were still called Blind by that way of speaking If yow ask me what he invited them to drink when he said to his Disciples Math. 26. Drink ye all of this I answer be invited them to drink a cup of Blood for the Wine was converted into Blood afore they drunk the cup for the cup's being the cup of his blood was the reason he brought to move them to drink it now we do not bring the reason to move a man to do a thing after he has done it but before Also the demonstrative particle This as it does not demonstrate a thing that is not yet neither does it demonstrate a thing that is past but joyned to a verb of the present tence with a full sense it demonstrates a thing present If Chrict had meant of what they had drunk afore he would have said That was and not Tkis is so you may suppose he did not give them the Cup afore he had ended his speach But why does S. Mark chap. 14. Set the consecration after the drinking Answer it 's a figurative speach we call Histerologia when we relate first that which was done last As when S. Math. in the 27 chap. relates the Resurrection of the bodies of the Saints afore the Resurrection of Christ who nevertheless rose first Again by the same figure S. Math. Chap. 11. from the 2 verse to the 20 relates concerning Iohn Bap. the things that fell out afore the mission of the Apostles which mission he had related before in the 10. Chap. Nay I hope Mr. Rodon will not have our Saviour to have consecrated or blissed the wine by saying this is my blood when it was in the disciples stomacks Mr. Ro. urges When a thing is converted into another wee cannot see the property of the thing converted but only that into which it is converted Answer In a natural conversion which is not a Sacrament I grant in a supernatural which makes a Sacrament I deny for the Eucharist being a signe of our spiritual nourishment it is such by the species of Bread which nourishes the body Also the property of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist which is to nourish the soul by Grace being an object of saith is seen by the understanding but not by the eye of the Body so Abraham saw by faith that those who appeared to him Gen. 18. like men were Angels For brevities sake to his saying In everie substanstial conversion c. Answer in every substantial conversion which is not of the whole substance there must be a subject to passe from on substance to another I grant if it be of the whole as Transubstantiation I deny for God's almighty power is able to change the matter as well as the form of a thing when it pleases him Neither is it a Creation because the accidents are something common to both and the Body of Christ was before existent To his saying that Transubstantiation destroyes the nature of Accidents this I deny because the nature of an accident is not to inhere actually but to have an exigency or an innate appetite of inhering which a substance hath not because naturally a human nature demandes a human subsistance would Mr. Rodon have said that there is a human person in Christ To his saying that Transubstantiation destroyes the nature of Sacraments that I also deny and shew the contrary Because the Body of Christ as it is united to the species of Bread is the Sacrament which hath not only an absolute being but also a relative Sacramental and significative being as Mr Ro. requires for as the species of Bread represent and signify to us bread which nourishes the Body so do the same species by the Consecration of the Host represent to us the Body of Christ which nourishes the soul by the grace it produces in it Thus you see 1. In the species an Analogie or relation to the thing signified viz. Nourishment 2. A double being of the Sacrament the absolute being in the Bodie of Christ and the Relative being in the Species And so you see that Transubstantiation does not any wise destroy the being of a Sacrament ar Sign Note that the substances of Bread alone or Wine alone are not signs for substances do not fall under or affect our senses but by their accidents so the whole force of signifying is in the species which move our senses and consequently 't is not required that the formal signs be such that they may nourish our Bodies to save the likeness between the Sacrament and nourishment signified by it It 's enough that the species signifie nourishment in the Eucharist as they did afore in the Bread in the Bread nourishment of the Body by Bread in the Eucharist nourishment of the Soul by the Body of Christ If you say the Body of Christ under the species cannot nourish the Soul I answer Materially and corporally I grant Effectively and Spiritually producing grace in it I deny To Mr. Ro. saying The Council of Trent commands the adoration of the Eucharist And therefore the accidents of Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Answer The accidents are not a part of the Sacrament I deny they are not the whole Sacrament I grant The Sacrament is said to be adored when the cheif part of it the Body of Christ united to the Divinity is adored for the species they are only adored per accidens as the garment of Christ by him who adored his person To his saying a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace But in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ are not visible Therefore in the Eucharist they are not the Sacrament Answer I distinguish the minoâ— They are not a visible sign alone I grant joyned to the species I deny Neither do we say That the Body and Blood alone are the Sacrament nor the species alone but the Body and Blood joyned to the species are the Sacrament and that whole is a visible sign To his saying that nothing can be both the sign and thing signified Answer Nothing can be the sign and the thing signified in the same manner in which it is the sign I grant in an other manner I deny Did not the Angel give the sheepheards for a sign of our Saviour Born that they should find a Child in a manger who was the Saviour himself He in the qualitie of a Child in a manger is a sign of himself as the Born Saviour So Christ in the Eucharist may be a sign of himself on the Cross Also a loafe of Bread exposed in a window is a sign of it self to be sold But to give you more the Body united to the accidents of Bread is a visible sign not of Christ's Body but of the invisible grace which this Sacrament produces in the Soul so the sign and the thing signified are different CHAPTER IV. Against the real presence of Christ's Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer SECTION I. A
sacramento S. lavâ—eri dicentem sed de sacramento â—rensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit â—isi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. non habebitis vitam in vobis quid ad hoc responderi potest c. An veâ—â—ò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quòd ad parvulos haec senten iâ— non pertineat possintqùe sine participatione Corporis hujus sanguinis in se habere vitam i. e. Let us hear sayes he our Lord not indeed speaking of the sacrament of the holy layer Baptism but of the sacrament of his table to which no man comes lawfullie unless he be baptized Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c You shall not have life in you What can be answered to this c. Dare anâ—e say that this sentence does not belong to Children and that they may have life in them without the participation of this Bodie and Blood Rem o. That it is not likely that S. Io. whose desing in his Ghospell was to speak of the greatest mysteries of the life of Christ would have omitted that of the Eucharist or of his giving his Body and Blood to his Disciples at the last supper which the three other Evangelists so accurately set down as if one would not omit to confirm what the other said of this mysterie but if he did not mean of it when he relates what Christ in his 6. Chap. said of giving his body and his Blood threatening them if they did not eate it and drink it he has omited it SECTION II. We must eate the real flesh of Christ and drink his Blood sacramentallie i. e. sensibly by the mouth of the body and not by the mouth of faith onlie TO prove this Catholick truth we bring these two passages Unless you eate the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you shall have no life in you Io. 6. v. 54. and v. 56. For my Flesh is meat indeed c To prove that this eating and drinking is to be understood only of an eating and drinking by faith protestants according to the principle of comparing scripture with scripture the obscurer passage with the clearer to know the true sense of both bring two passages which follow relating to the same matter to be compared with ours viz. 'T is the spirit that quicknes the flesh profits nothing The words which I have spoken are spirit and truth v. 64. We say that these latter passages are the obscurer and do not prove so clearly that we must eate and drink the Body and Blood of Christ only by faith as ours prove that wee must eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body 1. Because these two passages do not speak of faith but only of spirit and life there are other acts of spirit and life than acts of faith the acts of love The zeal of thy house hath eaten me sayes David Psal 69. v. .9 in the protestant Bible in ours 68. v. 10. How prove you that Christ means here an act of faith 2. We know there is no other proper mouth in man but that of the body wherefore when Christ sayes unless you eate the f esh and drink the blood of the son of man c. We understand he means with the mouth of the body Again since to eate and drink are the proper acts of the mouth till you prove to us that we cannot receave the body of Christ spiritualised or having the property of a spirit into our mouths why shall not wee believe that Christ meant we should eate his flesh with the mouth of our Body since a terme sine addito if you add nothing is alwise taken for the thing for which it supposes properlie So Homo a man if you add nothing supposes for a true man and not a painted man wherefore Christ saying Unless you eate the body of the son of man without adding by faith that eateing he speaks of is to be understood by the mouth of the body this being that which we understand properly by the tearm eating Nor doth it s not nourishing the body hinder it to be eaten by the mouth of the body no more then poyson tho it nourish not hinders to believe that many have drunk poison Since then these two latter passages are the obscurer they ought to be explained to the sense of the former two passages brought by us or so that they do not contradict them which are clear Wherfore I explaine them thus 'T is the spirit that quickness c. i. e 'T is my divine spirit or my Divinity that quicknes the receaver of my Body to a supernatural life as the soul quicknes the body to actiones of a natural life and as the bodie could not be quickned to hear or see without the soul so could not the receaver of my Bodie or he who eates it sacramentallie be quickned to a supernatural life were it not united to my divinity Of which divine spirit quickning or giving life to wit supernatural the words I have spoken are to be understood 2. My words are spirit and life i. e. They are to be understood spiritually or that you are to eate my flesh being in the sacrament after a spiritual way with the propertie of a spirit for the nourishment of your soul not being there in a carnall way like a piece of dead flesh to be divided with your teeth for the nourishment of your body 3. My words are spirit and life i. e. My words intimated v. 54. Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c Obeyed will give you my spirit and by it a supernatural life or grace which leads to eternall life Christ adds presently v. 65 There are some of you which do not believe as if he should say the reason wherefore you stumble at my promise of giving you my flesh to eate is because you do not believe really that I am the son of God and so able to do all things howsoever strange they may seem to be By what I have said in this section you see proven that these words of Christ He that eates my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternall life Io. 6. v. 55. and my flesh is meat indeed c. v. 56. are to be understood of a corporall eating by the mouth of the body and not of a meer spiritual eating and drinking by faith I say not a meer spiritual eating because we hold we must add an act of faith to our sensible eating of his Body nay this Corporall eating may be cald a spiritual eating in a good sense in as much as we believe That the Bodie of Christ in the sacrament as it is reallie there so it is spiritualiy I mean with the propertie of a spirit As S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. v. 44. sayes Our bodies shall rise spiritual i. e. spiritualized viz. in glory they shall have the properties of a spirit Note
we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lord's flesh in the Sacrament let him be Turk Atheist yea tho he should be the Divel himself incarnate I Answer That is to be understood if his unworthiness be unknown to the Priest or known only by Confession For of this he cannot make use to diffame him Did not Christ give the Communion to Judas Ob. 12. God makes no miracles without necessity but what necessity is there for the miracles we avow to be made in the Eucharist Then they are not made there and so Christ's Body is not there Answer I distingish the major without an absolute necessity I deny Without a certain consequential necessity supposing that he will make an extraordinary shew of his power or goodness I grant And this was the reason wherefore he made so many miracles which were not absolutely necessary in the bringing the Children of Israël out of Egipt to wit to give an extraordinary shew of his power And in the Eucharist he makes some where he would also give an extraordinary shew of his singular goodness and love to man fore-told by the Royal Prophet Psal 110. v. 4. He hath made a memory of his marvellous works to wit in giving his Body and Blood to be a spiritual Food to these who fear him Mr. Rodon asks here if it can be said that the Eucharist is for the Salvation of the Soul of him that eats it since the reprobate eates it too and the Faithful under the Old Testament and Infants in the New do not eat it Answer Yes it can be said because 't is the reprobate's fault that it does not save him Neither that the Faithfull of the Old Law and Infants in the New are not saved by an eating of it makes any thing against it because it was not instituted for them Mr. Rodon askes again if it can be said with Bellarmine and Perron that the Host being eaten serves as an incorruptable Food for a glorious resurrection since the Faithfull of the Old Testament and Infants in the New rise again gloriously without it Answer Yes it can be said because Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 54. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day And the Council of Nice calles the Eucharist Symbolum resurrectionis a token of the Resurrection and S. Ignatius M. Epist 14. to the Ephes terms it Pharmacum immortalitatis a medicine of immortality Now if you ask the manner how it serves as an Incorruptible Food for a glorious Resurrection I Answer the species being altered by the heat of the stomach the Body of Christ ceases to be there but his Diety remaines after a special manner in the Soul as the virtue of Wheat remaines in the corrupted Grain to raise it again at Spring feeding it with grace and at set times affording it new infusions of actual Grace divine lights and heavenly affections And in the Resurrection raises again the Body and unites it to this Soul But this proposition being affirmative does not exclude from Glory those of the Old Testament and Infants of the New who have not for want of Capacity the Participation of this Sacrament Who sayes that a Ship serves to go from Leith to London does not say that a man cannot go without it viz. by Horse Neither is S. Paul against us but for us when he sayes Rom. 8. If the Spirit of him who raised up IESVS from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you viz. as the efficient and the immediate cause this Spirit being the seed and virtue left by the Eucharist the eating of which was a remote cause conveiging in a particular manner by way of disposition this Spirit to us Mr. Rodon's last Objection is The Heavens must contain Christ untill the time of restitution of all things Act. 3. v. 21. And he himself said I leave the World c. Io. 16. Therefore he is not in the Eucharist Answer We don't say he leaves Heaven to come to the Host or that he hath not left the World as to his visible presence but we say he is and will be with us even to the consumation of the World Math. 28. in an invisible way viz. in the Eucharist Mr. Ro. adds that Christ Math. 24. warnes us not to believe when false Prophets in the last day shall say he is in the Desert he is in the secret Chambers and remarks that the Greek for secret Chambers has en Tameiois that is in the Cup-boards which is to be understood of our Cabinets on our Altars according to Mr. Rodon's explication Answer I remark that where the Greek has Tameiois which signifies an Excheker which relates to secresie as well as Cup-board the Syriach has In Bed Chambers that is as A Lapide explaines a most inward room and that the vulgar Latin has In penetralibus to the meaning of Christ The Greek word is of no force more than the Latin or Syriack that Gospel having been written in Hebrew of which we have not the Authentick Copy Here I may say with S. Aug. Lib. 22. de Civit. Dei Cap. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas Behold with what arguments human infirmity possessed with vanity opposes the almighty power of God CHAPTER V. Against the Adoration and Worshiping of the Host SECTION I. That we ought to adore Christ in the H. Host is proven A Blind Servant thinks himself obliged to take off his hat when he is told his Lord is in the Room Then I am bound to adore Christ when my faith tells me that Christ is present in the Host I prove the Consequence I am as much bound to adore Christ present my Lord and my Redeemer as the blind servant is bound to the taking off his hat in the presence of his Lord and Master Mr. Rodon remarks that Moses Exod. 3. was commanded to approach with reverence and adoration the Bush that burned and was not consumed because God did manifest some what of his power and glory in that place I subsume but Christ doth manifest some what of his power and glory in the H. Host Therefore we ought not to approach it but with reverence and adoration I prove my subsumption Christ gives there to the purer Souls surprising delights and works admirable changes in them which is a manifestation of his power and a ray of his glory there this is known to the faithful which made the heavenly enlightened Author of the following of Christ lib. 4. cap. 1. say O admirahle and hidden grace of the Sacrament which the faithful only of Christ know If you say this is not sensible to the imperfiter Souls amongst Romanists I answer that does not make it not to be true God shewed much of his power and glory in the Manna to the perfit ones
themselves and take notice of them when they hear them pronounced by others Courteous Reader if in my Proofs and Solution of Mr. Rodon's greater objections or in my remarks here and there and notes which are the seed of Answers fore-running and short Solutions of difficulties you your self see the Solution of many of his petty instances don't wonder that for brevities sake I pass them when I come to them as equivalently answered already An answer to Monsieur de Rhodon's FVNERAL of the MASSE The first Chapter Concerning the exposition of these words THIS IS MY BODIE WE say these words This is my Body prove clearly the real presence of Christs Body in the Host Because they ought to be taken in their proper sense in which they would prove it clearly by the grant of our adversaries who therfore say they are to be taken figuratively Now that they ought to be taken here in their proper sense I prove 1. positively SECTION I. Positive Proofs 1. WHen in a speach a word is indifferent of it self to be taken in the literal or figurative sense you must look to the words that follow in the same speach if they express the propertie of a figure the word is to be taken figuratively if the propertie of the real thing then the word is to be taken in the literal sense For example when one tells me I have seen the King I know not yet what he means whether his person or picture but when he adds set in a frame of Gold I know he means his picture because 't is the propertie of a picture to be set in a frame If he adds speaking with the Chancellor I know he means the King's person because 't is the propertie of a person to speake with another Just so when Christ sayes Luk. 22. v. 19. This is my Bodie I know not yet what he means whether his Real Body or only a figure of it But when he adds which is given for you I know he means of his true Body because 't is the propertie of a true Bodie to be sacrificed for us 2. I prove again that these words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken in the literal sense by the protestant principle which is this When two passages relate to or speak of the same matter in Scripture the obscurer passage is to be explaned by the clearer But these two passages relating to our Lord's Supper This is my Body and Do this in remembrance of me This latter is the obscurer and that former the clearer then this latter ought to be explaned by that former that is to say to the sense of that former viz. Christ having changed a piece of Bread into his Body by his almightie word sayes there to his disciples Do ye for the food of others souls what ye have seen me do for the food of yours Change ye lykewayes by pronouncing the words I have ordained for that end Bread into my Body but do it with such circumstances that people standing by may be mindful of my death and passion But the clear proposition ought not to be explaned by the obscure one thus This is my Body that is to say this is a figure only or a remembrance of my body because he said after do this in remembrance of me for the thing was now done and he had told them what it was in clear words afore he said Do this in remembrance of me He did not say this is a remembrance of me no but Do this in remembrance of me He did not speake of the substance of the thing but only of the manner of doing it By these words then in remembrance of me he only intimated that they should make at that same time a sensible expression of his passion to the people as is seen done in the sacrifice of the Masse If by This he understood a figure or remembrance then he had said do or make a remembrance of me in remembrance of me or remember me to remember me which is ridiculous Now let any indifferent and judicious man be judge if these words do this in remembrance of me be as clear to prove that in the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper is only a Figure of Christ's Bodie as these words This is my Bodie are clear to prove that the Eucharist is his true Body If you instance that as Christ said This is my Body so he said also I am a vine and consequently as the latter proposition must be taken figuratively so must also the former I answer it doth not follow there being a great disparity For we all protestants as well as Catholicks avow that propositions in the Holy Scripture cannot be taken in the literal sense if so taken they imply or intimate something contrarie to faith as this proposition I am a vine literallie taken would do For protestants as well as Catholicks believe that the Divine word hath assumed no nature but that of man then he hath not assumed that of a Vine and consequently 't is against faith to say in the literal sense Christ is a Vine But these words This is my Body taken in the literal sense imply nothing against faith no more then he who shewing you a knife sayes This is a knife for the terme This and the terme Knife suppose for the same thing and not for different natures so in Christ's proposition This is my Bodie This and Body suppose for the same thing not This for Bread but for The Body of Christ as well as the word Bodie supposes for it tho in a different way of signifieing This obscurely and Body clearly and distinctlie Here I humbly intreat the protestant reader to reflect that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding 2. Cor. 10. v. 5. that is to say suspend it from asserting what it might judge had it nothing to rely upon but the sole relation of our senses to obey Christ God will have as an homage due to him and his veracitie this proud faculty of man which is earnest to judge of all submit to his word The assent of my understanding by which I judge a thing to be because I see it with my eyes is an assent of science which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of faith In the mean time we Christians as Christians are called not philosophers the Reasoners but the faithfull fides est as we say credere quod non vides Faith is to believe that which thou doest not see This is the praise of faith sayeth St. Aug. tract 29. in Io. If that which is believed be not seen Blessed are they said Christ Io. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have beleived Faith is an argument or perswasion saith S. Paul of things not appearing If they appear and I assent that they are because I see them my faith ceases Science coming in with faith's destruction If you say I beleive that the Son of God became Man because
God hath revealed it and my senses do not controll it your faith is lame not able to stand alone and consequentlie is an unworthie sacrifice of your understanding to the word of God What would the King say to that Noble man who should distrust his relation made in presence of all his courtiers of a thing done by his Majestie upon his Royal word who should I say distrust it because he heard it controlled by a foot-boy or some such mean person of as little credit As humane faith requires I rely upon the sole testimony of a man so does divine faith require I rely upon the sole testimonie of God shall I trust the word of a man somtimes contrarie to sensible appearance as when I trust upon the word of a Doctor or a Surgeon that that which I feele hurts me will do me good and shall not I trust the word of God because my senses seem to control it But be not mistaken neither sense nor reason controles the real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist For sense after the consecration finds its whole object colour taste c. Just as before the consecration unchanged and meddles not to judge whether the Body of Christ or the substance of bread be under the accidents as a thing belonging to the understanding and not within the compass of its object And reason tels us that altho all the accidents of a substance be present nevertheless their substance is not there if the author of nature has revealed that he hinders its presence to them and therfore does not controle our saying that the substance of Bread is not in the Eucharist after the consecration because the author of Nature hath revealed the contrarie No more then it controles Protestants saying that those three who appeared to Abraham Genes 18 with all the accidents of men were not men but Angells because God has revealed it was so 3. Christ by his almightie power could change Bread into his flesh and he tells us Math. 26. in these words This is my Bodie that he hath done it why shall not I believe it O but it seemes strange to our apprehension must God then in that thing in which he will make to all men a memoriall of his wonders Psal 110. v. 4. do nothing but what is within the reach of meaner wits and falls under their senses this clame is too proud therefore in humilitie which gives light I answer which is a negative way of proving Monsieur de Rhodon's objections SECTION II. Negative Proofs Ob. 1. IF Christ had meant the real presence of his Bodie in the Host he had spoken to the contrary usage of the world Answer 1. What then altho he had done so when he was giving man a testimonie of his prodigious love and mercie to him If the action itselfe was an expression oâ—â—ove infinitely exceeding the common usage of the world why might there not be somthing extraordinary in the way of expression Answer 2. Speaking so he spoke not contrarie to the usage of the world in practical or factive propositions which make their objects Such as these are This is my Body Math 26. Let there be light Genes 1. Thy Son lives Io. 4. v. 50 This ring is yours The first turnes Bread into Flesh The second changes Darkness into light The third the noble-man's Son's sickness into health The fourth makes the Ring which was not yours yours to wit when I gift a person with a Ring in those words Reflect then well upon the difference between a purely Enunciative and a practicall proposition that presupposes the whole existence of its object this does not presuppose it but makes it Mr. Ro. Urges Wordes are Images of Conceptions and Conceptions the Images of Things Therefore things must be such before we can conceive them to be such or say they are such I answer dist the consequent Things must be alwayes actually a fore words and conceptions which are Images of them I deny for my idea of a thing which I invent supposes the thing never to have been and by this idea of it I am moved to try to make it and give it a being Things must be possible before we can conceive them I grant Also the thing which is made by words as the object of factive propositions can not be actually before the words because an effect can not be before its cause And consequently that which our Saviour gave his discipels saying This c. was not there before these words This is my Body were pronounced because it was made to be there by them Neot In a factive proposition a thing must not be such the whole time the proposition is pronuncing as it will be at the end of the proposition because the whole proposition maks it and gives it its being Mr. Ro. Urges farther A proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question but when Christ taking bread in his hand said This is my Body the thing in question was bread therefore the proposition ought to be expounded according to the nature of bread the nature of which is to be not the real bodie but only the figure of the Body of Christ Answer I deny the minor proposition that the thing in question was bread and say that the thing in question was that which Christ meant by This and that which he meant by this was that which he intended to make by his whole proposition which was his true body as we gather out of the following words Which is given for you It 's another thing when a man in a painters shop pointing at the Kings picture sayes this is the King the thing in question there or signyfied and meant by This is the picture because we know he cannot mean otherwise unless he were distracted his words not being of power to change the picture into the King's person as the almighty words of Christ were of power to change bread into his body Note the article This alone signifies nothing present because to signifie present past or to come is the property of Verbs So when I pointing to a book say This is you know not yet what I mean till I say English Good paper a wittie book Also when Christ said to his disciples Jo. 15. v. 11. This is my Commandement they knew not what he meant till he added That you love one another Wherefore This in Christs proposition before he added is my Body signifying nothing present did not signifie the Bread which was then in his hand but joyned to the rest of the proposition signified his true Body Obj. 2. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body then it is not his true Body I answer 1. dist the antecedent The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body Intransitively i. e without passing from the Sacrament to the Body of Christ as to a different thing or so that the Sacrament and Christ's Body be one and the same substance I grant
as Heat is cal'd the propertie of Fire because the nature of Fire has a clame to Heat and an exigence or a natural appetite of it tho actual Heat not the exigence or natural apetite of it might be given to water so to be all in all and all in every part of an improper place is called the propertie of a spirit because the nature of a spirit has an exigence of it tho this way of existing not the exigence of it may by the almighty power of God be communicated to a body If then a glorious body has this property of a spirit to enter through a wall without making a breach why may not the whole body of Christ be in the whole and least part of the host So our way of eating him there is conform to his way of being there which is spiritual with the propertie of a spirit his whole Body being in the least particle of the host not carnal as if we divided his body with our teeth Spiritual again in as much as we believe That his real Bodie so receaved in that spiritual manner as he commands under the accidents of bread by the mouth of the Body feeds the soul or spirit by the grace it produces there And this eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood that way satisfies the hunger and thirst we had of his grace Another proof that Christ meant the real manducation of his true Body when he said Take eate c. For this is my Body is what he said to the Iews Io. 6. v. 51. The Bread which I will give you is viz. at present my Flesh Where I remark the word is the sacrament not being yet made could not import Signifies my flesh but because the Bread only as a sacrament could signifie his flesh imports an identitie or samety of that bread he spoke of with his flesh Hence the sacrament he made after and which we now receive under the form of Bread being that bread he promised to give it follows that it is his real Flesh and therefore our eating of it is a real and corporal manducation of his Body Add to all I have said that Christ's flesh is not meat really and indeed to him who believs only no more then the King's picture is to him that sees it the King indeed or truely the King For things that are said to be such indeed according to our common way of speaking are understood to be such properly and not figuratively SECTION III. Mr. Rodon's objections against our understanding of those words of Christ He that eates my Flesh c. of a corporal eating by the mouth of the Bodie and not only by Faith answered Ob. 1. Christ sayes Io 6. v. 35. He that comes to me to wit by faith shall never hunger and he that believes in me shall never thirst Then the eating of Christ's flesh is spiritual by Faith and not corporal I answer denying the consequence And say that who believes in Christ shall neither hunger nor thirst because to the believer Christ will give his Body and Blood to be eaten and drunken corporally which will satisfie the Believer's hunger and thirst of him and more over hinder in him the hunger and thirst of perishing things 'T is not then a bare believing which is only a beginning and disposition to the satisfying of the hunger and thirst of the soul but the worthy eating the body and blood of Christ which gives that satisfaction Who eates my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him Io. 6 v. 57. Belief alone does not do the turne Not everie one that sayes to me Lord Lord and consequentlie believes shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ma. 7. v. 21. Obj. 2. Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 55. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life But a reprobate according to the Romanist may eate the Body and drinke the blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body then it 's the eating and drinking by faith that gives eternal life Answer I deny the censequence and say that the reason why the reprobate receiving the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body has not eternal life is because he presumes to receive it being in mortal sin and so eates and drinks unworthily and consequently eates and drinks his damnation according to S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 27. And here I remark that according to protestants Christ's body cannot be eaten unworthily For according to Mr. Rodon in this chapter and other protestants Christ's bodie cannot be eaten but by faith viz. a saving faiâ—h for historical faith or the faith of miracles is not a manducation or eating of the Body of Christ but who eates the Body of Christ with a saving faith doth not eate it unworthilie for I cannot save and damn my self both at once by the same act but the eating with a saving faith saves me and the eating unworthily damnes me then if I Could eate the Bodie of Christ unworthily I could save and damn my self by the same act then a protestant cannot eate the Body of Christ unworthily which is flat a-against S. Paul and consequently heretical Obj 3. S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct ch cap. 16. speaks thus To eate the flesh of Christ is a figure c. Answer 1. S. Aug. does not say simply To eate the Flesh of Christ is a figure but bringing the words of Christ Io. 6. Unless you eate my flesh c. says Christ seems to command a wicked act or hainous offense Figuraest ergò it is then a figure I subsume but Christ does not seeme to Ro Catholicks who believe he spesaks in that place only of a sacramental manducation to command there a heinous offense then according to S. Austin we have no need to take his words figuratively But for Capharnaites to whom he seems to command a heinous offense they ought to take them figuratively that they may not censure him To understand then this passage in the apprehension of the Capharnaites you must reflect that as we are wont to kill those beasts whose flesh we eate afore we eate them So the Jews out of Christ's words had apprehended that they ought first to kill Christ and after to eate his flesh cut in pieces boiled or rested This without doubt was a wicked or heinous offense He means then saith S. Augustin a figure of his death not his true death and that they ought not to kill Christ truly but by taking the sacrament of the Eucharist represent his slaughter and by their manners express his death that they ought not to kill Christ but to mortifie themselves and do what S. Paul said he had done Colos 1. v. 24. I fulfill those things which are wanting of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church So Maldonat upon the 6 Chap. of S. Io. v. 53 Answer 2. We heartily acknowledge that the Eucharist and the Preist's eating of it is a
Preamble HERE Mr. Rodon brings a number of Philosophical arguments so often objected and so often answered by Philosophers in that question whether the same Body may be at the same time in divers places Afore I go farther I desire my Reader to be pleased to reflect that to prove the Catholick doctrine of Transubstantiation 't is not necessary to admit a Body to be in two places Because to be in a place properly or in an univocal place is to have situal or local extension which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist as a soul is not in a place but by reason of its Body which is in a place so Christ's Body in the Eucharist is only in a place by reason of the species which are in a place Again since to walke to meet to be distant to be wounded c. are affections of a Body which is circumscriptively in a place that is having its parts answering to the parts of the uppermost superficies of the Body that contains it all Mr. Rodon's arguments of that nature are of no force against the Body of Christ in the Sacrament it being thereafter the manner of a spirit Yet when they are looked upon with an unlearned eye Mr. de Rodon seems to triumph Just as if I speaking with a country cloun of the motion of the Sun should strive to perswade him that at the most it makes only twenty miles an hour while another should undertake to prove it makes twenty thousand My opinion would be received with more applause by the Cloun than that of the other but if both spoke tâ— an Astronomer he would laugh at my opinion in respect of the other's What makes so different a sentiment in these two Men The Cloun is led by sense and the Astronomer by reason This is my case with Mr. Rodon treating this Question If we speak to vulgar People or to those who have no Faith Mr. Rodon will be applauded If to Men of Faith and reason I 'le have the better of him Why because the vulgar especially if they want Faith will believe nothing that mounts above their senses But the wise Christian not measuring supernatural things by his Eye or as they appear in his weak Imagination but by Faith and seing by his reason there is no contradiction in all Mr. Rodon brings against this Mystery more than against that of the Incarnation or of the most B. Trinity hath no difficulty to submit the judgment of his senses often deceived in natural things to the word of God proposed to him by the Church This preamble being made I now prove our tenet Christ's Body has been circumscriptively that is locally in its shape in two places both at once then it may be in Heaven locally and in the Host or consecrated Wafer Sacramentally both at once I prove the antecedent Christ standing by Paul as S. Luke relates Act. 23. v. 11. in these words The Lord stood by him and said be of good cheer Paul was circumscriptively or locally in that place and at the same time he was in the Heavens which shall retain him till the general Resurrection Act. 3. v. 21. therefore he was circumscriptively or locally in two places both at once If yon say 't was an Angel standing by him that spoke to him from Christ as one spoke to the Iews from God on mount Sinai Then the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 15. v. 8. saying he viz. Christ was seen of me also Were of no force to prove Christ's Resurrection which he was proving there For to see an Angel was not to see Christ Yet he would perswade them that he was risen because he had seen him This is confirmed out of Io. 6. v. 9. and 13. Where 't is said our Saviour fed 5000 Men with five Loaves and two Fishes I suppose these Loaves were not bushel Loaves for the Boy who had them could not have carried them but ordinary Loaves Now I say that these five Loaves might feed 5000 Men the same piece of Bread must have been in divers mouths at once it being probable that Christ gave to each a competent piece for if he Created other Loaves he did not then feed them all with five Loaves which is against Scripture SECTION II. A part of Mr. Rodon's Objections against the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Host are answered Object 1. CHrist's Body cannot be produced in the Host 1. Bacause that cannot be produced which is produced already 2. Because terminus aquâ— and terminus ad quem are distinct or there must be a distinction between the term of departure and the term of arriving 3. In all substantial conversions a new substance must be produced Answer I deny the antecedent and as to its first probation I distinguish That which is produced already cannot be produced as to its Essential being I grant as to its manner of being or as to a Sacramental being I deny The second probation I grant and say that the term Aquo or of departure is the Body without the second presence or relation viz. to the species the term Ad quem or of arriving the Body with the second presence to the species in the Eucharist and these two terms are different For the third probation I denyed it in my answer to the 1. Ob. Section 2. Chap. 3. and gave there the reason of my denyal Mr. Rodon urges If a Man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris therefore Christ's Body which does not leave Heaven neither comes nor is brought to the Host Answer 1. In the opinion of those who explane the being of Christ's Body in the Host by adduction do not say that it 's brought or comes thither Circumscriptively by a proper Local motion because this motion supposes a Body to have it's parts answering to the parts of a place which Christ's Body has not in its adduction to the Host and consequently it does not leave Heaven because we do not leave the place in which we were to go to another but by a proper local and continued motion The equivocal and severed motion by which Christ's Body is adduced to all its Sacramental places is improperly called a motion Answer 2. I deny the antecedent because to put a Body in two places suffices the production of a second ubication for ubication is the formal reason making a thing to be in a place You 'l say supposing that the Body existing at Paris be put also at Rome now either this Roman ubication is produced in the Body existing at Paris or existing at Rome neither can be said not the first because the Roman ubication cannot be at Paris not the second because the Body would be at Rome before it had the Roman ubication therefore the Body which is at Paris cannot be at the same time at Rome Answer I deny the major and say that this Roman ubication is produced neither in the Body existing at Rome nor existing at Paris
but is produced in the Body spectato secumdum se considered in it self which indeed materially was afore at Paris but by a new ubication is also at Rome If you say the Roman ubication must be produced at Rome but it cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome therefore the Body must be at Rome before it be at Rome which is absurd Answer I distinguish the minor It cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome consecutively I grant antecedently I deny And therefore I also deny the consequence The Roman ubication is then produced in the Body existing at Rome ut quo in as much as it is the Form which makes the Body or the subject to be at Rome Ob. 2. In a true human Body such as Christ's Body is the Head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders but this cannot be in a Point then Christ's Body cannot be in every least part of the Host Answer I distinguish the major In a true human Body c. naturally existing the Head is above the neck its true supernaturally existing being Spiritualized or having the quality of a Spirit by which it is all in all and all in every part of the improper place in which it is I deny the major Mr. Rodon confounds here Entitative quantity which is to have a number of parts with Situal quantity or Extent which is to have all its parts one without another The Body of Christ hath its Entitative quantity but not its situal quantity in the Eucharist this Extent or Situal quantity is an accident which the Entitative quantity can want Ob. 3. To move and not to move c. in the same time are contradictory things Answer Considered under the same respect its true under a different respect its false For example my Soul moves in my hand at the same time that it is stock still in my head The same way the Body of Christ may be moved as it is in Heaven and not be moved as it is in the Host Ob. 4. Two relatives are alwise different as the Father and Son Answer I grant it and tell you that a Body in two places is not two Bodies so the relation of distance of which we speak here is between the two places not between two Bodies Mr. Rodon urges It is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in them I Answer once again we are not speaking here of things but of one thing But let us speak of two other things existing in two different places I say that the distance of place is only the partial Cause of their distance and that the total Cause is the dlstance of places and the existing of things in them Otherwise things which are now together might be said to be distant because the places in which they were before are still distant Mr. Rodon presses further Peter at Rome might draw nigher to himself as he exists at Paris Answer Neigher to himself I deny neigher to his ubication at Paris I grant that is he might have an ubication nigher to that he has at Paris but he would never come so close that the same parts of his Body would meet with the same but the right hand with the left or the palm of the hand with the back of the hand And so as there is a difference between those different parts there may rise a relation of meeting and as there is no repugnance that I touch my self making one hand touch the other so there is none that I meet with my self different parts of my Body meeting with different parts of the same And if I will have my right hand which meets with my left press forward I must also will to put back or aside my left they being both solid parts Let my Reader take these answers to divert himself a litle with the humour of Mr. de Rodon but let him not think that his objection presses us for as distance supposes proper places so meeting supposes a proper motion And the Body of Christ is neither in a proper place nor properly moved in the Eucharist as I said afore But were it Circumscriptively there these foresaid answers and the following in this matter blow-up all his objections Ob. 5. It 's a perfit contradiction that a Body should be one and not one but if Christ's Body should be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host upon Earth 't would be one and not one then it can not be in Heaven and in the Host both at once 'T would be one as is supposed and not one as is proven because it would be divided from it self Answer I deny the minor and as to its probation I distinguish 'T would be divided from it self Extrinsecally that is as to place I grant Intrinsecally as to it self or Essential principles of which it 's composed I deny For nothing of it's Essential principles would be in one place which were not in the other The Body of a man for example bilocated would not be in one place where the Soul were not nor the Soul in another where the Body were not with it The sole Ubications of the same Body are divided Now since two Bodies may be in one place by penetration as when Christ entred into the Caenacle of the Apostles the Doors being shut and came out of his B. Mother's womb she still remaining a Virgin why may not one Body be by a like miracle in two places since the thing placed relates to the place just as the place relates to the thing placed in it As one thing naturally requires to be in one place at once so one place naturally requires to have only one thing in it at once why then may not one thing supernaturally by the almighty power of God be in two places at once Mr. Rodon urges 1. The division is true when between two there be Bodies of divers natures Answer This I grant and say That our supposition is not of two but of one Body which is the same in Heaven and in the Host He urges 2. Things that are divided locally are also divided Entitatively Therefore the Body of Christ being in divided places must be divided Entitatively He proves the antecedent thus else no reason can be given why two glasses of Water taken from the same Fountain are really different since these Waters are like in all things except in reference to place Answer 1. Our supposition is not of things but of one thing or Body as I said afore Answer 2. I grant that local division infers alwise Entitative division if we look only to the ordinary course of nature but not in cases in which God will shew his almighty Power we know then that the Body of Christ being only one is now sacramentally in different places by the almighty power of God because he hath revealed it as we know the same Body was
Circumscriptively in different places when being in Heaven he stood beside Paul at the same time upon Earth Act. 23. v. 11. A reason also is easily given why the Ocean is not one single drop of Water to wit because one drop is not naturally in innumerable places but only by a miracle which God does not ordinarily and for nothing Neither is God and Nature to be said to do in vain when they do according to the natural exigence of a drop of Water which is to be only in one place at once Is God bound to do all he can do Neither might one man replicated in 10000. places beget in one night 10000. Children because his force is limited to the power of one man the second and third Ubication giving him no new force but only a new place Add to all this that God is in places divided from one another viz. in France and England both at once You 'l say he is a Spirit but I reply the reason that makes seem impossible for a Body to be together in divers places is not so much it's bulk as its Unitie But the Spirit is as much one Spirit as one Body is one Body You 'l say again that God at the same time that he is in France and England is in all places between I Answer What if God by his almighty power should annihilate or destroy both as to matter and form Sea Earth and Aër between France and England would he cease to be in both If not he would be in two divide◠places The same may be said of a reasonable Soul remaining in a member separated from the rest of the Body if God by his almighty power conserve it there SECTION III. More of Mr Rodon's Objections against the Real presence answered Object 6. JESUS CHRIST cannot be in divers places at once if another Man cannot be so too But Peter cannot be at Paris and Rome at the same time for it is impossible that Peter should be a man and not a man at the same time but this might fall out if he were at Paris and Rome at the same time because he might be wounded and dye at Paris and live at the same time at Rome And so at the same time be a live and not a live which is to be a man and not a man Answer In that supposition that Peter ceases to live at Paris while he lives at Rome he could not be said absolutely not to live and consequently not to be a man but a Carcass for 't is not enough not to live at Paris where the Ubication of the Union between the Body and Soul ceased by a wound if he live at Rome as is supposed to say absolutely he doth not live Because a particula negativa restricta as summolists speak ad non restrictam From a negative particle restrained to the same not restrained it does not follow For example Peter is not an English-man then he is not a man So he doth not live at Paris it doth not follow then he doth not live Altho it follow A particula affirmativa restricta ad non restrictam from an affirmative particle restrained to the same not restrained For example Peter is an English-man then he is a man So it follows he lives at Rome then he lives And consequently he is not to be called dead simply when the Parisian Ubication of the union between his Body and his Soul ceases to be if the Roman Ubication of the same union remaines because to be dead at Paris 't is not enough that the Ubication of the Union cease to be at Paris but moreover 't is required that the Union it self which was at Paris cease absolutely to be between the Body and the Soul but if he live yet at Rome the Union does not cease to be between the Body and the Soul tho not at Paris therefore he is not to be called simply dead Apply this principle of a particle restrained to it self not restrained to his other instances of that nature In the mean time all this discourse of Mr. Rodon supposes Peter of whom he speaks to have both at Paris and at Rome Situal quantity or Extent which Christ's Body has not in the Eucharist and therefore I give him the foresaid answer without necessity To his Army made of one man replicated or put in a thousand places all at once I Answer 'T would appear many men but would be only one with the limited force of one man unless God should give him a supernatural force whom two men in that case might overcome Say the same of a candle as to light and a drop of water replicated in order to carry or bear up a Boat which it could not do having the limited force in order to bearing of one drop For Ubication gives to a Body meerly to be in a place and nothing else Obj. 7. Christ's Body is not seen in the Host therefore it is not there Answer 'T is not seen with the eye of our understanding elevated by Faith I deny With our corporal eye I grant and the reason is because it is not there in a way proportioned to our corporal sight or in its own shape and it is so for the exercise of our Faith which would cease if we saw it in Glory Was not Christ's Body glorious after his resurrection and yet did the Disciples see its Glory the fourty days he conversed with them afore his Ascension The reason why Christ's Body is not seen in the Eucharist by our Corporal eye is because it has there no Extent and is all in a point not because it 's under the accidents which hide it or in another place then the accidents they being above and it below nor do Philosophers mean any such thing when they say that substances are under their accidents because pure substances have no proper places they mean only that the substances sustentate or support the accidents in as much as the accident naturally depends of its proper subject which support from the substance of Bread or Body of Christ in its place is supplied to the accidents in the Eucharist by the almighty power of God Just then as substances possess no place but by reason of their accidents so the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is in no place but by reason of the species which are in a place And as substances which are under their accidents according to this way of speaking of Philosophers are not seen so neither the Body of Christ in the Eucharist under the species is seen Mr. Rodon asks how can Christ's Body be without posture and without external form seing as we say it is whole and entire in the whole host and in every part of it Answer Because altho Christ's Body hath in the Eucharist all its essential extension or all its parts in order to themselves in the whole host and in every part of the host which we call to be whole and entire in the
whole host and in every part of the host as our Soul is all in every part of the Body and only all in the whole Body Yet it hath not local extension in order to place which is a separable property of essential extension as actual heat is a separable property of fire as was seen by the almighty power of God in the furnace of Babilon where as he suspended the operation of that element to manifest his glory so he hinders the local extension of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the light of its glory to exercise our faith And this answer 's all Mr. Rodon's whimsical questions of the postures of Christ's Body in a whole or divided host since division as well as the posture of a Body depends of Local Extension For if God put all the parts of a Body after a spiritual manner as the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist in a point and a point cannot be devided in that case how will you devide that Body and without deviding it you cannot make it appear less how much so ever you devide the host In a word a visible Body of a man is a man's Body in its shape which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist for want of Local Extention and therefore is not visible there Obj. 8. Christ in the Host can act or not Answer He can act know and love altho he hath not there the disposition of Organs fit for those operations which require Local extention We gratefully to him avow that his Body in the H. Host is Modo mortuo after the fashion of one dead and this is the change the Preist makes of this victime in his oblation of it to the eternal Father in the dayly Sacrifice of the Mass And as Christ does not exercise there the operations which depend of situal Extension neither would the World reduced to a point or the parts of it the Sun and Moon c. act as they do now for want of situal disposition to such operations Neither do we say that Christ's Body is as big and as tall in the H. Host as on the Cross as Mr. Rodon inconsideratly alleadges for that bigness on the Cross comes from the situal extension he had there and wants in the H. Host Obj. 9. A Body can not cease to be in a place without being destroyed or going to some other place but the species being consumed Christs Body is neither distroyed nor goes to another place therefore it was not in the Eucharist Answer I deny the major universally speaking and ask when a mans Leg is cut off does the soul go to another place or is it destroyed yet it ceases to be there Reason the same way of the Body of Christ which is in the Eucharist with the property of a Spirit and as it came thither by the sole production of a new presence so it ceases to be there by the sole destruction of the same Obj. 10. The properties of one species or of one nature are incommunicable to every other species or nature but 't is the property of a spirit to be all in all and every part of a place therefore the Body of Christ can not be all in all and in every part of the Host Answer I grant the major and distinguish the minor 'T is the property of a spirit to be all in all c. by Exigence I grant by accident I deny For example water has heat by accident which Fire alone has by exigence and therefore the exigence of heat is the property of Fire and not the actual having of it which is communicable to water The clame and exigence of seing God as he is in himself is the property of God flowing from his Essence in communicable to a creature but the actual only seing of God as he is in himselfe will be favorably communicated by him to happy men in the other world 1. Io. 3.2 And therefore rigidly speaking is not his property So then what a spirit has by exigenbe the Body of Christ without confounding different species may have by accident in the Eucharist Quaeres wherefor to be actually all in all and all in every part of an improper place is cal'd the property of a spirit and not of a Body largely speaking Answer Beeause a spirit has a natural appetite of that way of existing which a Body has not also because a spirit is indivisible and has no partes Answer .. 2. I distinguish the major The propertie of a species that is the exigence of one species is incommunicable to an other I grant the act of the exigence is incommunicable I deny For example Heat is the act of the exigence of Fire and is communicated to water Hence I grant that naturally Bodies are in places circumscriptively that is the parts of the Body are in the parts of the place and not the whole Body in every part But not so if it please the author of nature to put them by his almighty power in places definitively or Sacramentally that is in an equivocal or improper place which in rigour is no place without local extension I said definitively or Sacramentally because the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not limitated according to a rigid definitive way of existing as the soul is in the Body bounded with a certain continued place but is without limitation in as many discontinued sacramental places as the Consecration is made in SECTION IV. The rest of Mr. Rodon's objections against the real presence answered Object 11 IF the Body of Christ were in the Eucharist 't would be subject to many ignominies to be eaten with mice burned stolen c. thererefore it is not there Answer I retort his argument thus If he whom we call Christ was God God was subject to many ignominies to be called a Seducer a Blasphemer a Drinker of Wine a Glutton to be scurged at a post like a rogue and hanged like a theef therefore he was not God Is this a good inferrence No. Neither the other Monsr Rodon speaking of the Eucharist sayes as it is a God that cannot keep himselfe from being stolen so neither can he keep himself from heing burned Answer 1. did not the Jews deride Christ the same way upon the Cross Save thy self If thou art the Son of God come down from the Cross Math. 27. v. 40. I Answer 2. then he could have come down from the Cross and can hinder also the Host from being prophaned But the first he suffered for the love of man the second he suffers for the exercise of our faith Note the Body of Christ ceases to be in the stomack when the species are altered there but did it joyn with the excrements they could not annoy or hurt him no more then a dung-hill defiles the beams of the Sun Nay the Body of Christ now impassible were not worse in Hell it self than at the right hand of his father To Claude de Xainte's saying
to doubt if such a man were my Father for no other reason but because many have thought him to be their Father who really was not To Mr. Rodon's saying That Heathens might have retorted the Catholick arguments made against them by S. Chrysos c. If the Church had then believed that Christ's Body was in the Eucharist As when S. Chrisos said they bring their gods into base Images of Wood and Stone and shut them up there as in Prison And Arnobius Lib. 6. Your Gods dwells in Plaister c. and they suffer themselves to be shut up and remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison Answer 1. No they might not because our mysteries were not known then to them as they are now to Protestants Nay they were keep secret from the very Catechumens Hence that famous saying in primitive times speaking of his Mystery norunt Fideles The Faithful know to wit what we believe there Quaeres Why was this Mystery concealed from the cathecumens or those who ware not yet Baptized Answer Because they had not yet the Eye of Faith by which they might see it Hence don't wonder if you find some Fathers to have wrot some what obscurely of this Mystery in the Birth of the Church Answer 2. No the Heathens might not equally retort c. because 1. Christ is in the H Host and was in his Mothers Womb so that his God-head is and was else where 2. We do not say That Christ leaves Heaven to come to the H. Host as the false Gods one place to come to another 3. Their Consecration was the meer word of Man ours the words of Christ commanding Do this and speaking by the mouth of the Preist This is my Body 4. They adored the Mettal after its dedication as God We do not adore so the species Answer 3. If the Church did then believe that Christ had remained hid and shut up in his Mothers Womb as in an obscure Prison might not the Heathens have retorted what Arnob. Lib. 6. said against their Gods detained in an obscure Prison And for their Retortion in this particular would Mr. Rodon have denyed that Christ remained nine months in his B. Mother's Womb I end this Chapter with this Quaere Wherefore do we adore Christ more particularly in the B. Sacrament then his God-head every where Answer Because God the Father will have God the Son specially honoured by men for his special Love to them in their Redemption of which we are particularly minded by the presence of his Body in the Eucharist 2. Because the humanity of Christ represented to us by the Eucharist is personally united to the Divinity And God the H. Ghost who guides the Church inspired her in her invocations of the three Divine Persons in the begining of the Mass to invoce the first and third Person under the common name of LORD Lord have mercy on us But God the Son under the Name of his Man-hood saying thrice Christ have Mercy on us so honoured will God have and dear to us this Man-hood of Christ the instrument of our Redemption CHAPTER VI. Against the taking away of the Cup or the Communion under one kind SECTION I. The lawfulness of Communicating under one kind is proven 1. THE precept of Communicating or of taking the Body and Blood of Christ is only Io. 6. v. 53. in these words Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you But with those words stands the lawfulness of Communicating under one kind Therefore 't is lawful to Communicate under one kind I prove the minor 1. Because there is only commanded the sumption or receiving of both Body and Blood as to the substance not the manner of receiving them under both kinds 2. If you think the manner is commanded also giving not granting you that we answer that the Particle And may be taken for Or as in many other places of Scripture for example when Salomon speaking to God sayes mendicitatem divitias ne dederis mihi Poverty and Riches give me not Prov. 30. v. 8. Where And is taken for Or he desiring of God neither to be Rich nor Poor And Act. 3. v. 8. Argentum Aurum non est mihi Silver 2. And Gold I have not for Silver Or Gold I have not If with the Hussits you will not relish this solution then we answer 3. That this command was given by Christ not to every particular man but to the community of Christians by which it is fulfilled some viz. Preists taking it under both kinds to represent announce to the People the death of Christ according to the command layed upon them Math. 26. In these words Do this in remembrance of me there also was the command to the Preists of making the Sacrament for the People So Exod. 12. v. 3. 't is commanded that The whole multitude of the Children of Israel shall Sacrifice viz. the Paschal Lamb. Did every one in particular sacrifice No but only the heads of families in their families Also Genes 9. v. 1. Increase and multiply Doth not oblige every particular man to marry Again when our Saviour said Math. 28. Teach all nations baptising them he laid that command on the Church not on every particular man to teach Now to make appear that this answer is not brought without ground from Scripture take notice that when Christ would signifie that every one or every individual person should be baptised he expressed himself in the singular number Io. 3. v. 5. Nisi quis c. Except a man be born of water nd of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Whereas Io. 6. v. 53. he sayes in the plural number Nisâ— manducaveritis Unless ye eat c. which is fulfilled by the community if some of them receive under both kinds altho all do not And a little after when he turnes his speach into the singular he speaks indifferently of both or one kind He that eates my Flesh and drink my Blood hath life everlasting v. 45. and v. 58. He that eates this Bread shall live for ever Which passages signifie that one kind suffices for if by an impossible supposition Christ could contradict himself yet our opinion would stand since in jure if what is said last contradict what was said afore Iura posteriora corrigunt priora The latter Law corrects the former That the precept of receiving this Sacrament was here Io. 6. v 53. I prove again The command of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or Baptism Sacramentally was Io. 3. v. 4. For in no other place is mentioned Water which Protestants acknowledge to be necessary in Baptism as well as Catholicks Therefore the command of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body Blood Sacramentally viz. in a sensible way by the mouth of the Body is here Io. 6. v. 53 I prove the consequence because a like expression to the same people caries a like command