water and the Holy Ghost Why was it not that he had not a mind to avow that Baptism has a force to justifie and that it is necessarie for the salvation also of Children as you may clearly see in these following passages of S. Paul and S. Peter You were given to lust drink covetous but yow are washed but you are sanctified to wit by that washing or Baptism but you are justified in the spirit of God 1 Cor. 6. v. 11. S. Cyprian lib. 2. ad Donat confesses what he was afore Baptism and what he presentlie became after Baptism and what Christianity gave to him calling Christianismus his Christning Mors criminum vita Virtutum The death of Crimes and life of Virtues And Peter 1 Cap. 3. v. 21. Quod nos nunc similis formae salvos facit Baptisma The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us as if he should say As the Waters of the deluge raising the Ark and with it Noë and his people did not only declare but saved them really from death so Baptism saves us makes us just and holy and does not only declare us to be such as Luther with other Hereticks would have it understood Also ad Ephes 5. v. 26. He loved his Church Purifying her with the Laver of water and in the word of life Wher you see the word of Life added to the matter viz. of waeter sanctifies and purifies the Church from sin Obj. 6. The flesh of which Christ speaks when he sayes My flesh is meat indeed is a spiritual food but the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a spiritual food but only his body on the Cross then he meant of his Body on the Cross and not his Body in the Eucharist when he said My flesh is meat indeed Answer I deny the minor proposition and say that the flesh or bodie of Christ in the Eucharist is a spiritual food called so without a figure because producing by a supernatural operation which force it hath from its union with the divine nature grace or sanctification in us it is realy food and meat indeed to the soul without a figure So that FOOD is Genus to corporal and spiritual food To strenghten or increase Life is Genus or the more universal term to strenghten by changing into the thing strenghtened and to strenghten not by changing but by Producing grace by which we are strenghtened are the two differences or the less universal terms The first makes Corperal food the second Spiritual The bare sign is no meat because not it but the act of Faith only btings forth Sanctification as Protestants hold in them Moreover I say that Christ's Flesh broken and his blood shed on the Crosse was not spiritual food indeed because they were never to coëxist actually with our spiritual feeding as Christ's flesh in the Eucharist does and therefore is meat indeed The food to be food indeed to one and the feeding must be joined together but when we now believe Christ's death it is not present but past and therefore is not food to the believer but when we believe and take by the mouth of our Body Christ's flesh it is there joyned with our spiritual eating producing Grace strenghtning and encreasing our spiritual life and therefore is meat indeed Obj. 7. That doctrine which opposes sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions is to be rejected if a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages which seem to prove it I Answer 1. What if the Sabellians not conceiving how the Paternity should not be communicated to God the Son as well as the Divine Essence since the Paternitie and the Divine Essence are one and the same thing should have said it's a more suitable and rational sense of passages which seeme in scripture to say there are three distinct persons in the Divine nature that there is only one persone having three different functions called Father as he creats Son as he redeems and Holy Ghost as he sanctifies Would this prettie doctrine please Mr. de Rodon No neither can his conceit in the matter of the Eucharist be applauded by Romanists Answer 2. Our doctrine in the Eucharist neither opposes sense nor reason as I have shewn Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Nor seems so much to imply contradiction as the Mystery of the B. Trinitie which will be seen better in the next chapter Nor is the way he and other Protestants have found out rational to explane the passages we bring for our Doctrine as I hope will appear to the impartial and serious considerer of our proofs in the first Chapter To end this Chapter remember again that Christ by the occasion of the Jews seeking him more for bread to eat then for his miracles Io. 6. v. 26. by which miracles he laboured to perswade them to believe in him or that he was the Son of God called himself bread that doth not perish and spoke first of spiritual eating by faith that he might advance his hearers by litle and litle to this mysterie of a Real eating of his Flesh teaching them first what they ought to do to merite this true and heavenly Bread saying Work or seek earnestly not the food that perishes but which remains to eternall life c. Adding This is the work of God that ye believe as if he should say This is the work of God That ye believe that I am come from Heaven and that I am the Son of God which if you once believe you will not stumble at what I shall say to you here-after concerning the real eating of my flesh and drinking of my Blood nor be at all amased as appeared in the Apostles when actually viz. at the last supper I shall give it you CHAPTER III. Of Transubstantiation SECTION I. Transubstantiation is proved IS it not prettie to hear Mr. Rodon with some other Protestants speak of one of the darkest mysteries of our faith as of a natural thing and when their weak reason looking only to nature cannot reach it conclude as it were with triumph in the Eucharist there 's no transubstantiation Would that man be thought a good Christan who because it thwarts his grosse understanding to conceive a father to beget a son by speaking should conclude that the divine word is not the son of the eternal Father or a good divine who because it 's true to say in the B. Trinity that the essence is communicated to the son and the peternitie is not communicated to the Son should conclude that the essence and the paternitie are not the same thing Here I remark in passing that Mr. Rodon's Philosophy unwarilie touches the mysterie of the most B. Trinity in his 4. chap. where numb 12. for an example of a plurality of things really different he assignes the three Divine persones and concludes from thence that a real difference of things does not infer Division But he should have taken notice that the
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
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