with all other Elementary and mixt bodies As to the second all Philosophers agree in this that a thing may be in a place two manner of ways viz. circumscriptively and definitively corporal things circumscriptively and spiritual things as an Angel or mans soul definitively that is to say they are not in every place as God is but in some finite or limited place wherein they operate and yet they are not circumscribed by the place wherein they are because they are no bodies nor have any superfice nor also depend of their places in order to their conservation as corporal things do Besides these two manner of ways of being in a place which all Philosophers own the divines hold of a third way viz. to be Sacramentally in a place from whence we have from both divines Philosophers that a thing may be in a place 3 manner of ways viz. circumscriptively definitively sacramentally what is in a place circumscriptively is properly in its place because the superfice of the place touches surrounds the superfice of the body which it contains so the hollow superfice of the vessel touches and surrounds the water which is within the vessel What is in a place definitively or Sacramentally is not properly in any place because the superfice of the place and of the thing contained touch not one another immediatly as all proper places ought to touch immediatly all the things properly contained in them for an Angel and a soul have no superfices wherewith to touch the superfices of the place wherein they are contained for they are pure spirits and only corporal things have superfices however they are said to be in a place improperly because they are contained within some limits of bounds where they operate or else they would be in all places as God is like unto corporal things which are contained strictly within the immediat limits of their proper places yet with this distinction still that spiritual things never touch the superfice of their proper places and consequently are not circumscribed by them as corporal things touch and are circumscribed by their proper places All proper places are called by divines and Philosophers univocal or circumscriptive Places and all improper places they call Equivocal places such as are definitive and sacramental oneâ—… for properly and in rigour they are no places at all because the definition of a proper place agree not with them for want of a superficial manner of containing the things that are said to be within them This received doctrine of all divines and Philosophers presupposed I answer the Mounsieurs major with this distinction the body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the host circumscriptively as into its proper and univocal place I confess the major sacramentally as into its equivocal place I deny the major Therefore I say that Christs body is really in the host but not as in any proper place for to be in an equivocal place is as much in a manner as to say in no place at all and certain it is that an equivocal place is no more a proper place then an equivocal or painted man is a proper and reall man so that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the body and bloud of Christ without any circumscriptive motion or bringing it circumscriptively from one proper place to another as our circumscriptive bodies move from one place to another but by vertue of the effective words of consecration and omnipotent power of God his substance succeeds the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated host without any proper local motion for he is there by reason of his substance and substances are incapable of any proper motion and although his quantity be where his substance is by concomitance yet it is not there with its quantitative dimensions for these are hindred in the Sacrament as I sayd before the heat of the Babilonian fire or surnace was hindred supernaturally and being Christs body is in the host as we say by reason of its substance it is in it in one respect like as our souls are in our bodies that is to say totus in toto totus in qualibet parte all Christ in the whole host and all Christ in every point and particle of the host as all Philosophers say the whole soul is in the whole body and the whole soul in every part and point of the body yet the manner of Christs body being in the host differs from the manner of the souls being in the body in this viz. that the soul is in the body but as in one definitive or limited improper place but Christs body is in the Sacrament as in its improper place not definitively or limited to one host as the soul is to one body but Sacramentally that is to say in all places where the words of consecration are uttered upon the bread and wine and this Sacramental existence Christs body hath by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity which is in all places and yet the Sacramental ubication or existence differs from the the divine general ubication in this that the Sacramental ubication is but where the words of consecration are uttered and the general divine ubication is in all places for without it the creatures would desist to be But here the Mounsieur may object that there is a great difference betwixt Christs body and an Angel or mans soul for an Angel and a soul are pure spirits and therefore be not capable of an univocal place but only of an equivocal one But Christs body is a true real body and therefore it can have but an univocal circumscriptive place To this I answer and confess that Christs body is a true real body no spirit yet I deny but that it may have an equivocal place in the host because it is now a glorified body and as it were spiritualized with spiritual qualities which redound into it from his glorified soul which spiritual qualities the Divines call dotes corporis gloriosi the dowries of a glorified body as are subtility impassibilitie Agility and clarity By reason of the all manner of subjection a glorified body hath to its soul in so far that it neither cloggs nor burthens her as our lumpish bodies do our souls here the body may move in an instant by the instantanean motion of its soul or of her minde and by reason of the Hypostatical union betwixt the divinity and soul of Christ and of his glorified body it may accompany them into ten million of equivocal places at once according to the Apostles saying 1. Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body it shall rise a spiritual body that is to say a real body endowed with spiritual qualities such as those of the soul are not with a spiritual entity or substance because the substance of a spirit and the substance of a body are two different entities essentially differing the one from the other so that if Christs body
had risen with a spiritual entity it could be no more a true real body but a spirit which to affirm is plain heresy Therefore according to the Apostle glorified bodies will rise again with their corporal substances but endowed and qualified with spiritual dowries redounding from their souls From whence followeth that by reason of their subjection to the souls and because they shall be no clog to them that they can in an instant move from heaven to earth with an equivocal motion following the instantanean motion of the minde from whence also followeth that Christs glorified soul being in heaven and having a thought or desire to be in an instant upon earth and in a thousand equivocal places there sacramentally at the same time without passing through any intermediate place which she can do by reason of her hypostatical union to the divinity that his body because of its perfect subjection to his soul can pass with a Motus discretus or equivocal motion and accompany her in all her sacramental places together and be really in every of them not after a quantitative or circumscriptive but after a sacramental or spiritual manner as the soul is in a mans body all the soul in the whole body and all the soul in every point and particle of the body for as a spirit possesseth not a place quantitatively or superficially so also may a glorified body being spiritualized be in a place after a spiritual manner By this solution Mr. de Rodons first arrow is not only shivered and broken but his following proofs also eluded and enerved For all their force is bent only against the bringing or being of Christs body in the host circumscriptively and into its natural and univocal place all which we grant cannot be supposing the heavens are to contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts. 3. But they make nothing at all against its being or being brought in the host sacramentally and in its equivocal place for such a being or coming depends not upon a proper and univocal place as all divines and Philosophers confess And consequently Mr. de Rodons ayery existence of Christs body is but a meere â—…himera Though we grant Christ hath a natural existence in heaven and a sacramental one upon Earth which we say is but one and the self same of him as he is in several manners For if he should change himself into the form of a child or into any other form whatsoever as he can do his natural existence and that would be one and the self same By this solution is also seen how Christs body may be brought into the Sacrament as the Iacobins say or produced in it as the Jesuits say without his leaving to be in heaven in his human shape for no body leaveth its proper place wherein it is but by its proper local motion from the proper place wherein it was into another proper place But a proper local motion belongs only to circumscribed bodies when they are brought circumscriptively to their proper and univocal places Therefore since Christs body is not brought so into the Sacrament it may keep its connatural station and situation in heaven and yet notwithstanding be brought or produced in the host being he comes nor is produced there by local motion nor is in the Sacrament as in its proper place but only in an improper and equivocal one as we have often said before Rodon 4. Secondly Christs body cannot be reproduced in the consecrated host because a thing that is produced already cannot be produced again without a preceding destruction for as a dead man cannot be killed nor that be annihilated which is annihilated already so neither can that be produced which is produced already nor that receive a being which hath one already This common conception of all men is founded upon this Principle that every action whether it produceth or destroyeth a thing must necessarily have two distinct terms the one called in the schools Terminus a quo that is the term from which the thing comes and the other Terminus ad quem that is the term to which it comes But according to this Principle that cannot be annihilated which is so already nor that receive a being which hath one already because the term from which it should come and the term to which it should come would be one and the same thing contrary to the maxim already laid down viz. that the terms of Action must necessarily be distinct and that one of them must be the negation or privation of the other Answ. To this argument I answer that that which is produced already cannot be reproduced as to its entitative and essential being but that which is produced already as to its essential being may be produced or rather adduced as to its modal being and so we say Christs body is in the Sacrament because his essential being as he is in his natural human shape in heaven hinders not his Sacramental or modal being here upon earth for neither his entity nor his Sacramental existence depends upon any univocal place or space Rodon 5. Here perhaps it may be objected that by Transubstantiation the substence of Christs body is not newly produced but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was But to this I answer that in all substantial conversions and actions a new substance must be produced as in accidental a new accident must be produced But Transubstantiation according to the Romish doctors is a substantial conversion Therefore by Transubstantiation a new substance must be produced And seeing that the new presence of Christs body in the place where the bread was is not a substance but an accident of the Cathegory which the Philosophers call ubi it is evident that by Transubstantiation the presence of Christs body only is not produced in the place where the substance of the bread was and seeing that the substance of Christs body is not produced there as hath been proved in the preceding number we must conclude that there is no Transubstantiation nor real presence of Christs body in the host which hath been already refuted in number the third Answ. Mounsieur you need not bragg much of your refutations in both your said numbers for they are clearly answered by me in their due place And the objection you make for us here is very true for it is not the essential substance of Christs body that is newly produced by transubstantiation but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was for that essential production was made at his Incarnation and will abide for ever however we say that his body hath a substantial and essential existence in the host by reason of its Sacramental presence there and you speak very unskillfully and unphilosophically when you say that Christs presence in the Sacrament is an accident of the Cathegory which Philosophers call ubi for his Presence
shape in heaven in his proper place and in the Sacrament he is but in his improper and equivocal place to which distance hath no relation at all it followeth evidently that his body in heaven is not different or distant from it self in the Sacrament no more then two Angels or spirits are distant from one another which yet no good Philosopher will acknowledge because of their incapacity of being circumscribed for want of supersices By this solution is clearly seen how frivolous ridiculous and impertinent all Mr. de Rodons ensuing Instances and witty quodlibetical questions are and how wide they are from the mark for they all aym and strike at one body the same time in two or more circumscriptive places but they touch or concern not at all one body at the same time in its natural place and in its sacramental place which is the only question we are about Therefore according to good Philosophy he argues unskilfully and impertinently by arguing from an univocal place to an equivocal one or vice versa for I grant him that the same body at the same time cannot be circumscriptively in two places but what is this to our present controversie Therefore I am mistaken if I have not according to the judgment of any indifferent Philosopher answered the Mounsieurs argument pertinently and Philosophically as all other Philosophers would have done and not absurdly and ridiculously as he is sure it could not be answered otherwise and to his ridiculous questions I say that if Christ or Peter should meet themselves in their sacramental or equivocal places they may walk by themselves freely without passing through themselves or making a Ianus or two faces for when our saviour gave himself sacramentally to himself and to his Apostles he made neither a Ianus or double face because as I have a hundred times repeated it over and over a body sacramentaly or equivocaly in a place which properly and in rigour is no place at all cannot stop or hinder a circumscribed body from going unto any proper place Neither do we allow of any nearness or distance but between circumscribed bodies in their univocal places from whence I conclude that these questions are more ridiculous and impertinent then any answer could have been given them and so this arrow is also lost Now then to his 5th Rodon 6. It is a perfect contradiction that a body should be one and not one But if Christs body should be at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it would be one and not one for it would be one by our adversaries own confession and it would not be one which I prove thus that a thing may be one it must neither be divided in it self nor from it self as appears by the definition of unity And it is certain that nothing is divided and separated from it self But if Christs body be at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it will be diviâ—…ed and separated from it self that which is in heaven â—…eing separated and divided from that which is upon earth because it 〈◊〉 not in the space between both Here again it may be objected that a body in divers places is divided from it self locally because the places in which it is are divided but not entitatively because it is still one and the same entity of body To which I answer 1. that entitive division which is nothing else but a plurality of beings or a plurality of things really different is no true division for then the three divine Persons which are really different would be also really divided and the body and soul of a living man which do really differ would also be really divided Secondly I say that if a body be divided and separated from bodies which it toucheth it is also divided and separated from bodies which it doth not touch and if a body be divided and separated from bodies to which it is near it is also divided and separated from bodies that are far distant from it but especially the division is true when between two there be bodies of divers natures to which there is no union Therefore seeing that between Christs body which is really in heaven and the same body which is pretendedly upon earth in the consecrated hosts there be divers bodies of divers natures to which it is not united it is evident by our adversaries own doctrine that Christs body is really divided and separated from it self And seeing it is impossible it should be separated from it self it is also impossible that it should be in heaven and in the host at the same time Thirdly I say that local division takes away entitive division and things that are divided locally are also divided entitatively that is they are also really different else no reason can be given why two glasses of water taken from the same fountain â—…are really different seeing these waters are like in all things except in reference to place and there can no reason be given why the ocean is not one single drop of water only reproduced in all places occupied by the ocean except it be that one drop of water cannot be reproduced in all those places but if it be possible then reason obligeth us to believe that it is really so because God and nature do nothing in vain and it is in vain to do that by many things which may be done by one thing and if it be really so then it follows that all the Sea-battells that ever have been were fought in one drop of water and many thousands of men have been drowned in one drop of water and all people since Adam have drunk but one drop of water which things are absurd and ridiculous Answ. Yet more impertinencies Mr. de Rodon and more of your foolish merry conceited ridiculous sequels I doubt not gentle reader but this famous Philosophy-professor was excellently well pleased at this witty and merry conceited drop of water that drains the ocean drowned so many thousands and refreshes us all But who knows that the Philosopher took not a harty draft or two of good wine to season his brain before this great drop presented it self to his whimsical nodle Therefore lest he should grow frantick with his dropsical conceit I moulder his argument and its sequels thus by denying his minor viz. that in that case he puts Christs body would be one and not one and to his proof I deny also his second minor viz. that if Christs body were at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host it would be divided and separated from it self because Christs body is in the host but Sacramentally only just almost in a manner as our souls are in our bodies and the difference is this that our souls are pure spirits and his body is a true body spiritualized and that his body is not confined and limited to one equivocal place as the soul is to the body but it may be
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
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
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
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
an absolute term for when we conceive an absolute term we conceive but one thing as when we conceive a crow but when we conceive a relative term we necessarily conceive two things for example we connot conceive a crow to be like without conceiving something else to which it is like seeing then we cannot conceive a thing to be distant without conceiving something else from which it is distant it is evident that to be distant is a relative term and that distant things are relatives and consequently are really different whence I form this Argument Relative things are really different as hath been proved but the body that is at Rome is distant from that which is at Paris by reason of the space of 300. leagues that is between these two cities the body that is in the highest heavens is distant from that which is upon earth by reason of the many thousands of leagues that are between heaven and earth Therefore the body that is at Rome is different from that which is at Paris and that which is in heaven is different from that which is upon earth and consequently one and the same body cannot be at the same time at Rome and at Paris in heaven and upon earth else one and the same body might be distant and different from it self which is a contradiction Therefore seeing Iesus Christ is not distant and different from himself it follows that he cannot be at the same time in heaven and in the host nor at the same time in the consecrated host at Rome and at Paris But perhaps it may be said that a body being at the same time in two distant places is not distant from it self but that the places only are distant and therefore that Christs body in heaven is not distant from it self in the host but it is the places only viz. heaven and earth where the host is that are distant To this I answer that it is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in those distant places for example the reason why Peter at Rome is distant from Paul at Paris is not because they are two things really different else they would be alwaies distant even when they are in one bed together for they are alwaies really different but all the reason of their distance is because they are in two distant places Seeing then according to our Adversaries that Christs body is in two distant places at once viz. in heaven and in the host at Rome and at Paris in divers hosts it follows that Christs body is distant and different from it self it is evident that it cannot be in two distant places at once and consequently not in heaven and in the host Besides suppose that Peter could be at Rome and at Paris at once and that Peter that is at Rome should have a minde to go to Paris and should go accordingly and that the same Peter that is at Paris should have a minde to go to Rome and should go accordingly it is certain that Peter would draw near to himself and meet himself but things that draw near to each other must of necessity have been at a distance before and therefore if a body draw near to it self it is certain that it was distant from it self before and hereupon I would fain ask our Adversaries whether when Peter should meet himself he would let himself pass or not and if he should let himself pass whether Peter going to Rome would step aside and give way to himself going to Paris or else the contrary but if he should not step aside and give place to himself I would ask whether he would hinder himself from passing or not and if he should not hinder himself from passing whether he would passe through himself and so make another Janus with two faces c. whatsoever answers they will make to these questions must I am sure be very absurd and ridiculous Answ. I am sure the answers I shall make to these your questions and argument also will appear to any learned man to be both solid and sound and better grounded in true Philosophy then all your sophismes are and they will manifestly evince that these unphilosophical illations and as you think witty conceited interrogations of yours are but meere ridiculous quibbies and impertinent foolish trifles not at all touching our Diana which is the mark you ought to aim 〈◊〉 with your arrow Therefore to give your argument or arrow the more vent and force I grant two Relatives are different and that Relation is alwaies between two things that differ really or modally I also grant that two crows and two Jackdaws too although they are like in colour and shape do differ in their entities and that nothing hath a relation to it self while it is taken in the same formality Finally I confess that this word distant is a relative and not an absolute term Now all this being granted I hope the Mounsieur will hit right thus he shoots Relative things are really different But the body that is at Rome is diâ—…tant from that which is at Paris therefore the body which is at Rome is different from that is at Paris Before I shatter this vain and ill-leveled arrow I must let the Reader know that although this word distant be a relative term that signifies an interval betwixt different things yet because there is no distance between corporal things by reason of their proper and univocal places therefore distance cannot extend it self beyond the sphear of an univocal place So that there can be no proper distance but betwixt bodies and only betwixt such bodies too as are circumscribed and are in their univocal places for no body can rightly and properly say that two angels or two spirits are distant from one another because they have no bodies and consequently no univocal places to circumscribe them and the whole reason is because distance depends wholy upon an univocal place so that where there is no proper place there can be no distance This sure ground thus layd I confess the Mouusieurs Major and distinguish his minor thus But the body which is at Rome is distant from c. The body which is circumscriptively at Rome is distant from the body which is circumscriptively at Paris I confess the minor the body which is sacramentally or in its equivocal place at Rome is distant from the body that is at Paris or in heaven either I deny the minor and consequence also Therefore we say that it is not to be in two equivocal places nor in twenty also together that causes two bodies to be near or distant Nay more then that although one of those bodies were in its proper place and the other but in an equivocal one we say those two bodies would not be properly near or distant because nearness and distance has no relation at all to equivocal places but only to univocal ones Since then Jesus Christ is in his natural
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
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
ignominy to Christs glorified body for Xaintes his meaning was this that if any man should with pretence of devotion and of being a Christian come to receive the B. Sacrament although he were in himself a Turk an Infidel an Atheist an Hypocrite or devil incarnate the Church will not bar him from taking the Sacrament and the reason is because the Church doth judge of exteriour things only and not of interiour But if a Christian and Catholick also were convinced of a publick and notorious crime or were known to be under an Ecclesiastical consure until he were reconsiled to the Church absolved from his sins and did satisfactory pennance for them he may be sure he shall not be admitted to this Sacrament what ignominy is this I pray to Gods glorified body That the Sacrament was stoln away at Paris and the theif executed for it was wickedly done by the theif and he was justly punished for it and the Priest that took the Sacrament out of his pocket did very well to go in his sacerdotal ornaments kneel and take it out reverently and in all this the Priest did but his duty But where is the ignominy done to Chrâ—…sts glorified body all this while or did it suffer any prejudice by the Theif or by the Priest and when the sacramental species were disasterously burnt with the kings Palace at Paris did that fire work upon Christs glorified body or can a glorified body be subject to fire water sword gun or any kind of sublunary body or element In this my thinks the Mounsieur shews what an excellent Divine and Philosopher he is That the host the God of the Mass hath been seen in the hands of one possest I do not believe the Mounsieur because no body may handle our Sacrament lawfully but a Priest or a deacon unless it were through extream necessity for saving it from fire or from the hands of infidels But that the Priest might lay the Sacrament upon a possest bodies head or hold it before him I questiâ—…ion not and yet if the Sacrament were put into the hands of a person possest I deny it would be in the Devils power therefore more then it was when Christ himself gave it to Iudas the traytour but will de Rodon say that Christ did a horrible and prodigious act for giving himself to Iudas That the Romish Priests do use exorcisms composed by the Church which are no charms as the Mounsieur slanderously term them to compel the devil to obedience and sometimes make use of the B. Sacrament too as of her most esâ—…icatious means in order to that effect is no ignominy at all to Christs glorified bodie but it rather shews manifestly that the Romish Priests are the true successors of the Apostles unto whom Christ gave power to tread upon the infernal serpents and scorpioâ—…s and upon all the power of the enemy Luke 10. 19. a thing which de Rodon nor any of his ever as yet did dare practise or when ever they did or do they never come off with better luck then the seven sons of Sceva the Jewish high Priest did Act. 19. 14. In short whereas our Saviour himself gave the Sacrament to Iudas who was not much better then a devil incarnate and since he gave it him while his body was as yet patible and consequently more subject to be hurt and annoyed then it is now being glorified and impatible sure it is that although those who receive his body unworthily will as Iudas did reap unto themselves ignominy harm and misery yet Christs glorified body by reason of its spiritual dowries is and will always remain glorious and hurtless in it self and so will our diana also for ought this arrow can do against her his twelfth arrow is miraculous that 's to say drawn from miracles thus Rodon 15. God doth no Miracles without necessity But what necessity is there that he should do so many miracles in this Sacrament viz. that accidents should be without a subject that the bread should be converted into Christs body which is already that Christs body should be in a point and in a hundred thousand places at once what necessity is there that it should be eaten by wicked men by beasts or by devils incarnate what necessity is there that it should be carried away by the devil that it should be stoln or burnt c. Can it be said that it is for the salvation of the soul of him that eateth it But Reprobates as our Adversaries confess eat it too and the faithful under the old Testament did not eat it nor do the little children of the believers under the new and yet they are saved for all that Can it be said with Bellarmin and Peron that the host being eaten serves as an incorruptible seed for a glorious Resurrection but the faithful of the old Law and the little children of the believers of the new will rise agâ—…in gloriously though they never participated of the Eucharist And S. Paul tels us Rom. 8. that this seed of the Resurrection of our bodies is not Christs flesh but his spirit in these words 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 Answ. That God doth no miracles without necessity or some great cause I confess and to each Quaere of this interrogative argument I shall answer first presupposing this Gods own saying and my delight 's to be with the children of men Prov. 8. for this reason Christ ascending into heaven in his corporal shape and sitting at the right hand of his heavenly father to feed all the celestial spirits with the sight of his glory for their chief felitity consists in contemplating and beholding of it where he is to remain until the time of the restitution of all things yet he was also gratiously pleased to remain with us in his Church militant after an ineffable sacramental manner to feed our souls upon earth with his graces that flow from this Sacrament as also for to fortiâ—…e and strengthen us against our common Enemies viz. the devil the world and our own proper flesh with his divine presence lest otherwise they should prove too hard for his poor fighting Church Lastly he was pleased so to do that we should know and be encouraged thereby that we have a Mediatour to interpose himself betwixt his father and us which father when he sees the rememorative unbloudy sacrifice we offer him in remembrance of the bloudy Passion of his moâ—…t dearly beloved son in satisfaction for our hainous sins committed against his divine Majesty for the worthiness and purity of the oblation or sacrifice if we offer it him with due devotion and while we are in the â—…tate of Grace he is presently reconciled unto us for his sons sake and ready to bestow upon us more of his new favours and Graces Christ then who is the wisdom of his heavenly father
of your selues for as Christ covers not your impurities nor imputes his righteousness unto you but rather esteems you for no better then heathens and publicans because you hear not his Church so the holy Ghost has nothing to do with you for Christs holy spirit never contradicts Christ. True it is what you say that that which God hath decreed Jesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun that that is reputed by God perfect and compleat But this only concerns orthodox people and not you for them be these the Apostle speaks of 1 Tym. 2. 8. in these words you aledge I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Iesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Very farr alass are you from such people for you pray but very little or nothing in comparison of others who pray both day and night and you pray not every where for if you were compared with the rest of the world who profess Christ you are but a handful of people in little corners or Islands and there too but for a very short time in comparison of former ages how holy your hands are set aside your own private conceits of your selves the rest of the world can easily judge how void of wrath especially against us we very well know how undoubting you are in points of Religion no body breathing can tell for no two of you could ever as yet fully agree as to that point and every one of you is always seeking but never finding what can quiet and content his conscience in that matter you run from the luke-warm Protestant to the precise Puritan or Presbyterian who hates and rayles at the Protestant Bishops and Clergy as much as they do at us others of you from being Presbyterians turn Independents and viceversa from Independents and Presbyterians you turn Anabaptists from Anabaptists you become Quakers from Quakers Fanaticks and from Phanaticks at last you become Atheists your union consists only in this that to preserve your worldly Interest you retain the common notion or name of Protestant and band all against the Roman Catholick whereas on the contrary the Roman Catholick or Papist holds still to his old Lady Dinna to his Invocation of saints to his praying for the souls departed to the Indulgences which are as he believes bequeathed by Christ unto his Church to Pur gatory all which they say are included in these two articles of our belief viz. I believe in the holy Catholick Church and in the communion of saints In a word all the Roman Catholicks do unanimously agree in all the tenents and points of their whole Religion and are perfectly satisfied and contented in their consciences as to all matters of faith without running here and there from one sect to another to search and seek after new opinions as the Protestants do How then can you be the Church the Congregation of the faithful whom the Apostle sayes Ephes. 5. Christ loved and gave himself for how can you be a glorious Church a Church without spot or wrinckle or any such thing a holy one and without blemish Objection 6th Roman 20. The sixth objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedeck king of salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him and from Ps. 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck from which words they argue thus Iesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck the difference between Aaron and Melchisedeck consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of beasts which they sacrificed to God as a signe and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings he offered to God bread and wine And seeing this bread and wine offered to God by Melchisedeck were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Iesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the Institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer to the shaddows and types Secondly that although Melchisedeck had brought all his bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Armyâ—… that returned from the slaughter of the kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine and the reason of this is because the scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils amongst which there was bread and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and of his people Also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedeck met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly they say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was a Priest of the most high God which show the reason why Melchisedeck brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the scripture would have said that he brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was a Priest fourthly they say that Jesus Christ is a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Iesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Masse viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of broad and wine of Melchisedeck Answer Rodon 21. To this I answer first that the hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. But our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put