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
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
Christ sayes Giving council to his Disciples to offer to God the first Fruits of his Creatures he took created Bread and gave thanks saying This is my Body and likewise the Cup c. he confessed to be his Blood and he taught a new OBLATION of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles Offers to God through the whole World 3. Tertullian lib. ad Scap. Cap. 2. We Sacrifice for the safety of the Emperour but to our God and his Item lib. de Ora. cap. 14. he makes mention of standing at the Altar and Sacrifice 4. Again What meant the Pagans objecting to Christians their murdering of a Child in their divine Worship and eating of its Flesh Dicimur sceleratissimi sayes Tertul. apolog advers Gen. cap. 7. de Sacramento infanticidii pabulo inde We are called most wicked for murdering a Child in our Sacrament and eating of its Flesh Would we have been called most wicked for eating a piece of Bread and drinking a Cup of Wine in Remembrance that Christ dyed for us Or was this a Mystery to be concealed from the Cathecumens In the third age 1. ORigines speaking of the Eucharist lib. 8. contra Celsum Sayes We set forth with thanksgiving for the benefits received Bread made the Body viz. of Christ And Hom. 23. in Num. he sayes It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the continual Sacrifice who hath dedicated himself to a continual and perpetual chastity 2. S. Cyprian Epist 66. ad Clerum Plebem Furnitanorum speaking of the Duty of Preists sayes all honoured with Divine Preist-hood ought only to serve the Altar and the Sacrifices and attend to Prayer And in Caena Domini post med speaking of the Eucharist sayes This Sacrifice is a perpetual and ever remaining Holocaust 3. St. Hippolitus Episcop Martyr in his speach of the end of the World and Antichrist sayes The Churches will grievously mourn viz. then because neither Oblation nor Incense will be offered and the Liturgy that is the Mass will be extinguished Note The Greek Fathers by the word Liturgy understand Sacrifice So St. Paul Hebr. 9. v. 21. speaking of the Vessels of the Mosaick Sacrifice calles them ta scevee tees leitourgias The Vessels of the Liturgy And Hebr. 10. v. 11. The Preist stood daily leitourgoon that is Ministring See S. Luk's Greek Evang. cap. 1. v. 8.9.23 Note Liturgy is composed of leeitos and ergon that is publick service In the fourth age 1. I begin the fourth age with the Testimony of the first general Council of Nice which Calvin himself lib. 4. Inst cap. 2. § 8. professes to embrace and reverence as Holy The Council can 4. edit lat but 18. of the Greek edition speaks thus Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo tradidit c. Neither rule nor custome has allowed that those who have not power to offer Sacrifice give the Body of Christ to those who offer 2. St. Basil in his 19. hom which is a speach upon St. Gordius Martyr beyond the middle inveighs against the profanations of his time thus The House of Prayer was cast down by the hands of profane Men the Altars were overthrown neither was there Oblation nor Incense 3. St. Cyrill of Hier. Cathec 4. Mystag nigh the beginning Knowing sayes he and having for certain that the Bread which is seen by us is not Bread altho the tast feels it to be Bread but to be the Body of Christ And that the Wine which is seen by us altho it appear to the sense of the tast to be Wine is not Wine but the Blood of Christ 4. St. Ambrose lib. 5. Epist 33. vel 13. ad Marcel sayes This morning fell out a disturbance in the Church I continued my Office I begun to say Mass 5. St. Optatus Mileu initio lib. 6. contra Parmes Donat sayes What is so Sacrilegious as to break and raze the Altars of GOD on which you your selves Sacrificed afore In the fifth age 1. ST Iohn Chrisost hom 83. in Math. beyond the middle sayes Let us therefore believe God every where nor mutter against him altho what he sayes seem absurd to our sense and thougt c. Since then he said This is my Body let us not doubt at all but believe And a litle after O how many say I would see his form and shap he answers behold you see him you touch him and eat him And in the begining of his Liturgie which is in his fifth tome he brings in the Preist praying thus O Lord c Strengthen me that inculpably assisting at thy Altar I may end the unbloody Sacrifice 2. S. Austin Conc. 3. in Psal 33. He Christ in s ituted of his Body and Blood a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech And in the 11. ch of his Manuall he prayes thus Most sweet JESU c. I pray that while though unworthy I assist at your Altars desiring to offer to you that admirable and Heavenly Sacrifiee worthy of all reverence and devotion c. S. Aug. con 1. in Psal 33. Nondum erat Sacrificium Corporis sangu nis Domini quod Fideles norunt qui Evangelium legerunt quod Sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe Terrarum The Sacrifi of the Body and Blood of our Lord which is known to the faithful and to those who have read the Scriptures was not yet which Sacrifice is now spread over the whole World 3. S. Cyril of Alexan. expounding those words of Malachie In every place is Sacrificed and offered to my name a pure offering Malach. 1. v. 8. sayes He viz. God fortelâ—s that his name shall be great and Illustrious among all mortalls through the World and that in every place and Nation a pure and unbloody Sacrifice shall be offered to his Name Now hear S. Augustin speaking of the Holy Fathers who were the cheif members of the Church of Christ in their time Tom. 7. contrr Jul. Pelag. l. 2. cap. ult What they found in the Church they held what they learned they taught what they received from their fathers this they delivered to their Children c. Nondum vobiscum certabamus sayes he eis pronunciantibus vicimus We did not as yet then debate with you but yet by what they said then we now win the cause Let a sober judgement remember that Calvin one of our greatest Enimies call's lib. 4. inst cap. 7. 22. Gregorie Pepe and S. Bernard Holy men I infer if they were Holy men in his judgement then their faith was Holy because without Faith viz. true Faith 't is impossible to please God yet they believed the Sacrifice of the Masse witness what S. Greg. sayes Hom. 8. on the Evang. Because we are to celebrate three Masses to day viz. on Christmasse day my discourse on the Ghospell will be short And S. Bernard in his second Sermon of all saints Now saith he I must end because High Masse which is not yet said calls us
Grecians who are lovers of Participles say hansomely by a Participle that which in Latin we say by a Verb St. Ierom then knowing the meaning of the H. Ghost in that Passage by the sentiment of the Church and all the H. Fathers did not stick to the words in his Latin Translation but gives us neatly the sense But Protestants in their Translation disturb the sense making the words and was a Preist relate to and he blessed him whereas they relate to the words going afore and therefore we turn this Particle Vau which signifies both For and and For. Now here is the reason why the words For or And he was a Preist relate to the former words viz. Brought forth Wine and Bread because in the Hebrew Text after these words For or And he was a Preist is put the accent which the Hebrews call Soph Pasuch which signifies that the period is ended there Note more over 1. It makes the same sense whether you say Bringing forth Bread he blessed him or He brought forth bread viz. to Sacrifice because he was a Preist and blessed him Note 2. The word proferens bringing or according to the Hebrew word hotsi that is brought tho of it self signifies nothing but bringing or brought yet oftentimes for the exigence of the place it is used to signify the bringing of the Host to be Sacrificed as Iud 6.18 And we take it so here for the reason I 'le bring by and by in the sixth note Note 3. Altho the Hebrew has Vau that is And he was a Preist that makes nothing because Vau is taken most frequently as Ballarmine remarks for the causal ki that is for or because as Psal 95.5 The Sea is his AND he made it St. Ierome turnes BECAUSE he made it And Isa 64. v. 5. Thou art angry AND we have sinned sayes the Hebrew and Greek and Latin tho the Protestant Bible translates For that is because we have sinned And Gen. 20. v. 3. Thou art but a dead Man for the Woman's sake which thou hast taken FOR she is a Man's Wife the Hebrew has Vau i. e. And she is married to a Husband And he blessed him viz. Melchisedech blessed Abraham not as a Preist but as a greater Person for Abraham was also a Preist and had often Sacrificed Item Salom. 3. Reg. 8. blessed the People altho he was not a Preist but because he was a greater person Hebr. 7. v. 7. The less is blessed of the better Preist then here relates to Sacrifice and not to Blessed Him You Object in these words Blessed Him the Relative Him relates to the Person to whom the Bread was offered but 't was Abraham he blessed then the Bread was offered only to Abraham not to God and consequently there was no Sacrifice Answer Him relates c. to whom the Bread was offered first or Sacrificed by crumbling a little of it on the fire I deny to whom the Bread was offered by a second action to make him participant of the Sacrifice I grant So Christ first offered his Body and Blood to his Father which after he offered or gave to his Disciples Note 4. When Bellarmin does not deny that Melchisedech brought Bread and Wine to refresh Abraham it 's not to be understood Corporally for they had no need of that being refreshed immediatly afore but Spiritually by making them participant of the Sacrifice ut de Sacrificio participarent sayes Bellarm. Understand the Jews of whom St. Jerome writes to Evagrius in the same sense and Joseph and Damascen when they say that Melchisedech brought Bread and Wine to refresh Abraham and his people vix spiritually as those words of Damascen intimate lib ' 4. de fide chap. 14. Mensa illa Melchisedech Mysticam hanc speaking of the Eucharist adumbrabat that is That Table of Melchisedech represented this viz. of the Eucharist mystical one Or if this does not please you remember that David was refreshed corporally with the Loaves of proposition which had been offered to God so Melchisedech might have refreshed them with the Bread and Wine after he had offered both to God 1. Samuel chap. 21. v. 6. Note 5. Howsoever St. Ciprian and St. August translate that passage And he was a Preist or For he was a Preist 't is clear they hold that Melchisedech offered there Bread and Wine in a Sacrifice St Ciprian lib. 2. Epist 3. ad Caecil after he had cited those words of the Psalm Thou art a Preist for ever after the order of Melchisedech he adds Qui ordo utique est de Sacrificio illo quod Melchisedech Sacerdos Dei summi fuit quod panem vinum obtulit quod Abraham benedixit Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus noster Jesus qui Sacrificium Deo Pairi obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat i. e. Panem Vinum suum viz. Corpus sanguinem i. e. Which order certainly was of that Sacrifice viz. that Melchisedech was Preist of God most high that he offered Bread and Wine c. And St. Aug. Epist 95. ad Innoc. Papam which he writes in his own Name and in the Name of other Bishops he sayes Melchisedech prolato Sacramento Mensae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus Sacerdotium figurare That is Melchisedech having brought forth the Sacrament of our Lords Table knew to represent his eternal Preist-hood And lib. 16. de Civit. Dei cap. 22. speaking of the Oblation of Melchesedech Ibi says he first appeared the Sacrifice which is now offered by Christians to God all the world over To return to the word hotsi Note 6. that there is a necessity to give the same signification to the word hotsi here that it hath Jud. 6. For this is the necessity because we have no other place in Scripture telling us what was the Sacrifice of Melchisedech as it is condistinguished from that of Aaron and therefore there was an obligation to translate the Hebrew particle Vau which signifies both And and FOR for and not AND bringing so the reason wherefore he brought Bread and Wine viz. to offer them to God afore he gave them to Abraham and his people to make them participant of the Sacrifice Note 7. 'T is not probable that St. Jerom's latin translation of this passage for he was a Preist is corupted because in his Hebrew questions and in his Epistle to Evagrius he translates and he was a Preist because he is to be judged to have wrote with more application and exactness his Translation of the Bible which if approved was for the whole Church and to be read till the end of the world than his answers to some particular questions or to a missive Letter And since Mr. Rhodon avows here Num. 25. that the Hebrew particle viz. Vau used by Moyses does sometimes signifie FOR and St. Jerome had two reasons obliging him to turn it so there 1. To shew what Melchisedech's Sacrifice was which we have no where
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
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
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
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
And if Calvin judged their faith Holy can he judiciously challendge us for embracing it nay is it not best to follow the footsteps of Holy men SUBSECTION VI. The Authority of the Church grounded on her infallibility is a strong argument to believe what she asserts MY last Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass is this The infallible Church of Christ hath alwayes believed and still believes that in the Eucharist is the true real Body and Blood of Christ and that in her Liturgy or Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice and therefore I believe it That the teaching Church of Christ is infallible in what she teaches as matter of Faith is clear out of the 4. Chapter to the Ephesians where S. Paul sayes that Christ made some Pastors and Doctors v. 11. Why That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine Hence we Infer Then they are infallible in what they teach us as matter of Faith For if I thought them fallible I might still waver fear and be ready to be carried away with the Wind of another man or Angel's Doctrine which would make void the ayme of Christ in giving us those Pastors and Teachers that we might not waver Thus it is made manifest from Scripture that the teaching Church of Christ is infallible and also clear from reason grounded on the same Scripture that this teaching Church is the Roman For since no other teaching Church than the Roman so much as claimes to this infallibility in teaching and infallibility in teaching must be found in some Church to make good the words of St. Paul and of the Scripture in many other places it follows by a necessary consequence that it is to be found in the Roman And so that in the Mass is made a true Sacrifice because she has ever and still asserts it That the taught Church is also infallible in her assent to what she is taught by those Pastors in matter of Faith or in her receiving their Doctrine is also gathered from these words of Christ speaking to the Church he that heares you heares me Luc. 10. v. 16. for by that promise if I infallibly assent to the Doctrine of Christ I also infallibly assent to the Doctrine of his Church If a Protestant think he can give such a turne to these passages that they appear to have no force to prove the Churches infallibility I ask him if he be infallibly sure that the Protestant Church is the true Church of Christ or not If not then what he believes may be false and consequently it may be false that Christ is God in a word he has no Divine Faith which is an assent to what we believe for the Testimony of God above all that is an assent so ferme that it stands immoveable against all the arguments of Men or Angels ad Gal. 1. v. 8. But the Protestant's assent is not such then 't is not an assent of Divine Faith When Protestants say they have an objective infallibility but not subjective that is that the object of their Faith viz. God and other Evangelical Truths are in themselves infallible while they the Subjects or Receivers of these Truths are fallible they seem to say something in words but in reality they say nothing as to the controversie in question For the question is whether a Christian is subjectively infallible that is whether or no his understanding be the Subject of an infallible assent in matters of Faith or whether it produces in it self in matter of Faith an assent infallible or which stands immoveable against what an Angel not from Hell but from Heaven if that were possible might oppose to the contrary by reason of which assurance the Christian is denominated infallible in his assent S. Paul sayes yes saying altho an Angel from Heaven Evangelize to you beside that which we have Evangelized to you he be Cursed This not standing with Protestant principles they must either leave them or avow they are not of S. Paul's Religion If he sayes he is infallibly sure that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion I ask from whence he has that infallibility Not from the Church as he avows not from the Scripture as I prove 1. Because he can't so much as Read Scripture in order to know infallibly that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion afore he is infallibly sure that the Spirit that Guids him in Reading it is the true Spirit for if it be a false Spirit he will make that appear white which is black and black which is white and again he can't know infallibly that 't is the true Spirit that Guides him afore he has tryed it by Scripture Io. 4. v. 1. Thus he must know the Scripture by his Spirit and his Spirit by the Scripture which is to make a manifest Circle and prove idem per idem the same by the same while he proves ultimately that his Spirit is a good Spirit because it is a good Spirit It s a good Spirit sayes he because its approved by the Scripture taken in the true sense and it is the true sense he takes it in sayes he again because his Spirit tells him so which is equivalently to say my Spirit is a good Spirit since none but a good Spirit can assure us of the true sense of Scripture So a 1. ad ultimum from the first to the last he proves it to be a good Spirit because its a good Spirit which is ridiculous 2. You can't be infallibly sure from Scripture that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion afore you are infallibly sure that the sense in which you understand it is the true sense but of this you can never be infallibly sure then you can never be infallibly sure from Scriptrue that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion I prove the minor A Body of Men I mean the Roman Catholick Doctors using the same means that you use to know the true sense of Scripture and understanding it as we Romanists in a sense quite contrary to you are not according to you infallibly sure that we have the true sense Then neither you using only the same means we use are infallibly sure that you have the true sense when you udderstand it in a sense quite contrary to us Or tell me what it is that makes you hit infallibly upon the true sense more than we If you say 't is this that you are of the Elect and the Elect are guided by the Spirit of God which makes you see the Truth 1. Who told you that you are of the Elect If you say the Spirit which you have received gives Testimony to your Spirit that ye are the Sons of God Rom. 8. v. 16. I Answer from Io. c. 4. v. 1. you ought to try that Spirit afore ye trust it and so ye return into your former Circle 2. Suppose you are of the Elect some of the Elect have not been alwayes guided by
his precious Death Do this in remembrance of me Item because we have it so in the Form of Consecration of that Sacrament instituted by our Saviour and conveyed by Apostolical tradition down to us So is shed and shall be shed are both true Our Saviour who conversed with and instructed his Apostles fourty dayes between his Resurrection and Ascention of things belonging to his Church could best tell them his mind An OBJECTION Omitted in the II Section of the 7. Chap. Object IF God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the destruction of Christ's Sacramental being only whereas afore it was not satisfied for sin without the Destruction of his natural being his Justice will not be alwayes the same Therefore the Justice of God is not now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being and consequently the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead Answer If God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being as a Ransom for sin I grant that his Justice will not be the same if he be satisfied with it not as with a Ransom but as an application of the Ransom for sin I deny that his Justice will not be alwayes the same And as Protestants think that God's Justice is alwayes the same altho they Judge that it is satisfied with their Faith and Repentance as an application of the Ransom given for them by the Death of Christ and that it would not be satisfied without them on their side for they don't hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross without any more a do suffices for the actual Remission of all the sins of the Elect but moreover they require Faith and Repentance in them so we think also that it is alwayes the same altho we Judge that it is satisfied with our Faith and Repentance and other good works and especially by the Sacrifice of the Mass as an application of the Ransom given for us on the Cross CHAPTER VIII A reply to Mr. Rodon's answers to some of our Proofs both for the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass SECTION I. For the Real Presence Our first Proof OUr Proof that these words This is my Body This is my Blood should be taken in their proper sense and not figuratively is this because men viz. wise men such as eminently Christ was making their Testament speak plain Mr. Rodon to usher in more smoothly his answer sayes first That Articles of Faith and Sacraments are not always expressed in proper terms and busies himself to answer that which is not so much as thought upon to be denied much less Objected Then he sayes I answer that in H. Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure for the Testament of Iacob Gen. 49. and Moyses Deut. 33. are nothing but a chain of Metaphors and other figures and Civilians will have that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator I reply What he brings for Testaments in those places are Prophecies of Iacob and Moyses not Testaments Nay after Iacob had fore-told all the text adds he blessed every one with their proper blessings of which in particular the Scripture is silent and ordered them to bury him in the Field of Ephon Secondly suppose they had been Testaments there was a special reason for speaking in covered terms first because they were at least also Prophecies which the Holy Ghost would not have yet clearly understood by every one but that they should have their recourse to the Preists for the understanding of them thus keeping the People in humility and the Governours of the Church in Authority Next there was no danger of any one's loosing his right by others mis-understanding of the words because Iacob and Moyses were infallibly sure of God's promise But in Christ's Testament there was a reason of making the words clear to encourage men to be earnest to get what he had left them As to the saying of Civilians That in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the Intention of the Testator I Answer the reason is because it falls out sometimes that Testaments conceaved in proper words are ambiguous for example suppose a man who hath two Nephews one the Son of a Poor man to whom he always testified Love above the other who was the Son of a Rich man should Test thus I leave 100. lib. to my Nephew Here the Intention of the Testator is to be attended and by this adjudged to the poor Nephew by reason of his singular affection to him altho the proper signification of the word pleads as much for the other If you ask me how in the best conceived Testaments there may be some thing ambiguous I answer with Aristotle because Res sunt innumerae pauca verba that is Things are without number but words are few and so by one word we must signifie many things He urges Christ did not then make the new Testament but only the sign of it for the Covenant was made with all mankind in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpent's Head and was after renewned in Abraham Answer First Whatsoever was made in the Old Law is not that which our Saviour in the Ghospel calles the New Testament for all that was Old when he spoke Nay the New Testament was not the same Covenant made in the Person of Adam for if the New Testament was made with Adam and renewed with Abraham I ask who was that afore Adam with whom the Old Testament was made Item different conditions make a different Covenant Now to believe in CHRIST COME and TO USE HIS SACRAMENTS are conditions which were not in the former Secondly I deny that he did not make at the last Supper his New Testament because as by God Exod. 24. the Old Testament was made or his will of giving to the Jews the Land of Canaan if they kept his commandments and ceremonies prescribed by him was made I say and signed with the Blood of Beasts Hic est sanguis faederis quod pepigit vohiscum Deus This is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you Said Moyses so Christ by the effusion of his Blood in a Sacrifice for Liquid things are offered by Effusion made and signed his New Testament of giving us spiritual things and a heavenly inheritance if we keep his Commandments and use the Sacraments instituted by him And now I prove that he made it here and no where else Because here and no where else he fulfilled the conditions required in a Testator making his Testament First he signified that he was making his Testament in these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. Secondly he promised and left some thing
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.
SECTION III. For the Real Presence Our fourth Proof GOD can put two Bodies in one place then he may put one Body in two places or at once in Heaven and in the Host The antecedent is proven by Christ's entring into the Canacle of the Apostles the doors being shut Io. 20. v. 19. Mr. Rodon's answer is to explane those words thus The doors having been shut which explication suffers the opening of them again to let Christ in But that which annull's all his frivolous explications of those words is that the Greek Original text has thuroon kekleisménoon in the Genetive absolute the doors being shut and the English Protestant Translation has when the doors were shut came Iesus Both which import a simultaneus entry of Iesus with the door 's being shut or that Iesus entred while the doors were shut and consequently two Bodies were penetratively in the same place 2. Christ came out of his Blessed Mother's womb without opening it but Mr. Rodon for certain assures the contrary because Luke 2. he was presented to the Lord as is written in the Law every male that opens the womb Luke 2. v. 23. But let me ask Because Christ submitted himself to the Law was he subject ro the Law Because he took upon him Circumcision the mark of a Sinner was he a Sinner No more had he opened his Mother's Womb altho he was presented to the Lord. Must we degrade the Mother of God of the title of a Virgin or go from the common notion of a Virgin to ply to Mr. Rodon's Faithless imagination 3. Was not Christ risen afore St. Mary Magdalen said who will roll away the Stone Mark 16 And consequently in rising penetrating it was in the same place with the Stone 3. St. Paul sayes Hebr. 4. That Iesus Christ penetrated the Heavens and consequently the Heavens and his Body were in one and the same place Mr. Rodon answers That is to be understood improperly that is that the Heavens gave way to his Body as the Air to an Arrow But I reply The Holy Scripture is to be taken in the litteral sense when so taken as here it implies no contradiction nor any thing against Faith or good manners Moreover St. Paul spoke so to let us know that Penetrability or subtility is one of the Gifts or Endowments of a Glorious Body Mr. Rodon is not of that Authority to make his bare word be taken against the sentiment of all the Orthodox Divines Mr. Rodon objects Numb 15. That a modal accident in the opinion of those Romish Doctors who hold them cannot be without a subject therefore the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist cannot be without a Subject Answer I deny the consequence because the Modal Accident in the opinion of those who hold them is jultima rei determinatio it ultimatly determines its Subect and consequently when it exists it is with its Subject But other Accidents as the Species of Bread or Wine as Colour Savour c. do not ultimately or actually determine a Subject but only have naturally an appetite to be in a Subject so Fire naturally has an appetite to burn yet by Divine power its actual burning was hindered in the Furnace of Babilon SECTION IV. For the Sacrifice of the Mass Our first Proof TO Mr. Rhodon's answer to our first Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass out of the Prophet Malachy I reply in my 7 Chap. Subs 4. where I deduce that proof at length What he says about the word New offering is out of purpose for we have not that word in our Bible but only Oblatio munda a pure offering Only let his Defender take notice that Sacrifices are not acceptable to God by Jesus Christ unless the Offerers be living stones or living members of his Church by Grace 1. Pet. cap. 2. v. 5. And not that every abominable sinner who breaks the Commandments of God tho he believe in Christ may think his Sacrifice will be accepted so he offer it by Jesus Christ No God hates the impious Prov. 15. So far he is from accepting their offering And Christ says Not every one that says to me Lord Lord this I repeat often to imprint it well in Protestants mind such believe in him otherways they would not call him Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven but who does the will of my Father Math. 7.2 Christ is not a coverer of iniquity that still remaines in the heart of the sinner SECTION V. For the Sacrifice of the Mass Our second Proof WHich Mr. Rodon answers is taken from these words Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine for he was a Breist of God the most High blessed him Gen. 14.18 From these words according to the unanimous consent of Greek and Latin Fathers whose passages you may read in Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa chap. 6. We say 1. That Melchisedech Sacrificed there 2. That the cheif difference between the Sacrifice of Aaron and that of Melchisedech made there was in this that Aaron's was Bloody and Melchisedech's Unbloody or in Bread and Wine and therefore since Christ according to David Psal 109. and St. Paul Hebr. 7. is called a Preist after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron as St. Paul v. 11. expressely intimates it behoved him to Sacrifice under the formes of Bread and Wine as he did at the last Supper when having changed a peece of Bread into his Body he said This is my Body which is given that is offered for you and This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood which is poured out that is Sacrificed for you Luke 22. And consequently the oblation which is made in the Mass it being the same with that which Christ made at the last Supper is a true Sacrifice An other difference taken from the Person Sacrificrificing is that Melchisedech neither succeeded to any in his Presstly dignity being without Father and Mother in order to his Preist-hood which he had not carnally by right of Inheritance but was the first of that order neither had he a Successor as Aaron had Eleazer and in this he was a Type of Christ a Preist for ever Mr. Rhodon to weaken this our Argument for the Sacrifice of the Mass from these words Genes 14. Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine for he was a Preist of God the most High blessed him Says we falsifie the Text in three places putting the Participle Bringing for brought the causal For for And. and leaving out another And. Answer I freely avow our Translation does not follow the Hebrew Text word for word Is a Translator bound to more than the true and full sense of what he Translates May not he change an active Verb into a Passive a Verb into a Participle c. If I should translate the French Jay froid thus I have cold would not I be rediculous to an English man who says I am cold Do not the