MOnsieur de Rodon , against ths exposition of the Roman Catholicks , who by this passage of Scripture , This is my body , understands the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament of the Altar , frames his argument thus .

Rodon . 1. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world , and takes words otherwise then all other men do , must without doubt speak very obscurely ; but if Iesus ▪ Christ by these words This is my body , had meant the real presence of his body in the host , ( as the Romish Doctors assert ) and consequently had meant the substantial Conversion of the bread into his body , he had spoken contrary to the common usage of a●… the world , and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do ; which I prove thus . The●… was never any author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these , This is my body , to signifie the real presence of a thing immediatly after the pronouncing of them , and not before ; on the contrary , there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was to be . For example , when God the Father speaking of Iesus Christ said , this is my beloved Son , it is certain that Iesus Christ was the son of God , before God said it ; and in common usage it is never said , this is that , except the thing be so , before it is said to be so . For example , we do not say this is a Table , before that which we mean by the word , this , be a table . Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane , and contrary to the common usage of all men , to make these words of , Iesus Christ , this is my body , to signifie th●… substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body , and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest , and not before ; seeing then that Iesus Christ , when he said , this is my body , did not speak contrary to the common usage of all ●…h●… world , and d●…d not tak●… the word●… otherwise ●…hen all other men do ; it necessarily follows , that these words of Iesus Christ , when he said , this is my body , do not signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body , nor the real presence of Christs body in the host , immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them , and not before . And this being so ; the Romish doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture , than this , This is my body . to prove such a conversion , and such a presence ; and seeing they can find none , I conclude that such a conversion , and such a presence , have no foundation in Scripture .

Answ. To this argument I answer , confessing the major , viz. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world , &c. and denying the minor , viz. But if Jesus Christ by these words , This is my body , had meant the real presence , &c. he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the world . And to the probation of his minor , viz. There was never any author , either facred or prophane , that made use of such words as these . This is my body , to signifie , &c. that I grant ▪ and deny the consequence , viz. therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors , as well sacred as prophane , and contrary to the common usage of all men , to make these words of Jesus Christ , this is my body , to signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body , and the real presence of his body in the host , immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest , and not before . And the reason is this ; because of the disparity that is betwixt Christs words , and the words of all authors sacred and prophane ; for Christs words , as uttered by him , have a creative , productive , and effective vertue and force . It was with his word he changed water into wine , at the feast of Cana in Galilee . It was with his wotd , he cured and cleansed the Leprous man in the Gospel . It is with his word , he wrought all his stupendious wonders and Miracles ; and ( if Mr de Rodon believes he is God ) he ought to believe , that it was with his word he created heaven and earth ; or dare the Monsieur say , that when God spoke these words fiat caelum , fiat terra , be the heavens made , be the earth made , that heaven and earth were in being , before God uttered his creative word : or thinks he that Christ had no hand in that creation ? if he doth ; then I dare say , and can assure him , he has no more belief then a meer heathen . But as for the words of a meer man , whether he be an author sacred or prophane , sure it is that they are not of a creative , productive , or effective vertue and force , as Christs are ; and so it is no wonder if according to the common usage of all mens meaning their authors words do presuppose that the things whereof they treat or speak , have their being before ; and not by vertue of their bare significative words . But as it is proper to a meer mans word , ( be he never so good an author sacred or prophane ) not to give a being to the thing he speaks of , so it is proper to Chri●…s effective word , to effect or cause what it signifies ; and consequently , all authors ( I mean all Christian authors whether sacred or prophane ) may very well ▪ and ought , ( according to the common usage of all faithfull and Christian people ) understand these words : This is my body , as spoken by Christ , ( whose words are of a creative , productive , and effective force and power ) in a common , usual , litteral sense , as when I , or another man should say , this is my horse , this is my house , meaning a real horse , and a real house , and not the sign or figure of a horse , or of a house . But if the Mounsieur will not understand words in the same sense as all other Christians do , and ought to do , and will give no more vertue and power to Christs creative word , then Jews , Turks , and heathens do ; I see no reason why he , and all those that take his part , ought to be e●…med ( as to matters of belief ) better then any of these .

But let us suppose , with the greatest part of all Christians , that ever were , and now are , that Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body , that it implyes no contradiction , and that at the institution of this Sacrament , he intended really so to do . I ask Mr. de Rodon , how Christ could have exprest his real meaning unto us , with clearer words , and more to the common usage of all Authors , and men , then by saying : This is my body ? When a man sayes : this is my hand , this is my cloke ; doth he speak contrary to the common usage of all authors a●…d men ? or do they understand by his words , the figure or signe of his hand and cloke only when he intends they are his reall hand and cloke ? Even so , supposing Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body really , and that when he instituted the Sacrament , he meant really so to do , would it be contrary to the common usage of all Authors and men , to und●…rstand his words in a literal sense ? or how can a conception be more clearly exprest , then by the termes and words which were instituted for its proper and immediate signification ? Dialecticks and Philosophers , instead of carrying the things they treate of to School with them ▪ do carry ▪ only conceptions and words thither , and the words serve only to express their conceptions ; and the properer the word is , the better ▪ it e●…presseth the concept . But in this passage , This is my body , the words are instituted to signifie properly and immediately , a●…reall corporal thing , and not its signe or figure ; Therefore according to the Rules of Dialectick , a reall body cannot be plainlyer exprest , then by saying : This is my body .

Doubtless , those that said , how can this man give us his flesh to eat , understood him literally , as we do , and if our saviour himself had meant it otherwise ▪ could he not easily have answered , and satisfied them , by saying : you are mistaken sirs , you understand me not right ? I mean not , that it is my reall substantial body , but only the representation or Sacrament of it . His answer was not so , but this : Amen I say unto you , unless you eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his bloud , ye shall not have life in you . Here also he calls it his flesh and bloud ; therefore he understood it litterally as we do ; not figuratively only as M. R. doth .

To this I add , that a figurative expression is obscurer then a litteral one ; why then did not Christ to avoid obscurity , foreknowing that in future times should be gr●…at alterations and hot debates in his Church , concerning Transubstantiation , wherefore I say , did he not say , this is only the figure and sacrament of my body in●…tead of saying absolutely This is my body ? for by saying so , he would take away all ambiguity concerning Transubstantiation , and his Church would be in perfect union concerning this grand Mystery .

As to Mr. de Rodons first Instance concerning these words of God the father : This is my beloved son , I confess , Christ was his son before he spok them words . But these words were spoken by God the father ; to let the world know , that Christ was his true natural son , he intended not then to create him his son , or to transubstantiate any creature into his sons substance . But if God the father had taken bread in his hand , and said ; this is my son ; no sacred or prophane author , ( considering his omnipotency ) ought to doubt but that that bread was his real son ; because of the force of his creative word , unless they can prove that it is beyond Gods power to transubstantiate one thing into another , which no body can demonstrate ; because it is an ●…asier thing in its self , to Transubstantiate then to create . What we say of God the fathers word the same we say of Christs , because of their equality in power .

Hence followeth evidently that Mr. de Rodons second Instance , viz. This is a Table ; is to no purpose , because of the disparity between Christs word , and the words of all Authors sacred and prophane ; Therefore Mr. de Rodon must give us leave to conclude thus , contrary to him , viz. that since Jesus Christ exprest his minde , by saying : This is my body ▪ and since his power is so great , that he is able to do , what he sayes ; and since his word is verity and truth ; it followeth evidently , that he did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the world : and that he did not take the words but in their proper and litteral meaning , as all other men do , when they say , this is my hand , this is my cloak ; he being able , to effect what he said ; which no other Author , sacred or prophane , are able to do . It followeth also , that the Romis●… doctours , need not seek , and cannot have , a clearer passage , out of scriprure , to prove the real presence , then this : This is my body , whence also followeth , that this conversion and presence , have an excellent foundation in holy scripture . But let us now examine his grounded reason concerning the common usage of words ; thus he argues .

Rodon . 2. Things must be , before there be any Image , Picture , or representation of them ; and consequently Images are after the things , whereof they are Images : but words are the Images of conceptions , and conceptions the Images of things : therefore things are such , before we can really conceive them to be such , and we conceive them to be such , before we can say they are such . Therefore that which Christ held , and gave to his disciples , expressed by the word ( this ) was his body before he conceived that it was his body , and he conceived that it was his body , before he said , this is my body : and consequently it is not by vertue of these words : t●…is is my body , that that which Iesus Christ gave to his Disciples , expressed by the word ( this , ) was his body ; but rather it is by blessing the bread , or thanksgiving , that the bread was made the body of Christ , because it was made the Sacrament of it . Whence it followeth , that these words : This is my body , must be expounded thus : This bread is my body , and these words : This bread is my body , must be expounded thus : This bread is the Sacrament of my body .

Answ. To this Argument I answer , granting the Antecedent , with its sequel ; But that which he inferrs , viz. that words are the Images of conceptions , I distinguish , thus : words are the improper Images of conceptions , I confess ; words are the proper Images of conceptions I deny ; for although words be signes of conceptions , yet they are not their proper Images ; because ( as Dialecticks commonly say ) though every Image is a signe , yet every signe is not an Image ; and the reason is , because an Image hath alwayes an essential relation or likeness to its prototype , which a signe hath not alwayes to the thing it signifies ; n●…y the very signum naturale , natural signe it ●…elf , hath not that similitude ; for othe●…wise smoak which is a natural signe of fire , and the voice of a man , which is the natural signe of a man , the one would be like fire and the other like a man , sure it is , and to every mans eye , that the kings head set up before a Tav●…rn , signifies that wine is to be sold there ; and yet the kings head is no Image of wine , because it is not like wine ; so that an Image , and a signe are two different things . But suppose a signe is an improper Image , because as an Image is like to its Prototype , so a signe represents the thing it signifies ; I distinguish his minor thus : but words are the Images of conceptions , and consequently must come after the things they signify : humane words are signes , and must come after , &c. I confess ; divine words , ( such as Christs are ) are signes , and must come after , &c. I deny ; for humane words are nothing else but meer empty and speculative signes or shadows of the things they signifie ; but Christs words are practical signes and causes of what they signifie ; and so they precede , and must not come after the thing by them signifyed . And so Transubstantiation , which was the concept of Christs words , when he said This is my body , followed , and was made by his effective word .

This solution is grounded on the omnipotent v●…e of Christs words , which are not only signes , but also do cause by creation or production what things he pleaseth and how he pleaseth to conceive they shall be ; for we never heard as yet of any other way , God either creat●…d or produced any thing , but by h●…s b●…re word ; therefore although every creatures word , comes after the thing it signieth ; yet Christs word , which is both a practical signe and cause of things , must precede what he intends to create , produce , or change .

Secondly , I answer the said minor , that whereas the Romish Doctors hold Transubstantiation to be not only the real presence of Christs body , b●…t also the signe and Sacrament thereof ; ( For they say , 't is both Sacramentum & res , the Sacrament and the thing it self ; ) As it is a Sacrament or signe , we say , it pre-supposeth the thing it represents ▪ viz. Christs patible body upon the Cross ; for although it be still the self same body , yet it is not still in the self same manner ; it is now glorified , and it was then patible ; it was then in its human shape & it is now in the Sacrament , but veiled under the Sacramental species of bread and wine . Neither is there any repugnance or inconvenience , that the same thing should signifie or represent its own self , when the manner of the thing is changed ; for example , it is neither repugnant or inconvenient , that a man upon a theatre , should represent and signifie , what he did himself , when he was in an army ; or to represent his own youthfull actions in his old age , it is not repugnant to any man ; and yet the self-same man is the representer , and represented ; even so is it in our case , concerning Christs glorified body in the Sacrament , and the self same when it was patible upon the Cross.

And whereas Mr. Rodon saies , that it was rather by blessing the bread or thanksgiving , that the bread was made the body of Christ , because it was made the Sacrament of it . I ask him this question ; if a bare blessing or thanksgiving can make this Sacrament , why were not the loaves and fishes our Saviour multiplied for those that followed him into the wilderness , made this Sacrament also ? for Christ blest them and gave the glory and praise of the miracle , he was about to do , to his heavenly father . But certain it is , and all the faithfull believe , that this Sacrament was first instituted by Christ at his last supper with his disciples ; and consequently more then a bare blessing , and thanksgiving are requisite to make this Sacrament , viz. these effective words of Christ , This is my body , and so the Mounseur is quite mistaken , when he saies , that it was rather by blessing the bread , or thanksgiving ▪ that the bread was made the body of Christ , because it was made the Sacrament of it , for there was blessing and thanksgiving of Christ , upon the bread and fishes in the wilderness , and yet they were no Sacrament .

Therefore , since other mens words are not proper Images , but meer speculative signes ; and since Christs effective words , are both practical signes and causes of the things by them signified : and since Transubstantiation is both the Sacrament and thing it self , and as it is a Sacrament , it presupposeth the some thing it signifies , though taken in another manner . Therefore things which Christ say to be such , are not such before he saies , or conceives them to be such , because he makes them really such , by saying they are such , although other mens words can alter nothing by saying they are such , from what they were before ; unless Christ elevates their words , as he doth the words of his Priests , when they consecrate , and giveth unto them an Instrumental productive vertue . Hence also followeth , that that which Jesus Christ held , and gave to his disciples , expressed by the word ( this ) was bread , and not his body before he said : This is my body , by verof which words , he made it his real body . And consequently , that these words : This is my body , must not be expounded thus : This bread is my body ; nor these words , This bread is my body , expounded thus ; This is the Sacrament of my body ; but rather thus This is my body , must be understood of his real body , although it consignifies also the Sacrament of his body ; for they are both together in the Mistery of Transubstantiation .

Mounsieur de Rodon prosecutes his argument , and proves that these words : This is my body , must be thus expounded ; This bread is the Sacrament of my body .

Rodon . 3. A proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question ; for example , if a man pointing at the kings person , should say , this is the King ; the Proposition must be expounded thus : this is the Kings person , because the kings person is meant ; But if a man comming into a Painters shop , and pointing at the Kings Picture should say , this is the King ; the Proposition must be expounded thus : this is the Kings Picture , because here his picture is meant . Even so , if Iesus Christ laying his hand ●…n his brest , had said : This is my body : we must without doubt have understood the proposition concerning his real body and not concerning the sign , or Sacrament of it , because his very body had been then meant , and not the sign or Sacrament of it . But Iesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist , and to that end , having taken bread , blessed itand given it to his disciples , with these words , take , eat , this is my body , it is evident that they must be understood of the sacrament of his body , & the proposition must be expounded thus , this is the Sacrament of my body , because here the Sacrament of his body is meant : And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace , as the Council of Trent saith , in its sixth sess: it is evident that this proposition : This is my body , being expounded by this , This is the Sacrament of my body , may be expounded thus : this is the signe of my body .

Answ. I deny the Mounsieurs minor ; viz. that it is evident that Christs words must be understood only of the Sacrament of his body , and that the Proposition must be expounded thus : This is the Sacrament of my body ; for these words This is my body , as spoken by Christ , do according to the proper and immediate signification of the words signifie no more the Sacrament of his body , then these words this is my cloak , as uttered by me do signify the signe or Sacrament of my cloke ; therefore as when I say , this is my cloake , it is not evident , that I mean the signe only of my cloake ; so when Christ said , This is my body , it is not evident , that he meant only the Sacrament of his body ; nay the words according to their proper and immediate sense , do rather signfy , that it is his real body ; and yet we consess that they consignifie the Sacrament of his body also ; and t●…e Mounsieur has no more to shew for this 〈◊〉 but his bare word , which we are not bound to take .

〈◊〉 Christ laying his hand upon his breast , had said : This is my body , then ( Mr. de Rodon sayes ) we ought to believe he meant his real body . But let us suppose , he had done so , a blinde man being by , who could not see him ; I ask the Mounsieur , how this blind man must understand and expound his words ? all the beholders ought to understand them litterally ; if the blind man must understand them so too , why may not we understand them so also ? or may the blind man understand them figuratively only , and the beholders understand them litterally ? if so , then the blind understands them not rightly ; or if he sayes , that the blind man ought to understand them litterally , because of the attestation of the standers by that saw our saviour hold his hand upon his breast while he uttered the words ; I say , that the beholders being but men , their testimony can produce but a meer humane faith in the blind man concerning the true meaning of Christs words ; or finally if some of the spectatours , out of malice , or to deceive the poor blind man , should contradict the others ; and say that Christ held not his hand upon his breast , while he pronounced the words ; ( although they knew well he did ) where I pray Mounsieur is the poor blind man then ? certainly according to your Rule , he will be brought to his witts end , before he understands the words rightly ; unless you give him leave to understand them litterally as we do . Therefore it is not the laying of Christs hand or foot upon a thing , that gives unto words their common usage , nor makes them signify according to the nature of the thing in question ; but it is rather Christs effective word , taken according to the common institution of men , to signify things in their proper sense , that createth , or changeth one thing into another according to the real and litteral signification of the words by him spoken . Therefore since all General Councils , and all the holy fathers that ever treated of this question , all Catholicks of all ages , ever since the Institution of this Sacrament , unanimously understood the words , this is my body , in a litteral sense ; and since Mr. d●… Rodon , cannot produce one of them , of his side ; nor shew us any evident proof to the contrary , but his own bare word ; which we do not at all value ; it clearly follows , that these words : This is my body , must not be expounded of the Sacrament of his body only ; and because a Sacrament is not here only ment ; it followeth that although a Sacrament , as the holy Council of Irent saith , is a visible signe of an invisible grace , that this proposition , This is my body , must not be expounded , this is the Sacrament , or this is the signe only of my body ; although ( I confess ) that by vertue of the said words , the Sacrament is also consignified with his real presence in the consecrated Host. The Mounsieur confirmes his precedent Argument thus .

Rod. 4. In these two propositions : This is my body : This cup is the new Testament in my bloud , the word ( is ) must be taken in the same sense , because they are alike , having been pronounced upon the same matter , viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament , and the other upon the other part of it ; and because of like things , we must give alike Iudgment . But in this proposition , This cup is the new Testament , the word ( i●… ) is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being , but for a Sacramental and significative being ; because neither the cup nor that which i●… in the cup , is changed into a Testament ; neither is it really and properly a Testament , but the Sacrament of the New Testament . Therefore in this proposition likewise , This is my body , the word ( is ) is not taken for a real and Transubstantiated being , but for a Sacramental and significative being : and consequently as this proposition : This cup is the new Testament , must be expounded thus : the wine that is in the cup , is the signe and Sacrament of the New Testament : so this proposition : This is my body , must be expounded thus : this bread is the signe and Sacrament of my body . Whence it follows , that in one single proposition of Iesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist , viz. This cup is the New Testament ; are two figures ; one in the word ( cup ) being taken for that which is in the cup ; this is a figure called a Metonimy , whereby the thing containing , is taken for the thing contained . The other figure is , that the cup is called the New Testament : this is also a figure called a metonimy , whereby the signe is called by the name of the thing signified . And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken , when they tell us that all that Iesus Christ said , when he instituted the Eucharist , must be taken litterally , and without a figure . But withall , we must not imagine that Iesus Christ spake obscurely , because he spake figuratively ; these figures and manners of speech , being commonly and familiarly used by all the world .