of your selues for as Christ covers not your impurities nor imputes his righteousness unto you but rather esteems you for no better then heathens and publicans because you hear not his Church so the holy Ghost has nothing to do with you for Christs holy spirit never contradicts Christ. True it is what you say that that which God hath decreed Jesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun that that is reputed by God perfect and compleat But this only concerns orthodox people and not you for them be these the Apostle speaks of 1 Tym. 2. 8. in these words you aledge I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Iesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Very farr alass are you from such people for you pray but very little or nothing in comparison of others who pray both day and night and you pray not every where for if you were compared with the rest of the world who profess Christ you are but a handful of people in little corners or Islands and there too but for a very short time in comparison of former ages how holy your hands are set aside your own private conceits of your selves the rest of the world can easily judge how void of wrath especially against us we very well know how undoubting you are in points of Religion no body breathing can tell for no two of you could ever as yet fully agree as to that point and every one of you is always seeking but never finding what can quiet and content his conscience in that matter you run from the luke-warm Protestant to the precise Puritan or Presbyterian who hates and rayles at the Protestant Bishops and Clergy as much as they do at us others of you from being Presbyterians turn Independents and viceversa from Independents and Presbyterians you turn Anabaptists from Anabaptists you become Quakers from Quakers Fanaticks and from Phanaticks at last you become Atheists your union consists only in this that to preserve your worldly Interest you retain the common notion or name of Protestant and band all against the Roman Catholick whereas on the contrary the Roman Catholick or Papist holds still to his old Lady Dinna to his Invocation of saints to his praying for the souls departed to the Indulgences which are as he believes bequeathed by Christ unto his Church to Pur gatory all which they say are included in these two articles of our belief viz. I believe in the holy Catholick Church and in the communion of saints In a word all the Roman Catholicks do unanimously agree in all the tenents and points of their whole Religion and are perfectly satisfied and contented in their consciences as to all matters of faith without running here and there from one sect to another to search and seek after new opinions as the Protestants do How then can you be the Church the Congregation of the faithful whom the Apostle sayes Ephes. 5. Christ loved and gave himself for how can you be a glorious Church a Church without spot or wrinckle or any such thing a holy one and without blemish Objection 6th Roman 20. The sixth objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedeck king of salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him and from Ps. 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck from which words they argue thus Iesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck the difference between Aaron and Melchisedeck consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of beasts which they sacrificed to God as a signe and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings he offered to God bread and wine And seeing this bread and wine offered to God by Melchisedeck were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Iesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the Institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer to the shaddows and types Secondly that although Melchisedeck had brought all his bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Armyâ—… that returned from the slaughter of the kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine and the reason of this is because the scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils amongst which there was bread and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and of his people Also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedeck met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly they say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was a Priest of the most high God which show the reason why Melchisedeck brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the scripture would have said that he brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was a Priest fourthly they say that Jesus Christ is a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Iesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Masse viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of broad and wine of Melchisedeck Answer Rodon 21. To this I answer first that the hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. But our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put
that he hath reconciled men unto God made their peace with the Angels and hath particularly recommended Peace to them As for Aaron and other high Priests they were no kings much less are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck And they that have written the lives of the Popes have sufficiently declared what righteousness and Peace they have procured for the true and faithful servants of Iesus Christ as I shall shew at large elswhere Secondly the Apostle heb 7. represents Melchisedick to us as a man come from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life not that he was really such a one but because Moses hath wholy concealed from us his father mother descent birth and death that he might be the type of Christ who was without father as he is man without mother as God without descent both as God and man having neither beginning of dayes as God nor end of life as God or as man But the fathers descent birth and death of Aaron and other high Priests are exactly described by Moses And there were never any Popes Bishops or Priests whose Parents birth and death were not known consequently they cannot be after the order of Melchisedec Thirdly the Apostle adds that Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever because Moses makes no mention of his death nor of any one that succeedeth him in his Priestly office that so he might be the type of Iesus Christ who never less his Priestly office but will exercise it untill the end of the world always interceeding for those that are his by presenting his sacrifice to God the father continually As for Aaron and other Priests they are dead and have had successors and the Popes Bishops and Priests die dayly and have successors and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fourthly the Apostle saith likewise that Melchisedec took tithes of Abraham and adds that Melchisedec blessed him that had the Promises viz. Abraham and the less is blessed of the greater whence it appears that Melchisedec having taken tithes of Abraham and blessed him and Levi and all the Priests in his person was more evcellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold as to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithfull in whose seed all the Nations of the Earth are blessed and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fifthly the Apostle never spoke of the sacrifice of Melchisedec so far was he from comparing it with the sacrifice of Iesus Christ as being like it or with that of Aaron as being unlike it so that all that our Adversaries say is nothing else but meer humane invention Answ. This your last answer Mounsieur is indeed very false as to its two first points viz. that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron did not consist in this that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread â—…nd wine as also when you deny the likenesse of the Priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Jesus Christ doth consist in this that as Melehisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine This answer I say is not only false but also impious because it contradicts both scripture and the unanimous opinion of all the holy fathers It contradicts scripture because scripture says in plain and express termes that Christ took bread in his hand and said of it this is my body and took wine in a cup and said of it this is my bloud and yet you pertinaciously say it is not founded in scripture or reason It is I confess above our reason to comprehend how Christs body is in the host and yet it is not contrary to reason that it should be there and yet we have reason to believe it is there both because Christ said it and his word is truth and omnipotent as also because the words of the Royal prophet and of the Apostle concerning the everlasting Priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedec must needs be verified in Christ as I said before which since they cannot be verified by his bloudy sacrifice as is also proved and there is no other strict sacrifice imaginable whereby to verifie them but this of the Masse it stands both with scripture and reason that as Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine and consequently that the likeness of both their Priesthoods did chiefly consist in this manner of sacrificing To what you say that these are but human inventions I say they are liker divine inspirations since all the holy fathers concurr in them then your impudent denial without any proof but your own consident word is of any force or weight to weaken or hurt them You say further more that the Apostle writing to the hebrews doth place the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Aaron and its likenesse in quite another thing first because being called Melchisedeck which signifies King of Righteousnesse and being king of Salem which signifies Peace he was the type of Jesus Christ who is truly king of righteousness and king of peace But Aaron you say and other high priests were no kings and much lesse are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck But good Sir with your leave the Apostle by this disparity betwixt Melchisedeck and Aaron viz. that Melchisedeck was a king and Aaron not that th'ones name signified Righteousness and Peace and th' others not placeth no difference between their Priesthood but only between their persons viz. that Melchisedeck being both king and Priest is a more perfect type of Jesus Christ then Aaron was who was but only a Priest and no king and all this we grant But this shews no difference between their Priesthood as any body may see and yet the difference between their Priesthood and not their persons is the thing you are to prove out of the Apostle which you will never be able to do but by the difference of their sacrifices therefore though Aaron nor any of the Romish Priests were kings your consequence has a huge slaw in it The same slaw hath your second consequence because all what you say out of the Apostle Heb. 7. concerning Melchisedecs coming from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life all these I say do shew the difference between Melchesedec and Aarons persons and that Melchisedec was a more perfect type of Christ then Aaron was but it shews
appear thus Rodon In every true sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was before as Bellarmine saith in express terms in the place above-cited But in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass Christs body and bloud are not destroyed for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass the body and bloud of Christ are not the thing sacrificed Answ. In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was bofore If by ceasing to be what it was before he intends ceasing to be in the manner as it was before I confess the major If by ceasing to be c. he intends ceasing to be the entitie or same thing it was before I deny the major And Bellarmins words in the place alledged do express no more for these be his words in the same place And destroies something that is sensible and permanent for by the word something a mode or manner may be as well understood as an entitie or nature and so we say it is in the Sacrament we say that the sensible accidents of bread and wine with the substantial sacramental Presence of Christs body and bloud which is the only thing produced by the words of consecration are destroyed But we say not that the entitie of Christs body and bloud which is rather adduced then produced in the Sacrament or that his body and bloud in their proper shape are destroyed in the Sacrament because the words of consecration doth not put them so into it And so both Mr. de Rodons huge Milstones with all their following absurdities are quite shattered and split Now then to his third Principal Argument drawn from the Apostles words Hebr. 9 which is this Rodon Hebr. 9. the Apostle saies Allmost all things are by the law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission it was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these from which words I form this argument There is no propitiation or remission of sinns without shedding of bloud as the Apostle saith But in the Mass there is no shedding of bloud for it is called an unbloudy sacrifice Therefore in the Mass there is no propitiation or remission of sins and consequently no propitiatory sacrifice This argument may be thus confirmed under the old Testament there was no propitiation or purification without shedding of bloud and the types of heavenly things were so purified as the Apostle saith Heb. 9. Therefore under the new Testament also there can be no propitiation or purification without shedding hf bloud and heavenly things being represented by the legal Types must be purified by a more excellent sacrifice viz. by the shedding of Christs bloud And although the Apostle useth the word sacrifices in the plural number yet we must understand the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross because when one thing is opposed to many it is often expressed in the plural number as whem Baptism which is but one is called Baptismes Heb. 6. 2. But the only sacrifice of the Cross of Christ in the text above-cited Heb. 9. 23. is opposed to the old sacrifices which were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Cross. Answ. I grant that unless Christ had shed his bloud for us there had been no propitation or remission of sins and consequently that there was no expiation or remission of sinns in any types or sacrifices of the old law but only in relation and reference to Christs bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross which is all the Apostle meant in the forementioned Passage But all this concerns not the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass at all which is not a bare type or shadow of Christs bloudy sacrifice as all the sacrifices of the old Law were and no more for the sacrifice of the Mass is not only an immediate type of that of the Cross but also a proper Idea memorial nay as the holy fathers say the self-same sacrifice of the Cross reiterated after another manner viz. unbloudily because it is not convenient that Christs body being now glorious and impassible should suffer again and by reason it is a perpetual memorial or repetition of the bloudy sacrifice it hath a reference or relation to it from whence followeth evidently that because it is the self-same sacrifice essentially with that of the Cross and it hath an immediate relation to it and remembrance of it It followeth I say evidently that it is propitiatory for the living and the dead as that of the Cross is for if it be the same body and bloud that is now offered and was offered upon the Cross as Christ himself says t is his body and the fathers of the Church say it is the same sacrifice with that of the Cross it imports not at all as to the essence of the sacrifice whether it be offered bloudily or unbloudily because to be bloudy or unbloudy is not essential to a sacrifice there being some sacrifices offered in the old Law whereof some were bloudy and other strict sacrifices also offered which had no bloud in them Therefore to make the Mass a proper and strict sacrifice it is sufficient that in the Mass there be sensible symbols viz. the accidents of bread and wine containing Christs body and bloud really personally and â—…bstantially present and that at the destruction of these symbols or signes Christs body ceaseth to be substantially and personally present there any more though he ceaseth not because of the destruction of the species to be absolutely and in his humane shape in heaven Finally I say that God the father knows and accepts of the sacrifice of his sons body offered unto him by us for our sinns as our Mediatour whether the said body be offered to him bloudily or uubloudily Rodon The Apostle Heb. 10. 16. saith this is the Covenant which I will make with them after these days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their harts and in their minds will I write them and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin whence I form this argument where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle faith But in the Christian Church by vertue of the new Testament or new Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ there is remission of sins Heb. 10. 16. 17. Therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an obligation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Answ. Mr. de Rodon the better to draw his argument out of Scripture salsifies the text in two places for where the text says This is
Transubstantiation to be S. Ambrose seconds S. Augustines tenet concerning this What quoth he we then do not we offer every day we offer surely but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer always the self-same and not now one lamb and to morrow another but always the self-same thing he calls it a sacrifice he says 't is offered every day therefore he meant not the bloudy sacrifice for that was offered but once and he says We offer always the self-same thing therefore it must be the self-same host or sacrifice and since it was never offered bloudily but once it follows evidently that all the other dayly oblations of the same host meant by the holy doctor are the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass. Primasius S. Augustins Scholar in the place I cited him before clears this business and gives solid reasons withall What says he shall we say then do not our Priests daily offer sacrifice they offer surely because we sin daily and daily have need to be cleansed and because he cannot die he hath given us the sacrament of his body and bloud that as his Passion was the Redemption and absolution of the world so also this â—…blation may be a Redemption and clensing to all that offer it in truth and verity Do not you see Mounsieur how contradictory these words of this holy father one of great S. Augustins chief disciples are to your conclusion Do not you see what solid reasons he gives for his saying viz. that because we sin daily and have need to be daily cleansed it was necessary the self-same sacrifice should be reiterated not bloudily and he gives a reason why viz. because he cannot die his body being now a glorified body Then concluding solidly his discourse he says he hath given us the Sacrament of his body and bloud that as his Passion c. where he gives solid reasons wherefore besides the bloudy sacrifice it was convenient and necessary this unbloudy sacrifice should be instituted also viz. because although the bloudy and the unbloudy sacrifice be but the self-same yet as to their effect there is some difference for the bloudy sacrifice is for all men in general but the unbloudy for those in particular who offer it Lastly do not you see Mounsieur that by these last words of this cited Passage viz. that as his Passion was the Redemption and absolution of the world So also this oblation may be a Redemption and cleansing to all that offer it in truth and verity do not you see I say how by these words this holy father makes a clear distinction between the bloudy sacrifice of Christs Passion and the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass which the Priest offers I omit S. Chrisostom Theophilact Oecumenius Haymo Paschasius Remigius and many more of the ancient holy fathers whose authorities as to this point are most clear and manifest because to repeat the same thing over and over again is both irksom and prolix Therefore I will come to his fifth argument which is this Rodon The fifth argument is drawn from the words of the Apostle Heb. 9. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often as the high Priest entreth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others for then must he often have suffered from the foundation of the world but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And as it is appointed to men once to die but after this the Judgement so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation This is confirmed by the words of the same Apostle Heb. 10. The Law being a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the things can never with the sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the commers thereunto perfect for then would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins But in those a remembrance is made again of sins every year for it is not possible that the bloud of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins c. And every high Priest standeth dayly ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God for by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified Which iâ—… conformable to what he had said a little before that We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all from all which I form these arguments Answ. Before the Mounsieurs arguments rush upon us too faâ—…t for clarities sake I will first expound these passages in our Catholick sense and after will answer his arments in order By these words of the Apostle in his first Passage viz. Iesus Christ offereth not himself often as the high Priestss c. we understand them thus that he did not offer himself often bloudily or that he did not offer a bloudy sacrifice yearly as the high Priests of the old Law used to do and so we understand all the rest of the words of the same Passage in the same sense viz. of a bloudy sacrifice for it is unnecessary and also impossible that Christ should suffer again his body being now glorious and impassible But although this Passage denotates a difference betwixt Christs bloudy sacrifice and the sacrifices of the old Law in as much as Christs bloudy sacrifice was but for once and their bloudy sacrifices were yearly yet his bloudy sacrifice hath no opposition to the sacrifice of the Mass but only accidentally in this viz. that the one is a bloudy sacrifice and the other an unbloudy one Notwithstanding which accidental difference the sacrifice remains essentially one and the self-same and to reiterate the same thing though never so often causeth no opposition in the thing to it self as any body of the meanest understanding may easily see for nothing can be essentially opposite to it self as the very light of nature shews us The first words of the second Passage out of Heb. 10. do more confirm our doctrine then the Mounsieurs for these words The Law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the thing c. shews the great difference that is between the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the old Law for the old sacrifices were but meer speculative shadows of Christs bloudy sacrifice and consequently of themselves were of no value or force to sanctifie people or to remit sins whereas according to our doctrine the sacrifice of the Mass is not a meer shadow but a perfect immediate Idea or Image and dayly actual remembrance of Christs bloudy Passion Nay the self-same in essence with the bloudy sacrifice as all the doctors of the Church
it because God the father did constitute Christ high Priest for to sacrifice himself bloudily upon the Cross for our sins and unbloudily upon the Altar you inferr he hath no need of vicars or companions in his Priesthood what a fine consequence is this Christ sacrificed himself once bloudily therefore there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily this antecedent and consequence hangs not together Nay nor supposing Christ sacrificed himself once unbloudily as we hold he did at the first institution of this Sacrament doth it follow that there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily for he commanded his Apostles to do as he did himself when he said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me But good Mounsieur tell me how could Christ be constituted by his Father high priest but in reference to some vicar or underpriest are not high and low relative terms you told us once that under and above do denotate different places and different you know is a relative because it imports inequality between two things or more therefore I beleeve you will not deny but that high is a relative word because it signifies as above does But all correlatives be simultanean that is together or at the same time Therefore Christ was constituted high-priest in respect to some Vicars or inferiour Priests and since he was constituted high-priest of the New Testament or Law it follows evidently that there must be Priests his vicars and substitutes of the same Law and if there be Priests of the New-Law then follows it as clearly that there is a sacrifice of the new Law to be offered by them for Priest and sacrifice are also correlatives But there is no more bloudy sacrifice of the new Law therefore the sacrifice which the Priests of the new law now offer is the unbloudy sacrifice of Christs body in the host really Mounsieur these consequences do hang better together then yours doth of its antecedent drawn from the Apostles words For besides its impertinency it openly contradicts the same Apostle who in his 1. Tim. 5. says the Priests that rule wellâ—… let them â—…e esteemed worthy of double honour and again the same place Against a priest receive not accusation Therefore in the Apostles time there were Priests and yet de Rodon concludes there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood The Apostles themselves were all Priests and high-Priests too for they constituted Bishops and Priests as S. Paul did Timothy Titus and many others yet in comparison to Christs Priesthood they were but vicars and substitutes The holy fathers called themselves Priests and said that they offered every day a sacrifice whose examplar was the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross as I have shewed before where I cited their very words yet the Mounsieur confidently inferrs out of scripture that there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood an excellent consequence and wittily deduced against S. Pauls express words who mentions Priests and against the whole torrent of holy fathers This is that smart divine of the Reformed Religion whose small treatise in his Translatours opinion is the best Antidote against Popery the holy scripture excepted that over he read and for ought he knows it is not inferiour to the best of this kinde that ever was yet extant these be his own words in the Preface of his Translation But our Diana and Popery will never be annoyed or destroyed with such silly and ungodly stuff as this Christ said Ego sum Pastor bonus I am the good Pastor Iohn 10. wherefore may not the Mounsieur inferr as well out of this text Therefore Christ hath no need of vicars or under Pastours to feed his flock or to be companions in his Pastorship and yet Christ bid Peter pasce oves meas pasce agnes meos feed my sheep feed my lambs In a word if the Mounsieurs consequence holds the Reformed Church needs no Preachers Teachers Ministers or Pastors for Christ himself the good and high Pastor will do it all for them and the people will but displease him for constituting Ministers and Pastors over them to be his companions or vicars in his high Pastorship to say the truth I think their flocks for the most part do not regard very much what they preach or teach for if they did so many sectaries would never sprout from them and without any other commission but their own private spirits invade the pulpit undertake the task of preaching upon themselves I mean both men and women also and many of them but ordinary tradesmen But if their flocks would take away their fat Benefices and stipends from these godly Pastors as their Ancestors did deal with us I doubt whether they would stick so close to their principles as we do to ours and endure so much for their Religion and consciences as we do After this short digression let us return again to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 17. In answer to these Argument's the Romish Doctors are wont to say that the Sacrifice of the masse is the same with that of the Crosse in respect of the essence of the Sacrifice the same thing being offered in both viz. by Iesus Christ. But it differs in respect of the manner of offering for on the Crosse Iesus Christ offered himself bloudily that is when he died he shed his bloud for mankinde but in the masse he offers himself unbloudily that is without shedding his bloud and without dying On the Crosse Iesus Christ was destroyed in respect of his natural being but in the masse he is destroyed in respect of his sacramental being They add that all the arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews respect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Cross but besides this bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass. Lastly they say that the sacrifice of the Cross is primitive and original but that of the Mass representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross as the Council hath it in its 22. session Answ. All this doctrine is sound irre fragable and orthodox save only this clause viz. but besides bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass for the Mr. belyes the Romish Doctors who say not that it is another sacrifice but another maner of offering the self same sacrifice of the Cross viz. unbloudily and in that sense the whole doctrine is Catholick Rodon To these distinctions I reply that the sacrifice of the Masse doth not differ from that of the Cross in respect of the manner only which is but an accidental difference but it differs in respect of essence too Answ. That we deny he proves it thus Rodon First because the natural death of Iesus Christ is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the
Mounsieur is utterly false as to all its parts and his bare word for it without any proof is no imaginary but real obstinate impudence for he contradicts all the General Councils holy fathers and universal Church of God yet he offers to prove it thus Rodon First because it is said Heb. 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Therefore in the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass there can be no remission of sins and consequently it cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Answ. To this silly consequence I answer again and again and say that what the holy fathers unanimously consented unto and practised dayly as concerning an unbloudy Propitiatory sacrifice is ten thousand times of more weight and a better warrant for our opinion then de Rodon and all his Phanatick rabbles bare word is to destroy or weaken it Therefore I confess with the Apostle Heb. the 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Because if there had been no primitive bloudy sacrifice this unbloudy sacrifice had not been instituted for it was instituted as a memorial or remembrance of the bloudy one from whence follows not at all that the same host which was once offered bloudily may not be offered again unbloudily for our sins and consequently that the sacrifice of the Mass cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Rodon Secondly because Iesus Christ cannot be offered without suffering for the Apostle saith Heb. 6. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ with suffering is a bloudy Sacrifice therefore there is no unbloudy Sâ—…crifice Answ. That Christ can be offered without suffering and that a rigorous Sacrifice may be without death bloud or suffering is sufficiently maintained before as also that these words of the apostle must be understood of a bloudy sacrifice which we confess is not to be reiterated but not of an unbloudy one we said before Therefore these consequences drawn out of the Apostle are but frivolous repetitions of his old shattred stuff Rodon Thirdly because the bloudy sacrifice of the Crosse being of an infinite value hath purchased an eternal redemption Heb. 9. and hath taken away all sins past present and to come whence it followeth that there is no other Sacrifice either bloudy or unbloudy that can purchase the pardon of our sins the Sacrifice of the Crosse having sufficiently done it Let the Mounsieur stir the râ—…bbish never so often and turn it over and over and let him turn and search the Apostle to the Hebrews and look narrowly into all his other works never so often I am sure he will never be able to pick one golden or silver consequence nay not one worth a straw to serve his turn against us for we grant that there is no other sacrifice bloudy or unbloudy essentially distinct from the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross that can purchase the pardon of our sins But we deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is essentially distinct from that of the Cross or that the sacrifice of the Mass being the self-same with that of the Cross cannot purchase the pardon of our sins and I pray Mounsieur what force hath your consequence out of the Apostle against this answer no more certainty as any man may see then a broken straw hath Rodon Fourthly Because the justice of God requires that sins shall be expiated by the punishment that is due to them and this is so true that the wrath of God could not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the Iustice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering Answ. I grant that Gods wrath for our sins was appeased by the bloudy and ignominious death of Christ upon the Cross and that the satisfaction was according to rigorous Justice But I deny that the nature of Gods Justice must have changed if sins can be expiated in the Masse without pain or suffering because the Masse as it is a sacrifice derives all its force vertue and vigour from the Primitive bloudy sacrifice of the Crosse and being both are of one essence and that there is no more need of a bloudy satisfaction for sin it followeth that the repetition or reiteration of the same sacrifice now offered unbloudily for there is no more need of a bloudy sacrifice has the same force and efficacy to expiate sin now as it had when it was offered upon the cross the person offered being the self-same and of the same value and worth And this is true that the Mounsieurs consequence is very false because Christ having satisfied once bloudily and his body being now glorious and impatible as it is not convenient he should suffer again having satisfied sufficiently already for all sins in general so is it convenient his bloudy passion should be rememorated unbloudily and applyed for the sins of the faithful in particular both because Christ left orders with his Church in express terms it should be done so when he said as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me as also for holy Primasius his reasons viz. because we sin dayly Now then to his third Reply Rodon 20. Thirdly to the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is dayly offered in the Mass I reply first that what the Council of Trent saith in sess 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine powred into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Iesus Chaist and his death according to his own command in these words do this in remembrance of me and according to what S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applyed to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a crue and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead which hath been already refuted at large Answ. That you have done indeed as Luther refuted king Henry the eighth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of devils c. But I think any impartial reader may easily see and judge that I have fully and pathetically answ ered all your refutations and shewed
knowledge of things to come and we are more toucht with the memory of things past when some symbol brings them to our thoughts then when we consider things to come through clowds and shaddows To this I add that the bread and wine of the Eucharist have a greater Analogie with Iesus Christ then the Paschal lamb had in one respect viz. in regard of the spiritual nourishment which we receive by Christs death for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment But this nourishment is much better represented by bread and wine which are the ordinary nourishment of our bodies then by a lamb Answ. All that Mr. de Rodon says in this second answer strengthens and confirms our major above but it strikes at our minor viz. But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not really contain the body and bloud of Christ but was only the signe of it then it would follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not be more excellent then that of the Passeover nay that of the Passeover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist c. That the excellence of one Sacrament a bove another must be drawn from its form and efficacy and not from its matter because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form as Sacraments are this doctrine I confess is very good and true and that the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist dependeth on the Institution of Christs words is also very certain and true But by what words forsooth did Christ institute this Sacrament doubtlesse by no other but these viz. this is my body this is my bloud and immediately after consecrating he said as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me Now if you take away the first and immediate signification of the words of consecration which is that it is his body and bloud I ask Mr. de Rodon how bread and wine can signifie the body and bloud of Christ after the words of consecration more then they did before or if Christs body be not really there how can bread and wine be the signes of his body and bloud because they were consecrated more then if they were not consecrated at all and to use the Mounsieurs one phrase we cannot see or discern with our eyes any greater signs of Christs body and bloud in the consecrated bread and wine more then we do see in the unconsecrated I confess indeed that these words as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me do signifie Christs bloudy Passion But what that this is unlesse it be Christs body for he said immediately before this is my body I cannot understand for if by the word this Christ had meant the remembrance or signe of his body and not his real body then the sense of his words would be this as often as you do the remembrance of my body do it in remembrance of me which as any body may see is a perfect Batalogy or senselesse repetition of the self-same thing But sure it is and according to Mr. de Rodons own concession that the Paschal lamb has a nobler natural entity because of its life then bread and wine have and that his bloud has a greater Analogy with Christ and his bloud shed on the Crosse then they have Therefore not only according to the material entity which is the matter but also according to the representative or significative entity which is the formal part of the Sacrament if Christs body be not there really present the Passeover is a more excellent signe or Sacrament of Christs bloudy Passion then the Eucharist is which is a great absurdity if not rather Blasphemy we say to assert To this I add that whereas according to M. de Rodons own saying it is an impertinency to make a Type of a Type it follows that the Paschal lamb signifies the thing typified viz. Christs bloudy sacrifice better then the Eucharist doth if you take away the body of Christ from the Sacrament or cut off the immediate signification of these words This is my body upon which words the signification of the Eucharist do wholy depend Rodon Lastly I answer that it is far lesâ—… inconvenient to give some prerogative to the Passeover above the Eucharist viz. to give it a more excellent matter and Anology then to assert the corporal Presence of Christ in the host by an unheard of Transubstantiation which destroys the nature of Sacraments gives our Lord a monstrous body includes notorious absurdities and contradictions and gives the lye to sense Reason and holy Scripture as hath been proved Answ. This last answer of de Rodon is not only absurd but also impious and Blasphemous for it makes the Sacraments of the old Law to be better and more perfect then those of the new which is a great derogation to Christs infinite wisdom that he should institute Sacraments for all the Sacraments of the new Law are instituted by him of lesser worth and likenesse then those were which were used before his Incarnation It puts the Law of Grace beneath the Law of Moses It makes Christs words Institutions and Instruments of our Redemption which be his Sacraments imperfect and vain if the Sacraments of the old Law be worthier and more significative then his are and consequently it lessens the price of our redemption which is Symbolized perfectly in his Sacraments finally according to this rate we had better fall to circumcising our selves become Jews and forsake Baptism and consequently our Christianity for if the Passeover may without offence excell the Eucharist in matter and Analogy or signification why may not circumcision also excell Baptism away away then with this blasphemous lyar who vainly and falsly boasts of his non-sensical proofs that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments gives our Lord a monstrous new body includs notorious absurdities and contradictions c. for all his silly proofs are already destroied shattered quasht by me in their due places This is Reader that malepart Civilian I told you of a little before who so well deserved his fee and I doubt not but he received it by this time Objection 3. Romanists 11. The third Objection was proposed at Nismes Anno 1657. by the Iesuitâ—… S. Rigaut thus God doth communicate or can communicate to the creature in a finite degree that which he possesseth in an infinite degree for example God hath an infinite power whereby â—…e can do all things at once as appears in a man for he can see hear talk and walk at the same time God hath also an infinite wisedom and knowledge whereby he knows all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite knowledge whereby it may know diverse things at once And even so God hath a virtual infinite extent which is called Immensity whereby he sills all things and all places at once
griped him by the whole body of his funesteous and false treatise and so shook dis-jointed and dismembred his whole body that there is now no more hopes left of his recovery or reviviscence but flat he must lie upon his back in his stinking grave of heresie which he prepared for our excellent and most vertuous Lady Diana when he made her funeral while she remains still alive as fresh brisk and vigorous as ever she was and so will be inaugre de Rodon and all his parties funesteous machinations funerals and wicked contrivements against her unto the worlds end But now I think it high time gentle Reader to let you know who and what she is know then sir that this Diana about whom Mr. de Rodon and I have so long contested is the Mass by his translatour in derision call'd our great Diana and in his opinion his author hath shewed himself so gallant and stout a corypheus against her that with his keen Philosophical arguments and darts he transfixt her heart through and through so that to their thinking she is quite destroyed and slain down-right without any hopes of recovery and with her they say is fallen Popery too whereupon in a triumphing way they intituled their treatise The funeral of the Masse yet I think I have sufficiently vindicated and cleared her from their false calumnies and black aspersions and fully answered Mr de Rodoâ—…s sophistical and funestuous treatise from point to point paying him in his own Philosophical coin and retorting his calumnies upon â—…is own head But as neither they noâ—… I ought to be judges in our own cause so we ought to leave the decision of the matter to our impartial Readers the which for my part I willingly assent unto The motive of my Appendix is this because as I hope I have defended and secured this unparalel'd venerable Lady from the cruel bloudy-minded authors fury and force so by informing my countrey-men for most of them know â—…ot who or what sâ—…e is of her noble extraction vertues and worth I should likewise wipe away the â—…oathsome and nâ—…ufeous spots or bluâ—…s of superstition Phanaticism and Idolatry wherewith his bitter Translator in the false scolding Preface of his translation most injuriously bespatters her for I doubt not if they knew her as well as their pious Ancestors did for many ages since England was converted to the Christian faith until the dismal reign of king Henry the Eighth who was the first that 〈◊〉 schism and subverted Catholick Religion here in England I doubt not I say but they would be enâ—…moured of her and give her her due veneration and respect Know theâ—… again gentle Reader that the Masse as we take it to be â—…s nothing else but the lyturgy which hath beâ—…n used by all Christians since Christ and his Apostles times in the Church as to its essential parts which consists in the words of 〈◊〉 it is the self-same Chrst himself and his Apostles used being commanded by him to do as he did viz. to consecâ—…ate bread and wine into his body and bloud by vertue of which words he made them also Priests and Bishops and gave them power to conseâ—…rate other Bishops and Priests who should sâ—…cceed them as Paul did Tymothy Titus and many others and all the other Apoâ—…tles did the like so that all Priestly power is derived from them As to the ceremonial parts of this Lyturgy they were not all instituted at once but grew by succession of time according as the Church grew to be more and more in splendour and especially since Constantine the Greats time who was the first Christian Monarch that enlarged â—…nd propagated the Christian faith yeâ—… some words and ceremonies that are this day in the Masse were used by the orthodox ministers of this Sacrament before his time also as ancient autâ—…entick and venerable authors do testifie But whatever the ceremonies be the essential parts of the Mass is always the self-same viz. the words of consecration so that the Masse consists essentially only in this viâ—… thâ—…t in it the body and bloud of Christ are offered and sacrificed unbloudily to God the father in remembrance of the once bloudy sacrifice of the Cross which is nothing elâ—…e but the same Christ offered now unbloudily because he can suffer no more again his body being glorified and being t is the same Christ it is still the same sacrifice though not 〈◊〉 after the same maâ—…ner being it is offerâ—…d under the species of bread and wine with command to reiterate it in remembrance of his bloudy sacrifice we firmly believe that it is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedec who as the holy fathers unanimously assert sacrificed bread and wine unto God That Christs body and bloud is really in the Eucharist and consequently in the Masse is so clearly and plainly exprest in diverse places of the new Testament and especially in S. Iohn 6. that it is wonder any man that bears the name of a Christian should be so bold and impudent as to deny it after Christ himself said in most plain and manifest terms it is so for when Christ said of the bread he took in his hand this is my body either it was his real body or it was not for betwixt it is and it is not when spoken of the same thing in the present tense and demonstrated with the Pronoun this and it relates to the absolute being of the thing whereof â—…t is said and not to its manner of being there can be no medium but a meeâ—… contradiction if it was his real body then it was as we say and it could not be the signe only or representation of his body for the meer signe of any thing is alwaies different from the thing signified at least in representando in its significative being if it was not his real body as our adversaries hold it was not but only its signe how can Christs words be verified since it is and it is not in the sense I just now spoke of be contradictions and all divines and Philosophers do unanimously concurr in this viz. that contradictories cannot be at once true or verified also by the power of God what is it then to say after Christ said this is my body it is but the signe of his body but to contradict Christs word which is as much as to give him the lye in his teeth Suppose then theâ—…e were no other passage in scripture to prove the real presence of Christs body in the host as there can be no clearer this alone would convince any Christian breath ing unless he would wilfully fight against common sense and reason for all those that maintain that two contradictory propositions can be verified at once do manifeâ—…tly oppose and destroy reason Alâ—… when Christ said Panis quem ego dabo 〈◊〉 est pro mundi vita the bread which I will give is my slesh for the life of the world he said expreâ—…ly that this bread
is his sâ—…h he said noâ—… this bread is the barâ—… signe or figure of his flesh but his real flesh for it was his real flesh and not its bare figure that was offered or sacrificed for the lifâ—… of the world therefore this bread is â—…ot a meer signe only of Christs body but his very real substantial body for it was his real body and not its type only that was sacrificed for the life or salvation of the world After our saviour said to the Jews I am the bread of life I am the bread which descended from heaven and the Jewes thereforâ—… murmured and gâ—…umbled among themselves saying is not this the son of Joseph whose father and Mother we know and again how câ—…n this man give us his flesh to eat our saviour to confirm that it was his real body assevered it by oath or intermination saying Amen Amen for that was his usual teste I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you here he calls it all along his flesh and his bloud and not the signes only of his flesh and bloud and for the farther confirmation thereof he adds for my flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed What is but a figure or type of a thing cannot be the thing it self really and indeed Therefore if Christs flesh be truly and really our meat in the Sacrament or Sacramental species the Eucharist must needs be the true and real body and bloud of Christ indeed and not in type or signification only S. Paul 1 Cor. 10. in clear terms shews it The chalice quoth he of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of our Lord he sayes not the communication or participation of any signs or types but of his real body and bloud And in his 11th chap. to the said Cor. he mentioneth that our Lord took bread and giving thanks brake said take ye and eat this is my body which shall be delivered unto you These words I am sure cannot be understood of a figurative or typical body for it was not a typical body that was offered or delivered for us as the Maniâ—…hees falsly commented but the real and substantial body of Christ for it is certain the Apostle Rom. 8 when he said proprio filio non pepeâ—…cit c. he hath spared not also his own son but for us all delivered him spoke not of a bâ—…re type or figure but of his â—…eal body as all these clear passages so well cohering do manifestly demonstrate This is also confirmed by these words of the said Apostle 1 Cor. 11. Quiâ—…unque manduâ—…averit panem vel biberit calicem domini indigne reus â—…rit corporis sangâ—…is domini Therefore whosoever shall â—…t this bread or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord how can this be if it be but the figure or signe of his body and bloud and not his real body and bloud those that did eat the Manna and the Paschal Lamb were not said to be guilty of his body and bloud for eating them unworthily and yet they were signes of his bloudy sacrifice Therefore for eating or drinking of a meeâ—… signe or for tearing and destroying the meer â—…mage or picture of any man it is a very hard and severe Law to condemn him or make him guilty of his death Therefore it is for eating and drinking of our Lords real body and bloud unworthily and not for eating and drinking the signes only of his body and bloud that the Apostle sayes a man is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. Hence any man of judgment may see how clear and express these texts are for the real presence of Christs body in the hoâ—…t and how improperly and wrongfully our adversâ—…ries extort upon the clear Texts to wrest them and draw them to their own sense of a signe or type But seeing scripture is so clear of our side Let us see what the holy fathers the spiritual beacons and true interpreters of Gods word say to it I will begin with ancient Tertullian who saith Tertul de resurr carn n. 7. our flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatted therefore they shall both have one reward at the resurrection Next follows Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14. whose words be these how do they affirm that our bodies be not capable of life everlasting which are nourished by the bâ—…dy and bloud of our Lord S. Greg. Nyssene also â—…aith in orat cathec magna that lively body entring into our body changeth it and maketh it like and immortal Allexander 1. that venerable Prelate and Martyr saith There can be nothing greater in sacrifices then the body and bloud of Christ To these I add the renowned S. Hylarie there is no doubt left of the verity of the body and bloud of Christ for now both by Christs own confession and by our belief it is truly flesh and truly bloud If God was pleased to be made man quoth Damascene lib. 4. de fide orth c. 14. and take flesh of the most pure bloud of the virgin without seed can he not make bread his body and wine and water his bloud Great S. Augustin lib. sentent Prosper adds his susâ—…rage to these in these words But we under the species of bread and wine do honour invisible things viz. flesh and bloud S. Ambrose lib. de sacram sides also with the rest in these plain and express terms it is ordinary bread at the Altar before the sacramental words But when it is consecrated then of bread it is made Christs flesh To these I add S. Ierome writing to Edibius S Cyril of Alex de consecr di 2. c. necessario S. Greghom Pasch. S. Crysost 3. dial de dignit sacerd c. 4. Theophilact in comment super Ioh. S. Anselme and in a word all the holy fathers and general councils that ever treated of this mistery Therefore all the greatest and most famous lights of Gods Church do hold with us as to this main point And although this Mystery be above humane reason yet because it is not contrary nor destructive to reason our divinos do give plausible congruityes and reasons for it The first whereof may be this it is the nature of goodness to impart or communicate it self to others because as the Philosophers says bonum est communicativum sâ—…i Goodness is communicative of its own self and to say the truth we know not a good or liberal man from a niggard but by imparting of his goodness and liberality to others If then it be the nature of goodness to impart it self to others it must be the nature of the highest and chiefest goodness to impart and communicate it self to others in the