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 [Page 2] 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 3] 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 'tis 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 [Page 4] Body of Christ; as well as the word Bodie supposes for it, tho in a different way of signifieing, This obscurely and Body clearly and distinctlie.

Here I humbly intreat the protestant reader to reflect, that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding 2. Cor. 10. v. 5. (that is to say; suspend it from asserting what it might judge, had it nothing to rely upon, but the sole relation of our senses) to obey Christ.

God will have, as an homage due to him and his veracitie, this proud faculty of man, which is earnest to judge of all, submit to his word. The assent of my understanding by which I judge a thing to be, because I see it with my eyes, is an assent of science, which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of faith. In the mean time we Christians, as Christians are called, not philosophers the Reasoners, but the faithfull. fides est, as we say, credere quod non vides, Faith is to believe that which thou doest not see. This is the praise of faith, sayeth St. Aug. tract. 29. in Io. If that, which is believed, be not seen. Blessed are they, said Christ Io. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have beleived. Faith is an argu­ment, (or perswasion) saith S. Paul, of things not ap­pearing. If they appear, and I assent that they are because I see them, my faith ceases, Science coming in with faith's destruction.

If you say I beleive that the Son of God became Man, because God hath revealed it, and my senses do not controll it: your faith is lame, not able to stand alone, and consequentlie is an unworthie sacrifice of your un­derstanding to the word of God.

What would the King say to that Noble man, who should distrust his relation made in presence of all his courtiers, of a thing done by his Majestie upon his Royal word; who should, (I say), distrust it, because he heard it controlled by a foot-boy or some such mean person of as little credit?

As humane faith requires I rely upon the sole testi­mony [Page 5] 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 o [...] [...]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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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, [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] sense of the words in the Consecration, I avow that in the consec ation as related by S. Luke in these words Touto to potéèr [...]on heè kainéè diathèkee en to haimatí-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 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. [Page 12] 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.

SECTION. I.

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 [Page 13] 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 'twas 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 [Page 14] 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 [...]ell out they might not be starteled, but to re confirme▪ in the belief of them by reason they h [...] 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 w [...]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 & manducast [...]. 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 [Page 15] 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 D [...]minum, sayes he audiamus non quidem hoc de sacra­mento S. lav [...]eri dicentem, sed de sacramento [...]rensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit [...]isi mandu­caveritis carnem filii hominis &c. non habebitis vitam in vobis. quid ad hoc responderi potest? &c. An ve [...]ò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quòd ad parvulos haec senten i [...] 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 an [...]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.

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. 'Tis 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 [Page 17] 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 its 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.

'Tis the spirit that quickness &c. i. e, 'Tis 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 [Page 18] 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, as Heat is cal'd the propertie of Fire because the nature of Fire has a clame to Heat and an exigen­ce or a natural appetite of it, tho actual Heat (not the exigence or natural apetite of it) might be given to water; so to be all in all and all in every part of an impro­per place is called the propertie of a spirit, because the nature of a spirit has an exigence of it, tho this way of existing (not the exigence of it) may by the almighty power of God be communicated to a body. If then a glorious body has this property of a spirit to enter through a wall without making a breach, why may not the [Page 19] whole body of Christ be in the whole, and least part of the host? So our way of eating him there is conform to his way of being there, which is spiritual with the propertie of a spirit, his whole Body being in the least particle of the host: not carnal as if we divided his body with our teeth. Spiritual again in as much as we believe That his real Bodie so receaved in that spiritual manner as he commands under the accidents of bread by the mouth of the Body, feeds the soul or spirit by the grace it produces there. And this eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood that way satisfies the hunger and thirst we had of his grace.

Another proof that Christ meant the real manduca­tion of his true Body when he said Take eate &c. For this is my Body, is, what he said to the Iews. Io. 6. v. 51. The Bread which I will give you. (is), viz. at pre­sent, my Flesh. Where I remark the word, is, the sacrament not being yet made, could not import Sig­nifies my flesh; but because the Bread, only as a sacrament could signifie his flesh) imports an identitie or samety of that bread, he spoke of, with his flesh. Hence the sacra­ment he made after, and which we now receive under the form of Bread being that bread he promised to give, it follows that it is his real Flesh, and therefore our eat­ing of it is a real and corporal manducation of his Body,

Add to all I have said, that Christ's flesh is not meat really and indeed to him who believs only, no more then the King's picture is to him that sees it, the King indeed or truely the King. For things that are said to be such indeed according to our common way of speaking are understood to be such properly and not figurati­vely.

SECTION. III.

Ob. 1. Christ sayes Io, 6. v. 35. He that comes to me (to wit by faith) shall never hunger, and he that be­lieves in me shall never thirst. Then the eating of Christ's flesh is spiritual by Faith and not corporal.

I answer denying the consequence. And say that who believes in Christ shall neither hunger nor thirst, because to the believer Christ will give his Body and Blood to be eaten and drunken corporally which will satisfie the Believ­er's hunger and thirst of him, and more over hinder in him the hunger and thirst of perishing things. 'Tis not then a bare believing, which is only a beginning and disposition to the satisfying of the hunger and thirst of the soul, but the worthy eating the body and blood of Christ which gives that satisfaction Who eates my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Io. 6 v. 57. Belief alone does not do the turne, Not everie one that sayes to me Lord, Lord, (and consequentlie believes) shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Ma. 7. v. 21.

Obj. 2. Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 55. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life. But a reprobate ac­cording to the Romanist may eate the Body and drinke the blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body, then it's the eating and drinking by faith that gives eternal life.

Answer. I deny the censequence and say that the rea­son why the reprobate receiving the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body has not eternal life, is because he presumes to receive it being in mortal sin, and so eates and drinks unworthily, and consequently eates and drinks his damnation according to S. Paul. 1 Cor. 11. v. 27.

And here I remark that according to protestants Christ's body [Page 21] cannot be eaten unworthily. For according to Mr. Rodon in this chapter, and other protestants Christ's bodie can­not be eaten but by faith (viz. a saving fai [...]h, for histo­rical faith or the faith of miracles is not a manducation or eating of the Body of Christ) but who eates the Bo­dy of Christ with a saving faith doth not eate it unwor­thilie (for I cannot save and damn my self both at once by the same act, but the eating with a saving faith saves me, and the eating unworthily damnes me, then if I Could eate the Bodie of Christ unworthily I could save and damn my self by the same act) then a protestant can­not eate the Body of Christ unworthily which is flat a­against S. Paul and consequently heretical.

Obj 3. S. Aug. lib. 3. de. Doct ch. cap. 16. speaks thus. To eate the flesh of Christ is a figure &c.

Answer 1. S. Aug. does not say simply To eate the Flesh of Christ is a figure but bringing the words of Christ Io. 6. Unless you eate my flesh &c. says, Christ seems to command a wicked act or hainous offense, Figura­est ergò it is then a figure. I subsume, but Christ does not seeme to Ro: Catholicks, who believe he spesaks in that place only of a sacramental manducation, to command there a heinous offense, then according to S. Austin. we have no need to take his words figuratively. But for Ca­pharnaites, to whom he seems to command a heinous offense, they ought to take them figuratively, that they may not censure him. To understand then this passage in the apprehension of the Capharnaites; you must re­flect that as we are wont to kill those beasts, whose flesh we eate, afore we eate them: So the Jews out of Christ's words had apprehended that they ought first to kill Christ, and after to eate his flesh cut in pieces boiled or rested.

This without doubt was a wicked or heinous offense. He means then saith S. Augustin a figure of his death, not his true death, and that they ought not to kill Christ truly, but by taking the sacrament of the Eucha­rist represent his slaughter, and by their manners express his death, that they ought not to kill Christ but to mor­tifie [Page 22] themselves, and do what S. Paul said he had done Colos. 1. v. 24. I fulfill those things which are wanting of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church. So Maldonat upon the 6 Chap. of S. Io. v. 53,

Answer. 2. We heartily acknowledge that the Eucha­rist and the Preist's eating of it, is a figure or represen­tative of the passion of Christ, Teaching us (continues S. Austin) viz. preist's, such as he was, to partake of Christ's passion, to wit, when it represents it to them by their eating the Bodie under the form of Bread separate from the species of Wine, and after drinking the Blood under the species of Wine which was consecrated sepa­rate from the species of Bread; And to imprint, adds S. Aug, in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us. For can it be but delightful to a man to think of his salvation purchased to him by the death of Christ, if he pleases, and profitable to encourage him to live a good life in order to make it sure?

Having answered this objection by which he would have S. Augustin seem to deny the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist Let me bring him a passage from the same S. Austin by which he clearly asserts it.

‘It is. conc. 1 in Psal. 33. where he speaks thus. Et fere­batur in manibus suis, sayes he speaking of Christ, hoc, sayes he, quomodo possii fieri in homine quis intelligat? Quis enim portatur manibus suis? Manibus aliorum po­test portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. Quo­modo intelligatur in ipso David secundùm literam non invenimus, in Christo autem invenimus, ferebatur e­nim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ip­sum Corpus suum ait Hoc est Corpus meum, ferebat enim illud Corpus in manibus suis. And he (viz. Christ) was carried in his hands: who can understand, says he how this could be done if a Man? A man may be carri­ed in the hands of others, in his own hands no man is carried. We do not understand how this may be under­stood in David himself literallie or according to the letter, [Page 23] but we find it in Christ.’ For Christ was carried in his own hands when commending that same Bodie of his, he said, This is my Body, for he did cary that Body in his own hands.

Calvin lib. 4. iust. Chap. 17. Answers.

and explanes this passage thus: Christ carried himself in his own hands, but improperly and figuratively, to wit because he carried the sacrament of his Body. Answer. I could also carrie a sign or picture of my self in my own hands, and that is not hard to be understood, but S. Austin says 'Tuas impossible to other men to carry their Bodies in their own hands as Christ did his.

S. Aug. again lib. 2, cap. 9. cont. adver: ‘Legis & proph. sayes We receive with faithful heart and mouth the mediator of God and Man, Man Christ Iesus gi­ving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk though it seem more horrible to eat mans flesh then to kill, and to drink man's blood then to shed it. And again Epist. 162. Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam diabolum furem & proditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Dis­cipulos quod fideles norunt Pretium Nostrum. Our Lord himself suffers Judas a Divel a thief and his betrayer, he lets him receive among the innocent disciples, that which is known to the faithful, Our price i. e. (ransom)’

Be pleased now to reflect out of these passages. 1. That Judas his eating our price, to wit, Christ, was a Corpo­ral eating by the mouth, of the Body for he did not eat him by faith. 2, That our receiving our mediator with faithful heart and mouth, as S. Austin speaks, cannot stand, if we exclude our corporal eating Christ's Body in that spi­ritual manner I explained in the second section of this Chapter.

Obj. 4. Cardinal Cajetan in his Com: on S. Iohn. 6. sayeth To eate the flesh of Christ and drink his Blood is faith in Christ's death &c.

I answer that 'tis faith in Christ's death that makes us eate the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, so that if I cease to fulfil this his commandement of eating his flesh and drinking [Page 24] his blood I shew I have no faith in his death without which there is no life of the spirit. Moreover when we eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ we ought, not flightly to reflect, but as we chew our meat and let down our drink by little and little, ruminate, and consider ma­turely the death of Christ represented to us in our commu­nion.

Christ saeth not, says the Cardinal, he that eates wor­thily or drinks worthily, hath, to wit, eternal life, but he that eates and drinks. Hence Mr. Rodon infers this eat­ing and drinking is to be understood not of the sacrament but of an eating and drinking, viz. by faith, the death of Christ.

Answer. Tho Christ did not say, who eates or drinkes worthily, he meant so, as may be gathered from the fol­lowing words, hath eternal life, for none, I suppose, will ascribe eternal life to an unworthy eating as to its cause and condition. But how does Mr. Rodon from eates or drinks solitarily put, without by the mouth of the body or by the mouth of faith, gather that the Cardinal, and Christ before him meant of an eating by saith or an eating of the death of Christ, since when we hear mention of eating and drin­king without any addition, we presently understand by the mouth of the body. as when we hear named a man, we understand a rational sensible creature, not a painted man or that which improperly is called a man.

Obj. 5. The action wherby Jesus Christ is applied to us for Righteousnes and sanctification is nothing else but faith, therefore the spiritual eateing and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth. is the action whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ has purchased to us by his death.

Answer. I deny the Antecedent, and say we are justifi­ed also partially by good works Iac. 2. One of which is to obey Christ's command in taking by our corporal mouth his Body under the forme of Bread And so S Paul Rom. 5. is to be understood, when he sayes we are justified by faith. As the other passages Act. 15. and Io. 6. That God purifies our hearts by faith, but not by faith only but also by good-works. [Page 25] Was not St. Marie Magdalen justified when her sins were pardoned her, because she loved much. And is not her love here alleadged by Christ for the cause of her justification? I do not deny but that she had faith also as a disposition to the same justification.

Does not S. Paul say 1 Cor. 13. v. 2. Had I faith to remove a mountain, Si Charitatem autem non habeam Nihil sum? And have no charity I am nothing?

I grant again that eating and drinking by saith, (as Protestants speak) to wit Faith while we eat with our cor­poral mouth our Saviours real Body obtaines remission of sins &c. but not, if we condemn or neglect the eating of it by the mouth of the Body.

Take notice when Mr. Rodon quotes S. Iohn 3. v. 3. Ex­cept a man be born again (he leavs out, by 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 [Page 26] 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.

[Page 27]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.

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 Sacred Science teaches us that tho there be three different Persones in God there are not three different things, because A different thing signifies a different essence. Hence S. Aug. lib. de Fide ad petrum chap. 1. sayes, Una est patris & Fi­lii & Spiritus Sti. essentia, in qua non est aliud Pater, ali­ud Filius, aliud Spiritus Sanctus; quamvis personaliter sit a­lius Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus. The essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the H. Ghost [Page 29] another; altho, as to Person the Father be one, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another. If he was rash in touching the B. Trinity we must not wonder to see him stray also in this Mystery, following only the strain of his human Philosophy. Mr. Rodon then was not content meerly to believe, but would see, that he might believe, tho S. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 13. v. 12. That such a sight is reserved for the next Life, and that now we see only through a Glass darkly. But I desire him who is so earnest to have a clear accompt of Divine Myste­ries, to clear me first in some natural things.

How is it possible to cover the whole Heavens with the Wing of a Fly? Yet this can be done if it be divided in as many parts as God can divide it. For after every di­vision, the least part will still have its three dimentions, length, breadth, and thickness, by all which it may be still divided.

Now if he deny this, saying the Wing is composed of Indivisibles, he runs himself into as great difficulties, as to avow that a snail makes as much way in an hour as the sleetest Race-Horse; for the Race-Horse cannot make an Indivisible of space or way without some part of time, and that cannot be less then an Indivisible of time, and in the same Indivisible of time the Snail moving can­not make less then an Indivisible of space, and so go a­long with the Race-Horse the rest of the Indivsiibles of the hour, and consequently the Snail will have made as much way as the Race-Horse at the hours end, which is absurd.

Neither tell me the Horse can run over a hundred points or parts of space in an instant, for his motion is also di­visible in points, one part must begin afore the other, and so comes in again my argument: As for the sweld points maintained by some, they confound a Body with a Spirit and therefore are to be rejected.

How is it possible, that, since three Men cannot get in at once at a narrow Door, the pictures or species (which are not Spirits but material things) of a whole [Page 30] Army should all at once enter without confusion into the apple of the Eye of a Man, who from an eminence regards it?

If all Philosophers Wits are drowned in a drop of wa­ter not being able to fell with satisfaction what is the mat­ter or the Form of it, and whither it be compounded of divisible or indivisible parts, must we claim to a full sa­tisfaction of our reason afore we will believe this Myste­rious Transubstantiation, and thus banish Faith out of the Church of Christ? Let us not soare to high, nor dive to deep in this matter, since a searcher of the Divine Majesty will be oppressed by Glory. Having premitted this discourse to raise Men above their senses when they come to consider mysteries of Faith. I now prove the mystery of Transubstantiation, thus.

As God can create, so he can Transubstantiate: And as he hath revealed, Genes. 1. That he hath created Hea­ven and Earth, so he hath revealed, Math. 26. v. 27. That he hath made a Transubstantiation of Bread into his Body in the Eucharist.

If you wonder at the strange things that follow from this Transubstantiation, consider that creation made something of nothing, which seemed so strange to the ancient Philosophers, that they tell us flatly, Ex nihilo nihil fit, of nothing nothing is made. Had they had Faith, they would have acknowledged Creation; submit you your Judgment to Faith, and you'l acknowledge in the Eucharist Transubstantiation.

SECTION II. Mr. Rodon's objections answered,

Object. IN every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwise new­ly produced, as when Christ turned the Water into Wine was [Page 31] the Wine was newly produced. But the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Eucharist.

Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substan­tially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Answer 1. I distinguish the Major. In every substan­tial conversion, that thing &c. Is alwise newly pro­duced Entitatively, or modally, I grant: alwise Entita­tively, I deny; that is, in every substantial conversion there is alwise the production at least of a new manner of being. So the Body of Christ in the Eucharist has a new manner of being, viz. a Sacramental being, which it has not out of the Eucharist. But there is not alwise in every substantial conversion a production of a new sub­stance.

Answer. 2. I dislinguish the Major again. Naturally, be it so. Supernaturally, and when the question is about the almighty Power of God, I deny it, and say that it is sufficient that the whole substance of Bread be destroyed and the Bodie of Christ put in its place; something remain­ing common to both, viz. the accidents of Bread, which now by the consecration become the accidents of the Body of Christ morally, in as much as they shew to all the faith­full, the consecration being made, that the Body of Christ is now there; and receives a new being, not as to the sub­stance, which it had already, but as to the manner of be­ing, a sacramental being, under the form of Bread.

If you ask how the Body of Christ can begin to be there without leaving the place where it was before. I answer, when a child grows by the nutrition or feeding, does the reasonable soul leave the rest of the Childs body to come to the added part of matter, or is there a new reasonable Soul produced in it? If not, but the same Soul acquires only a new presence of relation to the added part of matter, reason the same way concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Ob. 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed; but the Bread is not [Page 32] destroyed in the Eucharist, because after Consecration it is said to be Broken, Divided &c. therefore it is not de­stroyed.

Answer. I distinguish the Minor. The Bread is not de­stroyed as to the substance (which is only required) I deny; as to the accidents, I grant, and say that by reason of these remaining the Host is said to be broken, divided &c. and is still called Bread Per distractionem as we speak in Philosophy. So our Saviour said to the Disciples of Iohn. Math. 11. v. 5. The blind see, because they, who then did see, were afore blind. They 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 [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 'tis 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 [Page 35] are not the Sacrament. Answer I distinguish the mino [...] 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.

SECTION. I. A Preamble.

HERE Mr. Rodon brings a number of Philosophical arguments so often objected, and so often answe­red by Philosophers in that question, whether the same Body may be at the same time in divers places. Afore I go farther I desire my Reader to be pleased to reflect that to prove the Catholick doctrine of Transubstantiation, 'tis not necessary to admit a Body to be in two places. Because to be in a place properly, or in an univocal place is to have situal or local extension which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist; as a soul is not in a place but by reason of its Body, which is in a place, so Christ's Body in the Eucharist is only in a place by reason of the species which are in a place.

Again since to walke, to meet, to be distant, to be wounded, &c. are affections of a Body, which is cir­cumscriptively in a place, that is, having its parts an­swering to the parts of the uppermost superficies of the Body that contains it, all Mr. Rodon's arguments of that [Page 37] nature are of no force against the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, it being thereafter the manner of a spirit. Yet when they are looked upon with an unlearned eye, Mr. de Rodon seems to triumph.

Just as if I speaking with a country cloun of the mo­tion of the Sun should strive to perswade him that at the most it makes only twenty miles an hour, while another should undertake to prove it makes twenty thousand. My opinion would be received with more applause by the Cloun, than that of the other: but if both spoke t [...] an Astronomer he would laugh at my opinion in respect of the other's.

What makes so different a sentiment in these two Men? The Cloun is led by sense, and the Astronomer by reason.

This is my case with Mr. Rodon treating this Question. If we speak to vulgar People, or to those who have no Faith, Mr. Rodon will be applauded. If to Men of Faith and reason I'le have the better of him. Why? because the vulgar, especially if they want Faith, will believe no­thing that mounts above their senses: But the wise Chri­stian not measuring supernatural things by his Eye, or as they appear in his weak Imagination, but by Faith, and seing by his reason there is no contradiction in all Mr. Rodon brings against this Mystery, more than against that of the Incarnation or of the most B. Trinity, hath no difficulty to submit the judgment of his senses often deceived in natural things to the word of God proposed to him by the Church.

This preamble being made I now prove our tenet. Christ's Body has been circumscriptively, that is, locally in its shape in two places both at once, then it may be in Heaven locally, and in the Host or consecrated Wafer Sacramentally both at once. I prove the antecedent. Christ standing by Paul; as S. Luke relates, Act. 23. v. 11. in these words The Lord stood by him and said be of good cheer, Paul, was circumscriptively or locally in that place, and at the same time he was in the Heavens, [Page 38] which shall retain him till the general Resurrection, Act. 3. v. 21. therefore he was circumscriptively or locally in two places both at once.

If yon say 'twas an Angel standing by him that spoke to him from Christ, as one spoke to the Iews from God on mount Sinai; Then the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 15. v. 8. saying, he, viz. Christ, was seen of me also. Were of no force to prove Christ's Resurrection which he was proving there. For to see an Angel was not to see Christ. Yet he would perswade them that he was risen, because he had seen him.

This is confirmed out of Io. 6. v. 9. and 13. Where 'tis said our Saviour fed 5000 Men with five Loaves and two Fishes. I suppose these Loaves were not bushel Loaves for the Boy who had them, could not have carried them, but ordinary Loaves.

Now I say, that these five Loaves might feed 5000 Men, the same piece of Bread must have been in divers mouths at once, it being probable that Christ gave to each a competent piece: for if he Created other Loaves he did not then feed them all with five Loaves which is against Scripture.

SECTION II.

Object. 1. CHrist's Body cannot be produced in the Host. 1. Bacause that cannot be produced which is produced already. 2. Because terminus aqu [...] and ter­minus [Page 39] ad quem are distinct, or there must be a distincti­on between the term of departure, and the term of arriving. 3. In all substantial conversions a new substance must be produced.

Answer. I deny the antecedent, and as to its first pro­bation I distinguish; That which is produced already can­not be produced as to its Essential being I grant, as to its manner of being, or as to a Sacramental being I deny. The second probation I grant, and say that the term Aquo or of departure is the Body without the second presence, or relation, viz. to the species; the term Ad quem or of ar­riving, the Body with the second presence to the species in the Eucharist and these two terms are different. For the third probation, I denyed it in my answer to the 1. Ob. Section 2. Chap. 3. and gave there the reason of my denyal.

Mr. Rodon urges. If a Man would go from Paris to Rome, he must leave Paris; therefore Christ's Body which does not leave Heaven, neither comes nor is brought to the Host.

Answer. 1. In the opinion of those who explane the being of Christ's Body in the Host by adduction, do not say that it's brought or comes thither Circumscriptively by a proper Local motion, because this motion supposes a Body to have it's parts answering to the parts of a place, which Christ's Body has not in its adduction to the Host, and con­sequently it does not leave Heaven, because we do not leave the place in which we were, to go to another, but by a pro­per local and continued motion. The equivocal and se­vered motion by which Christ's Body is adduced to all its Sa­cramental places is improperly called a motion.

Answer. 2. I deny the antecedent, because to put a Body in two places suffices the production of a second ubication, for ubication is the formal reason making a thing to be in a place.

You'l say supposing that the Body existing at Paris, be put also at Rome, now either this Roman ubication is produced in the Body existing at Paris or existing at Rome; [Page 40] neither can be said, not the first, because the Roman ubi­cation cannot be at Paris; not the second, because the Body would be at Rome before it had the Roman ubicati­on: therefore the Body which is at Paris cannot be at the same time at Rome.

Answer. I deny the major, and say that this Roman ubication is produced neither in the Body existing at Rome nor existing at Paris, but is produced in the Body specta­to secumdum se considered in it self, which indeed materially was afore at Paris, but by a new ubication is also at Rome. If you say the Roman ubication must be produced at Rome; but it cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome: therefore the Body must be at Rome before it be at Rome, which is absurd.

Answer. I distinguish the minor. It cannot be pro­duced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome consecutively, I grant; antecedently, I deny. And therefore I also deny the consequence. The Ro­man ubication is then produced in the Body existing at Rome ut quo in as much as it is the Form, which makes the Body or the subject to be at Rome.

Ob. 2. In a true human Body such as Christ's Body is the Head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders, but this cannot be in a Point; then Christ's Body cannot be in every least part of the Host.

Answer. I distinguish the major. In a true human Body, &c. naturally existing the Head is above the neck, its true: supernaturally existing, being Spiritua­lized or having the quality of a Spirit by which it is all in all and all in every part of the improper place in which it is, I deny the major.

Mr. Rodon confounds here Entitative quantity which is to have a number of parts, with Situal quantity or Extent which is to have all its parts one without ano­ther. The Body of Christ hath its Entitative quantity, but not its situal quantity in the Eucharist this Extent [Page 41] or Situal quantity is an accident which the Entitative quan­tity can want.

Ob. 3. To move and not to move, &c. in the same time are contradictory things.

Answer. Considered under the same respect its true; under a different respect its false. For example, my Soul moves in my hand at the same time that it is stock still in my head. The same way the Body of Christ may be moved as it is in Heaven and not be moved as it is in the Host.

Ob. 4. Two relatives are alwise different as the Fa­ther and Son.

Answer. I grant it, and tell you that a Body in two places is not two Bodies; so the relation of distance of which we speak here, is between the two places, not be­tween two Bodies.

Mr. Rodon urges. It is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in them.

I Answer once again, we are not speaking here of things but of one thing. But let us speak of two other things existing in two different places. I say that the distance of place is only the partial Cause of their distance, and that the total Cause is the dlstance of places and the existing of things in them. Otherwise things which are now to­gether might be said to be distant, because the places in which they were before, are still distant.

Mr. Rodon presses further. Peter at Rome might draw nigher to himself as he exists at Paris.

Answer. Neigher to himself I deny, neigher to his ubication at Paris, I grant; that is, he might have an ubication nigher to that he has at Paris, but he would never come so close that the same parts of his Body would meet with the same, but the right hand with the left, or the palm of the hand with the back of the hand: And so as there is a difference between those different parts there may rise a relation of meeting; and as there is no repu­gnance that I touch my self making one hand touch the o­ther; so there is none, that I meet with my self, different [Page 42] parts of my Body meeting with different parts of the same. And if I will have my right hand, which meets with my left, press forward, I must also will to put back or aside my left, they being both solid parts.

Let my Reader take these answers to divert himself a litle with the humour of Mr. de Rodon; but let him not think that his objection presses us, for as distance supposes pro­per places, so meeting supposes a proper motion. And the Body of Christ is neither in a proper place, nor pro­perly moved in the Eucharist as I said afore. But were it Circumscriptively there, these foresaid answers and the following in this matter blow-up all his objections.

Ob. 5. It's a perfit contradiction that a Body should be one, and not one; but if Christ's Body should be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host upon Earth 'twould be one, and not one: then it can not be in Heaven and in the Host both at once. 'Twould be one as is sup­posed, and not one as is proven, because it would be divided from it self.

Answer. I deny the minor, and as to its probation I distinguish, 'Twould be divided from it self Extrinsecal­ly, that is, as to place, I grant. Intrinsecally, as to it self, or Essential principles of which it's composed, I deny. For nothing of it's Essential principles would be in one place, which were not in the other. The Body of a man, for example, bilocated would not be in one place where the Soul were not, nor the Soul in another where the Body were not with it. The sole Ubications of the same Body are divided. Now since two Bodies may be in one place by penetration, as when Christ en­tred into the Caenacle of the Apostles the Doors being shut, and came out of his B. Mother's womb she still remain­ing a Virgin, why may not one Body be by a like mi­racle in two places? since the thing placed relates to the place, just as the place relates to the thing placed in it. As one thing naturally requires to be in one place at once, so one place naturally requires to have only one thing in it at once, why then may not one thing supernaturally [Page 43] by the almighty power of God be in two places at once?

Mr. Rodon urges 1. The division is true, when be­tween two there be Bodies of divers natures.

Answer. This I grant, and say That our supposition is not of two, but of one Body which is the same in Hea­ven and in the Host.

He urges 2. Things that are divided locally are also divided Entitatively: Therefore the Body of Christ being in divided places, must be divided Entitatively. He proves the antecedent thus, else no reason can be given why two glasses of Water taken from the same Foun­tain are really different, since these Waters are like in all things except in reference to place.

Answer 1. Our supposition is not of things, but of one thing or Body as I said afore.

Answer. 2. I grant that local division infers alwise Entitative division if we look only to the ordinary course of nature; but not in cases, in which God will shew his almighty Power; we know then that the Body of Christ being only one, is now sacramentally in different places by the almighty power of God, because he hath revealed it, as we know the same Body was Circumscripti­vely in different places, when being in Heaven he stood beside Paul at the same time upon Earth. Act. 23. v. 11.

A reason also is easily given why the Ocean is not one single drop of Water, to wit, because one drop is not naturally in innumerable places, but only by a miracle, which God does not ordinarily and for nothing. Neither is God and Nature to be said to do in vain when they do according to the natural exigence of a drop of Water, which is to be only in one place at once. Is God bound to do all he can do?

Neither might one man replicated in 10000. places be­get in one night 10000. Children, because his force is limited to the power of one man; the second and third Ubication giving him no new force, but only a new place.

[Page 44]Add to all this that God is in places divided from one another, viz. in France and England both at once.

You'l say he is a Spirit; but I reply the reason that makes seem impossible for a Body to be together in di­vers places, is not so much it's bulk as its Unitie: But the Spirit is as much one Spirit, as one Body is one Body.

You'l say again that God, at the same time that he is in France and England, is in all places be­tween.

I Answer. What if God by his almighty power should annihilate or destroy both as to matter, and form Sea, Earth, and Aër, between France and England, would he cease to be in both? If not he would be in two di­vide [...] places. The same may be said of a reasonable Soul remaining in a member separated from the rest of the Body, if God by his almighty power conserve it there.

SECTION III.

Object. 6. JESUS CHRIST cannot be in divers places at once if another Man cannot be so too. But Peter cannot be at Paris and Rome at the same time; for it is impossible that Peter should be a man and not a man at the same time; but this might fall out if he were at Paris and Rome at the same time; because he might be wounded and dye at Paris, and live at the same time at Rome: And so at the same time be a live and not a live, which is to be a man and not a man.

[Page 45] Answer. In that supposition that Peter ceases to live at Paris while he lives at Rome he could not be said ab­solutely not to live, and consequently not to be a man but a Carcass; for 'tis not enough not to live at Paris, where the Ubication of the Union between the Body and Soul ceased by a wound, if he live at Rome, as is sup­posed, to say absolutely he doth not live: Because a particula negativa restricta, as summolists speak, ad non restrictam, From a negative particle restrained to the same not restrained it does not follow. For example, Peter is not an English-man, then he is not a man: So he doth not live at Paris, it doth not follow, then he doth not live. Altho it follow A particula affirmativa restricta ad non restrictam, from an affirmative particle restrained to the same not restrained.

For example Peter is an English-man, then he is a man. So it follows he lives at Rome, then he lives. And consequently he is not to be called dead, simply, when the Parisian Ubication of the union between his Body and his Soul ceases to be, if the Roman Ubica­tion of the same union remaines; because to be dead at Paris 'tis not enough that the Ubication of the Union cease to be at Paris; but moreover 'tis required that the U­nion it self, which was at Paris cease absolutely to be between the Body and the Soul: but if he live, yet at Rome the Union does not cease to be between the Body and the Soul (tho not at Paris) therefore he is not to be called simply dead. Apply this principle of a particle restrained to it self not restrained to his other instances of that na­ture. In the mean time all this discourse of Mr. Rodon supposes Peter, of whom he speaks, to have both at Paris and at Rome Situal quantity or Extent, which Christ's Body has not in the Eucharist, and therefore I give him the foresaid answer without necessity.

To his Army made of one man replicated or put in a thousand places all at once.

I Answer. 'Twould appear many men, but would be only one with the limited force of one man, (unless [Page 46] God should give him a supernatural force) whom two men in that case might overcome. Say the same of a candle as to light, and a drop of water replicated in or­der, to carry or bear up a Boat, which it could not do having the limited force, in order to bearing of one drop. For Ubication gives to a Body meerly to be in a place, and nothing else.

Obj. 7. Christ's Body is not seen in the Host; there­fore it is not there.

Answer. 'Tis not seen with the eye of our understand­ing elevated by Faith; I deny. With our corporal eye, I grant, and the reason is, because it is not there in a way proportioned to our corporal sight, or in its own shape; and it is so for the exercise of our Faith, which would cease if we saw it in Glory. Was not Christ's Body glorious after his resurrection, and yet did the Dis­ciples see its Glory the fourty days he conversed with them afore his Ascension?

The reason why Christ's Body is not seen in the Eu­charist by our Corporal eye is, because it has there no Extent, and is all in a point; not because it's under the accidents, which hide it, or in another place then the accidents, they being above and it below, nor do Philo­sophers mean any such thing when they say that substances are under their accidents, because pure substances have no proper places, they mean only that the substances sustentate or support the accidents, in as much as the ac­cident naturally depends of its proper subject, which sup­port from the substance of Bread, or Body of Christ in its place is supplied to the accidents in the Eucharist by the almighty power of God. Just then as substances possess no place but by reason of their accidents, so the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is in no place but by reason of the species which are in a place. And as substances which are under their accidents according to this way of speaking of Philosophers, are not seen, so neither the Body of Christ in the Eucharist under the species, is seen.

Mr. Rodon asks how can Christ's Body be without posture [Page 47] and without external form seing (as we say) it is whole and entire in the whole host, and in every part of it?

Answer. Because, altho Christ's Body hath in the Eu­charist all its essential extension, or all its parts in order to themselves in the whole host, and in every part of the host (which we call to be whole and entire in the whole host and in every part of the host as our Soul is all in every part of the Body, and only all in the whole Body. Yet it hath not local extension in order to place which is a separable property of essential extension, as actual heat is a separable property of fire, as was seen by the almighty power of God in the fur­nace of Babilon; where, as he suspended the operation of that element to manifest his glory, so he hinders the local extension of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the light of its glory to exercise our faith.

And this answer's all Mr. Rodon's whimsical questions of the postures of Christ's Body in a whole or divided host, since division as well as the posture of a Body depends of Local Extension. For if God put all the parts of a Body after a spi­ritual manner (as the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist) in a point, and a point cannot be devided, in that case how will you devide that Body? and without deviding it you cannot make it appear less, how much so ever you devide the host, In a word a visible Body of a man is a man's Body in its shape, which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucha­rist, for want of Local Extention, and therefore is not visi­ble there.

Obj. 8. Christ in the Host can act, or not?

Answer. He can act, know and love, altho he hath not there the disposition of Organs fit for those operations, which require Local extention. We gratefully to him a­vow that his Body in the H. Host is Modo mortuo after the fa­shion of one dead, and this is the change the Preist makes of this victime in his oblation of it to the eternal Father in the dayly Sacrifice of the Mass.

And as Christ does not exercise there the operations, which depend of situal Extension, neither would the World reduced to a point or the parts of it, the Sun and Moon, &c. [Page 48] act as they do now, for want of situal disposition to such operations.

Neither do we say that Christ's Body is as big and as tall in the H. Host as on the Cross, as Mr. Rodon inconsideratly alleadges, for that bigness on the Cross comes from the situal extension he had there and wants in the H. Host.

Obj. 9. A Body can not cease to be in a place without be­ing destroyed or going to some other place: but the species being consumed, Christs Body is neither distroyed nor goes to another place, therefore it was not in the Eucharist.

Answer. I deny the major universally speaking, and ask when a mans Leg is cut off, does the soul go to another place or is it destroyed? yet it ceases to be there. Reason the same way of the Body of Christ which is in the Eucharist with the property of a Spirit, and as it came thither by the sole production of a new presence, so it ceases to be there by the sole destruction of the same.

Obj. 10. The properties of one species or of one nature are incommunicable to every other species or nature: but 'tis the property of a spirit to be all in all and every part of a place; therefore the Body of Christ can not be all in all and in every part of the Host.

Answer. I grant the major and distinguish the minor. 'Tis the property of a spirit to be all in all, &c. by Exi­gence, I grant, by accident I deny. For example water has heat by accident, which Fire alone has by exigence, and therefore the exigence of heat is the property of Fire: and not the actual having of it, which is communicable to wa­ter. The clame and exigence of seing God as he is in himself is the property of God flowing from his Essence in commu­nicable to a creature; but the actual only seing of God as he is in himselfe will be favorably communicated by him to happy men in the other world 1. Io. 3.2. And therefore rigidly speaking is not his property. So then what a spirit has by exigenbe. the Body of Christ without confounding different species, may have by accident in the Eucharist. Quaeres wherefor to be actually all in all, and all in every part of an improper place is cal'd the property of a spirit and [Page 49] not of a Body largely speaking? Answer. Beeause a spirit has a natural appetite of that way of existing, which a Body has not, also because a spirit is indivisible, and has no partes.

Answer.. 2. I distinguish the major. The propertie of a species, that is, the exigence of one species is incommu­nicable to an other, I grant; the act of the exigence is in­communicable, I deny. For example, Heat is the act of the exigence of Fire, and is communicated to water.

Hence I grant that naturally Bodies are in places circum­scriptively, that is the parts of the Body are in the parts of the place and not the whole Body in every part. But not so if it please the author of nature to put them by his almighty power in places definitively or Sacramentally, that is, in an equivocal or improper place (which in rigour is no place) without local extension.

I said definitively, or Sacramentally because the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not limitated according to a rigid definitive way of existing, as the soul is in the Body, boun­ded with a certain continued place, but is without limitati­on in as many discontinued sacramental places, as the Con­secration is made in.

SECTION. IV.

Object. 11 IF the Body of Christ were in the Eucharist 'twould be subject to many ignominies; to be eaten with mice, burned, stolen, &c. thererefore it is not there.

[Page 50] Answer. I retort his argument thus. If he, whom we call Christ, was God, God was subject to many igno­minies to be called a Seducer, a Blasphemer, a Drinker of Wine, a Glutton, to be scurged at a post like a rogue and hanged like a theef; therefore he was not God. Is this a good inferrence? No. Neither the other.

Monsr. Rodon. speaking of the Eucharist, sayes; as it is a God that cannot keep himselfe from being stolen, so neither can he keep himself from heing burned.

Answer. 1. did not the Jews deride Christ the same way upon the Cross? Save thy self, If thou art the Son of God come down from the Cross. Math. 27. v. 40.

I Answer. 2. then he could have come down from the Cross, and can hinder also the Host from being prophaned. But the first he suffered for the love of man, the second he suffers for the exercise of our faith.

Note, the Body of Christ ceases to be in the stomack when the species are altered there, but, did it joyn with the excre­ments they could not annoy or hurt him no more then a dung-hill defiles the beams of the Sun. Nay the Body of Christ now impassible were not worse in Hell it self, than at the right hand of his father.

To Claude de Xainte's, saying we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lord's flesh in the Sa­crament let him be Turk, Atheist, yea tho he should be the Divel himself incarnate.

I Answer. That is to be understood if his unworthiness be unknown to the Priest, or known only by Confession. For of this he cannot make use to diffame him: Did not Christ give the Communion to Judas?

Ob. 12. God makes no miracles without necessity, but what necessity is there for the miracles we avow to be made in the Eucharist? Then they are not made there, and so Christ's Body is not there.

Answer. I distingish the major, without an absolute ne­cessity, I deny. Without a certain consequential necessity supposing that he will make an extraordinary shew of his power or goodness, I grant. And this was the reason where­fore [Page 51] he made so many miracles, which were not absolutely necessary in the bringing the Children of Israël out of Egipt, to wit, to give an extraordinary shew of his power. And in the Eucharist he makes some, where he would also give an extraordinary shew of his singular goodness and love to man, fore-told by the Royal Prophet. Psal. 110. v. 4. He hath made a memory of his marvellous works, to wit, in giving his Body and Blood to be a spiritual Food to these who fear him.

Mr. Rodon asks here if it can be said that the Eucharist is for the Salvation of the Soul of him that eats it, since the reprobate eates it too, and the Faithful under the Old Testament and Infants in the New do not eat it.

Answer. Yes it can be said, because 'tis the reprobate's fault that it does not save him. Neither that the Faithfull of the Old Law and Infants in the New are not saved by an eating of it, makes any thing against it, because it was not instituted for them.

Mr. Rodon askes again, if it can be said with Bellar­mine and Perron, that the Host being eaten serves as an incorruptable Food for a glorious resurrection, since the Faithfull of the Old Testament and Infants in the New rise again gloriously without it.

Answer, Yes, it can be said, because Christ sayes, Io. 6. v. 54. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day. And the Council of Nice calles the Eucharist Symbolum re­surrectionis a token of the Resurrection, and S. Ignatius M. Epist. 14. to the Ephes. terms it Pharmacum immor­talitatis, a medicine of immortality.

Now if you ask the manner how it serves as an Incorrup­tible Food for a glorious Resurrection?

I Answer, the species being altered by the heat of the stomach, the Body of Christ ceases to be there, but his Diety remaines after a special manner in the Soul (as the virtue of Wheat remaines in the corrupted Grain to raise it again at Spring) feeding it with grace, and at set times affording it new infusions of actual Grace, divine [Page 52] lights and heavenly affections: And in the Resurrection raises again the Body and unites it to this Soul. But this proposition being affirmative does not exclude from Glory, those of the Old Testament and Infants of the New, who have not for want of Capacity the Participation of this Sacrament. Who sayes that a Ship serves to go from Leith to London does not say that a man cannot go without it, viz. by Horse. Neither is S. Paul against us but for us, when he sayes Rom. 8. If the Spirit of him who raised up IESVS from the dead dwell in you, he shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you, viz. as the efficient and the immediate cause, this Spirit being the seed and virtue left by the Eucharist, the eating of which was a remote cause conveiging in a particular manner by way of disposition this Spirit to us.

Mr. Rodon's last Objection is, The Heavens must con­tain Christ untill the time of restitution of all things, Act. 3. v. 21. And he himself said I leave the World, &c. Io. 16. Therefore he is not in the Eucharist.

Answer. We don't say he leaves Heaven to come to the Host, or that he hath not left the World as to his visible presence; but we say he is and will be with us even to the consumation of the World, Math. 28. in an invisible way, viz. in the Eucharist.

Mr. Ro. adds, that Christ Math. 24. warnes us, not to believe, when false Prophets in the last day shall say, he is in the Desert, he is in the secret Chambers, and remarks that the Greek for secret Chambers has en Tameiois, that is, in the Cup-boards, which is to be un­derstood of our Cabinets on our Altars according to Mr. Rodon's explication.

Answer. I remark that where the Greek has Tameiois which signifies an Excheker, (which relates to secresie) as well as Cup-board, the Syriach has In Bed Cham­bers, that is, as A Lapide explaines, a most inward room; and that the vulgar Latin has In penetralibus to the meaning of Christ. The Greek word is of no force [Page 53] more than the Latin or Syriack, that Gospel having been written in Hebrew of which we have not the Au­thentick Copy.

Here I may say with S. Aug. Lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. Cap. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei hu­mana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas. Be­hold with what arguments human infirmity possessed with vanity opposes the almighty power of God.

SECTION. I.

A Blind Servant thinks himself obliged to take off his hat when he is told his Lord is in the Room. Then I am bound to adore Christ when my faith tells me, that Christ is present in the Host. I prove the Consequence. I am as much bound to adore Christ present my Lord and my Redeemer, as the blind servant is bound to the [Page 54] taking off his hat in the presence of his Lord and Master.

Mr. Rodon remarks that Moses, Exod. 3. was comman­ded to approach with reverence and adoration the Bush that burned and was not consumed, because God did manifest some what of his power and glory in that place. I subsume, but Christ doth manifest some what of his power and glory in the H. Host: Therefore we ought not to approach it, but with reverence and adoration.

I prove my subsumption. Christ gives there to the purer Souls surprising delights, and works admirable changes in them, which is a manifestation of his power, and a ray of his glory there, this is known to the faithful, which made the heavenly enlightened Author of the following of Christ, lib. 4. cap. 1. say, O admirahle and hidden grace of the Sa­crament, which the faithful only of Christ know! If you say this is not sensible to the imperfiter Souls amongst Roma­nists. I answer that does not make it not to be true. God shewed much of his power and glory in the Manna to the perfit ones of the Children of Israel, when it relished to them all they could covet of delightful; altho this was not sensi­ble to the wicked.

If S. Paul will have every knee to bend at the hearing on­ly of the Name of JESUS Phil. 2. v. 10. to wit because it puts us in mind of our Redeemer; why should not we a­dore our present Redeemer himself in the sign or Sacrament of his excessive Love to us? I see there as well by Faith that ray of his glory, to wit his manhood personally united to the Godhead; As the shew God makes of his Majesty to the Angels in Heaven: for which, tho it be not sensible to me, Mr. Rodon will have me bound to adore God in Hea­ven, by those words of Christ when we pray, Our Father which art in Heaven, and these words of the Apostles Sursum corda Lift up your hearts. Where I remark Mr. Ro. avows this command Lift up your hearts to have been given by his Apostles (chap. 5. Numb. 11) I add in no other place but in their Liturgie or Sacrifice of the Mass, then they had the Sacrifice of the Mass.

[Page 55]A fourth probation I take from S. Austin in his Commen­tary upon the Psal. 98. where explaining these words Adore the Foot-stool of his feet, he sayes, the Foot-stool of the feet of our Lord is the Earth, according to the Prophet Isaiah. 66. Terra autem scabellum pedum meorum, and he enquires how it is lawful to adore the Earth without impiety. ‘Fluctuans, sayes he, wavering I turne my self to Christ, and I find how without impiety the Earth is adored he (Christ) took Earth of Earth because Flesh is of Earth and of the Flesh of Marie he took Flesh: & ipsam Carnem manducandam nobis ad salutem dedit, nemo aeu­tem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, inventum est quemadmodum tale Scabellum Domini ut non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non Adorando. That is to say, And he gave that same Flesh to us for our Salvation, but none eates it unless he first adore. We have found how such a Foot-stool of our Lord may be adored, so that we not only, not sin by adoring, but we sin if we do not adore.’

‘And in his Epist. 120. Adducti sunt ad mensam Dominè & accipiunt de Corpore & sanguine ejus, sed adorant tantum, non etiam [...]turantur, quia non imitantur. They are brought to th [...] Table of the Lord, and they re­ceive of his Body and Blood, but they adore only. they are not filled because they do not imitate.’ By these passa­ges you see how they adored the H. Host in primitive times, but of primitive times you shall see more in my se­venth Chapter.

SECTION II.

Object. 1. WE do not adore God in a Stone, or a Tree, nor Christ in the Water of Bap­tism, altho God be in the Stone, and the Tree, and what is adorable in Christ, is in the Water of Baptism: therefore, altho Christ were in the Host, we should not adore him there.

Answer. I deny the consequence and give the dispa­rity. A Stone, a Tree, and Water are compleat beings, so because men have adored such things, he, who bends his knee to adore God in them may be thought to adore them, as well as God in them. But in the Eucharist Christ being only the compleat Being, and the Species only an accident never considered as Adorable by men; when we see a man adore the Eucharist, we presently con­ceive he Adores Christ there. An other disparity is that the Divinity is Hypostatically, (i. e. personally) united to the Body of Christ, not to a Stone, a Tree, or the Water in Baptism.

Ob. 2. We are only obliged to adore God in all places in which he appears in his glorious Majesty. Therefore Christ or God is not to be adored in the Eucharist, altho he be really there.

Answer. I deny the antecedent. For Mr. Rodon in this fift Chapter numb. 7. Will have tht Beams of Glory, which oblidge us to Adoration, to be sensible in that [Page 57] place, in which the Adoration is made, and consequently thousands may have lived according to his Doctrine four­ty or fifty Years, and dyed without having been ever obliged to adore God: because all that time the Beams of Glory which God shews to his Angels in Heaven were ne­ver sensible to them, (they knowing it only by Faith) neither was his Glory sensible to them upon Earth, as to Moyses, by any miraculous Beam.

Quaeres 1. What meant Christ commanding his A­postles when they Prayed, to say Our Father who art in Heaven?

Answer. Not that they should only adore God in Hea­ven, or where he makes appear, as there, a Beam of his glorious Majesty, but that they should weane their affections from the Earth, by an apprehension of the Glorious sight which he shews to his Saints in Hea­ven.

Quaeres 2. What meant the Apostles commanding in the Preface of the Liturgy or Christian sacrifice to say sur­sum corda, Lift up your harts?

Answer. Not that when we are present at the Sacrifice We lift up our corporal Eyes to Heaven to adore God only there; but to raise our minds above our senses, and our thoughts above nature to believe this supernatu­ral work done in the Sacrifice, and so become partakers of its Fruit.

Ob. 3. We do not adore Christ in that Host which the Priest has newly eaten.

Answer. Because it is not then morally present to us.

Note, I take no notice of Mr. Rodon's speaking of Christ's appearing in the Host sometimes in Form of a Child, because as he does not credit such stories, nei­ther do I look upon them as matters of Faith, nor have I any need for my purpose to alledge them.

Ob. 4. In lawful Adoration we must be assured that what we adore is the true God.

Answer. This I grant and say that the Essential part [Page 58] of Adoration (honor est in honorante) is in my mind, which being directed to Christ, if he be not there, rests not upon the piece of Bread, but goes to him in Hea­ven: So we know what we Worship and are sure 'tis God. And to move me to adore 'tis enough that I am morally assured of the presence of Christ's Body in the Host. For we have no more than morall assurance to oblige us under the pain of breaking the commandment of God to honour and obey such or such a man for my Father: And to use his comparisen, as the Woman who doubts if such a man be her Husband ought not to ad­mit him as a Husband; no more ought a Catholick to adore an Host if he prudently doubt of its conse­cration.

But it is not prudent to doubt if any Host be conse­crated, when it is proposed to be adored, because some have counterfited the Preist, who were not, or being really, may have maliciously (tho to their own damnation) omitted the intention. As it were not prudent in me 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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.

SECTION. I.

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 'tis lawful to Com­municate under one kind.

[Page 61]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. 'tis 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 Nis [...] [Page 62] 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 'tis 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 [Page 63] those who were bid drink, were only the Apostles; and consequently if you make it a command, 'twas 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. [Page 64] 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 'tis 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 [Page 65] 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. 'Twas 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, 'twas 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.

[Page 66] 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 67] 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, Its 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 [Page 68] 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.

[Page 69] 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 the proofs I have brought above, the Church doth not think good to give it at this time, which she may change (it not being a matter of Faith or Command of God) when she pleases. But the word of God is necessary to those who hear, because Faith comes by hearing, and is alwayes supplyed to the deaf by outward signs, and stronger inward inspirations from God.

Be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon, who inveighes against the Roman Church for taking away the Cup to avoid scandals or inconveniences; for one of the same allows in this 6. Chap. numb. 13. to substitute rather the ordinary drink of a Country instead of Wine, notwithstanding that Christ instituded it to be given in Wine.

SECTION III.

THe taking away, says Mr. Rodon, of the Euchari­stical Cup, was established as an Article of Faith by the Roman Church, representative assembled in the Council of Constance, in the Year 1414. Sess. 13. in a Canon.

Answer. That's a Calumny, as shall appear in the discussion of his quotation. It is indeed an Article of Faith, to believe that under the species of Bread is both Christ's Body and his Blood, because his Body is a living Body; He dyes no more, Rom. 6. v. 9. Wherefore the Council of Constance finding the Church to have been in a long custome of giving the Sacrament under one kind for good reasons; to shew that the former Church had not erred in that custome, thought good to order them to be punished as Hereticks, who should presume to say that that custome was erroneous, sacrilegious and unlawful. But why punished as Hereticks? Because they seem to doubt if the Blood be under the Form of Bread.

Yet she did not define to be believed as an Article of Faith, and of divine right for Lay-people to take it on­ly under one kind, for it's only of Church right, for some particular reasons, which were not at the time the [Page 71] Apostles gave it. One of which is this same which moved the Council: Another, the Church being now extended to Countries, where 'tis hard to get so much Wine, and many being found in the great body of the Church, who have an antipathy to Wine, since ther's no necessity, its better in the way of taking, to keep an uniformity in the sick (to whom it could not be keept or conveniently carried, nor was carried in pri­mitive times) and in those who are in health; and so avoid scruples which might arise in weak heads: not to speak of the danger of irreverence in spilling, the Com­mons of Christians being not now so fervent as they were in the first age. Yet we do not hold it unlawful jure divino, by divine right, for Lay-people to receive under both kinds more then 'tis unlawful jure divino, to eat Flesh on Frydays. Since it is at present the practise of the Greek Church at Rome, to give the Commu­nion to the Lay-people once a Year, under both kinds.

Now to shew the infidelity of Mr. Rodon's quotation of the Council's decree. The Council sayes, ‘Prae­sens Concilium, &c. definit quod licè: Christus insti­tuerit & dederit Sacramentum hoc post cocnam sub u­traque specie Discipulis, hoc non obstante approbata consuetudo ecclesiae servarit & servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post cocnam, neque a fidelibus recipi non jejuuis (Here the Council should have added neque sub utraque specie, to make out what Mr. Rodon sayes, which it hath not) nisi in casu in­firmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel Ecclesiae concesso. That is, The present Council defines; &c. That altho Christ instituted and gave this Sacrament AFTER SVPPER (these Words Mr. Rodon leaves out) under both kinds to his Disciples, notwithstanding this the approved custome of the Church has observ­ed, and observes that this Sacrament ought not to be made AFTER SVPPER nor to be received by the Faithful who are not fasting (these words again, [Page 72] which alone relate to the Council's saying, NON OB­STANTE, he leaves out) unless in case of Infirmi­ty, or other necessity, &c. allowed by the Law of the Church.’ Where the Council does not speak at all of both kinds, when it sayes, This notwithstanding but only of the time of Communicating, whither AFORE or AFTER SVPPER. Viz. Altho our Saviour, insti­tuted it after Supper, that does not hinder the Church's now ordaining it to be taken only by those, who are fasting unless in case of necessity.

Note, as the Council learned from the H. Ghost that Christ's giving it after Supper did not hinder to take it fast­ing in another circumstance of time; so it also learned from the same that the Primitive Church's giving it under both kinds (she giving it also sometimes under one as to the sick, see Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 44. Edit. val. in the Hist. of Sera­pion: also see Tertul: de orat. cap. 14. and to Infants, see S. Cypr. sract. de Laps.) did not hinder to make a Law at that time to give it to the laytie only under one or special reasons; one of which is this, ‘Since this custome (saith the Council in the same place) hath been reasonably brought in by the Church and Holy Fathers, it ought to stand for a Law which it is not lawful to disapprove or change at pleasure without the authority of the Church.’

Neither does the Councill say not withstanding Christ's command, but only not withstanding his Example. Now Christ had a particular reason why he gave it after Sup­per, viz. that the Typical Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb might go afore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, which was figured by it. Also to conform himself to the custome of those times which was to sacrifice after meat in thanks­giving: and the Church an other particular reason to give it since to none but fasting, because Christians fal­ling from the primitive servour eate and drunk intempe­ratly, of which S. Paul complains 1. Cor. 11. v. 22. and so rendered themselves unworthy, not having that purity of Soul, which our Lord gave to understand as [Page 73] a thing required by washing his Disciples Feet afore he gave them the Srcrament.

Christ then commanded the substance of the Sacra­ment to be given, but left the manner of giving it to the Church, changeable in a different circumstance of Times and Persons. That particle then of the Council notwithstanding imports only, that Christ's giving the Sacrament AFTER SUPPER does not hinder it to be given to those who are Fasting. And indeed if that were a breach of his will, do not Protestants break it as well as we? do not they take their Communion be­fore Supper, and for the most part Fasting? If the Example of Christ were to be followed in the Ceremony of giving it, the Preist or Minister should afore wash the Feet of those to whom he gives it.

To what Mr. Rodon says, at the beginning of this Chapter of the Churches forbidding Marriage and certain Meats.

After Mr. Rodon had unadvisedly said that we freely confess, that the Decree of the Council of Constance is contrary to the institution and command of Christ, which we are so far from confessing that we have proven the contrary.

‘He adds, If we alleadg that S. Paul Timot. 4. saith, That they who forbid to marry, and command to [...]ob. slain from Meats, do teach the Doctrines of Devils: Romanists need only answer that altho S. Paul doth say so, yet they must not believe it, because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise.’

Again, if we alleadg (sayes he,) that the same A­postle Ephesians 2. saith, That we are saved by Grace through Faith and that not of our selves, it is the gift of GOD, not of works, least any man should boast. Ro­manists need only Answer that, ‘although this was written by the Apostle, yet they must not believe it, because the Romish CHVRCH hath determined, that we are Saved by Works and Faith, as coming from our selves, and from the strength of our own free will.’

[Page 74] Answer. We know the general approved Councils being guided by the H. Ghost cannot determine against S. Paul, We avow 'tis a Doctrine of Devils, to forbid absolutely to marry, as if marriage were ill in it self and of Satan, as the Ebionites taught, see S. Ire­reus, Lib. 1: Cap. 22. And to command to abstain from certain Meats, believing they were of the Devil with the Manicheans. See S. Aug. Haeres. Manich. 46. But we do not hold it to be a Doctrine of Devils to for­bid Preists to marry, who cannot use their marriage without breaking their vow made to God. If a man be bound to keep his promise of fidelity or conjugal chastity to a Wife, is not he as much bound to keep his promise of perpetual Continency made to God?

The Church I say does not determine against S. Paul, 1 Timot. 4. nor against what he sayes, Ephes. 2. But heartily believes with him that we are saved by Grace through Faith, and that this Faith is not of our selves, but it is the gift of God, not of works done by the force of nature, or of the Old Law, of which the Jews boasting, thought themselves more worthy of Salvation, than the Gentils. Yet she determines, against Mr. Rodon, that S. Paul here by Works, doth not ex­clude Works that flow from Faith, as acts of Hope, Repentance, and Charity, for S. Mary Magdalen was ju­stified because she loved much.

Obj. They do not celebrate the memory of Christ's Death as they ought, who do not partake of the Cup, whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christ's Blood: therefore all ought to partake of the Cup.

Answer. I distinguish the antecedent, they who do not partake of the Cup, do not as they ought, celebrate the Death of Christ, Passively, that is, they have not an occasion of receiving, and do not receive a representa­tion or a memory of the Death of Christ, I deny. They do not celebrate the memory of the Death of Christ, Actively, I subdistinguish, within themselves, producing in their mind a thought of the Death of Christ, I de­ny; [Page 75] without themselves, putting the Body of Christ un­der the species of Wine, I grant; but all are not bound to do so, or celebrate a memory of his Death so, but only the Preists to whom he gave that command, saying, Do this in remembrance of me, and as often as you sball eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you shall shew the Death of the (your) Lord untill he come. And that Protestants understand this to be said to the Ministers only, they shew, when they say that this Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred without a Sermon of the Death of CHRIST. I ask do the Lay-people Preach then?

SECTION. I. Proofs.

SECTION II.

TO his first Argument, saying, that Christ in the in­stitution of the Eucharist, did not Sacrifice nor offer his Body and Blood to his Father, and that in the three E­vangelists [Page 101] and St. Paul, there is not the least Foot-step to be seen of a Sacrifice, or Oblation of Christ's Body and Blood.

Answer. Christ was a Preist, and in acknoledgment of his Father's Supream Dominion over Life and Death, he put his Body under one Form, viz. of Bread, and his Blood under an other separate Form, viz. of Wine, upon the Altar, having by Consecration destroyed the Substance of Bread and Wine, and so offered them to his Father, for them and others, or the Remission of Sins, if we may believe him, saying to his Disciples, Luke 22. This is my Body which is given Greek di­domenon, for you: Which is broken kloomenon, for you: viz. quoad speciem Sacramenti: This is my Blood which IS poured out, Ekkunomenon for you. Neither for you only, but for many; was not this an unbloody Sacrifice?

Is not there a Foot-step of a Sacrrifice, Hebr. 13. where St. Paul speaks of an Altar; which is a correlative of a Sacrifice?

He Objects that Bellar: lib. 1. of the Masse chap. 27, confesses that the Oblation which is made after Consecrati­on belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament (Bellar. hath Sacrifice) but is not of its essence.

Answer. And so do I too: but telling you withall that the oblation which is made in the Consecration; is of the essence of the Sacrifice: Deo offertur (viz. Christus) sayes Bellar. That sacred thing (viz. the Holy Host) is offered to God when it is put on the Altar of God, and this one suffices for that part of the essence. lib. 1. de Missa. c. 27. towards the end.

For Salmeron and Baronius his putting the Sacrifice of the Eucharist among unwritten traditions. Answer. They do not deny it to be written also. Some things the Apostles have delivered to us by writ, word, and practise, as the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Baptism adultorum of adults that is, of those who are come to a full age: others only by word and practise, as the Baptism of Infants.

[Page 102]The belief of three persons in the H. Trinity is it only an unwritten tradition? If so, and you believe it, why may not you as well believe the unwritten tradition of the Sacri­fice of the Mass? If you say 'tis also written. I answer. And so is the Sacrifice of the Mass in clearer terms, for which I attest your own Conscience.

A strange thing, says Mr. Rodon, that the Mass which is the fundation of the Romish Church (for the Doctors re­quire nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass.

Answer. that's false we require moreover they live a good life, and if they fall in Sins they confess them &c.) cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ

Answer. If an Arian should say to him, It's a strange thing that the God-head of Christ who is the fundation of the Church cannot be found in all the Scriptures: Mr. Ro­don would answer; you are deceived, it is found there, but your pride in wedding your self to your own judgement hin­ders you to see it. So say I to him: the sacrifice of the Mass is found in scripture to have been instituted, and practised by Christ himself and his Apostles, Luc. 22. This is my Body which is given for you. That is, offered to my eternal Fa­ther for you, and commanded by Christ to his Apostles, Do this in remembrance of me; which they did, Act. 13. As they ministred to the Lord: the Greek word leitourgountoon is turned by Erasmus himself Sacrificing Remark the A­postles ministred to our Lord when they Sacrificed and mi­nistred to the People when they gave them the Sacrament. And Heb. 13. v. 10. St. Paul sayes, We have an Altar where­of they have no right to Eat who serve the Tabernacle. Now an Altar relates to a Sacrifice as I said, so since Christians had Altars in S. Pauls time they had also a Sacrifice: no other but that of the Eucahrist: then the oblation of it to the eternal Father is a true Sacrifice, since a Sacrifice is a visible offering of a sensible thing to God by a Preist, And to eat relates to the Fucharist, not to the Sacrifice of the Cross. All had right if they pleased, to eate, that is, to [Page 103] believe and participate of Christ's death: but Christians on­ly have right to eat of the Altar of the Eucharist, not the Jews.

Thus you see the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be found in scripture though Mr. Rodon merited, for his vanishing a­way in his own thoughts refusing to submit them to the Church, to have his heart obseured Rom. 1. v. 21. and to have this Mysterie (which is revealed only to litle ones, or the Humble) hide from him. Math. 11. v- 25.

From the Testimony of the H. Scripture, the Council of Trent hath declared to all Christians that it is an arrticle of our faith. Sess. 22. de sacrif. Miss. can. 1. 2. 3. We have al­so the unanimous consent of all the Holy Fathers.

Is then that to be called only an unwritten tradition, which a General Council, and all the Holy Fatthers and Scripture it self attests?

Object 1. St. Paul, Eph. 4. mentioning the offices, which Christ left his Church, makes no mention of Sacri­ficers.

Answer. When St. Paul, Eph. 4. v. 11. sayes that Christ made some Apostles, he mentioned Sacrificers sufficiently, because to Sacrifice is one of the frunctions of an Apostle. Neither doth he mention Baptisers in that place it being sufficiently understood by his making some Pastors, of whom one duty is to Baptize. Neither had the same A­postle writting to Timothee and Titus about the duty of a Bishop, need to instruct them to Sacrifice since they had been newly instructed as to that, when he made them Bi­shops, and were now in a daily exercise of that function. Moreover Non valet consequentia ab authoritate negata, no good tonsequence is drawn from a negative or denyed autho­ritie,

Obj. 2. The thing Sacrificed must fall under our senses.

Answer. I grant it; and tell him, That the thing Sa­crificed is the Sacrament, or Christ's Body with the Spe­cies of Bread, and not Christ's Body alone: Which Sa­crament is not hid, but is visible by its Species, though a part of it, viz. Christ's Body, be not seen; just as [Page 104] the Substance of Bread visible by its species, is not seen.

Note, then that though the Body of Christ is not co­gnizable (afore the Consecration) by this visible Species of Bread; yet the Consecration being made, the Sacra­ment is cognizable to the Faithful by it, because this Spe­cies belongs now as much to the Sacrament, being a part of it, as afore it belonged, and was a part of the vi­sible Bread.

Hence it is clear, that the destruction or change of the Species suffices for the verifying of this proposition, The thing Sacrificed is changed or destroyed: For if it were necessary to have the whole thing destroyed, the Material part as well as the formal part of a thing, there had never been a true Sacrifice: Which to say is absurd. It suffices that the whole, or the totum, which was before cease to be, by the change which the Preist makes of it.

You'l say: the Council of Trent sayes the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that of the Cross are the same.

Answer. As to the substance of the Victime, I grant: As to the manner of Sacrificing or Sacrifica­tion I deny.

The action by which Christ was offer'd on the Cross dif­fers effentially from the action by which he is offer'd in the Sacrament: since that was a real distruction of the union between the Body and the Soul; this, but a Sacramental one: but a Sacrifice if you regard the thing signifying con­sists chiefly in the Immolating action Sacrificium exparte rei significantis ex actione immolativa maximè constat. Then if this Immolating action be of a different kind in the Sacri­fice of the Cross, and that of the Altar; the Sacrifices also will be of a different kind, as to the sacrificing action, though the same, as to the thing offered, and the last terme signi­fyed, which is God as author of Life and Death.

Note in the adductive or productive action of Christ's Bo­dy and Blood is pointed out that two fold dominion of God? of Death, by the distruction of the Bread and Wine: Of [Page 105] Life, by the production of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Note 2. Though bloody or unbloody are accidents to the Body of Christ, they are not accidents to a Bloody or Unbloody Sacrifice, as altho Colour be an accident to the Wall, 'tis not an accident to a coloured Wall; so that if you destroy colour in it, you destroy the Essence of that whole which was before. viz. a coloured Wall.

Hence it follows, first that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of an Accident, but of a whole Sacramental being rising out of Christ's Body and the Species of Bread, and that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrifice, is the same with that which was produced or made by the Conse­cration, viz. the Sacrament of the Body of Christ under the species of Bread.

Secondly, it does not follow that the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offer'd in the 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 'tis not re­quired [Page 106] 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.

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 [Page 118] 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 [Page 119] 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, [Page 120] 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 [Page 121] 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, [Page 122] 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, 'tis 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 its 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.

[Page 123]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 [Page 125] 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 [Page 128] 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 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 [Page 129] 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 'twas 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 [Page 130] 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; 'tis 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. [Page 131] 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. 'Tis 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 else.)

2. To shew that Christ was a Preist for ever according to that order, viz. by his Sacrificing under the formes of Bread and wine till the end of the world, how can he say that 'tis a manifest falsification? to me its a manifest falsification in him when he sayes in the same Num. that the greek septuagint translate it as Protestants do, and he was a Preist; for the London Edition of the Septuagint 1653. by Roger Daniel has eën de hiereus but or for he was a Preist, not and he was a Preistj for the particle de signifies not only but; but also gar, that is, for in good English as Henricus Stephanus tell us in his Greek Dictionary when he comes to that particle. [Page 132] to tell the truth I have not by me the old Latin interpreter to see his expression, and therefore I will not contradict Mr. Rodon in that.

If you say Christ is a Preist for ever because he remaines for ever.

I Answer. That remaining for ever makes him capable to do the function of a Preist for ever be being a Preist, but that alone does not make him a Preist for ever, no more then it makes an Angel, who will remain for ever, a Preist for ever.

Neither can you say that he is a Preist for ever because the vertue of his Sacrifice on the Cross remaines for ever. For the vertue of the Sacrifice of Noë which obtained that no more deluge should come upon the Earth for ever Genes. 8. so remaines or dures for ever, yet I hope you will not say that Noë is a Preist for ever.

Would you say at the death of a man, whom the King makes Lord Chief Justice, and deprives him of his office at the years end, he living yet 19. years after, he was Lord Cheif Justice 20. years? No; because he did the function of a Cheif Justice only one year.

No more could we say that Christ is a Preist for ever, if he did not do the function of a Preist for ever. And the fun­ction of a Preist, according to St. Paul, Hebr. 8. v. 3. is to offer: every High Preist is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacri­fices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man (viz. Christ) have some what also to offer. He speak's not here of inter­cession, as if it were the proper partial function of a Preist, by reason of which Mr. Rodon would have Christ called a Preist for ever.

If you say with Calvin, lib. 4. Inst. cap. 18. he offers him­self in Heaven. I ask; is that oblation made in Heaven a proper Sacrifice? If so, then the Christian Religion is no more upon Earth but translated to Heaven, because The Preist-hood being translated, there is made of necessity says St. Paul, Hebr. 7. v. 11. A translation also of the Law.

Note 8. Christ is not called a Preist for ever because he intercedes for ever; for to intercede is common to a Preist [Page 133] and other men: but because he Sacrifices for ever. That is, to the end of the World the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, of which he is the chief offerer.

Note 9. Altho it was not necessary we should know how Melchisedeth executed his Kingly Office, yet is was necessary we should know how he exercised his Preist-hood; because he is not mentioned to have had aspecial Kingship, but he is mentioned to have had a special Preist-hood. And because no mention is made in the Scriptures of the end of his Preist­hood more than of the end of his Life, he is called in them a Preist for ever, and in that, a figure of Christ's Preist­hood for ever, but not that he was truely a Preist for ever, as Christ. So he is said to have been without a Father or Mother, not, that truely he was so, but only without Parents mentioned in the Scripture.

Mr. Rodon in his last answer num. 28. sayes, its false that the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech, and that of Aaron did consist in this, viz. that Aaron offered the bloody Sacrifices of Beasts, and Melchisedech offered an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine; Also he sayes its false, that the likeness of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS doth consist in this, viz. That as Melchi­sedech did Sacrifice Bread and Wine; so JESUS did Sacri­fice his Body and Blood, under the Species of Bread and Wine. And that these are human inventions, neither founded on Scripture or Reason.

Answer. They are not human inventions, since they are grounded on Scripture, as the Church and Fathers in­terpret it; against whose Authority, if Mr. Rodon thinks his bare assertion is of sufficient force, I may say in French, Mr. Rodon radote, or deviats from the right tract. As to that he sayes, That the Apostle writing to the Hebrews places the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchi­sedech and that of Aaron, and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing then in that we alleadge; this I deny, and grant, that he places the difference of the Person of Melchisedech from that of Aaron, and some likeness of the Person of Melchisedech with that of CHRIST, in quite [Page 134] an other thing, but not the difference of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech from that of Aaron, or the likeness of the Preist hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS in other things, than those which are asserted by the Roman Church. St. Paul is here silent of both, as to their formal difference or likness, for a reason which I shall bring by and by.

By this that Melchisedech receives tithes from Abraham and blesses him, he is declared by the Apostle to be a greater Person then Abraham, but by this is not signified the difference of his Preist-hood from that of Aaron and others, who were yet in the Loines of Abraham; by that also that he was a King, and a King of Peace, the greater likeness of his Person than that of Aarons, to CHRIST, is intimated, but not the likeness of his Preist-hood.

If you ask me why the Apostle does not here assign for­mally and openly the difference between the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and that of Aaron: And the resemblance of Melchisedech's with that of Christ in the Eucharist.

My answer is, that the controversie between the incredu­lous Jews and St. Paul, was not about that difference or re­semblance, (and besides by reason of their incredulity & weakness, they were not capable of understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist) but whither or no all the Sacri­fices of Aaron and his order were sufficient for the general redemption and satisfaction for the Sins of all mankind; and he answers, no, and sayes, that they had need of a greater Sacrifice, viz. that of the Cross, and a greater Person to be Preist, figured by Melchisedech, who was e­minently above Abraham, and all the Order of Aaron, and who was to be a Preist for ever, viz. by the proper act of Preist-hood, that is, was to Sacrifice till the end of the World, (which is not done by a perpetual intercession, unless it be joined to a Sacrifice and so makes one thing with it, for a pure Intercession is not the proper act of a Preist.) And this was fore-told by David, Psal. 109. Thou art a Preist for ever after the Order of Melchisedech.

Yet he intimated the difference of Melchisedechs Sacrifice from that of Aaron sufficiently to the Faithful, (Sapientia [Page 135] pauca, a word suffices to those who know the thing al­ready,) when he spoke of his Preist-hood, condistin­guished from that of Aaron (because a special Preist-hood cannot be conceived without the special Sacrifice to which it has a reference.

Note 1. 'Tis indifferent to Preist-hood to have been a King or not: to have one's Birth mentioned or not; also 'tis not the proper act of Preist-hood to bless, but only because Preist-hood is a dignity above all human dignity, there­fore 'tis given to the Preist to Bless, his proper act being to Sacrifice.

Note 2. From these words of St. Paul, If then con­summation was by the Levitical Preist-hood, (for under it the People received the Law,) that the People of God were made a Lawful Community under God by the Preist-hood, by meanes of which they adored God as he desired: so that the Preist-hood altering, the Law altered, they being annexed or tyed together.

Note 3. The Old Preist-hood and its Sacrifices were not translated into the Preist-hood and Sacrifice of the Cross, as the only Preist-hood and Sacrifice of the New Law; be­cause at this Sacrifice, all People could not be present to acknowledge God's supream Dominion all the time of the New Law, as People were present at the Levitical Sacri­fices during the Old Law; so then the Levitical Prist-hood of which St. Paul, Hebr. 7. v. 12. was translated into the Preist-hood after the Order of Melchisedech, and the Leviti­cal Sacrifices into the Sacrifices of the Christian Church made in the Eecharist, as the Mosaick Law was translated into the Christian Law. Did not the Prophet, Isaiah fore­tell. Cap. 61. v. 6. That there should be Preists in the New Law, and can Preists be without proper Sacrifices? And are there any proper Sacrifices in the Christian Church if that of the Mass be not a true Sacrifice?

Mr. Rodon concludes his Book with this Argument: Ie­sus Christ hath offered no Sacrifice, but after the Order whereof he was established a Preist: Hence he concludes that according to us, he has offered no Sacrifice but that of the Mass.

[Page 136] Answer. Iesus Christ hath offered no Sacrifice for ever, but that of the Mass, I grant, no other Sacrifice for once, I deny. Again: He was only established a Preist accord­ing to the Order of Melchisedech for ever, I grant: for once, I deny; and say, that this Order for once, was a special one for the sole Sacrifice of Redemption. Yet the Sacrifice of the Cross may be also call'd, according to the Order of Melchisedech in a good sense, because he who made it was a Preist after the Order of Melchisedech: As a French Sermon made by an English man, may be call'd an English piece, viz. a piece proceeding from an English man.