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
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
there is no Cathegorical or Predicamental ubi but a substantial and Sacramental one because all Predicamental ubies must result from univocal and not from Sacramental places as all good divines and Christian Philosophers do unanimously teach And consequently your proofs can be of no force or value amongst them whatever you would have them be amongst the illiterate vulgar people whom you intend to delude and deceive with your Philosophical quibbles The Mounsieurs first arrow being thus vainly shot he pulls oâ—…t his second which is this Rodon 6. In a true humane body such as Christs body is there is somthing above and something under right and left before and behind for the head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders the shoulders above the breast the breast above the belly c. But all the world knows that in a point there is nothing above or under right or left before or behind Therefore Christs body is not in a point and consequently it is not in every point or part of the host To this I add that the quantity and greatness of Christs body is nothing else but its extent as we all know and a body is extended when it hath its parts one without another as all the Iesuits expound it But the doctrine of the presence of Christs body in the host puts all its parts one within another because it puts them all in a point Therefore such a doctrine takes away its extent and consequently its quantity Answ. This arrow follows his former directly for if Christs body could have no other place but an univocal one nor no being in it but a circumscriptive being the arrow would hit right But seeing Christs body is in all things subject to his soul as his soul is to his divinity and that his soul is as ours are all in his whole body and all in every point and part of his body it follows that his body now glorified and spiritualized by reason of its spiritual qualifications and dowries may be not only naturally in its univocal place as our bodies are in their natural places but that it may also be in an equivocal or Sacramental one as pure spirits are without any dependency of an univocal or proper place and consequently that it may be in every part and point of the host as our souls are in every point and living part of our bodies But here I ask the Mounsieur if he ever was in heaven and saw the situation of Christs glorified body there because he says some part of it must be above and some part under some before and some behinde some on the right side and some on the left I would fain know of him where is above and under in heaven where is the right and left hand there and where the before and behinde or is there any other body in heaven above the heaven where Christ and his Angels and saints are to denotate high and low right and left before and behind sure it is theâ—… that â—…he never was there and unloss he changed his opinion before he died I fear never will be and sure also it is that this his argument oâ—… arrow is but a very pittiful miserable one for comparing and liking the situation of Christs glorified body unto ours as if Christ would not situâ—…te himself in heaven or upon Earth but after our circumscriptive material manner Certainly if he can do no more then what we apprehend or understand and cannot transcend our weak capacity in his works he is no God and there is no such thing as an object of divine faith Therefore forsooth because Mr. de Rodon cannot with his Philosophy comprehend or understand how a man cannot be without his head above his shoulders and his shoulders above his breast Christ cannot be really in the Sacrament an unanswerable reason and a keen killing arrow I confess to ignorant illiterate people of no belief but to the learned and faithfull it has no more force then a broken straw To his addition I say that he that can make a Camel pass through a needles eye can also put his own quantity into a point To his lastly or last I answer that the quantity of Christs body as also of all other bodies is nothing else essentially but the extent of its parts as they are in order to themselves and not as they are extended in order to any place for that extension is onâ—…y a property of the former extension aâ—…d may be hindered supernaturally as the heat of the forementioned Babilonian â—…urnace was which heat although it was the property oâ—… the fire that was set under the furnaâ—…e and wroughâ—… its effect upon the standers by yet God could and did suspend its operation upon the three holy young men that were put into it and it â—…either burnt or hurt them at all even so can he do and doth with Christs body in the Sacrament for the substance of his body is there with its essential quantitie by concomitance although the properties of his essential quantity whereof extension of its parts in order to a place is oâ—…e be hindred and suspended for being the Sacrament was instituted for us that we should receive and eat it it was necessary that the local extension of Chriâ—…s body in it should be hindred Therefore as Christ when he said this is my body could and did put his body substantially in the Sacrament in the species and form oâ—… bread and wine for to attemperate it to our natures that we may receive it without any loathsomeness so he did also suspend and hinder its local extension sor to accomodate it to our bodies for our spiritual nourishment and so this arrow follows the other Now to his third Rodon 7. To move and not to move at the same time to be eaten and not to be eaten at the same time to be in a point and not to be in a point at the same time to occupy a place and not to occupy a place at the same time arâ—… contradictory things But if the body of Christ were in diverse consecrated hosts it would move and not move at the same time for example when a Priest carries a consecrated host to a sick person the body of Christ which is pretended to be in it moves with the host for it leaves the Altar and goes with the Priest towards the sick persons house and at the same time the body of Christ which is pretended to be in the other host that remains at the Altar moves not and so the same body of Christ at the same time moves and moves not which is a contradiction Seeing then it is impossible that one and the same body at one and the same time should move and not move it is likewise impossible â—…hat Christs body should be in divers hosts at the same time In like manner if Christs body were at the same time in heavâ—…n and in the host it would be eaten and not
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
should be so as he expresly said But although we believe he is glorious as he is in the Sacrament too yet we confess we see him not there with our corporal eyes shining in glory because he hides it from us there for he knows it is neither expedient nor requisite that he should manifest his glory unto us here upon earth that our merit should be the more by believing his plain and express word This was the reason why that during the time while he was conversant with men in his patible body although his soul was also then alwaies glorious by reason of the Hypostatical union yet this glory of hers never redounded to his body but once at Mount Thabor and then but transeunter for a short time only to animate Peter whom he designed to be his Vicar on earth as also Iames and Iohn who were his neer kinsmen and of the chief of his Apostles that these three being eye-witnesses of his glorious Transfiguration should be the more confirmed in their own and the better strengthen the rest of the Apostles and disciples in their belief concerning the death of their dear master and the grand Mistery of his Resurrection Therefore while we are members of the Church militant it is not expedient we should see the body of Christ shining in glory with our corporal eyes although we are bound to believe his glorified body is really in the Sacrament Neither is brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light more proper and principal to a glorified body then are impassibility subtility and agility which are likewise dowries of a glorious body and yet the Apostles saw none of these three other dowries of Christs body in the Mount though his body had them there so also although Christs body in the Sacrament has all the same dowries and properties after his Resurrection yet it is neither expedient or necessary that every one of us should see them with our corporal eyes theâ—…e but it is enough we believe it from whence follows not evidently as the Mounsieur says that they are not there for an argument from a corporal visible not seeing to an intelligible spiritual not being concludes but against ignorant people and misbelievers not against any learned or faithfull Rodon 9. But quoth Mounsieur helping us out it may be said that Christs body is under the accidents of bread and wine and that these accidents hide it from us To which answer he replies very Philosophically and acutely as he is wont thus But the substance of the bread and wine was not under the accidents and the accidents were not upon their substance for then the substance of the bread and its accidents had been in different places above and under being two several differences of place and that which is under is not above Therefore Christs body cannot be under the accidents of bread and consequently the accidents do not hide it from us O Philosophy Philosopher Answ. But who can but admire to hear such a silly reply from so famous a Professor as Mr. de Rodon is esteemed and cryed up to be amongst his admirers and applauders I pray tell me Mr. Rodon whether the substance of your own body be over or under its accidents or no if you say I then your body which consists of substance and accidents is at the same time in two places for according to you over and under are differences of several places and consequently according to your Philosophy one body may be naturally in two places at once for I suppose your body is but one and its situation is not a supernatural one now then if under and above be differences of divers places and your substance is under your accidents it follows manifestly that your body is naturally in two places at once which is more then we affirm of Christs body for we say it is in the Sacrament not naturally that is after a natural manner but supernaturally If your answer be no then I pray tell us where the substance of your body is is it in the accidents then why may not we also say that the substance of the bread before the consecration and the substance of Christs body after the consecration are in the Sacramental species which if so then they are all but in one place and consequently the substance being in the accidents for ought this reply can contradict the substance is absoonded in them and so are really all substances hidden from our corporal eyes for we never see the substance of any body but only its outermost superfice But in true Philosophy substances separated from their accidents have no over nor under and consequently possess no place but by reason of their accidents or quantity So that according to all good Philosophers Mr. de Rodon only excepted a thousand substances may be together in one point from whence followeth that the Mounsieur is either the only Philosopher himself or else that this reply is meerly nonsensical he speaking contrary to the usage of all Philosophers Neither is his second reply more pertinent then the former was though more ridiculous for he plays the fool with Philosophy in it These be his words Rodon 10. And seeing as our adversaries say Christs body is in every part and point of the host it must needs be in the supersice and consequently cannot be hid or covered by the accidents of the bread then he helps us out again here again it may be said that Christs body is glorious luminous and visible of it self but God hinders us from seeing it To this I answer that if God hinders it it is only because he is pleased so to do and consequently if he were pleased not to hinder he would not do it but would permit it to be seen in the same posture as it is in the host then he comes up with more of his witty merry interrogations again viz. in what posture it would be seen there whether sitting standing lying or in any other posture or whether it would be in any posture at all If it be in no posture it must be without any external form because posture or situation absolutely depends upon external form But how can a man be seen without an external form of a man and without being in any posture of a man and how can Christs body be without posture and without external form seeing as our adversaries say it is whole and entire in the whole host and occupies the whole space of a great host But if it be sitting or standing or in any other posture and with the external form of a man and if as they say it be whole and intire in a point of the host Then it will follow that a man may be seen sitting or standing in a point and seeing a man that is standing hath his head above and his feet below it will follow that Iesus Christ will be seen in a point of the host with his head above and his feet below
shew us any evident proof to the contrary but his own bare word which we do not at all value it clearly follows that these words This is my body must not be expounded of the Sacrament of his body only and because a Sacrament is not here only ment it followeth that although a Sacrament as the holy Council of Irent saith is a visible signe of an invisible grace that this proposition This is my body must not be expounded this is the Sacrament or this is the signe only of my body although I confess that by vertue of the said words the Sacrament is also consignified with his real presence in the consecrated Host. The Mounsieur confirmes his precedent Argument thus Rod. 4. In these two propositions This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my bloud the word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alike having been pronounced upon the same matter viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament and the other upon the other part of it and because of like things we must give alike Iudgment But in this proposition This cup is the new Testament the word iâ—… is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which iâ—… in the cup is changed into a Testament neither is it really and properly a Testament but the Sacrament of the New Testament Therefore in this proposition likewise This is my body the word is is not taken for a real and Transubstantiated being but for a Sacramental and significative being and consequently as this proposition This cup is the new Testament must be expounded thus the wine that is in the cup is the signe and Sacrament of the New Testament so this proposition This is my body must be expounded thus this bread is the signe and Sacrament of my body Whence it follows that in one single proposition of Iesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist viz. This cup is the New Testament are two figures one in the word cup being taken for that which is in the cup this is a figure called a Metonimy whereby the thing containing is taken for the thing contained The other figure is that the cup is called the New Testament this is also a figure called a metonimy whereby the signe is called by the name of the thing signified And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that all that Iesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken litterally and without a figure But withall we must not imagine that Iesus Christ spake obscurely because he spake figuratively these figures and manners of speech being commonly and familiarly used by all the world Answ. To this Argument I answer granting the major and denying the minor and to its probation I confess that the bare cup is neither a proper testament or transubstantiated But that the consecrated wine in the cup is not the new Testament transubstantiated into Christs bloud I flatly deny because Christ himself in express words said hoc est novum Testamentum in meo sanguine This is the new Testament in my bloud he said not it was the signe or Testament of his bloud but in his bloud that is to say that the Testament did consist in his bloud or which is the same thing that the new Testament is his bloud Thus all the holy Fathers and General Councils ever understood these words of Christ yet the Mounsieur without any farther proof but his own bare word saies that the wine in the cup after consecration is but a sign or Sacrament of the new Testament But of what weight his bare word ought to be against Christs clear expression and the common explication of the whole Church I leave the reader to consider Therefore the Mounsieur muâ—…t give me leave to conclude thus contrary to what he holds and say that in this proposition This is my body the word is ought to be taken for a real and transubstantiated being and not for a Sacramental and significative being only And consequently that this proposition This cup is the new Testament must be expounded thus The consecrated wine that is in the cup is the real bloud of Christ and new Testament of his law And although we confess with Mr. de Rodon that in these words viz. this cup is the new Testament there are two figures or Metonimies to be taken one in the word cup and the other because the Sacramental species do signifie Christs bloody Passion yet we deny but that Transubstantiation is there chiefly by vertue of Christs effective word and the Sacrament consignified only because as I said before we hold the consecrated Host to be both Sacramentum rem 〈◊〉 the Sacrament and the thing it self together And therefore we deny that the Romish doctours are mistaken when they tell us tha what Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken litterally and not figuratively only neither have we any reason to imagine that he spake obscurly for his real Presence could not be with plainer words exprest but let us now hear the Mounsieur speak Rodon 5. But when we say that these words This is my body this is my blood must be expounded thus this bread is the sign and Sacrament of my body this wine is the sign and Sacrament of my bloud we do not mean that the bread and wine are barely and simply signes of Christs body and bloud but we believe that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are signes that do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to believers for when they do by the mouth of the body receive the bread and wine of â—…he Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by faith receive the body of Christ broken and his bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter Answ. I must confess if we hold to the common usage of words and to their proper signification according to the institution of all authors Mr. de Rodons exposition is unto me both very obscure and repugnant to the expression of all solid divines and Philosophers for first he saies that bread and wine in the Eucharist are not barely and simply signes of Christs body and bloud and he saies presently again that they are signes which do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to believers here me thinks the Mounsieur doth plainly contradict himself for either the bread and wine do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to the believeâ—… precisely and reduplicatively by reason of their signification or by reason of their natural entitie if by reason of their signification or as they are signes precisely what are they then else but bare and simple signes If by reason of their entity then according to Mr. de Rodons opinion Christs broken body and his spilt bloud are
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
he spok the words CHAP. II. Concerning the exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath everlasting life My flesh is meat indeed c. MOunsieur de Rodon did promise in his precedent Chapter to prove in this that Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by faith which he sayes is the mouth of the soul and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body his first argument is this Rodon 1. When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he oâ—…th and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by faith that is by beleiving in Iesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which Iohn he that cometh to me shall never hunger he that believes in me shal never thirst and he that beleveth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by faith or by beleving that we eat and drink Iesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his blood is spiritual and not corporal Answ. To this argument I answer granting the major and distinguishing the Minor thus but it is by faith as by a condition requisite that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ I confess but it is by faith as by the proper and formal cause of satisfying our hunger and quenching our thirst after him or as faith is the spiritual mouth of the soul to convey Christ into her I deny the minor and both the consequences following Therefore I say although not only faith but also hope and charity be requisite conditions wiihout which no body can have the spiritual refreshment this divine food gives unto the soul and which the soul so much hungers and thirsts after yet neither faith hope nor charity jointly or severally are the cheif cause of this refreshment and spiritual satisfaction but the real entity of Christs body which is in the consecrated host being received corporally by us while we are in the state of grace is that which chiefly and principally causeth this spiritual refreshment in us it is that glorified body that satisfies our spiritual hunger and quenches our spiritual thirst and faith is only one of the requisite conditions that Christs body should feed us spiritually just as the application of fire to wood is a condition requisite that fire should burn the wood but none can say that the application the condition requisite is that which burns the wood but the fire is the whole cause of burning Even so we say of Christs body in the Sacrament that it is the chief and whole cause of the spiritual refreshment of the soul and the thing which she chiefly hungers and thirsts after and faith is but a condition requisite when his body is taken corporally by us that it should refresh us spiritually To the passage he alledgeth out of S. Iohn I answer that his words must not be understood that he that cometh to me by faith alone shall never hunger and he that only beleiveth in me shall never thirst for many may believe in Christ and yet be actually in mortal sin and yet certain it is that mortal sin causeth a divorce betwixt Christ and the soul or dare Mr. de Rodon say that if he or any of his party should chance to be drunk to swear or to envy another man that by such an action he forfeiteth his belief if so then he presently becomes an heretick for heresy is nothing else but forfeiture of belief in a Christian. Therefore the said passage must be understood thus he that cometh to me by vertue of this or any other of my Sacraments or by true contrition and believeth in me taking faith as a condition requisite not as the cause of coming unto him such a soul if she leaves him not by falling into sin again through her own fault shall never hunger nor thirst spiritually but be for ever refresht by vertue of his body and bloud with increase of charity and all other vertues Neither is it to be doubted but Christs body when worthily received by the mouth of the body doth work spiritually upon the soul which I prove thus because where Christs glorified body is really present there is his divinity humanity and person also by concomitance and where his person is there the persons of the father and of the holy Ghost are by circumincession as Diviâ—…s â—…all it but where the divinity personally iâ—…abits it replenishes and satiats that soul and body with spiritual food and joy Therefore whosoever takes the body of Christ worthily and puts no obstacle to its spiritual operations he is satiated spiritually with the the same body by reason of the concomitance of the divinity and soul of Christ that alwayes accompany his glorified body as also by reason of the circumincession of all the three persons of the most blessed Trinity inhabiting the soul. But now let us come to his second argument which is this Rodon 2. Iesus Christ saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the son of man drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by faith that gives life everlasting and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body Because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life Answ. To this Argument I answer denying Mr. de Rodon's supposition viz. that the soul eateth spiritually by faith for faith being no mouth of the soul in any sense as I proved before and nothing being able to eat properly or improperly without a proper or improper mouth it follows that the soul cannot eat by the mouth of faith Besides the Angels do eat of this celestiall food not with the mouth of faith for there is no faith in heaven but a clear vision Therefore the thing that seeds the soul spiritually is the real substance of Christs body received by the corporal mouth of him that is in the state of Grace while he receives the Sacrament which real substance of Christs body works spiritually upon the soul by reason of the concomitance of Christs divinity and soul and of the circumincession of the other two divine persons with Christs person there really present with the substance of his body however I confess faith and the other Theological vertues are conditions requisite for one to be sed spiritually and I confess also that a reprobate can take the real body of Christ by his corporal mouth without any spiritual nourishment or satisfaction but the fault is in him not in the Sacrament which alwaies operateth spiritually in such souls as are well disposed by faith and the other Theological vertues to receive it
Therefore what the Mounsieur objects concerning eating Christs body corporally by reprobats is to no purpose for we confess that to eat him corporally only without faith and the rest of the Theological vertues brings rather eternal damnation then eternal life to the soul and yet we still deny that he is eaten spiritually by the mouth of faith alone or that there is any such thing as mouth of faith Rodon 3. His third argument he takes from S. Augustine and Cardinal Caietan who expound he saies the words of Iesus Christ as he doth S. Augustine in Book 3. of Christian doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Cardinal Caietan in his commentary on S. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you And having sufficiently proved this exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he faith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he faith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh whence it clearly appears that according to the letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Iesus Christ. Answ. This exposition of the holy Father we embrace for it makes nothing against us but rather for us for we say also that when we receive the substance of Christs body which is his flesh by our corporal mouth under the species of bread and wine we say we eat the Sacrament which is a figure or sign that makes us partake of Christs Passion and impriâ—…ts with delight and profit Christs Passion in our mindes for we hold with the great divine S. Thomas of Aquin that the figure or Sacrament which we eat is a signum rememorativum a rememorative sign of Christs death And our Saviour himself said when he instituted this Sacrament as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me which we understand thus as often as you eat this Sacrament which is an unbloudy sacrifice and a figure of my bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross remember my bitter Passion for by offering this unbloudy sacrifice unto my father he will be pleased with it and since your prayers fasting almesdeeds and all your other best works as they are precisely yours are not satisfactory to him for your offences against his divine Majesty and are not of themselves able to appease his just wrath against you according to the rigour of the attribute of his divine Justice which he cannot but uphold when he beholds this pure Sacrifice and sees that I am become your mediator and that it is offered him in remembrance of a rigorous satisfaction for your sins by my bloudy sacrificing my self unto him upon the altar of the cross it will incontinently pacify and reconcile him unto you it will encourage you and delight your souls for it will put you in hopes of your salvation whereof you would be otherwise for want of this inter-mediation in a deep dispaire This and many more vertues and graces doth this Sacrament operate in our souls unless we our selves by receiving and offering it in mortal sin do obstruct or hinder them which if we do the fault is ours not the Sacraments which retains alwaies this vertue in it self If any man can with reason and faith attribute such vertue to the bare entities of bread and wine I leave any prudent reader to judge As to the learned Cardinal however his exposition alledged against us upon S. Iohn 6. must be understood no body doubts but his opinion concerning the real presence was the same ours is and that he died in it therefore if he be of any authority with Mr. de Rodon he ought to understand him according to his meaning The words be these but if rightly understood and according to his meaning not at all against us To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you the accute Cardinals meaning was to expound the true meaning and sense of these words is saith in Christs death and also to instruct people how to receive this Sacrament with profit to their souls Therefore he sayes that the sense of those words is to use the death of the son of man as meat and drink if we intend to receive profitably and what else is it to use the death of the son of man as meat and drink but to ruminate and meditate upon his death so that the Cardinals meaning was that to receive the Sacrament profitably when we eat and drink the body and bloud of Christ we must do it in remembrance of his Passion which is the self same thing Christ commands us to do and which Catholicks practise dayly And his additionate words viz. to eat and drink the Sacrament is commonly as well c. do clear his meaning for he knowing that to eat Christs body corporally is a thing common as well to the reprobate as to the elect he tells us that to eat it profitably we must beleive it to be a rememorative of Christs death and that by so eating it we eat and ruminate upon his death Therefore although we confess that faith is necessary in him that receives the Sacrament to take it worthily and profitably yet we deny that faith is the mouth wherewith we eat it or that by faith alone we eat the death of Christ for we deny that faith is the mouth of mans soul or body and without a mouth there can be no eating As to the Cardinals last words viz. he saith not he that eateth worthily or drinketh worthily but he that eateth or drinketh I am sure he meant by eating and drinking to eat and drink it worthily for he could not mean to eat and drink it unworthily and betwixt eating and drinking worthily and unworthily there is no medium so that of necessity when he speaks of eating and drinking it spiritually or with profit as he meant here he must be understood by eating and drinking eating and drinking worthily from whence it doth not clearly appear that according to the letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Jesus Christ for these words eating and drinking may better in a litteral sense be alluded to the Sacrament
the mouth is that action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification that I deny as also the supposition viz. that the soul can eat by faith as by her mouth faith beiâ—…g no mouth of the soul whether a mouth be taken litterally or figuratively which Mr. de Rodon never proved or will be able to prove in sound Philosophy Therefore his conclusion is blown and vanished like smoke and consequently seeing in S. Iohn 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is certain and evident that a corporal eating and drinking which hath a spiritual operation upon the soul when we receive the Sacrament being in the state of Grace and we believe it is a rememorative of Christs death is there spoken of and not an imaginary spiritual noteating by the notmouth of faith Rodon 5. From what hath been said it appears that when Iesus Christ saith My flesh is meat indeed c. the figure falls upon the word Meat which is taken not for corporal but spiritual meat The reason whereof is that corporall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the body as spirituall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the soul so that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make â—…t to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body otherwise poison medicine a bullet c. which a man swallows would be corporal food which is absurd to affirm But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because that food which is appointed for the nourishment of the body is changed into the substance of our bodies therefore the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food but his flesh broken and his bloud shed on the Cross is a spiritual food which nourisheth the souls of those who by a true and lively faith do embrace this flesh broken and this bloud shed that is who do wholly rest amd rely on the merits of his death and Passion for obtaining mercy from God And certainly seeing that the life which Iesus Christ gives us by his death is spiritual that the nourishment is spiritual that the eating his body and drinking his bloud is spiritual as hath been proved it follows that his flesh must be spiritual meat and his bloud spiritual drink And this flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truely meat indeed in regard of its effects then corporall food can be because it doth better and more perfectly nourish the souls of the believers then corporal food doth their bodies this being corruptible food which gives temporal life only but that spiritual and incorruptible food which gives life everlasting Answ. From what Mr. de Rodon hath been hitherto answered it appears that when Jesus Christ saith My flesh is meat indeed no figure falls upon the word meat but that it must be taken litterally for that flesh is meat indeed according to the common usage of speaking is understood more properly in a litteral then in a figurative sense as are also all other things which are said to be such things indeed And yet this corporal flesh of Christ being taken by the mouth of the body is ordained to feed and nourish the soul and not the body because it hath a supernatural operation by reason of its personal union with Christs divinity and most blessed soul which supernatural and spiritual operation the bare entities of bread and wine have not as also no other corporal food hath but is only appointed for the nourishment of the body by which dispurity between the operation of Christs flesh and the operation of all other corporal â—…oods the silly reason of the Mounsieurs argument is both enervated and precluded and all the consequences he draws from it are of no force or truth I say his reason is but silly because he says that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body for otherwise Poison medicine and a bullet taken in would be corporal food which to say is absurd Tell me I pray Mr. de Rodon where did you ever see or hear that poison phisick or a bullet were taken for corporal food by any man unless he were of less reason then your self or tell me if you eat bread though not with an intention to nourish you whether it will not nourish you or if you should chance to swallow down a bullet or chaw it if your teeth be so good with an intention it should nourish you would it nourish you because you took it for your nourishment This any body may see is but very silly stuff whence you in ferr But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because the body of Christ is not changed into the substance of our bodyes I confess it But what then Therefore you say the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food his flesh is not a corporal food that nourishes corporally I confess a corporal food that nourishes spiritually I deny and the rest of your consequences also inasmuch as they militate against eating the corporal real body of Christ though its operation we confess is but spiritual however we agree with you in this that the flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truly meat indeed in regard of its effects then any other corporal food can be for the reasons you alledge But yet we say that it is sufficient to take his flesh with the mouth of our body being in the state of Grace and believing the Sacrament to be a rememorative of his death to have it work its spiritual effects in our souls Rodon 6. I conclude this Chapter with this consideration when a doctrine is proposed which is pretended to be divine and that passages of holy Scripture are alledged for the proof of it if it opposeth or seems to oppose sense and reason and to include contradictions and that a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages so that all those inconveniencies and contradictions may be avoided there is nothing more just then that we should embrace that probable and rational sense and reject that doctrine which opposeth sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions But the doctrine of the real presence of the manbood of Christ in the host and the Transubstantiation of the bread into his body is repugnant to sense and reason and seems to include divers contradictions viz. that a human body is in a point without any local extension that a body may be in divers places at one and the
same time that the bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ which were before that accidents may be without a subject c. And the passages that are impertinently alledged to prove such a presence and such a change have a sense very commodious and very rational for the avoiding all these contradictions as appears in this and in the former chapter where I have rationally expounded those two passages which the Romish doctors impertinently make use of for this subject Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational sense which we have given them and to reject the doctrine of the real Presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the Host and the doctrine of Transubstantiation Answ. How much this grave consideration of the Mounsieur can work upon ignorant illiterate people upon heathens Jews or Turks or upon brute beasts of best sensation if they had intellectual or cogitative faculties agreeing with their sensation I know not But sure I am that no good Christian or man of learning or knowledg ought to regard or value it for all Christians and all rational and learned men do know that objects of divine faith such as this is ought not to be levelled or measured by our reason and senses for otherwise some beasts and birds whose sensitive faculties surpass mans must also surpass him in faith And if the best reason should carry away the cause then the best Philosophers would be the best believers and so Plato and Aristotle who were far more Eagle-sighted concerning objects of natural reason then many millions of poor Christians are would surpass all these Christians in divine faith a thing both impious and ridiculous to assert amongst Christians neither do seeming contradictions unless they be real ones validate or strengthen this his profound consideration for many things may seem impossible to us which are not so really to God This the Mounsieur I am sure must grant unless he maintains that man can comprehend Gods omnipotency which to say is open Blasphemy However for disputation sake we let pass the major but we deny the minor as to all its parts first we deny that the real Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is repugnant to reason and sense though it be above them so we say that the raising of a dead man to life and all miracles are only above reason and sense but not repugnant or against them for what is repugnant or contrary to reason and sense quite destroyes them as to be and not to be at the same time and after the same manner is impossible and destroyes reason and sense but we deny Transubstantiation to be of that kind Secondly we deny that it implyes or seems to imply a contradiction that a human body should be Sacramentally in a point without any local extension though we grant it cannot be circumscriptively in a point Thirdly we deny that Christ to be in his human shape in heaven and to be at the same time sacramentally upon earth or for him to be sacramentally in ten thousand places together upon earth is at all any contradiction because to be sacramentally in a place or places requires no local extension for as in true Divinity if Christ should assume and suppositate hypostatically three several humane natures altogether to his Divinity they would all in that case have but one person without any implicancy or contradiction so Christ may also without any contradiction be at once sacramentally in several places who is then able to penetrate and dive into the infinite power of God finally we grant that accidents cannot be naturally without their connaturall subjects but supernaturally they can as Christs humane nature is now without any other but the divine personality of Christ and yet naturally it should have a humane person which no body can say it hath without being an heretick for otherwise he must own that there are two persons in Christ a divine and a humane one and consequently say there is a quadrinity in the mystery of the blessed Trinity Even so I say that as Christ without contradiction supplyeth the human personality with his divine so can he also without contradiction supply the connatural subjects of bread and wine with his infinite power Therefore since this answer is well grounded in true divinity and Phylosophy and that all the holy fathers and General Councils that ever have been in Christs Church and treated of this matter were of the same belief concerning the real presence as we are of and since it is more consonant both to reason and faith that the substance of Christs body is more nourishing to the soul then the bare entities of bread and wine are Farthermore since the question here in agitation is above though not repugnant to reason and sense it being an object of divine faith which Christ revealed unto his Church and she ever practised from the Apostles time as all Ecclesiastical histories do testify Neither could our adversaries ever shew what year or in what place or country the Mass crept first into the Church nor who were the orthodox fathers or general Councils that ever opposed it untill many hundred years after it was in practise throughout the Christian world and finally since the first oppo ser of it was presently cried down by all the orthodox for a publick heretick For these and sundry other such reasons I say no rational or learned man ought to value the groundless and weak consideration of Mr. de Rodan which hath no other prop to uphold it but frail human reason wherewith he intends to inveagle and deceive the poor ignorant illiterate sort of people who ought rather submit their judgements and understanding humbly to the common belief of the Universal Church concerning matters of faith then rely upon either their own or the grave Mounsieurs deep reason and wit This ancient and universal doctrine of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist do the Romish Doctors must solidly and pertinently maintain and desend against all the enimies of Christs Church against Luther Calvin Rodon and all his impertinent sophisms nay and against all the devils of hell if they should come to assist him and furnish him with their arguments Neither hath he hitherto in this nor in his former chapter said any thing against it which I have not fully and sufficiently answered as I leave any indifferent impartiall Reader to judge CHAP. III. Against Transubstantiation BY destroying Trasubstantiation which is the life of the Mass the Mass must perish also Mr de Rodon considering this picks out of the storehouse of his Philosophy his keenest arrows wherewith having as he questions not in this Chapter hit the the mark home although he conceits he is the killer himself yet he is pleased to bestow the funeral exequyes as the Title of his book shews To bury the dead I confess is with us one of the seven works of corporal mercy but to bury one
alive we count to be an inhuman tyranny and most horrid and execrable act We then believing our Mass is alive and will be untill the worlds end cannot but censure and accuse Mounsieur de Rodon of inhuman tiranny unless he demonstrats that he killed the Mass before he made the funeral that he is sure to do by destroying Transubstantiation and therefore ayms at it with his first arrow thus Rodon 1. In every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwaies newly produced for example when seed is converted into an animal that animal is newly produced when Iesus Christ turned the water into wine the wine was newly produced c. But the body and bloud of Iesus Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The second proposition viz. that the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced I prove thus that which is newly produced receives a new being because to produce a thing and give it a being is the same thing but the body and bloud of Christ cannot receive a new being which I prove thus A man cannot receive that which he hath while he hath it and therefore cannot receive a being while he hath a being for as it is imposible to take away a being from that which hath no being so is it imposible to give a being to that which hath a being already and as you cannot kill a dead man so you cannot give life to one that is living But the body and bloud of Christ have and will allwaies have a being therefore they cannot receive one and consequently cannot be reproduced in the Eucharist Answ. To this argument I first answer that in every substantial conversion there must be some thing newly produced or adduced and so we say bread and wine are converted substantially into Christs body and bloud by an adductive action because by vertue of the words of consecration Christs body which is in its humane shape in heaven is brought into the Sacramental Species and remains in them in a Sacramental manner without any new production of his body which was produced already Secondly I answer to the said major thus In every substantial conversion that thing c. is alwaies newly produced entitatively or modally I confess entitatively only I deny And to his minor thus but the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist entitatively and in his humane shape I confess modally or Sacramentally I deny the minor and the consequence also and all Mr. de Rodon's ensuing proofs militate against an entitative production only which we grant him but not at all against a modal or Sacramental production Therefore we say that Christs body being already produced as to its entity and natural being the same entity is not newly reproduced in the Sacrament in order as to give his body a new essential being because he hath that already in heaven But we say that the entity of his body is newly produced or rather adduced into the Sacrament in order to a sacramental or modal being against which modal being Mr. de Rodon's proofs are of no value or force and so his first arrow has miss't the mark Rodon 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed for example when the water was turned into wine the wine was destroyed But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine are not destroyed by the consecration which I prove thus In the celebration of the Eucharist there is breaking giving eating drinking after the consecration as appears by the very practise of our adversaries who after consecration break the Host and divide it into three parts give nothing to the communicants but consecrated Hosts and eat and drink nothing but what was consecrated But the Scripture saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist bread is broken and bread and wine are given and that bread is eaten and wine drunk as appears by these following passages S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. saith the bread which we break is it not the communion of Christs body and 1. Cor. 11. S. Math. 26. S. Mark 14. and S. Luke 22. it is said that Jesus Christ took bread brake it and gave it and S. Mark 14. and S. Math. 26. Iesus Christ after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine and 1. Cor. 11. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. Answ. To this argument I answer granting the major and distinguishing the minor thus But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the accidents of the bread and wine are not destroyed I confess the substance of the bread and wine are not destroyed I deny To what he farther urgeth viz. that there is breaking giving eating and drinking after the consecration as concerning their accidents I grant as concerning their substances I deny for their substances are converted into Christs real body and bloud by vertue of the words of consecration though their accidents remain un destroyed and are sustentated supernaturally by the power of God for we hold of no transaccidentation in the Sacrament but only of Transubstantiation As concerning the passages by him alledged out of Scripture to prove that â—…t is bread that 's broken that it is bread and wine that are given I answer that in every of these passages the words bread and wine must be taken Analogically not litterally because Christ in other places calls them expresly his flesh his bloud and his body and all orthodox Christians from the first institution of this Sacrament for many ages did without controulment hold as we do that after the words of consecration the bread and wine are converted into the real body and bloud of Christ. Therefore although because of the symbolls or accidents of bread and wine which still remain in the Host after consecration they retain the denomination of bread wine yet they are not really but Analogically only bread and wine and really the true body and bloud of Christ and they are analogically called bread and wine because of the Analogy or likeness real bread and wine have with this Sacrament the one nourishing the body the other the soul but now to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 3. When Iesus Christ said to his disciples drink ye all of this Math. 26. that is drink ye all of this cup either he commanded to drink of a cup of wine or of a cup of bloud if he commanded them to drink of a cup of wine then it follows that they drank nothing but wine because it is certain that they obeyed Iesus Christ for it is said Mark 14. that they all drank it or if he commanded them to drink a cup of bloud then it follows that the wine was already changed into his bloud because it
and because the existence of the sacramental species retains its inclination to its proper subjects and has anaptitudinal inherence in it it follows evidently that Transubstantiation which is the causer of all this neither destroys the nature of Accidents nor of Sacraments neither Let this then suffice for his sixth arrow and its first reply Now to his second reply Rodon 8. Secondly the Council of Trent in sess 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latria which according to our adversaries is the sovereigne worship due to God only but the Accidents of the bread and wine ought not to be adored because they are creatures and that God alone must be adored Therefore the accidents of bread and wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Answ. To this second reply we answer and obey the holy Councils commands and we adore the most blessed Sacrament with the adoration of Latria which is the highest soveraigne worship due to God only And to what he inferrs viz. that the accidents of bread and wine because they are creatures ought not to be adored so I answer and distinguish that proposition thus with an absolute Adoration I confess with a relative adoration I deny for we give a relative adoration of Latria not only unto the Sacramental species but unto the holy cross also and yet we deny it to be Idolatry because the Adoration redounds wholy upon God but if we should give unto the Cross or any other creature an absolute adoration of Latria that is if we should adore them absolutely as they are in themselves without any relation or reference unto God then indeed I confess it would be Idolatry But far is that from our intention when we adore them or any other pictures or Reliques however our adversaries are pleased to interpret and force our intentions Nay more then that we give but a relative Adoration of Latria even unto the body bloud and soul of Christ inasmuch as they are but creatures and yet we hold them to be more and better then the accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament nevertheless we afford both them and the Sacramental species too an absolute Adoration of Latria inasmuch as they are united hypostatically to the Divinity and yet deny it is Idolatry to do it But since the Mounsieur and his Translator do impeach us with Idolatry concerning the Adoration of Latria we give to our Sacrament as also concerning our worshiping of Images wherefore may we not also pose them and those of their party concerning their communion bread and wine wherefore I say may not we ask them whether they afford any spiritual worship adoration or reverence to their communion bread and wine after they are consecrated by them or no If they answer no then what respect have they for their Sacrament or communion more then they have for the other ordinary bread and wine which they dayly eat and drink aud why may not they carouse with their communion wine and drink to one another with it as they do ordinarily with the other wine when they drink together in a Tavern or why may not they throw a bit of their communion bread to a dog as they use to do when they are at their common meales for if they have no more spiritual reverence or worship for the one more then they have for the other there is no reason why they may not use them both alike If this be their principle and tenet concerning their Sacrament or communion and if they have no more adoration or worship for it then they have for their other ordinary bread which they often throw to dogs I would have them consider to what a pass they have brought one of the two Sacraments they only own of the seven which the Church doth hold Christ himself did institute and which he called that of his last supper among other of his divine words he said Nolite sanctum dare canibus give not that which is holy to the dogs But if they have no more worship or respect for their communion bread then they have for their ordinary other bread whereof they give some to their dogs I know not what their consecration signifies if it hallows the bread then the bread must be holy and to any holy thing a reverence veneration or worship is due if it doth not hallow the bread then the bread is as it was before and consequently it may be given to dogs as other bread is often thrown to them and what would else forsooth follow from this doctrine but that their communion-bread may lawfully be given to dogs it follows also that if bread can be consecrated and hallowed that water may be consecrated also and then they will be forced to acknowledg some vertue or force in our holy water But if their answer be affirmative and they give a spiritual worship and adoration to their Sacrament or communion this adoration or worship can be no less then a Relative Latria for they worship their communion-bread because it is a sign or Sacrament of Christs broken body and spilt bloud upon the Cross and consequently they adore it in relation to Christ or if they adore and worship it not in order to Christ but as it is in it self then they give it an absolute worship which is a far grosser kind of Idolatry then that they attach us with for they believe their Sacrament to be nothing else but bare bread and wine and consequently nothing else but meer creatures but we believe our Sacrament to be the real body and bloud of Christ with his divinity and therefore we adore our Sacrament upon far better grounds then they do theirs Moreover if they give a Relative adoration of Latria to their Sacrament and may lawfully do it because it is a sign or it signifies Christ why may not we also give a relative adoration to our crucifixes and Images because they are signes of Christ and of his Saints whom they represent or if they call us Idolaters for for doing this why may not we call them Idolaters for adoring their communion-bread In a word they must either give it no adoration worship or reverence at all no more then they give to their unconsecrated bread and consequently they may as well give it to their dogs as they do their other bread or if they give it any adoration worship or Reverence it must be some kinde of a Latriacal adoration either Relative or absolute for they must adore it because it signifies Christs passion or they must adore it as it is in it self without any Relation to Christ which if they do they fall into a grosser Idolatry then we do Rodon 9. Thirdly a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in sess 6. and 13. But in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not visible therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not
at the same time iâ—… sundry Sacramental places yet Christs body in the Sacrament and mans soul in his body agree as to this viz. that neither of them is in a proper and univocal place but only in an equivocal one which in rigour is no place at all but if this Philosopher forgets not himself he confesses that although the body and soul of a man are different yet they are not distant from one another and 't is true because the soul is in her body only definitively that 's to say in her equivocal or improper place Therefore also I say because Christs body is in the host but Sacramentally which is but its equivocal place it is not distant from it self in heaven in its natural place although its manner as it is in heaven and as it is in the Sacrament be different If the Mounsieur be a Christian Philosopher he must confess that Jesus Christ when he was incarnate and descended from heaven into the Virgin Mary's sacred womb and that his divine person was then different from the persons of God the father and God the holy Ghost but dare he say that their persons were then also distant from one another Christ was then here upon earth 33. years in his circumscriptive place and yet was not distant from the other two persons who remained in heaven because the other two persons are pure spirits and have no circumscriptive place wherefore then may not Christs glorified body remain in its humane shape in heaven and yet be Sacramentally or after a spiritual manner in the host without being distant from it self verily no other but a dropsical brain would ever contradict this most true doctrine Therefore in answer to his impertinent and ridiculous replies and dropsical sequels I grant and say with him that a plurality of things really different is no true and real division and consequently that there is no such thing as an entitative division without a respect or relation to an univocal place But that which I flatly deny is that a body can be divided or separated either from it self or from any other body or that it can touch it self or any other body or be near to it self or any other body or lastly that it can be distant from it self or from any other body but while it is in its univocal place and the other bodies in their univocal places also And therefore since Christs body in the host is not in its univocal place it is neither divided near to nor distant from his body in heaven I confesse also that things which are divided locally if they be divided by a proper or univocal local division such things are divided entitatively also but I deny that things for being in their improper or equivocal places as Christs body in the Sacrament is but in its equivocal place are at all distant from themselves or from any thing else I grant also that if a body be divided or separated from bodies which it toucheth it is also divided from bodies which it doth not touch but I deny that a body in its improper or equivocal place can touch or be touched by any other body whether these bodies be separated or not separated from one another Lastly I acknowledge that local division causeth entitative division but I deny that there is any proper local division between Christs body as it is in heaven and as it is in the host because he is not in the host as in his proper place and though I grant Christ can put the whole Ocean into one drop for it implys no contradiction in it self nor imperfection in God so to do as he can make a camel passe through the eye of a needle and put life into the least grain of dust or sand yet I deny that reason obligeth us to believe he did really so or that God and nature by doing otherwise should work in vain because God and nature are not obliged to do all that they can do God can create another world and yet he is not obliged to do it and never will create another and since he created the ocean and ordained it should be in its proper and univocal plaee it follows not that all sea-battels were fought in one drop of water nor so many thousands of men were drowned in one drop of water nor that all the people from Adams time drank but of one drop of water all which sequels of the Mounsieur are but dropsical nonsensical and ridiculous and yet it follows that because Christ did put his body in the host sacramentally only it is there as our souls are in our bodies all in the whole host and all in every point of it without being near distant or divided from his body as it is naturally in heaven but one and the same and consequently as the Mounsieurs proofs are nonsensical and ridiculous sâ—… this arrow of his iâ—… forever lost Now then to his sixth Rodon 7. Iesus Christ cannot be in divers places at once as he is man if another man cannot be so too because Iesus Christ as he is a man Was made like unto us in all things sin only excepted as the Apostle to the Hebrews observes But another man cannot be in divers places at once for example Peter cannot be at the same time at Paris and at Rome which I prove thus It is impossible that Peter should be a man and no man at the same time But if Peter could at the same time be at Paris and at Rome he might at the same time be a man and no man which I prove thus He that may be at the same time dead and alive may at the same time be a man and no man because he that is alive is a real man and he that is dead is no real man but a carcass but if Peter could at the same time be at Paris and at Rome he might be both alive and dead at the same time for he might be mortally wounded at Paris and die there and at the same time not hurt at Rome but alive and making merry there Besides Peter may be divisibly at Paris and indivisibly at Rome as Christs body according to our adversaries is divisibly in heaven and indivisibly in the host but if in Paris where he should be divisibly his head should be cut off and so he should remain at the same time a living and real man which is á contradiction In a word Peter might be at Paris in the midst of flames and be burnt reduced to ashes consequently should die be no man whereas at the same time he might be at Rome in the river Tiber sound and brisk and consequently be a true and living man Whence it follows that he might be a man and no man which is a contradiction To this may be added other absurdities that would follow from this position that one body may be in divers places at once viz. that one candle lighted might give
though in a point there be nothing above or below To this I add quoth he that if it could be seen in the host it would appear as big as the host because it would occupy the whole space of the host and it would appear round because it would be bounded by the space that the host occupies which is round Besides if the host should be divided into two equal parts it would appear less by one half and in the form of a half circle because it would be whole and intire in the half of the host and occupy the space of it It would also appear a hundred thousand times lesse and in a hundered thousand several forms for as they say it is whâ—…le and entire in a hundred thousand parts of the host and occupies the spaces of them In a word there was never such a monstrous thing seen in the world as Christs body would be if it were really in the host in such a manner as our Adversaries affirm it to be Answ. To these impertinencies I answer that according to all Philosophers a body may be taken two manner of ways viz. either substantially as it belongs only to the Predicament of substance and is placed directly in that line or series or Quantitatively as it belongs to the Predicament of Quantity a body in the first acception has no extension at all and is not properly in a superfice or any other part of its accidents as in an univocal place but it only sustentates both the superfice and all the other parts of its accidents for no accident can be naturally without its proper subject and therefore Philosophers commonly say that substances are under their accidents and yet they say not as the Mounsieur doth that their accidents are above them nor that they and their subjects are in different places the accidents above and the substance under because they know substances has no proper places But if they express themselves not sufficiently I give our Mounsieur leave to correct them however I had rather follow their common way of expression then his If a body be taken in the second acception then I say Christs body in the host is in every part of it and in its superfice also with its quantitative extension in order to his parts as they are in themselves which kinde of extension is essential to all quantitative bodies but I deny that Christs body is in the host with its local extension for a local extension or extension of the parts of a quantitative body in order to a place is only a property that flows from the former essential extension this common and solid Philosophical foundation being laid I answer all his impertinencies in these few words that Christs substantial and quantitative body is in the host really without any situation or posture because situation and posture do depend of extension in order to a place not of the essential extension in order to the parts of a quantitative body as they are in themselves Therefore if he asks us in what posture or situation Christs body is in the Sacrament we will ask him where was the heat of the fire that was set under the furnace to destroy Sydrach Misach and Abdenego if he answers as he should do that God hindred and suspended its operation because heat is only a property of fire and God can hinder the effects of Properties although the essences from whence they flow remain undestroyed so we can answer him that God can hinder local extension which is but a property of quantitative essential extension in order to the parts of a quantitative body as they are in themselves without destroying the quantitative body and consequently we can say that Christs body is in all parts of the hoâ—…t and in its superfice extent in its parts as they are in order to themselves though not as they are in order to their local extension and being situation and posture depends only upon local extension because Christ is not in the Sacrament with his local extension it followeth evidently that he is not by situation or poâ—…ture although his quantitative body be really in it with its parts as they are extent in themselves from whence also followeth that all the rest of the Mounsieurs pretty and witty questions about great host little host half host round host c. are but meer childish and foolish quibbles Lastly it followeth that Christs body appears not more or less for dividing and subdividing and hundreddividing the host because division depends upon a local extension that is to say if a body be in a place extended oâ—… strecht out then if you divide it it will appear less but if a body be not at all extended in a place as we say Christs body is not extended in the Sacrament then break the host into never so many pieces Christs body will be intirely in all of them and yet will not appear in them more or less In a word Mr. de Rodon tells a monstrous lie in saying that there was never such a monstrous thing seen in the world as Christs body would be if it were really in the host in such manner as we â—…ffirm it to be for we say only that he is there in his Essence and quantitie though not after a quantitative but spiritual manner that is to say not with its local extension but as the soul is in the body because the Apostle saies speaking of a glorified body seminatum est corpus animale surget corpus spiritale 't is sown a natural body it will rise a spiritual body 1. Cor. 15. that is to say with spiritual qualities as I shall hereafter prove and so this arrow is also set by Rodon 11. Either the manhood of Iesus Christ which is pretended to be in the host can act there or it cannot if it cannot â—…hen it follows that it cannot see hear know or love or exercise any other function of the sensitive or rational soul. But if the manhood of Christ in the host knows nothing nor loves nothing then it followeth that it will not be happy because happiness chiefly consists in the knowledg and love of God Also the manhood of Christ in the host will be different from his manhood in heaven for it will know in heaven and at the same time know nothing in the host it will love in heaven and love nothing in the host it will see in heaven and see nothing in the host But if Christs manhood can act in the host as it doth in heaven then it will follow that it will open its eyes and move its feet in a point because according to our adversaries it is whole and entire in every point of the host and being as they tell us God can easily put the whole world into a point as he doth the whole manhood of Christ into a point of the host it will follow that all the parts of the world existing in a point may do in it
host but every man knows by experience that the hosts are eaten and consumed and that Christs body cannot be there after the consumpsion of the accidents of the bread Therefore it never was in the host Answ. To this argument I answer thus that as a body is produced or brought into a place so it can leave or cease to be in that place Therefore since as I said in answer to Mr de Rodons first argument of his third Chapter Christs body is not newly produced in the Sacrament in order to its entitative being which was produced already but only produced or rather adduced in order to a Sacramental modal being which is as much as to say that the self same eutity of Christs body which is already produced and now in heaven in its natural shape by vertue of the words of consecration hath a sacramental existence and equivocal place in the host since also there is no proper coming going or bringing of a body but to or from a proper and univocal place And lastly since a thing cannot perish unless its entitie be destroyed although it may cease from being in a place or leave its place after the same manner as it came into it without going away after another manner Therefore I say Christ not coming into the Sacrament as into his univocal place by way of a proper local going and being not reproduded in it in order to a new entity or essence having his entity in heaven before but only in order to a new sacramental existence and for that he is uncapable of perishing because his body is now glorious It follows that as he came into the Sacramental species without any proper or local motion or reproduction that he can also leave or cease to be in them after the consumption of the accidents without any local recession or perishing either whence it follows also that after the species are taken and consumed Christs body remains there no more and finally it follows that although as experience shews the host be consumable nevertheless the Mounsieur concludes falsly by inferring inconsequently that Christs body was never there whereas for my reasons to the contrary no such lawful consequence can follow and so his ninth arrow is also blown have at us now with his tenth but before he lets it fly he wisely layes this platform of doctrine that he may shoot with the better aym Rodon 13. The properties of a species are incommunicable to every other species For example the Properties of a man are incommunicable te a beast for seeing the properties flow from the essence or are the very essence it self it is evident that if the essence of a species be incommunicable to another species then the properties of a species are also incommunicable to another But the body and the spirit are the two species of substance therefore the properties of the spirit cannot be communicated to the body as the properties of the body cannot be communicated to the spirit But there are two principal properties which distinguish bodies from spirits The first is that spirits are substances that are penetrable amongst themselves that is may be together in one and the same place but bodies are impenetrable substances amongst themselves that is they cannot be together in one and the same place The second is that bodies are in a place circumscriptively that is all the body is in all the place but all the body is not in every part of the place but the parts of the body are in the parts of the place But spirits are in a place definitively that is all the spirit is in all thâ—… place and all the spirit is in every part of the place because a spirit having no parts must necessarily be all wheresoever it is whence I form my argument thus That doctrine which gives to a body the properties of a spirit changes the body into a spirit and consequently destroys the nature of a body seeing properties cannot be communicated without the essence but the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host gives to a body the properties of a spirit because it affirms that the quantitie of Christs body penetrats the quantity of the bread and is in the same place with it that all the parts of Christs body are penetrated amongst themselves and are all in one and the same place and that Christs body is all in all the host and all in every part of the host Therefore the doctrine of the Romish Church touching the pretended presence of Christs body in the host destroys the nature of Christs body Answ. Mr. de Rodon endeavouring to save Christs body harmless hits his Apostle directly with this arrow and gives him the lie in his teeth for the Apostle in his 1. Cor. 15. hath these express words It is sown a natural body it will rise a spiritual body Now I ask the Mounsieur whether according to the Apostles words the body shall rise a spirit or a body spiritualized if he says it will rise a spirit then it will not rise a real body for he himself here in his platform doctrine doth confess that a body and a spirit are two different species of substance If he says it will rise spiritualized that is with the properties and qualities of a spirit that is the contradictory of his own argument for he says that the properties of a spirit are incommunicable to a body and the properties of a body are likewise incommunicable to a spirit But to save Christs body our Diana and the Apostle harmless from this keen arrow I answer that as it is the property of a natural or patible body to be corruptible lumpish and obscure to be impenetrable with another body to be circumscribed and commensurated by another body and to have all its parts corresponding with the parts of its proper place so it is the property of a glorified body to be subtil impassible quick and luminous or clear for as the state of the soul is â—…ltered though not her essence so will the state of her body be altered its essence remaining the same The Mounsieur himself says that the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light like to that which it had upon Mount Thabor which is nothing else but the dowry or gift of clarity and yet it is certain that charity or brightness is not the property of a natural or patible body which is rather properly obscure and dark wherefore then may not penetrabilitie be communicable to a glorified body by reason of the dowry of subtillity as brightness is communicable to it by reason of the dowry of clarity from whence follows that the state of the soul being altered the properties of her body especially its secondary properties as are impenetrability and circumscription are altered also and so likewise this arrow follows the rest without hurting Christs body Diana or the Apostle His eleventh arrow
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
in the secret chambers I answer that the Mounsieur and his party ought to take good heed they are not these Prophets themselves for it is most certain and evident that these words cannot concern us because popery has its being from the very beginning of the Evangelical Law as all Ecclesiastical histories can testifie Therefore if popery and the Mass be convertible terms as our adversaries say they are the Mass must be as ancient as popery is for all convertible terms according to dialecticks are simultanean or together But certain it is that the Evangelist meant by the last days the last days of the Evangelical Law and not of any other Law therefore sinâ—…e it is well known to all the Christian world that Popery and consequently the Mass for they are convertible terms began not in the last days of the Evangelical law but had been standing ever since the beginning of the primative Church it follows I say evidently that these words of the Evangelist concern not at all either Popery or the Mass. Moreover although we hold that some eminent great saints of the Popish Religion had the gift of Prophecy bestowed on them yet all Priests and Papists profess not themselves Prophets neither do they hold their Religion upon any other prophecies but such as are authentical by the old and new Testaments we ground our Religion next under the holy writ upon the antiquity of our Church because Christ himself said that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church and we endeavour to maintain prove out of Church-Annals and by the Testimonies of holy fathers that ours is the only Church or congregation of Christian believers that were seen and known through all ages since Christ spoke these words We ground our Religion also upon the uâ—…iversality of our Church that is that amongst all congregations of people who own Christ to be the son of God there is not one congregation so numerous and ample that has so spread and enlarged it self and Christs Gospel through all Natioâ—…s and Countries from all ages as ours hath from whence followeth that ours is the Catholick Church for Catholick and 〈◊〉 are synonims or the same thinâ—… whâ—…e note that S. Athanasius Creed whiâ—…h Protestants also hold warneth us that above all things it is necessary we hold the Catholick or universal faith the which faith the saâ—…e saint says in the last sentence of the said Creed unless every one doth faithfully and firmly believe questionless he must everlastingly perish But it is impossible there should be two universal or Catholick Churches at once for there is but one faith as the Apostle tells us and when we â—…ay our creed we say not I believe in the Catholick Churches but in the Catholick Church Therefore Mr. de Rodon and his party must either snew that their Congregation is and hath been more numerous and universal then ours is which I am sure they will never be able to perform or else they will be forced to lay down the â—…udgells and flatly deny S. Athanasius his creed which to the world they nevertheless seem to profess Thirdly we ground our Religion upon unity or consent for knowing that there is buâ—… one faith and that without that one faith it is impossible to please God as the Apostle saith Therefore concerning all points of faith viz. concerning Transubstantiation praying to saints praying for the dead relative worshiping of Images Purgatory Indulgences Justification c. we all from the highest to the lowest from the doctor to the peasant agree as to the main point and object of our belief submitting our selves wholy to the definitions of our Church because Christ said that those that hear not the Church ought to be esteemed as heathens and Publicans Lastly we ground our Religion upon the sainctity of our Church which we believe is not only holy by reason of her doctrine laws and pious exercises but also for the seaven sources of grace I mean the seven Sacraments dipt in our Saviours bloud which continually run in her and refreshes spiritually all her children of what age or condition soever for by these Sacraments Christ left to his spouse the Church militant a medium or mean to provide for us all By Baptism both great and little are regenerated and from being conceived and born in sin made members of Christ By confirmation we are strengthened and confirmed in the â—…aith we professed in our Baptism when we are come to the use of understanding and by vertue of that holy unction we are made champions to fight Gods battle against our common enemies the devil the world and our own flesh and bloud as also to endure persecutions and bear crosses couragiously for the love of Christ. By the Sacrament of Pennancâ—… we are cured and absolved from our spiritual wounds Christ promising unto us that he would ratify in heaven what his ministers do upon earth if the penitent puts no obstacle to the ministers sentence By the Eucharist our souls are spiritually fed and nourished By holy orders some of us are empowred and sanctified to administer Sacraments to themselves and to the rest of thâ—… faithfull By Matrimony a provision is left in the Church for the lawful propagation of mankind that one woman having but one man at the same time care should be the better taken for the education of the issue that comes from them to have it brought up in the love and fear of God Lastly by extream unction new vigour and grace is given to the faithful combatant while his body is weak and feeble and his soul fulâ—… of anâ—… and care to fight couragiously against his enemies the devils who then sets upon him more eagerly then ever in hopes to bring him to despair for now the devil thinks or never is the time to conquer this soul and therefore sets upon her with all power and fury imaginable and to resist this fierce shock or brunt Christ left unto his Church this soveraignâ—…â—…emedy for these reasons and chiefly for her Sacraments we believe our Church oâ—… congregation of faithful to be more holy then Mr. de Rodons or any other Church and congregation whatsoever that pretends to believe in Christ is Therefore the Mounsieur fasly belyes us and himself also by impeaching us to be those false propheâ—…s the Evangelist mentioned in his 24. câ—…ap for we never did or do pretend to be Prophets although some great saints of our Church had the gift of Prophecy also given them which is more then ever we or they themselves read or heard that any of their Church had yet unless they count Iames Nailor or some such like mad braind fellow who sprouted out of their Church to be one Why we keep the Eucharist in our pixes and decent Church-Tabernacles I gave reason before But why Mr. Rodon and his party keeps the leavings of their Communion bread and wine in cupboards baskets â—…laggons botles or cellars and eat and
Christian or else what is it good for and all Christians I know not what Mr. de Rodon believes holds it to be the Sacrament of regeneration that is the Sacrament that makes us from being conceived and born out of our mothers wombs in sin as the Royal psalmist tells us in his 50th psalm to become members of Christ and regenerated or born again to him as our Saviour himself told Nicodemus Amen I say to thee unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. That no body can tell whether himself or another is baptized with a phisical Metaphisical or Logical certainty which be the certainties the Mounsieur aims at here for of a moral certainty I shall speak hereafter is most certain for who knows unless God reveals it unto him whether he that offered to baptize him had any belief or intention to baptize moreover who knows but that he that offered to Baptize him which is the second part of the major was a devil incarnate and no man for the devil can naturally assume the shape of any humane body and delude our five senses with his prestigious black art if God permits it him who I ask the Mounsieur in such a case knows his child or any man else from a devil incarnate appearing to him in the perfect stature and shape of his child or of such a man when our Saviour cured the young man mentioned in the Gospel that was blind from his nativity although the scribs and Pharises saw and knew him every day before while he was blind yet when they saw him have his perfect sight they doubted whether he was the same man or no and thereupon sent for his father and mother to be informed by them of the truth As to the third part of the major I ask Mr. de Rodon how divine or humane Laws can be observed amongst us unless we certainly know we converse with men and yet according to his argument we can have no phisical certainty which is the certainty he requires for Baptism and ordination that our conversation is not with devils incarnate instead of men and much less have we certainty that we converse with Christians for we know not whether those we converse with were ever Baptized or no. But how not only inconsiderable and rediculous but also impious abominable and pernicious these sequels are which flow from the Mounsieurs very considerable argument in the cars of all good Christians I let the prudent Reader judge And before I answer his argument in form I will lay down this Christian platform of doctrine received by all to bear my answer up Therefore I presuppose with all other Christians that Jesus Christ who is true God and true man and the wisdom of his heavenly father being he was graciously pleased to descend from his heavenly Palace and converse with men for the space of about three and thirty years concerning the salvation of their souls and to that intent left them his life as a pattern to imitate for he is the way the veritie and the life and his Sacraments for their spiritual comfort I suppose I say that during all that time he planted his Church Militant here upon Earth and that he planted her so firmly too that he lest those of her Congregation a certain sure method how to serve him in her else where was his infinite wisdom I suppose also with all Christians that Baptism is the gate and entrance to Christianity for all men and the Sacrament of Regeneration for by it only we are enrolled in Christs book and called Christians or made mistical members of Christ. And whereas it is a Sacrameat of so great necessity that without it no body is a Christian doubtless Christ who in all other things concerning our corporal necessities is so careful provident and wise was not â—…ailing concerning the grand and chief thing of all which is our souls safety but lest means sure safe in his Church in order to the ayd and relief of mans soul to bring her safely to the happy port of eternal felicity which was the end wherefore she was created These means or mediums were chiefly his Sacraments which derive their vertue from his Passion and are as one may say dipt in his pretious bloud But especially the Sacrament of Baptism which is of greatest necessity being no body without it can have as much as the name of a Christian and consequently it is most certain that Christ hath a particular care and Providence concerning Baptism that it should be certainly administred unto the faithful But wherein that certainty consists whether it be a Phisical or moral one is the question a Phisical certitude as Philosopers say is when a man hath a palpable and evident knowledge either by his reason or senses of the thing he knoweth a Moral certitude they say is when one is sure of a thing not because he saw it with his eyes or toucht heard or tasted it but because all men say it is so for example when all the world says there is a famous City in England called London those that were at London and saw it have a phisical certitude thereof but those that never were in it nor saw it have but a moral certitude of it viz. by the relation of all people where note that a moral certainty may sometimes have as a much or more firmity in it then a Phisical one hath especially when it is grounded upon Gods providence and word This true doctrine presupposed I answer Mr. de Rodons argument thus granting his Major viz. that in lawful adoration it is requisite that he that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God And denying his minor viz. that the Romanists according to their own Principles can never be assured that the host which they worship is the true God to his second minor viz. But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now a days there hath been no fayling either in the essential form of Baptism or ordination or in the requisite intention I answer that all Christians may be assured thereof with a moral certitude because of Christs care and providence for his Church that for the generality of all Christians and especially of those whom he picked out of the rest to make them ministers of his Sacraments there is no such faylings as Mr. de Rodon mentioneth destructive to the Sacraments from the Apostles time untill the Bishops and Priests of our days for otherwise Christs care and providence for his Church Militant would not be sufficient which is impious and blasphemous even to think of And this moral certainty especially as it relyes upon Christ care and Providence for his Church is far firmer and better then any of our Phisical natural certitudes are And consequently Mr. de Rodon's very considerable additionate Proposition is not worth a rush Rodon
Hierom also an old father and one of the chief doctors of Christs Church inferiour to none in sanctity and learning is unanimous with the rest in this point Nec Moyses saith he dedit vobis panem verum sed Dominus Iesus ipse conviva convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur Neither did Moses give you the true bread but our Lord Jesus he is the Inviter and the feast ne the eater and the eaten S. Ambrose must not be forgotten who in all persections is equal to any of the rest he says lib. de Sacramentis quod erat panis ante consecrationem jam corpus Christi est post consecrationem What was but bread before the consecration after consecration is the body of Christ. To these I add great S. Gregory commonly called the fourth universal doctor of the Church he in hom Pascha has these words Quotidiè ipse Christus comeditur bibitur in veritate sed integer vivus immaculatus manet Christ himself is dayly eaten and drunk in verity or reality but he remains entire alive and unspotted If the authorities of the above-mentioned holy doctors and fathers susfice not the curious Reader let him read S. Chrysost. dial 3. de dignit sacerd cap 4. Theophilact in comment sup Iob S. Anselm and all the rest who treat upon this subject which would be too tedious for me to reckon up he shal find them all unanimous amongst themselves and in most plain and express terms agreeing with us Neither is it likely or credible at all that after Christ himself promised his Church that the gates of hell should never prevail against her this Idolatry should creep into her bosome infect all her noblest members enlarge it self through all countries and nations where the name of Christ was ever known and last for innumerable ages without controulment or opposition for none of dianas adversaries could hitherto ever tell when she begun to shew her face in Christs Church or who for many ages opposed her entrance All heresies that ever crept or were introduced into the Church were presently taken notice of opposed and condemned with their chief authors and ringleaders only our Diana the Idol in the Mounsieurâ—… opinion maugre Christs promise to the contrary had the good luck to stand it out all along from Christs time untill now and made all the Christian world adore her But sure it is that if heresy cannot prevail against Christs Church Idolatry also cannot and consequently since our Diana or Mass hath held it out so long doeth still and is like to do untill the worlds end she is no Idol as Mr de Rodon takes her to be but that truo incruent or unbloudy pure sacrifice of Christs body which his spouse the Church offers dayly to his heavenly father for a reconcilation and attonment with him for her childrens sinns from whence followeth that she ever did doth and will exhibite unto the host the adoration of Latria which is the highest adoration solely due unto God Of what value or force Mr. de Rodons bare confident I mean impudent assertion is against the whole torrent of the chief doctors and holy fathers of Christs Church I let any reasonable man judge and deny that if the Primitive Christians had believed and adored the Sacrament as we do they had furnished the heathens with specious pretences to excuse the Idolatry of their Image-worship and that they could have retorted upon the Christians these very arguments which they made use of against them for first the ancient Christians believed but in one God never owning but one deity in the three divine persons whereas the Heathens believed in many dieties or Gods Secondly the primitive Christians believed there is no other substance in the Sacrament or host but only the substance of Jesus Christ and consequently they owned no composition in Christ or in the host as that Christ or the host are composed of Christs body and of the sacramental species because Christ is in the host substantially as he is composed of his body soul and divinity or which is the same thing the host is nothing else but Christ in his substance and the sacramental species or accidents of the bread and winâ—… which remain in the sacrament after Transubstantiation by vertue of the words of consecrâ—…on enter not at all into the composition of Christ or of the host but they only serve for significations sake viz. to signify our spiritual nourishment But the heathens believed that the very metals or materials whereof their Idols were composed after they were consecrated and dedicated to their Gods were a substantial part of them They believed and adored their materials and statues after their consecration and dedication as Gods The ancient Christians nor the modern Catholicks also ever believed that the bare accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament are Jesus Christ or his body and bloud though they believe they signifie his body and bloud and that his body bloud soul and divinity also are personally present by reason of the pronoun demonstrative This which is uttered in the consecration where the sacramental species are and consequently they do very well and piously in adoring the host with the adoration of Latria But if those of the Primitive Church or we either should hold with the Apostle of the Protestants Luther that Christ is in the Sacrament impanated that is in bread then the heathens may indeed have someâ—…ing to say against us for then there would be a kind of composition of Christs body 〈◊〉 of the bread in the Sacrament as the heaâ—…hens made a composition of their materials or Images and of their false deities which they pretended were in them But no such heretical thought ever entred into the hearts of any orthodox Christian of the Primitive or modern Church That as the heathenish Idols were madâ—… by consecration dedication and adoration so our Sacrament is also made by consecration and after consecration offered and dedicated by us unto God the father and that we adore it we cannot deny But the ground upon which our consecration is built and the ground upon which the heathenish was are quite different our consecration is built upon the effective words of the son of God who is omnipotent and gave us power to consecrate as he did himself when he said to his Apostles whose successors we surely believe our Priests are as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me But the heathenish consecration had no other ground but their own bare ayery words and consequently there is no parity betwixt both consecrations Lastly that as the heathens were upbraided jeared and reproached by the holy fathers because of their great and little Images or Idols so may the primitive Christians be by the heathens for believing that Christ could be in a little or great host or in the least part of it is false for the heathens believed their Gods were in their Idols
circumscriptively or definitively as water is in a vessel or the soul in the bedy for they wanting the light of faith knew not what a sacramental presence is But the Primitive Christians and we also believe Christ to be in the Sacrament Sacramentally only that is in every consecrated host as our souls are in our bodies tota in toto tota in qualibet parte all Christ in the whole host and all Christ in every part and particle of it And thus Mr. de Rodons three propositions with his very considerable additionate are fully and pathetically answered and an end put to this chapter CHAP. VI. Against the taking away of the cup. Rodon 1. THe taking away of the Eucharistical cup was established as an Article of faith by the Romish Church Representative assembled in the Council of Constance 1415. sess 13. in a canon the chief clauses whereof are these seeing that in divers parts of the world there be some who rashly presume to say that Christian people ought to partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species of the bread and wine and to give the Communion to Lay-people not only under the species of the bread but also under the species of the wine This present holy General Council of Constance lawfully assembled in the name of the holy Ghost being desirous to provide for the safety of the faithfull against this errour doth therefore declare decree and determine that although Jesus Christ did administer this venerable Sacrament to his disciples under both the species of bread and wine and although in the Primitive Church the faithful did receive this Sacrament under both species yet notwithstanding that for the avoiding of certain dangers and scandals this custome which was introduced with reason ought to be kept viz. that Priests that say Mass shall communicate under both the species of bread and wine but that Lay-persons shall communicate under the species of bread only and they that shall say the contrary ought to be expelled as Hereticks and grieveously punished by the Bishops and their officialls This canon was confirmed by the succeeding Romish Councils and particularly by the Council of Trent 2. Against so horrible a Canon and so strange a Law it is very difficult to oppose any thing for if you tell them that this Law iâ—… contrary to the Institution and command of Iesus Christ they freely confess it seeing that although Iesus Christ did institute and administer the Eucharist under both species yet they will not have it so practised If you tell them that this Law is contrary to the command of S. Paul and practise of the Primitive Church they ingeniously own it for they openly declare that the faithful in the Primitive Church did receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species yet they that practise it thus ovght to be expelled and punished as Hereticks This is the true way of ending all Controversies and of keeping us from disputing with them For example if we alledge that S. Paul Tim. 4. saith that they who forbid to marry and command to abâ—…ain from meats do teach the doctrines of Devils they need only answer that although S. Paul doth say so yet we must not believe it because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise Again if we alledg that the same Apostle Eph. the 2. saith that we are saved by grace through faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast they need only answer that although this was written by the Apostle yet we must not believe it because the Romish Church hath determined that we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of our own free-will c. And now I leave you to judge whom we ought to follow whether these lying doctours or Iesus Christ and his Apostles But that which I finde utterly unsupportable is this viz. that they accuse of rashness errour and heresy those that by obeying Iesus Christ and his Apostles and following the Practise of the Primitive Church do affirm that we ought to partake of the Cup as well as of the bread Again I finde it an insufferable piece of impudence that they boast so much of Antiquity and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church and yet can so openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of Doctrine Answ. That the Romish Church Representative ever made or established an article of faith we deny that she made Canons or statutes in her general Councils which were grounded upon former articles of faith which the Apostles left us and that what one precedent General Council decided and declared to belong unto an article of faith because what the Council declared was implycitly included in that article another subsequent general Council approved and confirmed it we freely confess for it makes more for us then for Mr. de Rodon though he is sure he got a great advantage over us thereby because the other General Councils and especially the Council of Trent approves and ratifies this Canon which he recited out of the Council of Constance which Canon he sayes contradicts Christ and his Apostle But I am sure that if the Council of Trent had contradicted that of Constance his advantage had been much more for neither the one or the other of these holy Councils doth contradict Christ or his Apostle Because then and not otherwise as I proved before is a proper contradiction when there is an affirmation and negation of the same thing at the same time and after the same formality or manner for if the thing time or formality be not the same then is there no contradiction for example there is no contradiction in this viz. that Peter should be virtuous and Paul wicked at the same time because Peter and Paul are not one and the same man Nor in this viz. that the same Peter should have a beard and not have a beard at different times as also neither in this viz. that the same Peter at the same time should be an Embassadour in France and be no Embassadour in England or in Spain This true doctrine which is commonly received by all Philosophers and learned men being presupposed I evidently demonstrate out of several Passages of Scripture if well considered knit and compared together that this Canon or statute of the Constantian Council doth not in the least manner contradict or gainsay the commands of Christ or of his Apostle The first Passage whereupon I build my proof is this Data est mihi omnis Potestas in Caelo in terra that to Christ is given all power in heaven and upon Earth S. Math. 20. The second is this sicut tu misisti me in mundum ego misi eos in mundum as thou didst send me into the world I also have sent them into the world S. Iohn 17. Let us now compare these two passages to
whole one body But this which we do is done for a commemoration of that which was done for we offer not another Sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but alwaies the self-same c. with S. Chrysostom hom 17. in Epist. ad Heb. and after him with Theophylact. Oecumenius with Haymo Paschasuis Remigius and others who object to themselves thus Do not we also offer every day we offer surely But this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer alwaies the self-same and not now one lamb and to morrow another but the self-same therefore this is one sacrifice otherwise because it is offered in many places there would be many Christs and a little after Not another sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but the self-same we do alwaies offer rather working a remembrance or commemoration of the sacrifice With Primasuis S. Augustines Scholar who preoccupates the Mounsieurs oblections thus What shall we say then do not our Priests daily offer sacrifice they offer surely becaus we sin daily daily have need to be cleansed and because he cannot die he hath given us the Sacrament of his body and bloud that as his Passion was the redemption and absolution of all the world so also this oblation may be a redemption and cleansing to all that offer it in truth and verity in which sense also venerable Bede calleth the Mass Redemtionem corporis animaesempiternam the everlasting redemption of body and soul lib. 4. c. 22. histor To these above mentioned holy doctors who not only unanimously agree that the Sacrament of the Altar is an host and sacrifice but also that it is the self â—…ame sacrifice which was offered upon the Altar of the Cross for our Salvation I add these ensuing General Councils and holy fathers of the primitive Church whereof some were the Apostles contemporaneans and Disciples The first holy Council of Nice chap. 14. in fine tonc ex graeco the Council of Ephesus Anathematis 11. the Chalcedon Council art 3. pag. 112. the Ancyran Council chap. 1. 5. the Neacaesarean Council Can. 13. Laodic can 19. Carthaginian 2. c. 8. Carthag 3. cha 24. and Carthag 4. chap 33. 41. S. Denyse cha 3. Eccles. hierarch S. Andrew in hist. Passionis S. Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrn S. Martialis Epist ad Burdegal S. Iustine dial cum Tryphone S. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 23 24. Tertullian de eultâ—… feeminarum corona militum Origen hom 13. in Levit. S. Cypr epist. ad Cecilium num 2. de coena Domini num 13. and Euseb. demonstrat Evangel lib. 1. c. 10. Let us now compare all these holy Councils Fathers and Doctors unanimous authorities with M. de Rodons bare word without any text of Scripture contradicting them let us I say compare all their affirmative votes to his no mention no foot step and judge which of these two parties deserves to be counted hereticks for they cannot be both counted orthodox because they contradict one another in point of faith what man then unlesse he were willfully prodigall of his salvation would adhere to de Rodons crack-brain'd obstinate self-opinion and forsake for him the whole torrent of General Councils Fathers and Doctors of Christs Church Neither are S. Gregory and Bellarmine for him too but rather point-blank against him as to the main point of this question which is that at the first Institution of this Sacrament Christ offered and sacrificed his body and bloud to his father for Bellarmine in the place alledged by the Mounsieur viz. out of his first book of the Mass chap. 27. speaks only thus that this sacrifice consists not precisely in the consummation of the host nor in any other part of the Mass but only in the words of consecration because S. Gregory said that the Apostles used no other ceremonies at the Mass when they first practised it but only the Lords prayer and immediatly after they consumed the consecrated host But neither he nor S. Gregory ever said that Christ and his Apostles never offered sacrifice to God the father in the Mass for Bellermine says positively in that very chapter that Christ offered sacrifice to his heavenly father and that the Apostles and their successors do the like dayly But he holds that the sacrifice consists precisely in the words of Consecration and not in the oblations before or after nor in the consumption of the host all which makes nothing for Mr. de Rodon who is not ashamed confidently to say that S. Gregory and Bellarmine are of his side whereas there is no such thing to be seen in them but the quite contrary as may be evidently seen in the alledged chapter of Bellarmines said book As for learned Salmeron the Jesuits commentary and Cardinal Baronius his free confession concerning an unwritten Tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist any man of reason or belief would sconer believe the Traditions of the whole Church then admire or stand in doubt of them and much less would they harken against them to Mr. de Rodons bare word or to his srivolous no mention no footstep for Gods Church had no other rule to follow from Adams time until Moses who was the first that ever writ of the old Testament concerning what she was to believe but Tradition And from the time of our Saviours Assension untill some of the Apostles and the Evangelists set their penns to paper what else had the faithful to trust unto but only unwritten Tradition what Scripture have we for changing the Sabaoth day or for the twelve articles of our Creed made by the twelve Apostles which be the Principles and foundation of our faith without which none can be saved only Tradition finally doth not the Apostle in his 2. Epist. to the Thessal 2. chap. command us to hold the Traditions which we have learned whether it be by his word or by his Epistle wherefore then should it be a strange thing that the Mass which is the dayly practise and sacrifice of the whole Church from the Apostles time until ours suppose there were nothing left written concerning it wherefore I say ought it not be held and believed as well as the changing of the Sabaoth day or as the twelve articles of the Apostles creed Moreover being the Mass as we hold and is evidently proved by the testimonies of the General Councils and holy fathers above-mentioned doth chiefly and essentially consist in the words of consecration and that Christ himself was the first that ever consecrated we consequently hold that he was the first and chief Priest that ever said Mass And whereas we find that after he consecrated he commanded his Apostles that as often as they did this that 's to say consecrated they should do it in remembrance of him we find I say that the Mass was instituted and commanded expresly by Christ himself Therefore in my opinion it is a thing far more wonderful and strange that any man of common reason
your consequences to be but frivolous and strange Therefore to the first part of this third principal reply of yours I answer also that the mediate representation commemoration and application which you found out in a good sense to be in the Sacrament or Mass we are glad you found some good thing in it if it contains any such good thing it hinders not but that an immediate representation commemoration and application according to the holy fathers and Council of Trents meaning may be also found in it which immediate representation commemoration and application because they are of far more efficacy and vertue then the former are they may be very well called a true proper sacrifice propitiatorie for the sins of the living and dead which propitiatory sacrifice Mr. de Rodon hath not as yet refuted nor will be ever able to do having all the holy fathers and practise of Gods Church against him Rodon Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Iesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Iesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his word and Sacraments And this is that Iesus Christ teacheth us S. John 3. in these words as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And S. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applys a pluister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinneâ—… to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but faith As for the distinction of the Sacramental and natural being of Iesus Christ it hath been already refuâ—…ed in the 6. number Answ. This second part of his reply I answer thus that Christ being offered not to us as the Mounsieur says but for us as the holy Evangelist tells us we ought on our parts by a true and lively faith to embrace him with all his benefits offered us by vertue of his passion both in word and Sacraments And since by his word we are to believe that it is his body which is offered for us in the Sacrament we ought to believe it without any staggering or hesitation because he himself said absolutely this is my body And as in S. Iohn the third is said that as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up So must we also believe that he was lifted up bloudily on the Cross and is lifted up dayly unbloudily in the Mass for our sins because our mother the Church commands us so to believe and Christ said he that hears not the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and publican Math. 18. However although belief be a condition requisite that the vertue of Christs Passion and his Sacraments should be applyed unto us yet it is not the principal cause of our sanctification but Christs body offered upon the Cross and in the Sacrament for Christs body offered for us is the principal cause of our salvation and the healing Plaister which is applyed to a sick soul to heaâ—… her spiritual wounds and faith whether it be actuall or habituall cannot alone do the deed and consequently S. Paul in the place alleadged where he says God hath set forth Iesus Christ to be a Propitiation through faith in his bloud must be understood through faith as a condition requisite and not through faith as the Principal cause in his bloud for the principal cause of Propitiation is Christs body and bloud offered for us once bloudily upon the Cross and dayly offered for us in the sacrifice of the Mass so that although the Apostle says not explicitly through the sacrifice of the Mass yet he says it implicitly because Christs bloud is there offered and so there is an end to all Mr. de Rodons replys As to the distinction concerning the natural and sacramental being of Jesus Christ the Prudent Reader may judge whether its refutation be not sufficiently answered by me where I solved all his arguments of the said sixth number Rodon 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the doctors of the Romish dâ—…ctors and called by our adversaries the Angelical doctor This Thomas in part 3. Quest. 8. Art 1. having proposed this question viz. whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concluds wiâ—…e these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fittly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterwards he gives his answer in these words I answer we must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrifice of Christ in two respects first because as Augustin to simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a wall or in a frame we say this is Cicero this is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly the celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe to this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas Answ. Will you indeed Mounsieur this profer I confess is fair but I doubt much whether you and yours will stand to his arbitration as to this point as for my own part I take him to be one of the most eminent doctors of our Church and worthy to be called Angelical both for his excellency in learning especially concerning the B. Sacrament and for his purity of life Therefore I wish you and your party would follow his opinion and choose him umpire betwixt you and us concerning this high question we dispute of for never
service for you contradict his word his plain express word is that Bread and wine after the words of consecration are converted into his real body and bloud for his express words upon the bread and wine he took in his hand be these this is my body this is my bloud And you say no it is not his body but the signe or Sacrament of his body only and you have no more reason to misbelieve this then you have to misbelieve the Mysteries of his Incarnation and of the Blessed Trinity because his word or Testimony for this is as clear if not clearer then for any of the other two grand Mysteries of our Belief and Gods word or Testimony is the only ground and motive of our faith and as you misbelieve his word in this point so you misbelieve his Church in many things more notwithstanding his express word commands you the contrary as in S. Math. 18. he bids you hear the Church And in S. Luke the 10th speaking to his Church representative he sayes he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me a lesson which every good Christian ought to heed very well It is also one of the Articles of our Creed to believe in the Catholick Church In a word because you believe not him nor obey his Church your preaching the Gospel and your unchristian Religion whereof you so much boast and wherein as in your selves be many failings and absurdities are very far from being pure and clean and consequently the sacrifices you here mention though as they are offered by the orthodox people while they are in the state of grace be pure and acceptable to God yet your schismatical or rather heretical sacrifices are neither pure nor pleasing to him for you like rotten or withered branches are excommunicated and quite cut off from his Church and so will still remain until you be reconciled unto her according to Christs command That your doctrine and preaching and consequently your sacrifice and service to God are not clean and pure but rather putrid and stinking appears manifestly by these your own words which be these And although the faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed with many infirmities and that their Religious actions be accompanied with divers failings yet their persons and works may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy before God for it is these S. Peter speaks of in Ep. 1. c. 2. who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And so you say your sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Jesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holyness so that the defects of them are not imputed to you This I say is very impure and stinking doctrine for it contradicts Gods word who Proverb 15. sayes the victims of the impious are abominable to our Lord. God is no acceptor of persons if a drunkard a whoremaster a murderer or a thief offer him never so many sacrifices while he is out of the state of Grace although he offers them in Christs name they are not pleasing or acceptable to God but rather odious and abhominable and much less are the sacrifices of disobedient and stubborn heretical spirits pleasing unto him for Obedience is with him better then victims and consequently to be obedient to his Church is more acceptable unto him then any victims or sacrifices we can offer him in whose name soever Therefore until Mr. de Rodon can prove that his is the only universal Church of Ood which he will never be able to accomplish he ought not to brag or boast of his sacrifices for all the sacrifices that are offered to God out of his Church as the Jewes offer him sacrifices too are odious and abhominable unto him Certain then it is Mr. de Rodon that you nor any of your party are those persons the Apostle meant in the fore-alledged passage and certain also it is that Christ never covers or hides your or any bodies else his nasty sins and abominable sacrifices which be always more loathsom to him then any cloose-stool or carrion is to us and much less whatever you presume your selves to be are you his members being now as dead branches lopt of from a tree cut off from his Mistical body the Church for no soul can be a living member of Christ before she be renst and washt by vertue of his pretious bloud which boiles in his Sacraments that are the spiritual salves which must be applied unto her to wash and take away all the filth of her sins Then when she is throughly cleansed and purged from sin Christ enters and inhabits her afterwards he beautifies and adorns her with a bright ray of inherent Justice and finally after well seasoning and sweetning her with the fragrant odour of divine Grace he incorporates her unto himself and makes her his mystical member Therefore Mr. de Rodon you grosly wrong Christ by saying that he covers or hids your filthiness and sins because you are his members for Christ hath no commerce with dirt he is no patron protectour or coverer of iniquity or sin he hates it from his very heart and there is nothing that causes a separation or divorcement between him and his creatures but only sin therefore if he does but only cover the sins of his mystical members and not quite wash them and take them away it follows that the dirt of their sins will stick to them also when they are in heaven for Mr. de Rodon says their sins are but covered by Christ and consequently that their sins will follow them into heaven although holy writt says that no dofiled thing shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven by this discourse the Reader may well see how stinking and impure this doctrine of the Mounsieur is as also that neither he nor his party with their confessed failings are those the Apostle spoke of and much less that they are members of Christ and consequently that their sacrifices are not acceptable to God Therefore the Apostle meant only the orthodox Catholicks that offer sacrifice unto God while they are in the state of Grace and yet the sacrifice the Apostle speaks of here is not a strict and proper sacrifice but an improper one for otherwise something must have been destroyed To what you farther answer viz. that besides the perfect purity which you have by the imputation of Christs rightiousness you have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost of which S. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost I answer that you are far deceived in this your proud fancy
funeral of the Mass and consequently the funeral of Romish heresies and Idolatries as the Author well observes For the truth is the Masse and the Romish Religion are almost convertible terms so that if the former be destroyed the latter must vanish to its first nothing and therefore our Author having destroyed the Masse hath destroyed the thing called Popery too As for the monstrous absurdities and blasphemies which flow from this one Romish doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass they would fill whole volumes but I shall contem my self to say that the Masse consists of more gross and abominable superstitions Phanaticismes and Idolatries then ever have been believed or practised by the most ignorant Pagans What the tenets of the Romanists are and what their practises have been in reference to Protestant Magistrates and people woful and sad experience hath sufficiently taught the world I only add that they are as pernicious to our bodies and estates as their heretical doctrines and Idolatrous services are to our souls And consequently to imtroduce Popery into this kingdom would be an act as unpolitick as Anti-Christian as hath been demonstrated in that incomparable piece entituled The established Religion in opposition to Popery But because I know not by what strange infatuation or inchantment or rather by what wonderful judgment of God this monstrous absurd and destructive shall I call it Religion prevails amongst us I thought good to English and print this small Treatise as the best Antidote against Popery the holy scripture excepted that ever I read and for ought I know it is not inferiour to the best of this kind that ever was yet extant to which opinion the harsh usage it hath had from our Adversaries as aforesaid doth certainly give no small testimony But I know that the holy scripture it self cannot profit except God be pleased to give his blessing much less can this book and therefore I earnestly beseech him that he would make it prosperous and successful for the good of souls and if any shall receive benefit by it I desire them to give him all the glory and then I shall think my self infinitely recompenced for my pains in translating it AN ANSWER to the PREFACE AND An Appendix to this book THe excellency of this famous Philosophy-Professors masterpiece whom his Translator doth so highly extol and commend gentle Reader when it is punctually compared with my answer will evidently shew you of what great validity depth and piety it consists for I faithfully cited him word by word I did not cut or clip one tittle of his whole Tract you have him whole and entire in my book nay you have him in the full formal vigour or career of his piercing philosophical shafts therefore I leave the arbitration of our cause to your own prudent and impartial judgment his country quality or profession is related to you by his translator to render him the more famous that is not the thing we are to look upon here but his doctrine The traslator complains of the great severity and hard usage his authors book received from his adversaries I answer him that it is not harder nor more severe then the usage our books have from his party and the gentleman himself if he had been taken with his book could not be more harshly used by his adversarys then our Romish doctors are when they are taken with or without their books by theirs so that as to this point the good translator has no more reason to complain then we have the severity on both sides being sufficiently repayed with a quid pro quo If what the ingeâ—…ious french gentleman told the translator viz. that his Authors small tract more nettled our party then any one piece that ever was extant in France since the reformation of religion there be true or whether he told an ingeâ—…ious lie I know not but supposing it was true I dare say it more netled them for its blasphemy then for any solidity piety or semblance of veracity contained in it as my answer doth clearly demonstrate As to what the translator dares affirm viz. that though many famous men of that kingdom have in the memorie of this Age written very smartly against the Romish heresies yet there is not one c. I dare affirm that the translator speaks very impertinently and improperly when he calls our Religion the Roman heresie because he speaks contrary to the usage of all nations who generally by the Roman Religion understand the Catholick Religion and Catholick is a word opposite to heresie but what care we for his scolding barking and playing the dog at us while we are sure he cannot bite hurt nor produce one tittle of sound doctrine against our sacred and orthodox Religion That none else of your party had such hard measure in their persons and writings as his authors had from those of ours shews rather the lenity and great patience of our people towards you then it doth evince we our selves being judges as you inconsequently infer that he hath made good what he undertook viz. that he hath destroyed that great Diana the Masse and hath also by way of prevention c. for all these puff-past words and darings of yours are evidently allayed and asswaged by my answer to his tract as any man of learning and judgment may easily perceive so that if your party shewed any more harshness to your authors writings then they used to do to any of the rest of your as you term them famous wtiters works it must eirher be because of its open blasphemous contents against the most blessed Sacrament or because of its wily sophistical formal method to inveagle poor ignorant illiterate souls and not for any great depth or profundity of learning they could see in it for God knows that amongst good philosophers and eminent schollars this great master-piece is not worth the reading or to be answered though some weak brains especially being destitute of the light of faith may perhaps applaude and admire it As for the title of his tract or book which you say may be very fitly termed the Funeral of the Masse it brings unto my memory what we reade in the history or book of Hester viz. how graceles and wicked Haman prepared and reared a high Gallows for innocent Mardochaeus to hang on but before he could bring his ungodly atchievement to pass he himself was set up and Mardochaeus came off with glorie and renown the self-same is our Diana and de Redons case he prepared a funeral and grave for her without any hopes of reviving or recovery but her cause and his being throughly scanned and examined in this treatise he himself is laid flat upon his back in his grave to the view of all judicious and impartial readers without any hopes of recovery for I took him not by the arm or leg I luggd him not by the ear nor pulled him by the nose I gave him not a cuff or a kick but
is his sâ—…h he said noâ—… this bread is the barâ—… signe or figure of his flesh but his real flesh for it was his real flesh and not its bare figure that was offered or sacrificed for the lifâ—… of the world therefore this bread is â—…ot a meer signe only of Christs body but his very real substantial body for it was his real body and not its type only that was sacrificed for the life or salvation of the world After our saviour said to the Jews I am the bread of life I am the bread which descended from heaven and the Jewes thereforâ—… murmured and gâ—…umbled among themselves saying is not this the son of Joseph whose father and Mother we know and again how câ—…n this man give us his flesh to eat our saviour to confirm that it was his real body assevered it by oath or intermination saying Amen Amen for that was his usual teste I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you here he calls it all along his flesh and his bloud and not the signes only of his flesh and bloud and for the farther confirmation thereof he adds for my flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed What is but a figure or type of a thing cannot be the thing it self really and indeed Therefore if Christs flesh be truly and really our meat in the Sacrament or Sacramental species the Eucharist must needs be the true and real body and bloud of Christ indeed and not in type or signification only S. Paul 1 Cor. 10. in clear terms shews it The chalice quoth he of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of our Lord he sayes not the communication or participation of any signs or types but of his real body and bloud And in his 11th chap. to the said Cor. he mentioneth that our Lord took bread and giving thanks brake said take ye and eat this is my body which shall be delivered unto you These words I am sure cannot be understood of a figurative or typical body for it was not a typical body that was offered or delivered for us as the Maniâ—…hees falsly commented but the real and substantial body of Christ for it is certain the Apostle Rom. 8 when he said proprio filio non pepeâ—…cit c. he hath spared not also his own son but for us all delivered him spoke not of a bâ—…re type or figure but of his â—…eal body as all these clear passages so well cohering do manifestly demonstrate This is also confirmed by these words of the said Apostle 1 Cor. 11. Quiâ—…unque manduâ—…averit panem vel biberit calicem domini indigne reus â—…rit corporis sangâ—…is domini Therefore whosoever shall â—…t this bread or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord how can this be if it be but the figure or signe of his body and bloud and not his real body and bloud those that did eat the Manna and the Paschal Lamb were not said to be guilty of his body and bloud for eating them unworthily and yet they were signes of his bloudy sacrifice Therefore for eating or drinking of a meeâ—… signe or for tearing and destroying the meer â—…mage or picture of any man it is a very hard and severe Law to condemn him or make him guilty of his death Therefore it is for eating and drinking of our Lords real body and bloud unworthily and not for eating and drinking the signes only of his body and bloud that the Apostle sayes a man is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. Hence any man of judgment may see how clear and express these texts are for the real presence of Christs body in the hoâ—…t and how improperly and wrongfully our adversâ—…ries extort upon the clear Texts to wrest them and draw them to their own sense of a signe or type But seeing scripture is so clear of our side Let us see what the holy fathers the spiritual beacons and true interpreters of Gods word say to it I will begin with ancient Tertullian who saith Tertul de resurr carn n. 7. our flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatted therefore they shall both have one reward at the resurrection Next follows Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14. whose words be these how do they affirm that our bodies be not capable of life everlasting which are nourished by the bâ—…dy and bloud of our Lord S. Greg. Nyssene also â—…aith in orat cathec magna that lively body entring into our body changeth it and maketh it like and immortal Allexander 1. that venerable Prelate and Martyr saith There can be nothing greater in sacrifices then the body and bloud of Christ To these I add the renowned S. Hylarie there is no doubt left of the verity of the body and bloud of Christ for now both by Christs own confession and by our belief it is truly flesh and truly bloud If God was pleased to be made man quoth Damascene lib. 4. de fide orth c. 14. and take flesh of the most pure bloud of the virgin without seed can he not make bread his body and wine and water his bloud Great S. Augustin lib. sentent Prosper adds his susâ—…rage to these in these words But we under the species of bread and wine do honour invisible things viz. flesh and bloud S. Ambrose lib. de sacram sides also with the rest in these plain and express terms it is ordinary bread at the Altar before the sacramental words But when it is consecrated then of bread it is made Christs flesh To these I add S. Ierome writing to Edibius S Cyril of Alex de consecr di 2. c. necessario S. Greghom Pasch. S. Crysost 3. dial de dignit sacerd c. 4. Theophilact in comment super Ioh. S. Anselme and in a word all the holy fathers and general councils that ever treated of this mistery Therefore all the greatest and most famous lights of Gods Church do hold with us as to this main point And although this Mystery be above humane reason yet because it is not contrary nor destructive to reason our divinos do give plausible congruityes and reasons for it The first whereof may be this it is the nature of goodness to impart or communicate it self to others because as the Philosophers says bonum est communicativum sâ—…i Goodness is communicative of its own self and to say the truth we know not a good or liberal man from a niggard but by imparting of his goodness and liberality to others If then it be the nature of goodness to impart it self to others it must be the nature of the highest and chiefest goodness to impart and communicate it self to others in the
Apostle spoke of for it is a thing not only improbable but incredible also that S. Peter or if not he as our adversaries will have it or any else of the Apostles or all of them together if they had a hand in it should institute a Bishop of Rome which all the world for ever after called the Pope for his distinction from all other Bishops who introduced this Liturgy which is convertible with his name if the Lyturgy were at all dissonâ—…te from that of the Apostles themselves It is also both improbable and incredible but that S. Iohn who was both an Apostle and Evangelist and a most eminent divine withall and who outlived S. Peter and all the rest of the Apostles It is I say a strange thing that he should not take this first Roman Bishop or Pope in hand confute quash and trample down himself and his Lyturgy if it was not the selfsame with his own and the rest of the Apostles But we see not a word or syllable in S. Iohn or in any of the Apostles or Evangelâ—…s who were contemporaneans of of this first Bishop or Pope of Rome with whom the Mass is convertible against the Lyturgy of the Mass. From whence we cannot but conclude that the Mass is the selfsame Lyturgy that was practised and used by the Apostles themselves Therefore let all the opposers of the Masse take good â—…d they are not the people the Apostle Prophecied of to Titus his disciple and consequently let them take good heed that by oppugning the incruent sacrifice of the Masse they turn not their backs to God by rejecting and vilisiing the universal Lyturgy of his Church celebrated and practised by his Apostle Let them I say take good heed they hearken not too much to the unsound doctrines of their new masters their Ministers whose eares do itch after new opinions certes they will and do dayly avert their hearing from God and the truth And yet few of them agree in all points of their new opinions which is an evident signe their doctrine is false Not to apprehend the dreadful hour of death and the terrible and strict Judgment of God that follows it and not to fear the great power of the severe Judge who is able to cast both body and soul headlong into everlasting helfire to band against him and to contemn his Lyturgy his Sacraments and his Church after he told us that unless we hear her he will count us but as heathens and Publicans is thâ—… greatest sâ—…upidity and madness imaginable and yet the opposers and enemies of our ' Diana for swerving from Antiquity from all the General Councils and holy â—…thers whose authorities are so clear and manifest for her cannot but be at least highly suspected to be in the wrong They themselves for the most part say that we can be saved in our way and yet they perseâ—…te us more then they do the Turks Jewes and Pagans who are open enemies to Christ we hold they cannot be saved in their way because we would not have them be deluded for we believe none can be saved out of the Church and there is but only one Church of God why then do not they follow the surest way wherein both we and they agree a man may be saved and renounce that suspected way which we who are the far greater number and not inferiour to them for antiquity and learning do hold to be unsafe or can the way to heaven be too to sure Were it so secure an estate or great parcel of mony no-care and diligence would be wanting great heed would be taken that no slaw scruple or doubt should be â—…found in the Patent or Indenture wherefore is it not so also in this case or state of our souls safety which ought to be the dearest and of greatest conâ—…ernment to us of all things why I say do we not walk in the common and sure Catholick road approved of by both parties oh craftiness and guile of Sathan oh vanity of worldly Pompe oh sensuality of flesh and bloud But in plain and open truth our adversaries are clearly convicted concerning the sacrifice of the Mass and of the real presence of Christs body in it for how forsooth is it possible to convince any Christian maâ—… more then by plain and express texts of scripture backt and seconded by the clear authorities and testimonies of all General Councils by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers and by sound and irrefragable reasons deduced from clear Philosophical Principles by all these Mediums is the sacrifice of the Masse and the real presence of Christs body in the host proved in this Appendix and for to convince a Christian no other medium or argument can be more forcible or convincing Therefore whosoever yeelds and acquiesces not to these mediums has nothing to plead for himself but meer obstinacy and consequently he wilfully turns his back to God and his Church and runs directly to his own infallible daâ—…nation he misprises our saviours pretious bloud and Passion and vilifies him and all his heavenly treasure and riches with the promises Christ made unto him of them In a word he hath no more belief then a meer Athiest As for Mr. de Rodons sophistical and false treatise I suppose and perhaps I am not deceived that his wily arguments did so work upon his zealous translator and totally convince him with his apparent Philosophical reasons that he took every one of them to be a palpable demonstration and consequently in his own judgment thinking his cause to be very clear out of â—… pure zeal to Religion and taking ours to be but meer Idolatâ—…y that made him fall so bitterly upon our bones But now when he reads this treatise after he hath seen my full answer to his author and how I have followed him through his whole tract from point to point and refuted him manifestly every where paying him also in his one Philosophical coine after I say the translatot hath perused this book and examined the case better with himself pondering well upon the arguments of both sides pro and con I hope he will become milde and have a better opinion and esteem for our Diana and Religion then he had before I hope also that his understanding being clarified and enlightned by my solutions whereby all de Rodons fallacious sophisms are detected and made minifest to all men of any learning or judgment he finding him to be but an Impoâ—…tor and deluder of weak ignorant souls will soon disown both him and his damnable tract finally I hope that no worldly interest as alass it doth thoufands of our adverse party will so blinde and intoxicate him as to make him lose the interest of his soul and refuse to be an incorporate mistical member of Christ which without the help of our Diana as I have sufficiently proved already is impossible for him or any man else to be As de Rodons weak arguments were not of force
Consecration ought to be understood according to their immediate sense p. 17. The B. Sacrament is the New Testament in Christs Blood not only of his Blood p. 22. These words This is my Body signifie a substantial being and not a Sacramental only p. 23. The Protestant Communion exhibits not Christs Body Blood to the Believers p. 27. The Sacramental Species receiveâ—… worthily makes the receiver a Mystical Member of Christ. p. 30. Faith alone insufficient for this Sacrament Ib. Faith is no mouth literally or metaphoâ—…ically p. 31. Christs glorified Body never damnified by the receiver of the B. Sacramenâ—… p. 32. To verifie a proposition it sufficeth the thing be as the proposition says it is p. 35. Iâ—… is the Sacrament that is the chief and whole cause of our spiritual refreshment and the thing which the Soul principally hungers and thirsts after Faith is only a conâ—…ition requisite so is Hope and Charity also for to receive worthily p. 38. Christs Body worthily received works spiritually upon the Soul p. 40. These words of St. Aug. To eat the â—…lesh of Christ is a Figure c. which De Rodon alledges against us expounded p. 43. Cardinal Cajetans Authority alledged against us expounded p. 45. The action whereby we obtain remission of sins anâ—… sanctification ending in gloâ—…ification consists not in the spiritual eating or drinking by Faith only p. 5â—… In these words My Flesh is meaâ—… indeed no Figure falls upon the word Meat p. 55. Christs Flesh is a corporal food that nourishes spiritually only p. 57. Objects of Divine Faith not to he levelled by our reason and sense p. 59. Christ comeâ—… into the Sacrament by an adductive power p. 66. He is not produced there entitatively but modally only p. Ibid. Certain passages of Scripture alledged aâ—…ainst us by De Rodon viz. That there is â—…reaking givinâ—… eaâ—…ing and drinking after Consecraâ—…ion answered p. 68. When Christ said Drink ye all this Mat. 26. he meant his Blood p. 71. Why the eâ—…ects of the Sacramental Species â—…emain after Transubstantiation p. 73. Transubstantiation is a total substantial conversion and not a formal substantial conversion only p. 75. The Sacâ—…amental Species are something Subâ—…ect liâ—…e p. 77. Transubstantiation destroys not the nature of Acciâ—…ents p. 79. Transubstantiation destroys not the Nature oâ—… Sacâ—…aments p. 84. Corporal nourishment in the Sacramental Sâ—…ecies nâ—…t requisite p. 85. The Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be adored with a Latria p. 88. If our adversaries give not a Latriacal adoration to their Communion Bread it may be lawfully given to Dogs p. 89. If they adore their Communion they are greater Idolaters than we p. 91. Christ gave power to Priests to Consecrate p. 97. Christs Body is in the Sacrament immediately by reason of its substance p. 99. It s quantity is also there though not with its quantitative dimensions p. 100. The definition of a proper place and how many manner of ways both Christian Divines and Philosophers hold a thing may be in a place p. 103. A glorious Body may be in its equivocal place p. 109. The Iacobins and the Jesuits opinion concerning Christs Body to be brought or produced in the Sacrament saved p. 112. Christs Body is in all things subject to his Soul as his Soul is subject to his Divinity p. 117. Why the local extension of Christs Body in the Sacrament is hindred p. 119. De Rodons Argument of to move and not to move at the same time c. answered p. 121. Wherein a formal contradiction consists p. 123 De Rodons ridiculous quibbles and Unphilosophical illations answered p. 129. Distance is only betwixt corporal things whilst they are in their univocal places p. 130 A Sacramental place is properly no place at all p. 133. De Rodons Dropsical Argument of a drop of water that drowned many thousands c. mouldred p. 136. Division is only between corporal things in their proper places p. 138. God and Nature are not obliged to do what they can do p. 140. De Rodon shoots at Christ through Diana's side p. 143. Christ is seen in the Sacrament by the Spiritual Eye of our understanding supported by the light of Faith p. 146. It is not convenient we should see Christ visibly with our Corporal Eyes in the Blessed Sacrament p. 148. Substances possess no place p. 151. Christs Body in the Sacrament whether taken substantially or quantitatively has no posture or scituation in it p. 154. His Body appears not more or less for dividing or sub-dividing the Host p. 156. Christ is as glorious and happy in the Host as he is in Heaven p. 161. What these terms Reduplicatively and specificatively what sensus compositus and divisus mean p. Ibid. As Christ comes into the Host without local 〈◊〉 so he leaves it without local â—…e 〈◊〉 p. 165. De Rodon gives the Apostle the lie p. 167. Christ Diana and the Apostle saved from De Rodons keen Arrow p. 168. De Rodon jumps with the Iews against Christ p. 170. His Thunderbolt or Coelestial Arrow shivered p. 172. According to De Rodons Principles there ought to be no Sacrament of our Lords Supper at all p. 174. Clâ—…ud de Xaintes defended against De Rodon p. Ibid. Exorcismes p. 176. De Rodons miraculous Arrow put by p. 179. Christ really in Heaven and really in the Blessed Sacrament at the same time p. 182. He is not in the Sacrament impanated p. Ibid. He gave himself to Iudas also p. 18â—… Bellormine and Peron defendeâ—… p. 186. The Sacraments of the old Testament had a relation to those of the new p. 187. The Moâ—…sieurs Scripturistical Arrows shatâ—…ered p. 190. The marks of the Roman Church p. 193. The Seven Sacraments expounded p. 195. Why we keep the Eucharist in our Pixes and 〈◊〉 p. 197. Monsieur and his Party the false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of p. Illid God many manner of ways in his Creatures p. 202. External Adoration due to Christ where he is known to be personally present p. 203. Hereticks uncivil both to God and Man p. 206. According to De Rodons Principles we may adore the Devil instead of Christ p. 209. VVhy External adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament more than in the VVater of Baptism p. 210. Heaven and Hell destroyed by the Monsieurs Principles p. 211. The Monsieurs third Foundation built upon Quick-sands p. 215. De Rodons very considerable Argument pernicious to all mankind p. 218. Destructive to Goâ—…s Providence p. 222. A moral certitude of being Christned sufficient p. 223. Pope Adrian defended against De Rodon p. 226. Apostate Priests and Monks in credit and spiritual jurisdiction with De Rodon and his Party p. 228. The Pâ—…imitive Church adored the Host p. 233. Proved by the Testimonies of sundry Holy Fathers p. Ibid. Our Diana or Mass holds it out from all Ages maugre De Rodon and all Hereticks p. 237. Diana vindicated against Idolatry p. 238. The Church makes no new Articles of