sacramento S. lavâ—eri dicentem sed de sacramento â—rensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit â—isi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. non habebitis vitam in vobis quid ad hoc responderi potest c. An veâ—â—ò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quòd ad parvulos haec senten iâ— non pertineat possintqùe sine participatione Corporis hujus sanguinis in se habere vitam i. e. Let us hear sayes he our Lord not indeed speaking of the sacrament of the holy layer Baptism but of the sacrament of his table to which no man comes lawfullie unless he be baptized Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c You shall not have life in you What can be answered to this c. Dare anâ—e say that this sentence does not belong to Children and that they may have life in them without the participation of this Bodie and Blood Rem o. That it is not likely that S. Io. whose desing in his Ghospell was to speak of the greatest mysteries of the life of Christ would have omitted that of the Eucharist or of his giving his Body and Blood to his Disciples at the last supper which the three other Evangelists so accurately set down as if one would not omit to confirm what the other said of this mysterie but if he did not mean of it when he relates what Christ in his 6. Chap. said of giving his body and his Blood threatening them if they did not eate it and drink it he has omited it SECTION II. We must eate the real flesh of Christ and drink his Blood sacramentallie i. e. sensibly by the mouth of the body and not by the mouth of faith onlie TO prove this Catholick truth we bring these two passages Unless you eate the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you shall have no life in you Io. 6. v. 54. and v. 56. For my Flesh is meat indeed c To prove that this eating and drinking is to be understood only of an eating and drinking by faith protestants according to the principle of comparing scripture with scripture the obscurer passage with the clearer to know the true sense of both bring two passages which follow relating to the same matter to be compared with ours viz. 'T is the spirit that quicknes the flesh profits nothing The words which I have spoken are spirit and truth v. 64. We say that these latter passages are the obscurer and do not prove so clearly that we must eate and drink the Body and Blood of Christ only by faith as ours prove that wee must eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body 1. Because these two passages do not speak of faith but only of spirit and life there are other acts of spirit and life than acts of faith the acts of love The zeal of thy house hath eaten me sayes David Psal 69. v. .9 in the protestant Bible in ours 68. v. 10. How prove you that Christ means here an act of faith 2. We know there is no other proper mouth in man but that of the body wherefore when Christ sayes unless you eate the f esh and drink the blood of the son of man c. We understand he means with the mouth of the body Again since to eate and drink are the proper acts of the mouth till you prove to us that we cannot receave the body of Christ spiritualised or having the property of a spirit into our mouths why shall not wee believe that Christ meant we should eate his flesh with the mouth of our Body since a terme sine addito if you add nothing is alwise taken for the thing for which it supposes properlie So Homo a man if you add nothing supposes for a true man and not a painted man wherefore Christ saying Unless you eate the body of the son of man without adding by faith that eateing he speaks of is to be understood by the mouth of the body this being that which we understand properly by the tearm eating Nor doth it s not nourishing the body hinder it to be eaten by the mouth of the body no more then poyson tho it nourish not hinders to believe that many have drunk poison Since then these two latter passages are the obscurer they ought to be explained to the sense of the former two passages brought by us or so that they do not contradict them which are clear Wherfore I explaine them thus 'T is the spirit that quickness c. i. e 'T is my divine spirit or my Divinity that quicknes the receaver of my Body to a supernatural life as the soul quicknes the body to actiones of a natural life and as the bodie could not be quickned to hear or see without the soul so could not the receaver of my Bodie or he who eates it sacramentallie be quickned to a supernatural life were it not united to my divinity Of which divine spirit quickning or giving life to wit supernatural the words I have spoken are to be understood 2. My words are spirit and life i. e. They are to be understood spiritually or that you are to eate my flesh being in the sacrament after a spiritual way with the propertie of a spirit for the nourishment of your soul not being there in a carnall way like a piece of dead flesh to be divided with your teeth for the nourishment of your body 3. My words are spirit and life i. e. My words intimated v. 54. Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c Obeyed will give you my spirit and by it a supernatural life or grace which leads to eternall life Christ adds presently v. 65 There are some of you which do not believe as if he should say the reason wherefore you stumble at my promise of giving you my flesh to eate is because you do not believe really that I am the son of God and so able to do all things howsoever strange they may seem to be By what I have said in this section you see proven that these words of Christ He that eates my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternall life Io. 6. v. 55. and my flesh is meat indeed c. v. 56. are to be understood of a corporall eating by the mouth of the body and not of a meer spiritual eating and drinking by faith I say not a meer spiritual eating because we hold we must add an act of faith to our sensible eating of his Body nay this Corporall eating may be cald a spiritual eating in a good sense in as much as we believe That the Bodie of Christ in the sacrament as it is reallie there so it is spiritualiy I mean with the propertie of a spirit As S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. v. 44. sayes Our bodies shall rise spiritual i. e. spiritualized viz. in glory they shall have the properties of a spirit Note
water and the Holy Ghost Why was it not that he had not a mind to avow that Baptism has a force to justifie and that it is necessarie for the salvation also of Children as you may clearly see in these following passages of S. Paul and S. Peter You were given to lust drink covetous but yow are washed but you are sanctified to wit by that washing or Baptism but you are justified in the spirit of God 1 Cor. 6. v. 11. S. Cyprian lib. 2. ad Donat confesses what he was afore Baptism and what he presentlie became after Baptism and what Christianity gave to him calling Christianismus his Christning Mors criminum vita Virtutum The death of Crimes and life of Virtues And Peter 1 Cap. 3. v. 21. Quod nos nunc similis formae salvos facit Baptisma The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us as if he should say As the Waters of the deluge raising the Ark and with it Noë and his people did not only declare but saved them really from death so Baptism saves us makes us just and holy and does not only declare us to be such as Luther with other Hereticks would have it understood Also ad Ephes 5. v. 26. He loved his Church Purifying her with the Laver of water and in the word of life Wher you see the word of Life added to the matter viz. of waeter sanctifies and purifies the Church from sin Obj. 6. The flesh of which Christ speaks when he sayes My flesh is meat indeed is a spiritual food but the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a spiritual food but only his body on the Cross then he meant of his Body on the Cross and not his Body in the Eucharist when he said My flesh is meat indeed Answer I deny the minor proposition and say that the flesh or bodie of Christ in the Eucharist is a spiritual food called so without a figure because producing by a supernatural operation which force it hath from its union with the divine nature grace or sanctification in us it is realy food and meat indeed to the soul without a figure So that FOOD is Genus to corporal and spiritual food To strenghten or increase Life is Genus or the more universal term to strenghten by changing into the thing strenghtened and to strenghten not by changing but by Producing grace by which we are strenghtened are the two differences or the less universal terms The first makes Corperal food the second Spiritual The bare sign is no meat because not it but the act of Faith only btings forth Sanctification as Protestants hold in them Moreover I say that Christ's Flesh broken and his blood shed on the Crosse was not spiritual food indeed because they were never to coëxist actually with our spiritual feeding as Christ's flesh in the Eucharist does and therefore is meat indeed The food to be food indeed to one and the feeding must be joined together but when we now believe Christ's death it is not present but past and therefore is not food to the believer but when we believe and take by the mouth of our Body Christ's flesh it is there joyned with our spiritual eating producing Grace strenghtning and encreasing our spiritual life and therefore is meat indeed Obj. 7. That doctrine which opposes sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions is to be rejected if a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages which seem to prove it I Answer 1. What if the Sabellians not conceiving how the Paternity should not be communicated to God the Son as well as the Divine Essence since the Paternitie and the Divine Essence are one and the same thing should have said it's a more suitable and rational sense of passages which seeme in scripture to say there are three distinct persons in the Divine nature that there is only one persone having three different functions called Father as he creats Son as he redeems and Holy Ghost as he sanctifies Would this prettie doctrine please Mr. de Rodon No neither can his conceit in the matter of the Eucharist be applauded by Romanists Answer 2. Our doctrine in the Eucharist neither opposes sense nor reason as I have shewn Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Nor seems so much to imply contradiction as the Mystery of the B. Trinitie which will be seen better in the next chapter Nor is the way he and other Protestants have found out rational to explane the passages we bring for our Doctrine as I hope will appear to the impartial and serious considerer of our proofs in the first Chapter To end this Chapter remember again that Christ by the occasion of the Jews seeking him more for bread to eat then for his miracles Io. 6. v. 26. by which miracles he laboured to perswade them to believe in him or that he was the Son of God called himself bread that doth not perish and spoke first of spiritual eating by faith that he might advance his hearers by litle and litle to this mysterie of a Real eating of his Flesh teaching them first what they ought to do to merite this true and heavenly Bread saying Work or seek earnestly not the food that perishes but which remains to eternall life c. Adding This is the work of God that ye believe as if he should say This is the work of God That ye believe that I am come from Heaven and that I am the Son of God which if you once believe you will not stumble at what I shall say to you here-after concerning the real eating of my flesh and drinking of my Blood nor be at all amased as appeared in the Apostles when actually viz. at the last supper I shall give it you CHAPTER III. Of Transubstantiation SECTION I. Transubstantiation is proved IS it not prettie to hear Mr. Rodon with some other Protestants speak of one of the darkest mysteries of our faith as of a natural thing and when their weak reason looking only to nature cannot reach it conclude as it were with triumph in the Eucharist there 's no transubstantiation Would that man be thought a good Christan who because it thwarts his grosse understanding to conceive a father to beget a son by speaking should conclude that the divine word is not the son of the eternal Father or a good divine who because it 's true to say in the B. Trinity that the essence is communicated to the son and the peternitie is not communicated to the Son should conclude that the essence and the paternitie are not the same thing Here I remark in passing that Mr. Rodon's Philosophy unwarilie touches the mysterie of the most B. Trinity in his 4. chap. where numb 12. for an example of a plurality of things really different he assignes the three Divine persones and concludes from thence that a real difference of things does not infer Division But he should have taken notice that the
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
debet in aliqua reali mutatione rei quae significatur that it ought to be founded in some real mutation of the thing which is Sacrificed To whom my answer is In other Sacrifices which have not the force to signify God Author of Life and Death without their own Destruction 't is true in the Eucharist I deny it for the reason I gave afore But if this my answer does not satisfy you know that the Sacrament is destroyed or ceases to be what it was by the Preist's consuming of it In which consumption you see a real change of the Victime which is not only Christ's Body and Blood but Christ's Body and Blood joyned to the species which whole is destroyed by the alteration of the species in the Stomach SUBSECTION III. The Mass proved by the Tradition of our Country WIll we condemn the Piety of our Ancestors marking the chief terms of the Year by a singular devotion above all other Nations to this Mystery with the name of Mass or Oblation Missah in Hebrew signifies Oblation or Offering as to mind us to offer up then a Mass of Thanksgiving either for special Spiritual favours bestowed upon mankind on those dayes or for Rents or Fruits of the Earth coming in at those times We have upon record that all the tennants that held Lands of the Cathedral Church of York which is dedicated to S. Peter ad vincula which is the first of August were bound by their Tenure to bring a Lamb alive into the Church at high Mass on that day hence they call'd and likely we from them the first of August Lammas-day Since we are speaking of Lambs I mind that in the written Law the Children of Israël were commanded Exod. 29. v. 38. to Sacrifice every day a Lamb in the morning and another at night Why supposing the general reasons of a Sacrifice but moreover to foresignify by the offering of a Lamb the daily offering of the Lamb of God in the Law of Grace which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass SUBSECTION IV. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Scripture PROOF I. THe Evangelical Prophet Isaiah c. 61. v. 6. Prophecied that there would be Preists in the New Law who would be called the Ministers of our GOD and consequently he Prophecied that there would be Sacrifices no other beside that of the Cross but the Sacrifice of the Mass therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true Sacrifice Quaeres Why are Protestant Church-men called Ministers and not Preists Answer Because they have no Sacrifice to which Preist-hood relates Every High Preist sayes S. Paul is ornained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices Hebrews 8 v. 3. Note the difference between the high Preist and low Preist is not in their offering of Sacrifice which is common to both for the low Preists in the Old Law offered Sacrifice as well as the High Preist but in this that the High Preist has a superiority over the Low Preists and a special assistance of the Holy Ghost to judge in matter of religion Sacerdotes sayes Guliel Whitaker contra Grego Martin ii verè propriè sunt qui Sacrificia faciunt qualis fuit Aaron Aaronis filii Melchisedech quem illi adumbrabant that is Preists truly and properly are they that offer Sacrifices such as was Aaron and the Sons of Aaron and Melchisedeck and Christ whom they prefigured .. So that Protestant Doctor PROOF II. The Mass was also fore-told by the Prophet Malachie c. 1. v. 11. where having reprehended the ancient Preists for their offering polluted Sacrifices God promises that a pure Sacrifice shall be offered among the Gentils in these words from the rising of the Sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentils and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering Which cannot be understood but of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which for the Sanctity of the Victime is called pure and for the universality of the offerers is said to be offered in all places from the rising to the going down of the Sun Again it s called pure sayes the Council of Trent Sess 22. cap. 1. because it cannot be defiled either by the malice or unworthiness of the Offerers Mr. Rodon's interpreting Malachie by what S. Paul sayes Rom. 12. v. 1. and 15. v. 16. is of no force since S. Paul's offering the repenting Gentils and they their repentance and the Romans the like or other acts of vertue by which their bodies became living Hosts breathing the service of God are only Metaphorical Sacrifices Whereas the Prophet foretells a true Sacrifice like to that of the Iews and such is that of the Eucharist of which S. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 10. v. 20. and 21. The things which the Gentils Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God And I would not that you should have Fellow-ship with them Viz. eating a part of what they Sacrifice and so becoming Participant of their Altar For Are not they who eat the Hosts partakers of the Altar v. 18. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table that is Altar and of the Table of Devils to wit eat the Body of Christ which we sacrifice on our Altar and a part of the beast which they sacrifice on theirs Don't wonder that S. Paul calls the Altar Table because on the Altar on which we Sacrifice is set down to the faithful the Bread of Life and the food of our Souls so the Prophet Malachie called also the Altar Table chap. 1. v. 12. having said before to the wicked Preists v. 7. Ye offer polluted Bread upon my Altar Be pleased to read this chapter from the 14 verse to the 22. where the Apostle dehorts and fears the Christians from eating of meats offered to Idols because who eates of the sacrifice offered to Idols is partaker of the Altar of Idols or a worshiper of Idols as who eates of the altar of Chrst and is partaker of the altar of Christians or a worshiper of Christ and as who eates of the altar of the Jews is partaker of the altar of the Jews or a follower of the Mosaik law And consequently since the Christians would not be nor be thought Idolaters they ought not to eat of meats offered to Idols But here take notice he mentions three tables or altars one upon which the Gentils sacrifice to Idols a second on which the Jews offered victims of beasts to God and a third on which Christians offer the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently this oblation of the Eucharist in S. Pauls opinion is a true sacrifice as that of the Jews and that of the Gentils But were offering of the Prayers and other such acts of vertue Sacrifices yet they are not the Sacrifice of which Malachy speaks because the y are not pure not in themseleves as Protestants avow nor pure because they are accepted as pure for say I their impuritie hinders
themselves and take notice of them when they hear them pronounced by others Courteous Reader if in my Proofs and Solution of Mr. Rodon's greater objections or in my remarks here and there and notes which are the seed of Answers fore-running and short Solutions of difficulties you your self see the Solution of many of his petty instances don't wonder that for brevities sake I pass them when I come to them as equivalently answered already An answer to Monsieur de Rhodon's FVNERAL of the MASSE The first Chapter Concerning the exposition of these words THIS IS MY BODIE WE say these words This is my Body prove clearly the real presence of Christs Body in the Host Because they ought to be taken in their proper sense in which they would prove it clearly by the grant of our adversaries who therfore say they are to be taken figuratively Now that they ought to be taken here in their proper sense I prove 1. positively SECTION I. Positive Proofs 1. WHen in a speach a word is indifferent of it self to be taken in the literal or figurative sense you must look to the words that follow in the same speach if they express the propertie of a figure the word is to be taken figuratively if the propertie of the real thing then the word is to be taken in the literal sense For example when one tells me I have seen the King I know not yet what he means whether his person or picture but when he adds set in a frame of Gold I know he means his picture because 't is the propertie of a picture to be set in a frame If he adds speaking with the Chancellor I know he means the King's person because 't is the propertie of a person to speake with another Just so when Christ sayes Luk. 22. v. 19. This is my Bodie I know not yet what he means whether his Real Body or only a figure of it But when he adds which is given for you I know he means of his true Body because 't is the propertie of a true Bodie to be sacrificed for us 2. I prove again that these words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken in the literal sense by the protestant principle which is this When two passages relate to or speak of the same matter in Scripture the obscurer passage is to be explaned by the clearer But these two passages relating to our Lord's Supper This is my Body and Do this in remembrance of me This latter is the obscurer and that former the clearer then this latter ought to be explaned by that former that is to say to the sense of that former viz. Christ having changed a piece of Bread into his Body by his almightie word sayes there to his disciples Do ye for the food of others souls what ye have seen me do for the food of yours Change ye lykewayes by pronouncing the words I have ordained for that end Bread into my Body but do it with such circumstances that people standing by may be mindful of my death and passion But the clear proposition ought not to be explaned by the obscure one thus This is my Body that is to say this is a figure only or a remembrance of my body because he said after do this in remembrance of me for the thing was now done and he had told them what it was in clear words afore he said Do this in remembrance of me He did not say this is a remembrance of me no but Do this in remembrance of me He did not speake of the substance of the thing but only of the manner of doing it By these words then in remembrance of me he only intimated that they should make at that same time a sensible expression of his passion to the people as is seen done in the sacrifice of the Masse If by This he understood a figure or remembrance then he had said do or make a remembrance of me in remembrance of me or remember me to remember me which is ridiculous Now let any indifferent and judicious man be judge if these words do this in remembrance of me be as clear to prove that in the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper is only a Figure of Christ's Bodie as these words This is my Bodie are clear to prove that the Eucharist is his true Body If you instance that as Christ said This is my Body so he said also I am a vine and consequently as the latter proposition must be taken figuratively so must also the former I answer it doth not follow there being a great disparity For we all protestants as well as Catholicks avow that propositions in the Holy Scripture cannot be taken in the literal sense if so taken they imply or intimate something contrarie to faith as this proposition I am a vine literallie taken would do For protestants as well as Catholicks believe that the Divine word hath assumed no nature but that of man then he hath not assumed that of a Vine and consequently 't is against faith to say in the literal sense Christ is a Vine But these words This is my Body taken in the literal sense imply nothing against faith no more then he who shewing you a knife sayes This is a knife for the terme This and the terme Knife suppose for the same thing and not for different natures so in Christ's proposition This is my Bodie This and Body suppose for the same thing not This for Bread but for The Body of Christ as well as the word Bodie supposes for it tho in a different way of signifieing This obscurely and Body clearly and distinctlie Here I humbly intreat the protestant reader to reflect that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding 2. Cor. 10. v. 5. that is to say suspend it from asserting what it might judge had it nothing to rely upon but the sole relation of our senses to obey Christ God will have as an homage due to him and his veracitie this proud faculty of man which is earnest to judge of all submit to his word The assent of my understanding by which I judge a thing to be because I see it with my eyes is an assent of science which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of faith In the mean time we Christians as Christians are called not philosophers the Reasoners but the faithfull fides est as we say credere quod non vides Faith is to believe that which thou doest not see This is the praise of faith sayeth St. Aug. tract 29. in Io. If that which is believed be not seen Blessed are they said Christ Io. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have beleived Faith is an argument or perswasion saith S. Paul of things not appearing If they appear and I assent that they are because I see them my faith ceases Science coming in with faith's destruction If you say I beleive that the Son of God became Man because
as Heat is cal'd the propertie of Fire because the nature of Fire has a clame to Heat and an exigence or a natural appetite of it tho actual Heat not the exigence or natural apetite of it might be given to water so to be all in all and all in every part of an improper place is called the propertie of a spirit because the nature of a spirit has an exigence of it tho this way of existing not the exigence of it may by the almighty power of God be communicated to a body If then a glorious body has this property of a spirit to enter through a wall without making a breach why may not the whole body of Christ be in the whole and least part of the host So our way of eating him there is conform to his way of being there which is spiritual with the propertie of a spirit his whole Body being in the least particle of the host not carnal as if we divided his body with our teeth Spiritual again in as much as we believe That his real Bodie so receaved in that spiritual manner as he commands under the accidents of bread by the mouth of the Body feeds the soul or spirit by the grace it produces there And this eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood that way satisfies the hunger and thirst we had of his grace Another proof that Christ meant the real manducation of his true Body when he said Take eate c. For this is my Body is what he said to the Iews Io. 6. v. 51. The Bread which I will give you is viz. at present my Flesh Where I remark the word is the sacrament not being yet made could not import Signifies my flesh but because the Bread only as a sacrament could signifie his flesh imports an identitie or samety of that bread he spoke of with his flesh Hence the sacrament he made after and which we now receive under the form of Bread being that bread he promised to give it follows that it is his real Flesh and therefore our eating of it is a real and corporal manducation of his Body Add to all I have said that Christ's flesh is not meat really and indeed to him who believs only no more then the King's picture is to him that sees it the King indeed or truely the King For things that are said to be such indeed according to our common way of speaking are understood to be such properly and not figuratively SECTION III. Mr. Rodon's objections against our understanding of those words of Christ He that eates my Flesh c. of a corporal eating by the mouth of the Bodie and not only by Faith answered Ob. 1. Christ sayes Io 6. v. 35. He that comes to me to wit by faith shall never hunger and he that believes in me shall never thirst Then the eating of Christ's flesh is spiritual by Faith and not corporal I answer denying the consequence And say that who believes in Christ shall neither hunger nor thirst because to the believer Christ will give his Body and Blood to be eaten and drunken corporally which will satisfie the Believer's hunger and thirst of him and more over hinder in him the hunger and thirst of perishing things 'T is not then a bare believing which is only a beginning and disposition to the satisfying of the hunger and thirst of the soul but the worthy eating the body and blood of Christ which gives that satisfaction Who eates my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him Io. 6 v. 57. Belief alone does not do the turne Not everie one that sayes to me Lord Lord and consequentlie believes shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ma. 7. v. 21. Obj. 2. Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 55. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life But a reprobate according to the Romanist may eate the Body and drinke the blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body then it 's the eating and drinking by faith that gives eternal life Answer I deny the censequence and say that the reason why the reprobate receiving the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body has not eternal life is because he presumes to receive it being in mortal sin and so eates and drinks unworthily and consequently eates and drinks his damnation according to S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 27. And here I remark that according to protestants Christ's body cannot be eaten unworthily For according to Mr. Rodon in this chapter and other protestants Christ's bodie cannot be eaten but by faith viz. a saving faiâ—h for historical faith or the faith of miracles is not a manducation or eating of the Body of Christ but who eates the Body of Christ with a saving faith doth not eate it unworthilie for I cannot save and damn my self both at once by the same act but the eating with a saving faith saves me and the eating unworthily damnes me then if I Could eate the Bodie of Christ unworthily I could save and damn my self by the same act then a protestant cannot eate the Body of Christ unworthily which is flat a-against S. Paul and consequently heretical Obj 3. S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct ch cap. 16. speaks thus To eate the flesh of Christ is a figure c. Answer 1. S. Aug. does not say simply To eate the Flesh of Christ is a figure but bringing the words of Christ Io. 6. Unless you eate my flesh c. says Christ seems to command a wicked act or hainous offense Figuraest ergò it is then a figure I subsume but Christ does not seeme to Ro Catholicks who believe he spesaks in that place only of a sacramental manducation to command there a heinous offense then according to S. Austin we have no need to take his words figuratively But for Capharnaites to whom he seems to command a heinous offense they ought to take them figuratively that they may not censure him To understand then this passage in the apprehension of the Capharnaites you must reflect that as we are wont to kill those beasts whose flesh we eate afore we eate them So the Jews out of Christ's words had apprehended that they ought first to kill Christ and after to eate his flesh cut in pieces boiled or rested This without doubt was a wicked or heinous offense He means then saith S. Augustin a figure of his death not his true death and that they ought not to kill Christ truly but by taking the sacrament of the Eucharist represent his slaughter and by their manners express his death that they ought not to kill Christ but to mortifie themselves and do what S. Paul said he had done Colos 1. v. 24. I fulfill those things which are wanting of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church So Maldonat upon the 6 Chap. of S. Io. v. 53 Answer 2. We heartily acknowledge that the Eucharist and the Preist's eating of it is a
Sacred Science teaches us that tho there be three different Persones in God there are not three different things because A different thing signifies a different essence Hence S. Aug. lib. de Fide ad petrum chap. 1. sayes Una est patris Filii Spiritus Sti. essentia in qua non est aliud Pater aliud Filius aliud Spiritus Sanctus quamvis personaliter sit alius Pater alius Filius alius Spiritus Sanctus The essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is one in which the Father is not one thing the Son another and the H. Ghost another altho as to Person the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another If he was rash in touching the B. Trinity we must not wonder to see him stray also in this Mystery following only the strain of his human Philosophy Mr. Rodon then was not content meerly to believe but would see that he might believe tho S. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 13. v. 12. That such a sight is reserved for the next Life and that now we see only through a Glass darkly But I desire him who is so earnest to have a clear accompt of Divine Mysteries to clear me first in some natural things How is it possible to cover the whole Heavens with the Wing of a Fly Yet this can be done if it be divided in as many parts as God can divide it For after every division the least part will still have its three dimentions length breadth and thickness by all which it may be still divided Now if he deny this saying the Wing is composed of Indivisibles he runs himself into as great difficulties as to avow that a snail makes as much way in an hour as the sleetest Race-Horse for the Race-Horse cannot make an Indivisible of space or way without some part of time and that cannot be less then an Indivisible of time and in the same Indivisible of time the Snail moving cannot make less then an Indivisible of space and so go along with the Race-Horse the rest of the Indivsiibles of the hour and consequently the Snail will have made as much way as the Race-Horse at the hours end which is absurd Neither tell me the Horse can run over a hundred points or parts of space in an instant for his motion is also divisible in points one part must begin afore the other and so comes in again my argument As for the sweld points maintained by some they confound a Body with a Spirit and therefore are to be rejected How is it possible that since three Men cannot get in at once at a narrow Door the pictures or species which are not Spirits but material things of a whole Army should all at once enter without confusion into the apple of the Eye of a Man who from an eminence regards it If all Philosophers Wits are drowned in a drop of water not being able to fell with satisfaction what is the matter or the Form of it and whither it be compounded of divisible or indivisible parts must we claim to a full satisfaction of our reason afore we will believe this Mysterious Transubstantiation and thus banish Faith out of the Church of Christ Let us not soare to high nor dive to deep in this matter since a searcher of the Divine Majesty will be oppressed by Glory Having premitted this discourse to raise Men above their senses when they come to consider mysteries of Faith I now prove the mystery of Transubstantiation thus As God can create so he can Transubstantiate And as he hath revealed Genes 1. That he hath created Heaven and Earth so he hath revealed Math. 26. v. 27. That he hath made a Transubstantiation of Bread into his Body in the Eucharist If you wonder at the strange things that follow from this Transubstantiation consider that creation made something of nothing which seemed so strange to the ancient Philosophers that they tell us flatly Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made Had they had Faith they would have acknowledged Creation submit you your Judgment to Faith and you 'l acknowledge in the Eucharist Transubstantiation SECTION II. Mr. Rodon's objections answered Object IN every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwise newly produced as when Christ turned the Water into Wine was the Wine was newly produced But the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Eucharist Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist Answer 1. I distinguish the Major In every substantial conversion that thing c. Is alwise newly produced Entitatively or modally I grant alwise Entitatively I deny that is in every substantial conversion there is alwise the production at least of a new manner of being So the Body of Christ in the Eucharist has a new manner of being viz. a Sacramental being which it has not out of the Eucharist But there is not alwise in every substantial conversion a production of a new substance Answer 2. I dislinguish the Major again Naturally be it so Supernaturally and when the question is about the almighty Power of God I deny it and say that it is sufficient that the whole substance of Bread be destroyed and the Bodie of Christ put in its place something remaining common to both viz. the accidents of Bread which now by the consecration become the accidents of the Body of Christ morally in as much as they shew to all the faithfull the consecration being made that the Body of Christ is now there and receives a new being not as to the substance which it had already but as to the manner of being a sacramental being under the form of Bread If you ask how the Body of Christ can begin to be there without leaving the place where it was before I answer when a child grows by the nutrition or feeding does the reasonable soul leave the rest of the Childs body to come to the added part of matter or is there a new reasonable Soul produced in it If not but the same Soul acquires only a new presence of relation to the added part of matter reason the same way concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Ob. 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed but the Bread is not destroyed in the Eucharist because after Consecration it is said to be Broken Divided c. therefore it is not destroyed Answer I distinguish the Minor The Bread is not destroyed as to the substance which is only required I deny as to the accidents I grant and say that by reason of these remaining the Host is said to be broken divided c. and is still called Bread Per distractionem as we speak in Philosophy So our Saviour said to the Disciples of Iohn Math. 11. v. 5. The blind see because they who then did see were afore blind They
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
Preamble HERE Mr. Rodon brings a number of Philosophical arguments so often objected and so often answered by Philosophers in that question whether the same Body may be at the same time in divers places Afore I go farther I desire my Reader to be pleased to reflect that to prove the Catholick doctrine of Transubstantiation 't is not necessary to admit a Body to be in two places Because to be in a place properly or in an univocal place is to have situal or local extension which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist as a soul is not in a place but by reason of its Body which is in a place so Christ's Body in the Eucharist is only in a place by reason of the species which are in a place Again since to walke to meet to be distant to be wounded c. are affections of a Body which is circumscriptively in a place that is having its parts answering to the parts of the uppermost superficies of the Body that contains it all Mr. Rodon's arguments of that nature are of no force against the Body of Christ in the Sacrament it being thereafter the manner of a spirit Yet when they are looked upon with an unlearned eye Mr. de Rodon seems to triumph Just as if I speaking with a country cloun of the motion of the Sun should strive to perswade him that at the most it makes only twenty miles an hour while another should undertake to prove it makes twenty thousand My opinion would be received with more applause by the Cloun than that of the other but if both spoke tâ— an Astronomer he would laugh at my opinion in respect of the other's What makes so different a sentiment in these two Men The Cloun is led by sense and the Astronomer by reason This is my case with Mr. Rodon treating this Question If we speak to vulgar People or to those who have no Faith Mr. Rodon will be applauded If to Men of Faith and reason I 'le have the better of him Why because the vulgar especially if they want Faith will believe nothing that mounts above their senses But the wise Christian not measuring supernatural things by his Eye or as they appear in his weak Imagination but by Faith and seing by his reason there is no contradiction in all Mr. Rodon brings against this Mystery more than against that of the Incarnation or of the most B. Trinity hath no difficulty to submit the judgment of his senses often deceived in natural things to the word of God proposed to him by the Church This preamble being made I now prove our tenet Christ's Body has been circumscriptively that is locally in its shape in two places both at once then it may be in Heaven locally and in the Host or consecrated Wafer Sacramentally both at once I prove the antecedent Christ standing by Paul as S. Luke relates Act. 23. v. 11. in these words The Lord stood by him and said be of good cheer Paul was circumscriptively or locally in that place and at the same time he was in the Heavens which shall retain him till the general Resurrection Act. 3. v. 21. therefore he was circumscriptively or locally in two places both at once If yon say 't was an Angel standing by him that spoke to him from Christ as one spoke to the Iews from God on mount Sinai Then the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 15. v. 8. saying he viz. Christ was seen of me also Were of no force to prove Christ's Resurrection which he was proving there For to see an Angel was not to see Christ Yet he would perswade them that he was risen because he had seen him This is confirmed out of Io. 6. v. 9. and 13. Where 't is said our Saviour fed 5000 Men with five Loaves and two Fishes I suppose these Loaves were not bushel Loaves for the Boy who had them could not have carried them but ordinary Loaves Now I say that these five Loaves might feed 5000 Men the same piece of Bread must have been in divers mouths at once it being probable that Christ gave to each a competent piece for if he Created other Loaves he did not then feed them all with five Loaves which is against Scripture SECTION II. A part of Mr. Rodon's Objections against the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Host are answered Object 1. CHrist's Body cannot be produced in the Host 1. Bacause that cannot be produced which is produced already 2. Because terminus aquâ— and terminus ad quem are distinct or there must be a distinction between the term of departure and the term of arriving 3. In all substantial conversions a new substance must be produced Answer I deny the antecedent and as to its first probation I distinguish That which is produced already cannot be produced as to its Essential being I grant as to its manner of being or as to a Sacramental being I deny The second probation I grant and say that the term Aquo or of departure is the Body without the second presence or relation viz. to the species the term Ad quem or of arriving the Body with the second presence to the species in the Eucharist and these two terms are different For the third probation I denyed it in my answer to the 1. Ob. Section 2. Chap. 3. and gave there the reason of my denyal Mr. Rodon urges If a Man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris therefore Christ's Body which does not leave Heaven neither comes nor is brought to the Host Answer 1. In the opinion of those who explane the being of Christ's Body in the Host by adduction do not say that it 's brought or comes thither Circumscriptively by a proper Local motion because this motion supposes a Body to have it's parts answering to the parts of a place which Christ's Body has not in its adduction to the Host and consequently it does not leave Heaven because we do not leave the place in which we were to go to another but by a proper local and continued motion The equivocal and severed motion by which Christ's Body is adduced to all its Sacramental places is improperly called a motion Answer 2. I deny the antecedent because to put a Body in two places suffices the production of a second ubication for ubication is the formal reason making a thing to be in a place You 'l say supposing that the Body existing at Paris be put also at Rome now either this Roman ubication is produced in the Body existing at Paris or existing at Rome neither can be said not the first because the Roman ubication cannot be at Paris not the second because the Body would be at Rome before it had the Roman ubication therefore the Body which is at Paris cannot be at the same time at Rome Answer I deny the major and say that this Roman ubication is produced neither in the Body existing at Rome nor existing at Paris
but is produced in the Body spectato secumdum se considered in it self which indeed materially was afore at Paris but by a new ubication is also at Rome If you say the Roman ubication must be produced at Rome but it cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome therefore the Body must be at Rome before it be at Rome which is absurd Answer I distinguish the minor It cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome consecutively I grant antecedently I deny And therefore I also deny the consequence The Roman ubication is then produced in the Body existing at Rome ut quo in as much as it is the Form which makes the Body or the subject to be at Rome Ob. 2. In a true human Body such as Christ's Body is the Head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders but this cannot be in a Point then Christ's Body cannot be in every least part of the Host Answer I distinguish the major In a true human Body c. naturally existing the Head is above the neck its true supernaturally existing being Spiritualized or having the quality of a Spirit by which it is all in all and all in every part of the improper place in which it is I deny the major Mr. Rodon confounds here Entitative quantity which is to have a number of parts with Situal quantity or Extent which is to have all its parts one without another The Body of Christ hath its Entitative quantity but not its situal quantity in the Eucharist this Extent or Situal quantity is an accident which the Entitative quantity can want Ob. 3. To move and not to move c. in the same time are contradictory things Answer Considered under the same respect its true under a different respect its false For example my Soul moves in my hand at the same time that it is stock still in my head The same way the Body of Christ may be moved as it is in Heaven and not be moved as it is in the Host Ob. 4. Two relatives are alwise different as the Father and Son Answer I grant it and tell you that a Body in two places is not two Bodies so the relation of distance of which we speak here is between the two places not between two Bodies Mr. Rodon urges It is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in them I Answer once again we are not speaking here of things but of one thing But let us speak of two other things existing in two different places I say that the distance of place is only the partial Cause of their distance and that the total Cause is the dlstance of places and the existing of things in them Otherwise things which are now together might be said to be distant because the places in which they were before are still distant Mr. Rodon presses further Peter at Rome might draw nigher to himself as he exists at Paris Answer Neigher to himself I deny neigher to his ubication at Paris I grant that is he might have an ubication nigher to that he has at Paris but he would never come so close that the same parts of his Body would meet with the same but the right hand with the left or the palm of the hand with the back of the hand And so as there is a difference between those different parts there may rise a relation of meeting and as there is no repugnance that I touch my self making one hand touch the other so there is none that I meet with my self different parts of my Body meeting with different parts of the same And if I will have my right hand which meets with my left press forward I must also will to put back or aside my left they being both solid parts Let my Reader take these answers to divert himself a litle with the humour of Mr. de Rodon but let him not think that his objection presses us for as distance supposes proper places so meeting supposes a proper motion And the Body of Christ is neither in a proper place nor properly moved in the Eucharist as I said afore But were it Circumscriptively there these foresaid answers and the following in this matter blow-up all his objections Ob. 5. It 's a perfit contradiction that a Body should be one and not one but if Christ's Body should be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host upon Earth 't would be one and not one then it can not be in Heaven and in the Host both at once 'T would be one as is supposed and not one as is proven because it would be divided from it self Answer I deny the minor and as to its probation I distinguish 'T would be divided from it self Extrinsecally that is as to place I grant Intrinsecally as to it self or Essential principles of which it 's composed I deny For nothing of it's Essential principles would be in one place which were not in the other The Body of a man for example bilocated would not be in one place where the Soul were not nor the Soul in another where the Body were not with it The sole Ubications of the same Body are divided Now since two Bodies may be in one place by penetration as when Christ entred into the Caenacle of the Apostles the Doors being shut and came out of his B. Mother's womb she still remaining a Virgin why may not one Body be by a like miracle in two places since the thing placed relates to the place just as the place relates to the thing placed in it As one thing naturally requires to be in one place at once so one place naturally requires to have only one thing in it at once why then may not one thing supernaturally by the almighty power of God be in two places at once Mr. Rodon urges 1. The division is true when between two there be Bodies of divers natures Answer This I grant and say That our supposition is not of two but of one Body which is the same in Heaven and in the Host He urges 2. Things that are divided locally are also divided Entitatively Therefore the Body of Christ being in divided places must be divided Entitatively He proves the antecedent thus else no reason can be given why two glasses of Water taken from the same Fountain are really different since these Waters are like in all things except in reference to place Answer 1. Our supposition is not of things but of one thing or Body as I said afore Answer 2. I grant that local division infers alwise Entitative division if we look only to the ordinary course of nature but not in cases in which God will shew his almighty Power we know then that the Body of Christ being only one is now sacramentally in different places by the almighty power of God because he hath revealed it as we know the same Body was
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
we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lord's flesh in the Sacrament let him be Turk Atheist yea tho he should be the Divel himself incarnate I Answer That is to be understood if his unworthiness be unknown to the Priest or known only by Confession For of this he cannot make use to diffame him Did not Christ give the Communion to Judas Ob. 12. God makes no miracles without necessity but what necessity is there for the miracles we avow to be made in the Eucharist Then they are not made there and so Christ's Body is not there Answer I distingish the major without an absolute necessity I deny Without a certain consequential necessity supposing that he will make an extraordinary shew of his power or goodness I grant And this was the reason wherefore he made so many miracles which were not absolutely necessary in the bringing the Children of Israël out of Egipt to wit to give an extraordinary shew of his power And in the Eucharist he makes some where he would also give an extraordinary shew of his singular goodness and love to man fore-told by the Royal Prophet Psal 110. v. 4. He hath made a memory of his marvellous works to wit in giving his Body and Blood to be a spiritual Food to these who fear him Mr. Rodon asks here if it can be said that the Eucharist is for the Salvation of the Soul of him that eats it since the reprobate eates it too and the Faithful under the Old Testament and Infants in the New do not eat it Answer Yes it can be said because 't is the reprobate's fault that it does not save him Neither that the Faithfull of the Old Law and Infants in the New are not saved by an eating of it makes any thing against it because it was not instituted for them Mr. Rodon askes again if it can be said with Bellarmine and Perron that the Host being eaten serves as an incorruptable Food for a glorious resurrection since the Faithfull of the Old Testament and Infants in the New rise again gloriously without it Answer Yes it can be said because Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 54. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day And the Council of Nice calles the Eucharist Symbolum resurrectionis a token of the Resurrection and S. Ignatius M. Epist 14. to the Ephes terms it Pharmacum immortalitatis a medicine of immortality Now if you ask the manner how it serves as an Incorruptible Food for a glorious Resurrection I Answer the species being altered by the heat of the stomach the Body of Christ ceases to be there but his Diety remaines after a special manner in the Soul as the virtue of Wheat remaines in the corrupted Grain to raise it again at Spring feeding it with grace and at set times affording it new infusions of actual Grace divine lights and heavenly affections And in the Resurrection raises again the Body and unites it to this Soul But this proposition being affirmative does not exclude from Glory those of the Old Testament and Infants of the New who have not for want of Capacity the Participation of this Sacrament Who sayes that a Ship serves to go from Leith to London does not say that a man cannot go without it viz. by Horse Neither is S. Paul against us but for us when he sayes Rom. 8. If the Spirit of him who raised up IESVS from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you viz. as the efficient and the immediate cause this Spirit being the seed and virtue left by the Eucharist the eating of which was a remote cause conveiging in a particular manner by way of disposition this Spirit to us Mr. Rodon's last Objection is The Heavens must contain Christ untill the time of restitution of all things Act. 3. v. 21. And he himself said I leave the World c. Io. 16. Therefore he is not in the Eucharist Answer We don't say he leaves Heaven to come to the Host or that he hath not left the World as to his visible presence but we say he is and will be with us even to the consumation of the World Math. 28. in an invisible way viz. in the Eucharist Mr. Ro. adds that Christ Math. 24. warnes us not to believe when false Prophets in the last day shall say he is in the Desert he is in the secret Chambers and remarks that the Greek for secret Chambers has en Tameiois that is in the Cup-boards which is to be understood of our Cabinets on our Altars according to Mr. Rodon's explication Answer I remark that where the Greek has Tameiois which signifies an Excheker which relates to secresie as well as Cup-board the Syriach has In Bed Chambers that is as A Lapide explaines a most inward room and that the vulgar Latin has In penetralibus to the meaning of Christ The Greek word is of no force more than the Latin or Syriack that Gospel having been written in Hebrew of which we have not the Authentick Copy Here I may say with S. Aug. Lib. 22. de Civit. Dei Cap. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas Behold with what arguments human infirmity possessed with vanity opposes the almighty power of God CHAPTER V. Against the Adoration and Worshiping of the Host SECTION I. That we ought to adore Christ in the H. Host is proven A Blind Servant thinks himself obliged to take off his hat when he is told his Lord is in the Room Then I am bound to adore Christ when my faith tells me that Christ is present in the Host I prove the Consequence I am as much bound to adore Christ present my Lord and my Redeemer as the blind servant is bound to the taking off his hat in the presence of his Lord and Master Mr. Rodon remarks that Moses Exod. 3. was commanded to approach with reverence and adoration the Bush that burned and was not consumed because God did manifest some what of his power and glory in that place I subsume but Christ doth manifest some what of his power and glory in the H. Host Therefore we ought not to approach it but with reverence and adoration I prove my subsumption Christ gives there to the purer Souls surprising delights and works admirable changes in them which is a manifestation of his power and a ray of his glory there this is known to the faithful which made the heavenly enlightened Author of the following of Christ lib. 4. cap. 1. say O admirahle and hidden grace of the Sacrament which the faithful only of Christ know If you say this is not sensible to the imperfiter Souls amongst Romanists I answer that does not make it not to be true God shewed much of his power and glory in the Manna to the perfit ones
and for this reason we need not take the Blood a part Obj. 3. We go from the practise of the primitive Church Answer As to the essence of the Sacrament I deny as to the manner of administration of it upon some considerable circumstances be it so So the Protestants go from the practise of primitive times in Baptism by using now the sprinkling of water on the Child whereas a triple dipping was used in primitive times I said be it so because in primitive times they gave it also sometimes under one kind If you ask me why Christ gave it to his Apostles under both kinds I answer he both foresaw Hereticks as the Manicheans who would deny the thing in it self to be lawful which is an errour and different circumstances in which the Church should think good to give it under the species of Wine as to infants which action of his justified the Church in that and the like circumstances We avow then that the Sacrament was given some times under both kindes and in particular to discover the Manicheans in the time of S. Leo Pope But we deny that there was a command from Christ of giving it so Obj. 4. To take Christ's Blood in taking the Host is not to drink it Answer 'T is not to drink it cannally that is to be carnally refressed with it I grant Spiritually that is to be Spiritually refressed with it I deny So S. Cypr. sayes in the beginning of the Sermon of the Lords Supper manducaverunt biberunt de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem that is they eat and drunk of the same Bread according to the vibsile form Remark he sayes They drunk of the same Bread and makes no mention of Wine Also Tertul. lib. de Resur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur that is The Flesh feeds of the Body and Blood of Christ that the Soul may be full of God And S. Augustin lib. quaest in Levit. q. 57. speaking of this Sacrament sayes A cujus Sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum c. that is from the Blood of which Sacrifice to be taken for aliment c. Where you see the Blood is called food or aliment By which passages you may take notice that the Holy Fathers put the force of their words in the thing and not in the way of taking it because whither taken by way of food or of drink it has the same effect Ob. 5. He that eates Bread dipped in Wine altho he hath Wine in his mouth doth not drink Therefore he who receives only under the form of Bread doth not drink Answer 1. I distinguish the antecedent He who eates Bread dipped c. doth not drink it in the strict acception of drinking I grant In the less rigid acception of drinking I deny did you never hear say of him who drinks a heavy thick Wine he eates and drinks both at once Answer 2. He doth not drink as to the substance of drinking which is to take a liquid matter by the mouth I deny As to the whole corporal manner and effect of Drinking I grant So Pascasius lib. de Corp. Christ speaks thus Hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus Ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes that is It s he alone who breaks this Bread and by the hands of the Ministers distributes it to the faithful saying Take and drink all of this to wit Bread where he makes no mention of Wine But much less do Protestants drink Christ's Blood by an act of faith that Christ dyed for them in which the eating and drinking is one and the same Ob. 5. The sacramental words operate what they signify but they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood therefore they operate the separation of the Body from the Blood and consequently we ought to receave under both kinds to receave both Answer I distinguish the Major The Sacramental words operate what they signifie formally I grant what they signify occasionally I deny And say that these words This is my Body and these This is my Blood signifie formally and primarly the Body and Blood of Christ altho occasionally and secundarily they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood of Christ in as much as they are an occasion to me hearing them pronounced apart and knowing that the force of these words only attended the Body would be under one species and the Blood under the other tho by concomitance both are in each to represent to my self the death of Christ or his Body separated from his Blood Ob. 6. As much as is taken away of the Sacrament as much is diminished of the perswasion of the certainty of God's promise Answer As much as is taken away of that part of the Sacrament which causes Grace be it so Of that which does not cause grace but only compleats it in the being of a representation of the death of Christ I deny I said be it so because the Sacraments were cheifly instituted to signify and cause in us sanctifying grace which is both signified and caused by the Body and Blood of Christ under on kind as much as under both Yet the other kind is necessary in the Priest not to confirm more God's promise as Mr. Rodon would have it but to represent the death of Christ And since he thinks two Sacraments better then one why does not he take in the Sacrament of Pennance so signally set down Io. 20. as a sensible sign of sanctifying Grace brought forth in a penitent Soul by the absolution of the Preist signified by these words Whose sins ye remitt are remitted to them Since three Sacraments are as much better then two than two are better than one Or how proves he the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrament the Preists absolving a sorrowful penitent from his sin to be none Ob. 7. Christ fore-saw the inconvenences of taking under both kinds for Lay-people as well as we and yet he commanded it to them as S. Paul to the Corinthians after him Answer I deny that either Christ or S. Paul commanded the lay people to take the Eucharist under both kinds more then Christ commanded that the Ministers should wash the Communicants feet by his example of Washing them to those to whom he gave the Sacrament See the ground of this my denial in the 1. Sect. of the 6. chap. nay Christ signified aboundantly one kind to suffice when he said Who eates this Bread shall live for ever Ob. 8. God's word should not be taken from all because some are deaf therefore the Cup should not be taken from all lay people because some cannot drink Wine Answer The Cup is not taken from all lay people for that reason but because that and other reasons being on one side and on the other side it not being necessary to give it the lay people for
of the Sacrifice of the Mass If you say 't is also written I answer And so is the Sacrifice of the Mass in clearer terms for which I attest your own Conscience A strange thing says Mr. Rodon that the Mass which is the fundation of the Romish Church for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass Answer that 's false we require moreover they live a good life and if they fall in Sins they confess them c. cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ Answer If an Arian should say to him It 's a strange thing that the God-head of Christ who is the fundation of the Church cannot be found in all the Scriptures Mr. Rodon would answer you are deceived it is found there but your pride in wedding your self to your own judgement hinders you to see it So say I to him the sacrifice of the Mass is found in scripture to have been instituted and practised by Christ himself and his Apostles Luc. 22. This is my Body which is given for you That is offered to my eternal Father for you and commanded by Christ to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me which they did Act. 13. As they ministred to the Lord the Greek word leitourgountoon is turned by Erasmus himself Sacrificing Remark the Apostles ministred to our Lord when they Sacrificed and ministred to the People when they gave them the Sacrament And Heb. 13. v. 10. St. Paul sayes We have an Altar whereof they have no right to Eat who serve the Tabernacle Now an Altar relates to a Sacrifice as I said so since Christians had Altars in S. Pauls time they had also a Sacrifice no other but that of the Eucahrist then the oblation of it to the eternal Father is a true Sacrifice since a Sacrifice is a visible offering of a sensible thing to God by a Preist And to eat relates to the Fucharist not to the Sacrifice of the Cross All had right if they pleased to eate that is to believe and participate of Christ's death but Christians only have right to eat of the Altar of the Eucharist not the Jews Thus you see the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be found in scripture though Mr. Rodon merited for his vanishing away in his own thoughts refusing to submit them to the Church to have his heart obseured Rom. 1. v. 21. and to have this Mysterie which is revealed only to litle ones or the Humble hide from him Math. 11. v 25. From the Testimony of the H. Scripture the Council of Trent hath declared to all Christians that it is an arrticle of our faith Sess 22. de sacrif Miss can 1. 2. 3. We have also the unanimous consent of all the Holy Fathers Is then that to be called only an unwritten tradition which a General Council and all the Holy Fatthers and Scripture it self attests Object 1. St. Paul Eph. 4. mentioning the offices which Christ left his Church makes no mention of Sacrificers Answer When St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 11. sayes that Christ made some Apostles he mentioned Sacrificers sufficiently because to Sacrifice is one of the frunctions of an Apostle Neither doth he mention Baptisers in that place it being sufficiently understood by his making some Pastors of whom one duty is to Baptize Neither had the same Apostle writting to Timothee and Titus about the duty of a Bishop need to instruct them to Sacrifice since they had been newly instructed as to that when he made them Bishops and were now in a daily exercise of that function Moreover Non valet consequentia ab authoritate negata no good tonsequence is drawn from a negative or denyed authoritie Obj. 2. The thing Sacrificed must fall under our senses Answer I grant it and tell him That the thing Sacrificed is the Sacrament or Christ's Body with the Species of Bread and not Christ's Body alone Which Sacrament is not hid but is visible by its Species though a part of it viz. Christ's Body be not seen just as the Substance of Bread visible by its species is not seen Note then that though the Body of Christ is not cognizable afore the Consecration by this visible Species of Bread yet the Consecration being made the Sacrament is cognizable to the Faithful by it because this Species belongs now as much to the Sacrament being a part of it as afore it belonged and was a part of the visible Bread Hence it is clear that the destruction or change of the Species suffices for the verifying of this proposition The thing Sacrificed is changed or destroyed For if it were necessary to have the whole thing destroyed the Material part as well as the formal part of a thing there had never been a true Sacrifice Which to say is absurd It suffices that the whole or the totum which was before cease to be by the change which the Preist makes of it You 'l say the Council of Trent sayes the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same Answer As to the substance of the Victime I grant As to the manner of Sacrificing or Sacrification I deny The action by which Christ was offer'd on the Cross differs effentially from the action by which he is offer'd in the Sacrament since that was a real distruction of the union between the Body and the Soul this but a Sacramental one but a Sacrifice if you regard the thing signifying consists chiefly in the Immolating action Sacrificium exparte rei significantis ex actione immolativa maximè constat Then if this Immolating action be of a different kind in the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Altar the Sacrifices also will be of a different kind as to the sacrificing action though the same as to the thing offered and the last terme signifyed which is God as author of Life and Death Note in the adductive or productive action of Christ's Body and Blood is pointed out that two fold dominion of God of Death by the distruction of the Bread and Wine Of Life by the production of the Body and Blood of Christ Note 2. Though bloody or unbloody are accidents to the Body of Christ they are not accidents to a Bloody or Unbloody Sacrifice as altho Colour be an accident to the Wall 't is not an accident to a coloured Wall so that if you destroy colour in it you destroy the Essence of that whole which was before viz. a coloured Wall Hence it follows first that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of an Accident but of a whole Sacramental being rising out of Christ's Body and the Species of Bread and that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrifice is the same with that which was produced or made by the Consecration viz. the Sacrament of the Body of Christ under the species of Bread Secondly it does not follow that the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offer'd in the