and for this reason we need not take the Blood a part Obj. 3. We go from the practise of the primitive Church Answer As to the essence of the Sacrament I deny as to the manner of administration of it upon some considerable circumstances be it so So the Protestants go from the practise of primitive times in Baptism by using now the sprinkling of water on the Child whereas a triple dipping was used in primitive times I said be it so because in primitive times they gave it also sometimes under one kind If you ask me why Christ gave it to his Apostles under both kinds I answer he both foresaw Hereticks as the Manicheans who would deny the thing in it self to be lawful which is an errour and different circumstances in which the Church should think good to give it under the species of Wine as to infants which action of his justified the Church in that and the like circumstances We avow then that the Sacrament was given some times under both kindes and in particular to discover the Manicheans in the time of S. Leo Pope But we deny that there was a command from Christ of giving it so Obj. 4. To take Christ's Blood in taking the Host is not to drink it Answer 'T is not to drink it cannally that is to be carnally refressed with it I grant Spiritually that is to be Spiritually refressed with it I deny So S. Cypr. sayes in the beginning of the Sermon of the Lords Supper manducaverunt biberunt de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem that is they eat and drunk of the same Bread according to the vibsile form Remark he sayes They drunk of the same Bread and makes no mention of Wine Also Tertul. lib. de Resur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur that is The Flesh feeds of the Body and Blood of Christ that the Soul may be full of God And S. Augustin lib. quaest in Levit. q. 57. speaking of this Sacrament sayes A cujus Sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum c. that is from the Blood of which Sacrifice to be taken for aliment c. Where you see the Blood is called food or aliment By which passages you may take notice that the Holy Fathers put the force of their words in the thing and not in the way of taking it because whither taken by way of food or of drink it has the same effect Ob. 5. He that eates Bread dipped in Wine altho he hath Wine in his mouth doth not drink Therefore he who receives only under the form of Bread doth not drink Answer 1. I distinguish the antecedent He who eates Bread dipped c. doth not drink it in the strict acception of drinking I grant In the less rigid acception of drinking I deny did you never hear say of him who drinks a heavy thick Wine he eates and drinks both at once Answer 2. He doth not drink as to the substance of drinking which is to take a liquid matter by the mouth I deny As to the whole corporal manner and effect of Drinking I grant So Pascasius lib. de Corp. Christ speaks thus Hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus Ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes that is It s he alone who breaks this Bread and by the hands of the Ministers distributes it to the faithful saying Take and drink all of this to wit Bread where he makes no mention of Wine But much less do Protestants drink Christ's Blood by an act of faith that Christ dyed for them in which the eating and drinking is one and the same Ob. 5. The sacramental words operate what they signify but they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood therefore they operate the separation of the Body from the Blood and consequently we ought to receave under both kinds to receave both Answer I distinguish the Major The Sacramental words operate what they signifie formally I grant what they signify occasionally I deny And say that these words This is my Body and these This is my Blood signifie formally and primarly the Body and Blood of Christ altho occasionally and secundarily they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood of Christ in as much as they are an occasion to me hearing them pronounced apart and knowing that the force of these words only attended the Body would be under one species and the Blood under the other tho by concomitance both are in each to represent to my self the death of Christ or his Body separated from his Blood Ob. 6. As much as is taken away of the Sacrament as much is diminished of the perswasion of the certainty of God's promise Answer As much as is taken away of that part of the Sacrament which causes Grace be it so Of that which does not cause grace but only compleats it in the being of a representation of the death of Christ I deny I said be it so because the Sacraments were cheifly instituted to signify and cause in us sanctifying grace which is both signified and caused by the Body and Blood of Christ under on kind as much as under both Yet the other kind is necessary in the Priest not to confirm more God's promise as Mr. Rodon would have it but to represent the death of Christ And since he thinks two Sacraments better then one why does not he take in the Sacrament of Pennance so signally set down Io. 20. as a sensible sign of sanctifying Grace brought forth in a penitent Soul by the absolution of the Preist signified by these words Whose sins ye remitt are remitted to them Since three Sacraments are as much better then two than two are better than one Or how proves he the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrament the Preists absolving a sorrowful penitent from his sin to be none Ob. 7. Christ fore-saw the inconvenences of taking under both kinds for Lay-people as well as we and yet he commanded it to them as S. Paul to the Corinthians after him Answer I deny that either Christ or S. Paul commanded the lay people to take the Eucharist under both kinds more then Christ commanded that the Ministers should wash the Communicants feet by his example of Washing them to those to whom he gave the Sacrament See the ground of this my denial in the 1. Sect. of the 6. chap. nay Christ signified aboundantly one kind to suffice when he said Who eates this Bread shall live for ever Ob. 8. God's word should not be taken from all because some are deaf therefore the Cup should not be taken from all lay people because some cannot drink Wine Answer The Cup is not taken from all lay people for that reason but because that and other reasons being on one side and on the other side it not being necessary to give it the lay people for
to his Inheritors he promised Remission of Sins to his Apostles and many or to the Jews in the word vobis and to the Gentils in the word multis so called because they were truly many in respect of the litle number of the Jews and left them his Body and Blood to be offered for that end Thirdly he ordered some thing to be done by his Inheritors viz. That they should love one another As God in the Old Testament proposed by Moyses the Commands of the Law Fourthly He did it afore witnesses viz. the Representative Church or all the Apostle who knew he was making his Testament Fifthly Here he was in a living condition at the signing of his Testament not so at the Cross Hence avow that at our Lords Supper the New Testament was made and the figure of the Old fulfilled Quaeres Did he speak plain when he said Drink ye all of this Cup Answer Grant he did not that was not of the essence of the Sacrament Next a figurative speach so commonly used that it would be odd to understand it otherwise then in the sense of the speaker is aequivalent to a proper speach CUP hath two significations by the institution of men Taken alone it signifies a certain Vessel joyned to DRINK it signifies the thing contained Note Altho we say he spoke without figure in instituting this Sacrament as it is set down by St. Matthew who alone of all the Evangelists that relate to us the institution was present We do not say that he spoke always so Obj. The Apostles asked Christ the meaning of Parables why did not they ask the meaning of these words which carried such strange consequences as one Body to be in diverse places at once c. Answer He had cleared them sufficiently by what he said in the 6. Chap. of St. Iohn so that St. Iohn having spoken of it there does not so much as mention it afore his Passion nor any Disciple seemed to wonder hearing the words of the Institution altho many of the Disciples afore Io. 6. v. 61. had said This speach is hard and who can hear it They were wiser after they had heard what he said Io. 6. than to say with the Capharnaites How can he give us his Flesh to Eat Or with the Protestants How can he be at once in two places SECTION II. For the Real Presence Our second Proof WE say the Type ought not to be more excellent than the thing Typified since S. Paul Collos 2. v. 17. compares the Type to a shadow and the thing typified to a Body but if the Eurharist be a meer piece of Bread the Paschal Lamb being the Type of it the Type will be more excellent than the thing Typified then the Eucharist is not a piece of Bread Mr. Rodon To avoid this Argument sayes That the thing Typified by the Paschal Lamb is not the Eucharist but Christ as St. Paul shews clearly says he 1 Cor. 5. saying Christ our Passover was crucified for us Answer 1. Should I rely upon Mr. Rodon's sentiment against the Judgment of the Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. in Marcionem Cyprian lib. de unitate Eccles Hierom. in cap. 26. Math. Chrysos Homil. de Prodit Iudae August lib. 2. contra Literas Petiliani cap. 37. saying Aliud est sayes he there Pascha quod Iudaei de Ove celebrant aliud quod nos in Corpore Sanguine Domini accipimus I bring only the Passage of St. Aug. a Father of great Authority with Protestants for brevities sake The Passover that the Iews celebrated in a Lamb was different from that we take in the Body and Blood of our Lord. Here he calles the Body and Blood of our Lord the Passover And this Sentiment of his and the other Fathers hath its great ground out of the Ghospel Math. 26. and Luc. 22. Because our Lord for no other cause instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist after he had eaten the Paschal Lamb according to the Iudaick rite and Ceremony but that he might signifie as S. Leo serm 7. de Pas remarks That the Old observation or Figure was fulfilled and taken away by the New Testament When the Legal Festivity is changed sayes he 't is fulfilled Answer 2. The Paschal Lamb may be considered First as killed only and so it is a figure of Christ's Death Secondly as 1. Immolated 2. And eaten 3. The 14 day 4. In the evening 5. Within the House and so it s a Figure not of Christ's Death but of the Eucharist or his Body Sacrificed or given for us Luhe 22. And eaten the 14. day in the evening for he died the 15. day being the Full Moon and eaten only by those who are within the Church or the House of God Exod. 12. v. 46. Whereas the Passion of Christ extends to all men to those who are within and to those who are out of the Church that they may come in See S. Cypr. lib. de unit Eccles Note St. Paul does not say 1 Cor. 5. v. 7. Our Passover Christ was Crucified but Immolated Greek Ethutee that is Sacrificed He adds v. 9. Let us keep the Feast c. with the unleavened Bread of sincerity and Truth This relates to eating indeed we keep the solemn Feast of our Passover by eating the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was first instituted and made for us at our Lords Supper Object 1. The Types of the Old Testament were instituted that the Faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things Typisied and signified in the New but those of the Old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal Lamb then the Paschal Lamb was not a Type of it Answer They were not instituted only for that reason but also that we in the New Law might understand that we are one and the same Church with them they having had at least in Figure and consequently an obscure knowledge of what we have in reality And so the Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist altho the Iews came not by it to a knowledge of the Eucharist Ob. 2. The Passover was a Type and the Eucharist is also a Type of Christ Therefore if the Passover had been a Type of the Eucharist it had been a Type of a Type and not of a thing Typified Answer A bare Type may be the Type of that which is not a bare Type So the Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which in one respect is the thing Typified and in an other the Type The thing Typified in respect of the Paschal Lamb and a Type in respect of Christ's Death which it represents So also the Paschal Lamb was in one respect a true Sacrifice and in an other it was the Type of the Sacrifice of Christ made in the Eucharist and on the Cross The nullity of Mr. Rodon's answer to St. Rigau's Proof which he looks upon as our third Proof may be seen in my Chapter 4. Sect. 1.
Transitively i. e. passing and so making them two divers substances I deny the antecedent The Eucharist then is the Sacrament of Christ's Body i. e the Sacrament which is Christ's Body or Christ's body under the outward form or accidents of Bread is a Sacrament or a sensible sign by the Species of Grace which it work 's in us Answer 2. The Eucharist taken inadequately or partially for the Species is a Sacrament or sign of Christ's Body the Consecration being made I grant Adequatelie and Totally taken for the whole Eucharist I deny For so it includes both Christ's body and the Species afore of Bread now of his Body Thus the Eucharist may be called a figure or representation viz. the Species of Bread and Wine separated from one another a representation of Christ's death The Species of Bread alone the consecration being made a figure of the Body contained under it Note An Image sign or Sacrament may have within it the substance or essence of the thing by it signified or represented in another manner God the son is the Image of his father and has his father's substance yea the father all within him by circumincession i. e a mutuall being of the divine persones in each other So Christ's flesh invisible and spirituall in the Eucharist is the sacrament or sign of the same flesh palpable and visible crucified In the Sacrament it represents it self as on the Cross not different in substance but in qualitie and manner As when God 1. Reg. 10. v. 9. is said to have given to Saul another heart viz. in qualitie not in substance So it 's said 1. Cor. 15. v. 50. Flesh and blood shall not possesse the Kingdom of Heaven and again it 's certain flesh and blood shall possess the Kingdom of Heaven viz. When it has put on Incorruption The same in substance in both propositions but not the same in qualitie Obj. 3. In these two propositions This is my Bodie This Cup is the new testament in my Blood The word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alyke having been pronunced on the same matter viz. the one upon the one part of the Sacrament and the other on the other part of it and because of like things we give alike iudgement But in this proposition This Cup is the new Testament the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being c Therfore in this proposition lykwayes This is my Bodie the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being Answer If the two propositions be set down as S. Math. who was present and heard them out of the mouth of Christ relates them Chap. 14. v. 22. and v. 24 This is my Bodie This is my Blood granting the Major I deny the Minor proposition If the one as S Mathew sets it down and the other as S. Paul who was not present and sets only down the sense of Christ's words in a figurative way I let pass the Minor and deney the consequence because the two propositions so taken are not alike as to their expression and I say that the H. Ghost might have had a particular reason to move S. Paul to rehearse the sense of what had been related by S. Mathew This is my Blood in these words This is the new testament in my Blood to give us another sensible impression of the mysterie viz. This Cup is the new testament in my Blood as if he should say This cup is an authentick instrument or as it were paper in which my new testament and last will of giving you eternal life if you believe and obey me is written not with Ink but with my oun Blood which this Cup contains as the Paper the writing of the Testament So Alapide Now in this proposition the word is cannot be taken in the proper sense of the words as in the other This is my Body because there would follow an absurditie viz. a real Identity between the Cup or what is contained in it and the testament signifying or the outward expr sion of his will which is absurd and evidentlie false And in that sense above I let passe the Minor for if by Testament you understand the Testament signified not the Testament signifying the word is may be and is taken for a real and transubstantiated being because the Blood contained in the Cup is that which he left by his last will to the faithfull So that which is in the Cup is changed into a Testament being by the whole proposition as the cause transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ and consequently this proposition This Cup is the New Testament must not be expounded thus the wine that is in the Cup is the sing and Sacrament of of the new Testament but thus The consecrated wine that is in the Cup is the real Blood of Christ and new Testament That he made then his new Testament I shall prove in my 8 Chap. When I say that all that Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literallie and without a figure I mean as the institution of the Eucharist is related to us by S. Mathew who was present at it and heard the words out of the mouth of Christ in the verie institution it self Since Mr Rodon contends so much for the figurative sense of the words in the Consecration I avow that in the consec ation as related by S. Luke in these words Touto to potéèrâ—on heè kainéè diathèkee en to haimatÃ-mou to huper humon ekkunòmenon This Cup is the new testament in my Blood which is shed for you The word Cup is taken figurativelie for the thing contained in it because from it taken in the proper sense would follow an absurdity viz. That the Cup it self wood or mettal was shed for us because the Relative Which and the participle Shed is referred by S. Luke to Cup as he who understands Greek sees in the forementioned words not properly taken then Metaphorically or Figurativelie taken for the thing contained in the Cup or Blood of Christ which is said to be shed for us Obj. 4. When a man saith a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he employes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition then Christ according to Romanists made a false proposition when he said This is my Body because his Body was not under the forme of Bread the whole time he was pronouncing the proposition Answer I dist the antecedent If the proposition be purely Enunciative or speculative its true because such a proposition presupposes its object If it be a factive or practical proposition such as the proposition of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist was it 's false because a factive proposition makes it's object and consequently supposes it not to be afore the whole proposition is utered which whole proposition taken all