be really divided Secondly I say that if a body be divided and separated from bodies which it toucheth it is also divided and separated from bodies which it doth not touch and if a body be divided and separated from bodies to which it is near it is also divided and separated from bodies that are far distant from it but especially the division is true when between two there be bodies of divers natures to which there is no union Therefore seeing that between Christs body which is really in heaven and the same body which is pretendedly upon earth in the consecrated hosts there be divers bodies of divers natures to which it is not united it is evident by our adversaries own doctrine that Christs body is really divided and separated from it self And seeing it is impossible it should be separated from it self it is also impossible that it should be in heaven and in the host at the same time Thirdly I say that local division takes away entitive division and things that are divided locally are also divided entitatively that is they are also really different else no reason can be given why two glasses of water taken from the same fountain â—…are really different seeing these waters are like in all things except in reference to place and there can no reason be given why the ocean is not one single drop of water only reproduced in all places occupied by the ocean except it be that one drop of water cannot be reproduced in all those places but if it be possible then reason obligeth us to believe that it is really so because God and nature do nothing in vain and it is in vain to do that by many things which may be done by one thing and if it be really so then it follows that all the Sea-battells that ever have been were fought in one drop of water and many thousands of men have been drowned in one drop of water and all people since Adam have drunk but one drop of water which things are absurd and ridiculous Answ. Yet more impertinencies Mr. de Rodon and more of your foolish merry conceited ridiculous sequels I doubt not gentle reader but this famous Philosophy-professor was excellently well pleased at this witty and merry conceited drop of water that drains the ocean drowned so many thousands and refreshes us all But who knows that the Philosopher took not a harty draft or two of good wine to season his brain before this great drop presented it self to his whimsical nodle Therefore lest he should grow frantick with his dropsical conceit I moulder his argument and its sequels thus by denying his minor viz. that in that case he puts Christs body would be one and not one and to his proof I deny also his second minor viz. that if Christs body were at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it would be divided and separated from it self because Christs body is in the host but Sacramentally only just almost in a manner as our souls are in our bodies and the difference is this that our souls are pure spirits and his body is a true body spiritualized and that his body is not confined and limited to one equivocal place as the soul is to the body but it may be
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
forementioned necessities being wel consider'd it may be very well said with Bellarmine and Peron that the host being eaten serves as an incorruptible seed for a glorious resurrection and though we grant that the faithfull of the old Testament and the little children of the believers under the new which were Baptized will rise again in glory having never received it because it was not 〈◊〉 in the time of the old law for the faithfull of that time and the little ones of the New departed this life before they were capable of diâ—…eerning what it was and consequently unâ—…t to receive it yet we believe that as the Sacraments of the old Law were but types and figures of the Sacraments of the New so they caused Grace and gave spiritual nourishment only in reference to our Sacraments The old Sacraments as all divines do hold were but vasa vacua emply vessells and produced grace only ex opere operantis by vertue of those that received them But Christs Sacraments of the new Law are vasa plena vessells full and replenisht with graces and do produce grace when they have no obstacle ex opere operato by their own operation for if Christs Sacraments were of no more efficacy then those of the old law were for example if circumcision were of as great vertue as Baptism is and the Paschal lamb as good as the Eucharist what needed he institute his Sacraments and make new laws whereas the old ones were quite as good as his are Therefore to save Christs credit from making superfluous Sacraments and laws we must of necessity maintain and say that his Sacraments are far more excellent and efficacious then the Sacraments of the old Law were and consequently we must grant that the old Sacraments had alwais a relation or reference to those of the new and in real truth it is so because all the Sacraments of the new Testament derive their sorce immediatly from Christs Passion and as one may say were dipt in his pretious bloud whereas those of the old Law were but meer symbols or types of his Passion and lookt remotely and as it were afar off upon it however because they had a reference to Christ and to his Passion they served as remedies to those of their time while they were in vigour because those of the new Law were not as yet instituted But after the new ones were instituted and promulged then the old Sacraments were quite cashired and the case is now quite altered with us for no body can now be saved without them or at lest such of them as they are capable of receiving from whence followeth that because the Sacrament of the Eucharist was not instituted in the time of the faithfull of the old Testament those of them that died in the state of Grace will rise again in glory without having ever participated actually of our Eucharist by vertue of the Paschal lamb which they eat in reference to our Sacrament and the little children of the believers of the Law of grace if they be Baptized because they are capable of Baptism will rise so also though they never received actually the B. Sacrament because they were never capable of receiving it But as for all the rest of our believers that are come to the use of understanding they shall never rise again in glory unless they receive the Eucharist actually or at least in desire if they cannot have it otherwise for our Saviour himself says that unless we eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud we shall nâ—…t have life in us Finally as to S. Pauls words alledged against us by Mr. de Rodan Rom. 8. I deny that the Apostle says absolutely that Christs flesh is not the seed of the Resurrection of our bodies for he only says thus If the spirit of him that raised up Iesus from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you Which words may be very well expounded and understood thus viz. that although it be the spirit of God that shall principally and immediately quicken our mortal bodies yet that Christs flesh may be the seed which mediatly and remotely brings or conveys his spirit into us and certainly we have more reason and better grounds to believe that his sacred flesh united to his soul and divinity can better convey his spirit into us then the bare entities of bread and wine can do and so is this miraculous arrow unluckily split His last arrow is drawn out of clear Scripture but if rightly understood it is so far from hurting our Diana that it makes more for then against her here it is Rodon Lastly the holy scripture is clear in this matter for Jesus Christ is ascended into heaven Acts. 1. and the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts. 3. And he himself saith I leave the world and go to the father S. John 16. The poor ye have alwaies with you but me you have not alwaies S. Math. 26. To which may be added what Iesus saith S. Math. 24. viz. in the last daies false Prophets will come that shall say Christ is here or there and that he is in the secret chambers or cabinets which cannot be but by the doctrine of the Romish Church which puts Christs body in divers places and shuts it up in several cabinets on their Altars And it is very remarkable that in the Greek it is in the cupbords tameion being properly a cupboard to keep meat in Answ. The Mounsieurs four first scripturistical arrows I break in shivers with one blow for I say that those four Passages must be understood of his going to heaven to remain there in his proper humane shape which hinders not his being with us upon earth in the sacramental species And whereas the Mounsieur alledges that Christ himself said I leave the world and go the father Iohn 16. and the poor you have alwaies with you but me you have not alwaies S. Math. 26. So I alledge also against the Mounsieur that Christ himself said This is my body S. Math. 26. and S. Luke 22. and bebold I am with you even to the consumation of the world S. Math. 28. Therefore to versie all these passageâ—… which seem to contradict and oppose one another to bring them to a concordance and true sense it is necessary that Christ should be really after one manner of way in heaven and really after another manner of way upon earth until the consummation of the world which is the same thing our Romish Doctors do teach viz. that he is in his humane shape in heaven and yet really with us in the Sacrament also which Mounsieur de Rodon and his party do flatly deny To our impeachment of being those false Prophets S. Matthew makes mention of in his 24th Chapt. who in the last days will come and say Christ is here or there and that he is
no difference of their manner of sacrificing and consequently touches not their Priesthood at least reduplicatively as it ought to do to make the Mounsieurs consequence slawless your words out of the Apostle viz. Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever to make your third consequence follow smoothly are quite for us and against you for if the son of God abideth a Priest for ever then it will follow that he will sacrifice for ever or that there must be a perpetual sacrifice but the perpetual sacrifice cannot be that of the cross for though its effect be perpetual yet the sacrifice it self is not so for it is past and gone and a new other bloudy sacrifice he cannot offer any more because Christ can die no more Rom. 6. Therefore it must be an unbloudy sacrifice which is offered by his ministers his mistical members that must correspond with Christs everlasting Priesthood and that is the holy sacrifice of the Mass offered under the species of bread and wine symbolized by the bread and wine sacrificed to God by Melchisedeck and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass out of these words of the Apostle is a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedeck And Christs continual intercession for us in heaven as Mr. de Rodon surmizes is not a sacrifice at least not a strict one yet if Christ be a strict Priest for ever there must be a strict sacrifice answerable to hisstrict Priesthood for ever first because his Priesthood doth not totally consist in his intercession as Mr. de Rodon himself confesses secondly because his intercession unless it be medianâ—…e victima through the mediation of a victime is no more sacrifice then the prayers of other people are and if it be through the mediation of a victime then Christ offers new victimes continually which our adversaries will not admitt of Thirdly the inconveniences I spoke of before would follow if Christs continual intercession for us in heaven were a strict and rigorous sacrifice viz. there would be no Christian Religion nor Law here upon earth nor no naked and pure truth in heaven but only shadows and types of truth for the reasons there shewn But the Mounsieur says that Aaron and the high Priests all died and that the Popes Bishops and Priests die daylie therefore he concludes our sacrifice is not after the order of Melehisedeck which is to last for ever Aaron we confess and all the Priests of the old Law died and their Priesthood is also quite destroyed But although our Popes Bishops and Priests die daily we deny that our Priesthood dies or is destroied no more then the Kingship of a kingdom dies or is destroied when the King dies and leaves a successor behinde him to succeed where is now your brave consequence Mounsieur He will fetch it out smoothly with his fourth reason which is because Melchisedeck took Tithes from Abraham and the Levitical Priests who descended from him and consequently Melchisedeck was a type of Jesus Christ who was infinitely more excellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only all this we grant Then replyes the Mounsieur strongly But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold aâ—… to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithful in whose seed all the Nations of the earth are blessed No more do I also and I am sure on 't too that none of the Romish Priests nay nor the Pope himself dares prefer his own person before the person of Abraham or of any of the least Saints in heaven But for his Priesthood or Priestly function I am sure both the Pope all his Priests will prefer theirs before Abrahams priesthood and all the priestly functions of the old Law But all this will not fetch out the consequence you aim at Lastly both holy Scripture and the Apostle make mention that Melchisedeck brought or offered bread and wine and they say he was a priest without mentioning any other thing that he ever brought or offered to be sacrificed but bread and wine and they say also that Aarons offering or sacrifices were beasts soul c. and all the holy Fathers as I shall presently shew do compare and collect out of these different sort of sacrifices the difference betwixt Melchisedeck and Aarons priesthood therefore if it be true that Christ promised his spirit to his Church until the consummation of the world as we believe he did therefore I say if this be but a humane invention I dare maintain it is a very good and solid one and a hundred thousand times of more firmity and weight then Mr de Rodons divine inspirations as he may think them to be or rather diabolical illusions as I take them to be with his own silly bare word without any kinde of proof for the contrary Rodon 29. To conclude my answer with this argument Iesus Christ hath offered no sacrifice but after the order whereof he was established a Priest but he was established a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck only as the Apostle observes Therefore he hath offered no sacrifice but after the order of Melchisedeck but accocding to the Romish Doctors there is no other sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck but that of the masse therefore according to the Romish Doctors Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice but that of the masse and seeing according to them the sacrifice of the masse is an unbloudy sacrifice it follows that Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice and consequently he hath not offered a bloudy sacrifice on the Cross which is blasphemy Answ. Mounsieur as I followed and hunted you all along this Treatise be sure this captious and sophistical argument shall not save you Therefore I answer that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of Aaron either but the proto-type of both for both Melchisedeck and Aarons sacrifices were but types of Christs bloudy sacrifice Therefore since Christs bloudy sacrifice cannot be a type of its own self it cannot be a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck or of Aaron which were but meer types and consequently since Aarons Priesthood and sacrifices are quite abolisht and destroyed it is necessary for to uphold and maintain Christs everlasting Priesthood that a sacrifice should be instituted after the order of Melchisedeck which is to remain for ever and since this sacrifice cannot be a bloudy one it must needs be an unbloudy one which we say and have hitherto defended is no other then that of the Mass and so we say that although Christ offered a bloudy sacrifice which we confess were blasphemy to deny yet his bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of the order of Aaron but the primitive principal and prototype sacrifice of both But at the Inâ—…itution of
carried or exhibited to the believers upon or by a bare bitt of bread or in a cup of bare wine But how nonsensical this exposition is and how ill grounded in true divinity and Philosoâ—…hy I will presently prove But first I would have the Reader take notice that these words Sacrament or signe have if not a predicamental at least a transendental Relation to the things they signify what is formal in Relation according all Philosophers is not at all operative or exhibitive but only meer resultative in order to the thing it relates unto as for example a father is a Relative word because he relates to his son the formality of this word father consists in his fatherhood and the entity or substract whereupon fatherhood relies is in his human nature for he was a man before he could be a father It is not the fatherhood which is the formal part of the Relative that operates or exhibites a being to the son which is his correlative word but his humane nature or rather his act of Generation and the fatherhood only results from his act of Generation and looks upon the filiation or as one may say sonhood which was operated or exhibited by a foregoing generative act so that although the father and his act of Generation are elder then the son because they are his effective or exhibitive cause yet the fatherhood is not elder then the sonhood because the fatherhood which is but a meer Relation did not effect or exhibit the sonhood but only relates or looks upon it whence followeth clearly that although the father is before his son in his enâ—…itative being yet he is not a father before he has a son or child in his fatherhood or relative being Even so I say of the word Sacrament or signe which are also relative words that what is formal in them is not at all operative or exhibitive but only resultative because they only behold and look upon the things they signify and effect or exhibit them not from whence followeth evidently that signification which is the formality of a signe or Sacrament cannot exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to the believers and therefore if any thing in the Sacrament exhibits them it must be the entity or substract whereupon signification is founded But according to Mr de Rodon the entities whereupon signification in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is founded are but bare bread and wine which entities are not exhibitive of Christs body and bloud to the believers I demonstrate thus If the bare entities of bread and wine could exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to the believers as often as they are received by the mouth of the body it would necessary follow that as often as a man eates or drinks bread and wine they convey Christs body and blood into his soul and so every fellow that drinks his belly full of wine although he drinks himself drunk especially if he eats but a bit of bread with it his soul will be full of Christ. But it is both impious and absurd to say that Christ should be conveyed into a drunkardâ—… soul after this manner Therefore the doctrine that teacheth this is absurd and impious The major I prove thus all the entities of bread and wine do agree if not specifically at least univocally that is to say as a man a horse and a cow are true and real animals and this word animal agrees properly to every of them so the words bread and wine are said truely and properly of all sorts of bread and wine and they all agree in name But according to all divines and Philosophers univocal causes do produce effects alike all men other men all horses other horses and so â—…orth therefore if the entities of bread and wine agree univocally as certainly they do it follows that their effects must be all alike and consequently if the bare entities of Mr. de Rodons communion bread and wine for their signification as I have already proved cannot do it can exhibit convey or carry Christs body and bloud to believers the entities of all other breads and wine can do so also for they agree all univocaly all univocal causes do produce effects a like Therefore the Mounsieur must either contradict all Philosophers and be the only Philosopher himself or else grant that as often as he eats and drinks bread and wine which was perhaps too much and too often in a day he received the Sacrament and consequently if as often as he took bread and wine he did not examine himself and discerne the body of our Lord according to the Apostles saying judicium sibi mandâ—…cavit â—…ibit he did eat it as Iudas did to his own damnation what impious nonsensical and Blasphemous doctrine this is let any rational man consider But according to the doctrine of the Romanists the Eucharist is quite another thing they say that bare bread and wine are not the substract or foundation whereupon signification relyes in the Sacrament but that the Sacramental species are the foundation whereupon signification is grounded which Sacramental species being received worthily by the mouth of the body because they contain the body and bloud of Christ they say that at the same time they feed the soul also because they have a spiritual exhibitive faculty to convey Christ into the soul and work upon her by uniting her to Christ and making her one os his mistical members and thus the soul by feeding upon his body now glorified and impatible if she receives him worthily he changes her affections wholy into himself and as it were incorporates her for all the delight of a devout soul is to be wholy united and absorpt in Christ and yet his body being now impatible and glorified receives no damage or harm thereby more then the sun doth by casting his beames upon a dunghill And although faith be necessary in him that eateth this bread we say that hope and charity must also accompany this morsel unless a man eats it to his damnatian for faith alone is not enough to give it a relish in the soul. The Royal prophet calls it the bread of Angels for it feeds their spirits also which if it were but the meer entity of bread it could not do for they never eat wafer nor bakers bread nor drink of the entity of our corporal wine neither do they eat the Sacrament it self by the mouth of faith as Mr. de Rodon would have our soules to eat it here for if we believe the Apostle there is neither faith nor hope in heaven where the Angells are but only charity And since we are come to the mouth of the soul faith for so the Mounsieur calls it saying by the mouth of the soul viz. by faith I wish he would shew us either by the common usage of speaking or in true Philosophy that faith is the mouth of the soul. If he takes the word mouth litterally the soul being a pure
spirit has no mouth as it hath no hands nor leggs If he takes it figuratively or metaphorically he will never be able to make it out in true philosophy that faith is the mouth of the soul which I prove thus a mouth must be an intrinsecal part of that thing whose mouth it is whether the word mouth be taken litterally or figuratively for a corporal mouth is an intrinsecal part of the body that eateth or speaketh and when God or an Angel doth speak methaporically they express themselves by their understandings and wills which are intrinsecal unto them But faith is not intrinsecal to a mans soul for otherwise every soul would have faith besides faith according to all divines is one of the Theological or supernatural vertues but no supernatural thing can be intrinsecal to a meer natural thing such as a soul is Therefore unless he means to make a Monster of mans soul faith which is extrinsecal to her can not be her mouth litterally nor figuratively In short the whole debate betwixt Mr. de Rodon and his party and the Romanists and their party consists in this that Mr. Rodon holdeth Christ is conveyed into our soules and feedeth them spiritually with the meer entities of bread and wine for signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament hath no exhibitive but only resultative power And the Romanists hold that our souls are fed spiritually with the real entity of Christs glorified body which being taken by the mouth of the body we say he is exhibited into our souls Now whether it stands more with reason and faith and whether it be more consonant with sound divinity and Philosophy that the entity of Christs real body can better feed the soul then the bare entityes of bread and wine can we leave the prudent and impartiall Reader to Judge But if our adversaries say that by eating Christs real body we damnify it or do it any irreverence That we deny because we eat his body as it is now glorified and a glorified body we say is uncapable of suffering any harm or wrong Neither can any irreverence be done to it but when it is taken unworthily that is to say while one is in mortal sin and then the receiver takes it to his own damnation but Christs glorified body is never the worse or in the least annoyed thereby for his body is now impatible and as it cannot die again so can it not suffer But now we are come to the Mounsieurs additional argument which is thus Rodon 6. When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imployes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition for example when a man saith that a wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false proposition But according to the Romish Doctours when Iesus Christ said This is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying This is my body for they say it was his body afterward only therefore according to the Romish doctors Iesus Christ uttered a false proposition which being blasphemy to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Iesus Christ gave to his disciples when he said This is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Iesus Christ This is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words This is my body we must take the present-tense for the next future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish doctors will have us take these words This is my body in the rigour of the litteral sense and then the proposition is evidently false I know that the present-Tense may be taken for the next future as when Iesus Christ said I go to my father and to your father I go to my God to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this proposition of Iesus Christ This is my body is either false or figurative and seing that it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonimy whereby the signe takes the name of the thing signifyed as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time Answ. To this additional argument I say that to verify any proposition it is enough that the thing is such as the proposition sayes it to be after the proposition is uttered although it be not such while the proposition is in uttering if by a ptoposition Mr. dâ—… Rodon understands a perfect and significative proposition as he ought to do as this proposition this is my body is But if we should grant that while a meer man uttereth a proposition the thing meant by the proposition ought to be such before he spoke and during the time he is speaking it to have his proposition not to be false yet it follows not that while Jesus Christ who is both God and man doth utter a proposition the thing he speaks of should be such before and while he speaketh to make his proposition be true for as I said often before that as Christs word is an effective word so his proposition is an effective proposition because his word and proposition do make what they signify Therefore the Romish doctors say very well that the bread was made his body only after he pronounced the words and not before and yet we deny that Christ then uttered a false proposition Nay we hold de Rodons layed foundation to be blasphemous because it gives not an effective vertue to Christs words above the words of ordinary men 〈◊〉 we take not only the words but also 〈◊〉 Tense or time while they were spoken in as rigorous a sense as he does viz. in their real litteral meaning and the word is in the present Tense without a recourse either to a Metonimy or Enallage of time and yet we deny the proposition as uttered by Christ to be at all false because his was an effective proposition though other mens are not We deny also that our adversary hath any advantage of belief over us for beleving it was Christs body before while and after