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
young Prince representing unto his Father upon a stage how he faught in the field differ as to his essence or natural being from himself in the field No but only in the manner of being or representative being And so what is offered in the Mass differs not essentially from what was offered on the Cross You 'l say the Sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and hath force to take away all sins and therefore there is no need to reiterate it in the Mass I Answer distinguishing the antecedent in actu primo that is in a power applyable I grant in actu secundo that is in a power applyed I deny I hope Mr. Rodon will not say the Sacrifice of the Cross takes away all Sin in actu secundo that is actually applyes Christ's merits to all men for so there would be no reprobate none damned I pass over things answered afore Note 1. we bring no more water from the Well then our vessel will hold tho there be more in the well so the Mass is of more or less profit fit to the Priest according to his disposition and capacity Note 2. Sins remitted by the Sacrifice of the Mass were expiated by the Sacrifice of the Cross in actu primo but the expiation was not yet applyed in actu secundo and this is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass A number of such objections you may easily solve by what I have said before in this chapter Mr. Rodon sayes the application of the Cross may be considered on God's part and Man's part on God's part when he offers Jesus Christ to us withall his benefits both in his words and Sacraments on Man's part when by a true lively faith working by love we embrace Jesus Christ with all his merits offered to us both in his word and Sacraments Answer First we find Christ offered for us Luke 22. and that was the first Sacrifice of the Mass Secondly On God's part all was done by Jesus Christ's offering on our part our application is indeed by faith operating by good works one of which is our assistance and offering with the Preists in the Sacrifice of the Mass The Plaister indeed for our Spiritual wounds is Christ's Body and Blood the application is made by saith joyned to good works of which the cheif is the Sacrifice of the Mass but to believe only as I have said so often is not a sufficient recourse or application of our Spiritual Plaister or a sufficient laying of it on our wound Not every on who sayes Lord Lord c. Math. 7. v. 21. Faith is only a condition requisite with the works Mr. Rhodon remarks that S. Iohn chap. 3. doth not say whosoever sacrifices him viz. Christ in the Mass but whosoever believes c. shall have life everlasting Answer Whosoever believs as he should do I grant for such an one will also do what Christ commanded to be done if he be a Preist he will offer the Sacrifice of the Mass If he precisely believs and no more which may be done I deny he who only cryes upon Christ Lord Lord believ's Christ dyed for him otherwise he would not call him Lord yet he will not enter into the Kingdome of Heaven because he doth not add to his belief good works or do the will of the Eternal Father Math. 7. v. 21. I also heartily bold with St. Paul that God hath set forth Iesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood and that saith in the Blood of Christ is the beginning and disposition to propitiation to our Sins Snitium substantiae as he terms it Hebr. 3. v. 14. The beginning of our spiritual subsisting but it alone will not do the turne so this does not exclude the Sacrifice of the mass so much spoken of in other places To S. Thomas his authority p. 3. quest 83. art 1. I Answer 1. We are sure St. Thomas of Aquin believed that iâ—â— he Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice since in his Rime upon the Mass on Corpus Christi day he speaks thus Docti sacris institutis panem Vinum in Salutis cansecramus Hostiam that is being taught by sacred institutions we consecrate Bread and Wine into an Host of Salvation It 's known that an Host relates to sacrifice Again in the same he says Dogma datur Christianis quod in Carnem transit Panis Vinum in sanguinem that is 'T is a decree received among Christians that the Bread is changed into Flesh and the Wine into Blood 2. In the conclusion of his tenth article P. 3. quest 82. he tells Preists they must celebrate on the chief feasts principally in order to God to whom Sacrifice is offer'd in the Celebration of the Eucharist warning them of what is said to Preists 2. Machab. 4. v. 14. Ita ut sacerdotes c. So that Preists did not apply themselvs now to their duty about the Altar but flighting the Temple and neglecting the Sacrifices c. 3. St. Thomas in the conclusion of the cited article by Mr. Rodon assignes two wayes by which the Mass may be called a Sacrifice The first because it represents the Sacrifice of the Cross as the Picture of Cicero The second because by this Sacrament we are made participant of the fruit of our Lord's Passion As to the first sayes he Christ was Sacrificed in the Figures of the old Law for example in the slaughter of Abel viz. representatively only But as to the second 't is proper to the Sacrament quod in ejus celebratione Christus immoletur because in its celebration Christ is immolated Note he was immolated improperly in the first then that the second may be distinguished from the first in it he is Sacrificed properly And ad 2. in the same article he sayes we must say that as the celebration of this Sacrament is a representative Image of the passion of Christ so the Altar is a representative of the Cross t In which Christ in his own form was immolated Note that Altar in the Mass relates to a Sacrifice So if Mr. Rodon will subscribe to St. Thoma's Doctrine touching the Mass he will acknowledge both that in it Bread and Wine are changed into the Flesh and Blood viz. of Christ and that it is a true Sacrifice in which he is Sacrificed in an other's shape or the Form of Bread Quaeres 1. Ought not a living thing when it is Sacrificed to be killed Answer Yes if it be Sacrificed in its own Form not if in an other Form as Christ in the Form of Bread Quaeres 2. Why the Church in the Latin Translation of these words of St. Luke This is the Cup in my Blood which is shed for you puts shall be shed for you Answer To comply with the Intention of Christ who so offered his Blood at the last Supper that he would have it daily offered thenceforth as a commemorative Sacrifice of his Passion to keep us in mind of
togither and not anie part of it taken alone causes the object I end this chapter with two reflections The first That Mr. Rodon and other protestants to impose upon men their word for the word of God use violence to the words of Christ when they explaine these his words This is my Body thus This Bread signifies my Body or thus This Bread is a sign of my Bodie especiallie since Christ prevented all such interpretations by his following words Which is given for you Luke 22. v. 19. This is my blood Which is shed for you Was Bread sacrificed for us or wine shed for us The second Since God speaking by the scripture is their only judge of Controversie why will not they understand his words in their proper signification How shall a judge do the dutie of a judge if he give his sentence darkly and enigmatically so that the two parties go still by the ears after they have heard his sentence neither they nor anie other who was present seing clearly in whose favour he hath given it The second Chapter Concerning the exposition of these words He that eates my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed Jo. 6. SECTION I. Some remarkes for the intelligence of the 6. Chap of S. Io. In order to the precept given there v. 52. of eating and drinking the body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally Remark 1. That Christ by the occasion of the Jewes seeking him for Bread called himselfe Bread and told them that they did not seek him for the miracles he had done by which viz. he intended to move them to beleive in him but for the loaves sake with which he had filled them Then he bad them work or earnestly seck not the meat which perishes but which dures untill life everlasting and told morover that this work was to believe in him Rem 2. That this meer spiritual eating of him or believing in him he then at that time exacted of them to wit That they should believe that he was the son of God and therefore he checked them for not believing in him saying v. 36. You have seen me viz. In the miracle of giving them miraculously bread and his crossing the water without a boat and you doe not believe to wit some of you Rem 3. After some believed that he was the son of God as S. Peter for himself and some other Apostles testified v. 69. And consequently were disposed to believe whatsoever he should propose to them then v. 51. he told them plainly that he would give them his flesh to eat saying The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the World at which proposition when he saw some stumble then he repeated it again in stronger termes with a threatening Amen Amen I say unto you Unlesse you eat the flesh of the sone of man and drink his Blood to wit when I will give it to ye You shall not have life in you 53. Rem 4. here That this eating is different from that meer spiritual eating of which he spoke in the beginning of the Chapter when he aimed onlie to make them first believe that he was the son of God That he required at that present time and therefore checked them then for not believing This he required only after he had given them his flesh to eat which he then promised and performed only a year after to wit when he instituted the Sacriment and after gave it to his Disciples for we cannot eate a thing afore we get it to eate and Christ did not say then v. 52. The bread which I give but which I will give is my flesh Which as I said he performed only at the nixt passover or Easter Hence gather that that eating was a Sacramental or sensible eating by the mouth of the Body and not a meer spiritual eating by the mouth of Faith Which he exacted v. 36. and which some had performed alreadie Rem 5. That 't was our Saviours custome to warn his Disciples afore hand of things he was to do or suffer after when he foresaw that they would be very surprising And this for two reasons First that they might not be scandalised when they fell out So he sayes Io. 16. v. 1. I have said those things that you be not scandalized viz. When for my sake you shall be your selves cast out of the Synagoges but rather that you have a ground of comfort and saith in me who fore-told you of it 2. That when they â—ell out they might not be starteled but to re confirme in the belief of them by reason they hâ—â— been fore-told by him So he said Io. 14. v. 29. And now I have told you afore that when it will be fulfilled you believe Thus he fore-told that persecution of his Disciples Io 16.11 His own ignominious death Math. 20. v. 18. That he wâ—uld be scourged c. He fore-told that he w uld institute Baptism and solved Nicodemas his difficulty Io 3. v. 5. He fore-told his sending of the H Gh st Io 14. v. 16. Now shall n t we also believe That he fore-told this great mystery of giving his Body and his Blood at the last supper to his disciples since they were not surprised when he said Take eate This is my Body which had it not been fore-told might have seemed very strange and a subject of asking him with submission what he meant by those words as they asked him the meaning of the parable of the tares of the field Math. 13. v. 36. But he fore-told this mysterie no where if not in this 6. Chap. of S. Io. then those words Unless you eate the flesh of the son of c. were meant of the sacramental eating by the mouth or the Body as the Disciples did eate it at the Last supper and not only by the mouth of Faith If Protestants to justifie their eating by faith only bring this passage of S. Austim tract 25. in Io. Quid paras denies ventrem crede manducastâ— Wherefore do you prepare your teeth and st mach believe and you have eaten I answer believe and you have eaten meer y spiritually of which Christ was speaking in the beginning of that 6. Chap. of S. Io I grant Sacramentallie of which we are speaking in our controversie with protestants and of which our Saviour spoke when he said Take eate This is my Body I deny For the sacramental eating must be a sensible eating by the mouth of the body That S. Austin did not mean there a sacramental manducation or eating is clear because he admitted Infant communion or the sacramental communion of Infants who could not receive the Body of Christ by faith or eate it by faith when they receaved it sacramentally See S. Aust lib. 1. De pec Meritis Remis Chap. 20 where to prove to the Pelagians That there is a necessity to baptise Children Dâ—minum sayes he audiamus non quidem hoc de
to doubt if such a man were my Father for no other reason but because many have thought him to be their Father who really was not To Mr. Rodon's saying That Heathens might have retorted the Catholick arguments made against them by S. Chrysos c. If the Church had then believed that Christ's Body was in the Eucharist As when S. Chrisos said they bring their gods into base Images of Wood and Stone and shut them up there as in Prison And Arnobius Lib. 6. Your Gods dwells in Plaister c. and they suffer themselves to be shut up and remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison Answer 1. No they might not because our mysteries were not known then to them as they are now to Protestants Nay they were keep secret from the very Catechumens Hence that famous saying in primitive times speaking of his Mystery norunt Fideles The Faithful know to wit what we believe there Quaeres Why was this Mystery concealed from the cathecumens or those who ware not yet Baptized Answer Because they had not yet the Eye of Faith by which they might see it Hence don't wonder if you find some Fathers to have wrot some what obscurely of this Mystery in the Birth of the Church Answer 2. No the Heathens might not equally retort c. because 1. Christ is in the H Host and was in his Mothers Womb so that his God-head is and was else where 2. We do not say That Christ leaves Heaven to come to the H. Host as the false Gods one place to come to another 3. Their Consecration was the meer word of Man ours the words of Christ commanding Do this and speaking by the mouth of the Preist This is my Body 4. They adored the Mettal after its dedication as God We do not adore so the species Answer 3. If the Church did then believe that Christ had remained hid and shut up in his Mothers Womb as in an obscure Prison might not the Heathens have retorted what Arnob. Lib. 6. said against their Gods detained in an obscure Prison And for their Retortion in this particular would Mr. Rodon have denyed that Christ remained nine months in his B. Mother's Womb I end this Chapter with this Quaere Wherefore do we adore Christ more particularly in the B. Sacrament then his God-head every where Answer Because God the Father will have God the Son specially honoured by men for his special Love to them in their Redemption of which we are particularly minded by the presence of his Body in the Eucharist 2. Because the humanity of Christ represented to us by the Eucharist is personally united to the Divinity And God the H. Ghost who guides the Church inspired her in her invocations of the three Divine Persons in the begining of the Mass to invoce the first and third Person under the common name of LORD Lord have mercy on us But God the Son under the Name of his Man-hood saying thrice Christ have Mercy on us so honoured will God have and dear to us this Man-hood of Christ the instrument of our Redemption CHAPTER VI. Against the taking away of the Cup or the Communion under one kind SECTION I. The lawfulness of Communicating under one kind is proven 1. THE precept of Communicating or of taking the Body and Blood of Christ is only Io. 6. v. 53. in these words Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you But with those words stands the lawfulness of Communicating under one kind Therefore 't is lawful to Communicate under one kind I prove the minor 1. Because there is only commanded the sumption or receiving of both Body and Blood as to the substance not the manner of receiving them under both kinds 2. If you think the manner is commanded also giving not granting you that we answer that the Particle And may be taken for Or as in many other places of Scripture for example when Salomon speaking to God sayes mendicitatem divitias ne dederis mihi Poverty and Riches give me not Prov. 30. v. 8. Where And is taken for Or he desiring of God neither to be Rich nor Poor And Act. 3. v. 8. Argentum Aurum non est mihi Silver 2. And Gold I have not for Silver Or Gold I have not If with the Hussits you will not relish this solution then we answer 3. That this command was given by Christ not to every particular man but to the community of Christians by which it is fulfilled some viz. Preists taking it under both kinds to represent announce to the People the death of Christ according to the command layed upon them Math. 26. In these words Do this in remembrance of me there also was the command to the Preists of making the Sacrament for the People So Exod. 12. v. 3. 't is commanded that The whole multitude of the Children of Israel shall Sacrifice viz. the Paschal Lamb. Did every one in particular sacrifice No but only the heads of families in their families Also Genes 9. v. 1. Increase and multiply Doth not oblige every particular man to marry Again when our Saviour said Math. 28. Teach all nations baptising them he laid that command on the Church not on every particular man to teach Now to make appear that this answer is not brought without ground from Scripture take notice that when Christ would signifie that every one or every individual person should be baptised he expressed himself in the singular number Io. 3. v. 5. Nisi quis c. Except a man be born of water nd of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Whereas Io. 6. v. 53. he sayes in the plural number Nisâ— manducaveritis Unless ye eat c. which is fulfilled by the community if some of them receive under both kinds altho all do not And a little after when he turnes his speach into the singular he speaks indifferently of both or one kind He that eates my Flesh and drink my Blood hath life everlasting v. 45. and v. 58. He that eates this Bread shall live for ever Which passages signifie that one kind suffices for if by an impossible supposition Christ could contradict himself yet our opinion would stand since in jure if what is said last contradict what was said afore Iura posteriora corrigunt priora The latter Law corrects the former That the precept of receiving this Sacrament was here Io. 6. v 53. I prove again The command of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or Baptism Sacramentally was Io. 3. v. 4. For in no other place is mentioned Water which Protestants acknowledge to be necessary in Baptism as well as Catholicks Therefore the command of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body Blood Sacramentally viz. in a sensible way by the mouth of the Body is here Io. 6. v. 53 I prove the consequence because a like expression to the same people caries a like command
but Io. 3. He commanded Baptism saying Except a man be born of Water c. Then he commands the receiving of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood saying Except ye eat c. Obj. The command of receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was Math. 26. in these words Take eat this is my Body Drink ye all of it this is my Blood But there both kinds are particularly commanded therefore 't is not sufficient to receive under one kind Answer 1. I deny the major and say that those words were not a precept but an invitation only made to the Apostles alone as a Friend does to his Friends invited to Dine with him For when S. Mark Chap. 14. sayes They all drunk of it All those who drunk were all those or comprehended all those who were bid drink but all those who drunk were only the Apostles then all those who were bid drink were only the Apostles and consequently if you make it a command 't was a command only obliging the Apostles Answer 2. The washing of the Feet to one an other Io. 13. v. 14. was not a precept therefore far less these words Take eat for there he sayes positively Debetis alter alterius c. Ye ought to wash one another's Feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you Out of my answer to the Objection Remark that the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. from the v. 23 to 27. relates only what Christ did to the Apostles and what he commanded them viz. as they were Preists to wit to make this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death telling them that as often as they eat that Bread and drink that Cup they should announce his Death viz. by their separate taking of the species of Bread from that of Wine Then S. Paul of himself adds Whosoever shall eate this Bread or drink the Cup of our Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As if he had said altho you eate the Body of our Lord in a good estate if you drink the Cup after having conceaved in your heart afore the drinking a grievous sin you are guilty of both unworthily receaved Why but because under each kind both are contained And thus on the contrary we receave the essential good effect of both under one kind as we incurr the guilt of both profaning both by an unworthy receaving under one I know some Protestant Bibles have Whosoever shall eat this Bread And drink this Cup. c. 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. AND for OR but that is a corruption as you may see in the Greek Printed at London the year 1653. by Roger Daniel which has OR with the Latin version By this essential effect of the Sacrament we distinguish what belonges to the substance of the Sacrament from what belonges not to it For example because in Baptism by aspersion is had the same effect of the Sacrament as by a triple mersion we conclude the triple mersion is not of the Essence Say the same of one kind in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For I hope Protestants will not say that when Christ gave the Sacrement in the time of Supper Math. 26. v. 26. Under the forme of Bread the effect of the Sacrament was suspended till he gave the Cup after supper Luke 22. v. 20. If not then the giving of the Cup was not necessary for receaving the Grace of the Sacrament This Mr. Rodon seems to avow in his 12 number of this Chapter when he sayes Drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it I infer then they who cannot drink it may have the effect of the Sacrament without the Cup. And this the Calvenists must say in France when they give the Eucharist under the kind of Bread only to those who cannot tast wine as you may see in their 7 Art of the 12 Chap. of their discipline which is of our Lord's Supper And Mr. Jurieux a Minister in France confirmes this custome in his book entituled Le Preservatif c. Pag. 267. When speaking of the Person who has receaved only under one kind This says he N'est pas un veritable sacrement quant au signe mais c'est un veritable sacrement quant a la chose signifieé puisque le fidele recoit J. Christ signifie par le sacrement rccoit tout autant de graces que ceux qui communient au Sacrement meme que le Sacrement luy est presente tout entier de voeu de caeur That is This sayes he is not a true Sacrament as to the sign but 't is a true Sacrament as to the thing signified since the faithful receives J. Christ signified by the Sacrament and receives as much grace as those who receave the Srcrament it self and that the whole Sacrament is represented to him to his sight and heart Also since Protestants believe they receive not only the figure but also the proper substance of JESUS CHRIST at least by saith I ask when they have received the Bread of our Lord's Supper before the Cup have they received the whole substance of Christ or not If they have received the whole then they have received the whole Grace of the Sacrament and consequently the Cup is not necessary If not I ask again is the substance of Christ divided of which one part is receaved with the Bread the other with the Cup Note when S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. sayes Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. he does not give a command 'T was Christ only who gave the command of eating his Body and drinking his Blood as to the substance of the Sacrament but not as to the manner which certainly is not of the Essence of the Sacrament the Sacrament being a permanent thing for Christ having said This is my Body 't was now a Sacrament before the eating according to that of S. Aug. tract 80. in Io. Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum And the use of every permanent thing being posteriour to it and consequently not Essential SECTION II. Other objections answered Obj. 2. A Broken body by wonds is void of blood and has not blood by concomitance but Christ's Body was broken therefore it had not Blood by concomitance and so we ought to take the Blood a part Answer I distinguish the minor Christ's Body was broken on the Cross and there void of Blood be it so when he offered it up for us at the last Supper and after his Resurrection I deny And consequently when we receive it in the Sacrament it has Blood by coneomitance and therefore we need not receave the Blood a part It 's true also that Christ's Body at the last Supper or in the sacrifice is dayly broken as to the species but not in it self and therefore being a living Body it hath Blood by concomitance
and for this reason we need not take the Blood a part Obj. 3. We go from the practise of the primitive Church Answer As to the essence of the Sacrament I deny as to the manner of administration of it upon some considerable circumstances be it so So the Protestants go from the practise of primitive times in Baptism by using now the sprinkling of water on the Child whereas a triple dipping was used in primitive times I said be it so because in primitive times they gave it also sometimes under one kind If you ask me why Christ gave it to his Apostles under both kinds I answer he both foresaw Hereticks as the Manicheans who would deny the thing in it self to be lawful which is an errour and different circumstances in which the Church should think good to give it under the species of Wine as to infants which action of his justified the Church in that and the like circumstances We avow then that the Sacrament was given some times under both kindes and in particular to discover the Manicheans in the time of S. Leo Pope But we deny that there was a command from Christ of giving it so Obj. 4. To take Christ's Blood in taking the Host is not to drink it Answer 'T is not to drink it cannally that is to be carnally refressed with it I grant Spiritually that is to be Spiritually refressed with it I deny So S. Cypr. sayes in the beginning of the Sermon of the Lords Supper manducaverunt biberunt de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem that is they eat and drunk of the same Bread according to the vibsile form Remark he sayes They drunk of the same Bread and makes no mention of Wine Also Tertul. lib. de Resur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur that is The Flesh feeds of the Body and Blood of Christ that the Soul may be full of God And S. Augustin lib. quaest in Levit. q. 57. speaking of this Sacrament sayes A cujus Sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum c. that is from the Blood of which Sacrifice to be taken for aliment c. Where you see the Blood is called food or aliment By which passages you may take notice that the Holy Fathers put the force of their words in the thing and not in the way of taking it because whither taken by way of food or of drink it has the same effect Ob. 5. He that eates Bread dipped in Wine altho he hath Wine in his mouth doth not drink Therefore he who receives only under the form of Bread doth not drink Answer 1. I distinguish the antecedent He who eates Bread dipped c. doth not drink it in the strict acception of drinking I grant In the less rigid acception of drinking I deny did you never hear say of him who drinks a heavy thick Wine he eates and drinks both at once Answer 2. He doth not drink as to the substance of drinking which is to take a liquid matter by the mouth I deny As to the whole corporal manner and effect of Drinking I grant So Pascasius lib. de Corp. Christ speaks thus Hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus Ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes that is It s he alone who breaks this Bread and by the hands of the Ministers distributes it to the faithful saying Take and drink all of this to wit Bread where he makes no mention of Wine But much less do Protestants drink Christ's Blood by an act of faith that Christ dyed for them in which the eating and drinking is one and the same Ob. 5. The sacramental words operate what they signify but they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood therefore they operate the separation of the Body from the Blood and consequently we ought to receave under both kinds to receave both Answer I distinguish the Major The Sacramental words operate what they signifie formally I grant what they signify occasionally I deny And say that these words This is my Body and these This is my Blood signifie formally and primarly the Body and Blood of Christ altho occasionally and secundarily they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood of Christ in as much as they are an occasion to me hearing them pronounced apart and knowing that the force of these words only attended the Body would be under one species and the Blood under the other tho by concomitance both are in each to represent to my self the death of Christ or his Body separated from his Blood Ob. 6. As much as is taken away of the Sacrament as much is diminished of the perswasion of the certainty of God's promise Answer As much as is taken away of that part of the Sacrament which causes Grace be it so Of that which does not cause grace but only compleats it in the being of a representation of the death of Christ I deny I said be it so because the Sacraments were cheifly instituted to signify and cause in us sanctifying grace which is both signified and caused by the Body and Blood of Christ under on kind as much as under both Yet the other kind is necessary in the Priest not to confirm more God's promise as Mr. Rodon would have it but to represent the death of Christ And since he thinks two Sacraments better then one why does not he take in the Sacrament of Pennance so signally set down Io. 20. as a sensible sign of sanctifying Grace brought forth in a penitent Soul by the absolution of the Preist signified by these words Whose sins ye remitt are remitted to them Since three Sacraments are as much better then two than two are better than one Or how proves he the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrament the Preists absolving a sorrowful penitent from his sin to be none Ob. 7. Christ fore-saw the inconvenences of taking under both kinds for Lay-people as well as we and yet he commanded it to them as S. Paul to the Corinthians after him Answer I deny that either Christ or S. Paul commanded the lay people to take the Eucharist under both kinds more then Christ commanded that the Ministers should wash the Communicants feet by his example of Washing them to those to whom he gave the Sacrament See the ground of this my denial in the 1. Sect. of the 6. chap. nay Christ signified aboundantly one kind to suffice when he said Who eates this Bread shall live for ever Ob. 8. God's word should not be taken from all because some are deaf therefore the Cup should not be taken from all lay people because some cannot drink Wine Answer The Cup is not taken from all lay people for that reason but because that and other reasons being on one side and on the other side it not being necessary to give it the lay people for
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
Priest's stomach only for the putting of it on the Altar is the offering of it which is done by the Consecration by which also the chief part of the thing Sacrificed viz. Christ is Mysteriously deprived of Life while his Body and Blood if we regard the force of the words only are put separatly under the species of Bread and Wine which Mystical separation and putting of him there after a Dead manner is made sensible to us by our hearing the words or the Priest's adoration of the Host and his laying it on the Altar which is an offering of it Thus you have the offering and sensible change of the thing offered which are of the Essence of the Sacrifice afore the consumption of the Host in the Preist's stomach ac in the pacifick Sacrifices of the Old Law the Victime was offered and killed afore a part of it was consumed by the Preist and a part by the Person who offered But if you think the sensible change of the thing offered in the Eucharist is not sufficiently made afore the communion of the Preist then I say this change also is sufficiently made afore he parts from the Altar for 't is not required that the species be quite destroyed no more then in Libations or Sacrifices of Liquid things For example in the effusion of Wine on the ground the thing did not presently cease to be what it was but ceased to be capable of the use men make of it and so was looked upon as morally destroyed the same I say of the species of the H. Host SUBSECTION I. Mr. Rodon's passages out of S. Paul to the Heb. answered YOu 'l Object Hebr. 9. v. 22. almost all things are by the Law purged with Blood and without shedding of Blood there is no Remission Note He doth not say of Sins for the Remission which was made in the Old Law by the Blood of Beasts was only Remission of a Legal uncleanness and temporal Pain but not of Sin for 't is impossible sayes St. Paul for Sins to be taken away by the Blood of Bulls and Goats Hebr. 10. v. 4. It was therefore necessary that the Paterus viz. the Tabernacle or Old Testament and People and Preists living under them of things in the Heavens that is of the New Testament or the Church of Christ as is clear out of the 8. chap. v. 5. should be purified with these viz. Sacrifices of the Old Law but the Heavenly things themselves viz. the People of Christ with better Sacrifices viz. that of the Cross and that of the Mass for that on the Cross was only one then these Answer From this passage nothing is brought against the Mass altho the Sins of the Church of Christ figured by the Synagogue be said to be purged by Blood for the Sacrifice of the Mass affords not a total and compleat Remission but presupposes the merits of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross of which it is only an application and so it is true that without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission And thus Heavenly things viz. the Church of Christ is purified with more excellent or better Sacrifices viz. that of the Cross meriting the Remission of all the Sins of Men and that of the Mass applying this Ransome of Christ to Men. And this is the force of that word Sacrifices in the plural number And don't tell me that the Sacrifice of the Cross is called Sacrifices in the plural number as Baptism which is but one is called Baptisms in the plural number Hebr. 6. v. 2. For the Baptisms there mentioned are the three Baptisms viz. of Water of Blood and of the Holy Ghost of which the Catechumens were instructed in their Catechism or first Lessons of Christian Doctrine And these are different as to their manner and remote matter You Object Hebr. 10. v. 16. I will put my Laws into their Hearts and in their minds will I write them and their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more and where Remission of these is there is no more offering for sin and consequently there is no need of the Sacrifice of the Mass Answer I explane the words of St. Paul that is in the New Law I shall poure such abundant Graces into the Hearts of some that they shall so abhor their former Sins that I shall remember them no more as those of a Magdalen an Austin c. to punish them with eternal fire and that for the merits of my Son Now where Remission of those is there is no more offering for Sin That is as a new Ransom or an other Ransom than that Christ hath given its true As an application of that Ransom given I deny I ask doth not God still remember so farr the Sins of some Elect Protestants that he punishes them with a temporal Pain How often do they avow in their Preaching that they have sinned and that the Lord scourges them for their Sins And do not they offer up their fasts and Prayers to God on their dayes of Humiliation to pacific the Lord's Wrath against them And do not they think that they must believe and repent that the merits of Christ may be applyed to them Why then do they stumble at our Sacrifice or offering in the Mass not as a new price for our Sins but as an application of the price given Christ in his Passion not having actually applied it to all who after have by Faith and other conditions required by him applied it to themselves and some in a greater measure then others Unless they will not have it true that as a Star differs from a Star in Light Saints differ from Saints in Sanctity 1 Cor. 15. v. 14. and 42. From the passages of St. Paul Hebr. 9. v. 27. and Hebr. 10. v. 1. Mr. Rodon Forms these Arguments First the Sacrifice of Iesus Christ must not be reiterated for St. Paul sayes that Iesus Christ offereth not himself often Answer Iesus Christ offereth not himself often as the price of the Redemption of Mankind I grant As the application of that price to men I deny Therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is not the Sacrifice of the Cross reiterated formally as to the manner and end of it as such which was to be the Ransom for mankind I grant It is not the same materially as to the Host offered I deny Now the reiteration which St. Paul denies is only of the Sacrifice in a Bloody manner which God would have once si posuerit pro peccato animam suam Isa 53. v. 10. for the Redemption of man and no more because it was sufficient not only for the Redemption of the men of one age but all ages past and to come And in this the Sacrifice of Christ excells those of Aaron which being weak and unsufficient one was offered for one Sin and an other for an other neither could they altogether give a worthy satisfaction for one Sin so they were not a Remission but a
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.