the mouth is that action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification that I deny as also the supposition viz. that the soul can eat by faith as by her mouth faith beiâ—…g no mouth of the soul whether a mouth be taken litterally or figuratively which Mr. de Rodon never proved or will be able to prove in sound Philosophy Therefore his conclusion is blown and vanished like smoke and consequently seeing in S. Iohn 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is certain and evident that a corporal eating and drinking which hath a spiritual operation upon the soul when we receive the Sacrament being in the state of Grace and we believe it is a rememorative of Christs death is there spoken of and not an imaginary spiritual noteating by the notmouth of faith Rodon 5. From what hath been said it appears that when Iesus Christ saith My flesh is meat indeed c. the figure falls upon the word Meat which is taken not for corporal but spiritual meat The reason whereof is that corporall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the body as spirituall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the soul so that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make â—…t to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body otherwise poison medicine a bullet c. which a man swallows would be corporal food which is absurd to affirm But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because that food which is appointed for the nourishment of the body is changed into the substance of our bodies therefore the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food but his flesh broken and his bloud shed on the Cross is a spiritual food which nourisheth the souls of those who by a true and lively faith do embrace this flesh broken and this bloud shed that is who do wholly rest amd rely on the merits of his death and Passion for obtaining mercy from God And certainly seeing that the life which Iesus Christ gives us by his death is spiritual that the nourishment is spiritual that the eating his body and drinking his bloud is spiritual as hath been proved it follows that his flesh must be spiritual meat and his bloud spiritual drink And this flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truely meat indeed in regard of its effects then corporall food can be because it doth better and more perfectly nourish the souls of the believers then corporal food doth their bodies this being corruptible food which gives temporal life only but that spiritual and incorruptible food which gives life everlasting Answ. From what Mr. de Rodon hath been hitherto answered it appears that when Jesus Christ saith My flesh is meat indeed no figure falls upon the word meat but that it must be taken litterally for that flesh is meat indeed according to the common usage of speaking is understood more properly in a litteral then in a figurative sense as are also all other things which are said to be such things indeed And yet this corporal flesh of Christ being taken by the mouth of the body is ordained to feed and nourish the soul and not the body because it hath a supernatural operation by reason of its personal union with Christs divinity and most blessed soul which supernatural and spiritual operation the bare entities of bread and wine have not as also no other corporal food hath but is only appointed for the nourishment of the body by which dispurity between the operation of Christs flesh and the operation of all other corporal â—…oods the silly reason of the Mounsieurs argument is both enervated and precluded and all the consequences he draws from it are of no force or truth I say his reason is but silly because he says that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body for otherwise Poison medicine and a bullet taken in would be corporal food which to say is absurd Tell me I pray Mr. de Rodon where did you ever see or hear that poison phisick or a bullet were taken for corporal food by any man unless he were of less reason then your self or tell me if you eat bread though not with an intention to nourish you whether it will not nourish you or if you should chance to swallow down a bullet or chaw it if your teeth be so good with an intention it should nourish you would it nourish you because you took it for your nourishment This any body may see is but very silly stuff whence you in ferr But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because the body of Christ is not changed into the substance of our bodyes I confess it But what then Therefore you say the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food his flesh is not a corporal food that nourishes corporally I confess a corporal food that nourishes spiritually I deny and the rest of your consequences also inasmuch as they militate against eating the corporal real body of Christ though its operation we confess is but spiritual however we agree with you in this that the flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truly meat indeed in regard of its effects then any other corporal food can be for the reasons you alledge But yet we say that it is sufficient to take his flesh with the mouth of our body being in the state of Grace and believing the Sacrament to be a rememorative of his death to have it work its spiritual effects in our souls Rodon 6. I conclude this Chapter with this consideration when a doctrine is proposed which is pretended to be divine and that passages of holy Scripture are alledged for the proof of it if it opposeth or seems to oppose sense and reason and to include contradictions and that a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages so that all those inconveniencies and contradictions may be avoided there is nothing more just then that we should embrace that probable and rational sense and reject that doctrine which opposeth sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions But the doctrine of the real presence of the manbood of Christ in the host and the Transubstantiation of the bread into his body is repugnant to sense and reason and seems to include divers contradictions viz. that a human body is in a point without any local extension that a body may be in divers places at one and the
seeing that his own personal presence was necessary both in heaven and upon earth in heaven to glorify his Church triumphant on earth to assâ—…t his Church militant he ascended into heaven and â—…ays there in his natural glorious shape and yet at the same time he gives us his body under the form or species of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment Now supposing this saying of Christ Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world Math. 28. and this other saying of his This is my body Math. 26. and Luke 22. and comparing these two passages with that of the Prov. 8. viz. and my delight 's to be with the Children of men he said not his representation figure or signe but his real self it follows evidently that he is to be also really upon earth until the consâ—…mation of the world And since he cannot be in his natural glorious shape in both places at once it follows that he is in his natural shape in heaven and sacramentally with us here upon earth And whereas he saw our nature abhors to eat and drink raw flesh and bloud he found it necessary to attemperate and accommodate his body and bloud which he instituted for our spiritual food to our nature and therefore exhibiteth himself unto us in the likeness or shape of bread and wine which be our natural and ordinary food But to do this he saw t was necessary the substances of bread and wine should vanish and that the substance of his body should come in and supply their place he saw also 't was necessary that the accidents should remain undestroyed to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment And because Christs body is not in the Sacrament impanated that is in bread as Luther falsely asserts for Christ said not This bread is my body or This is my body and bread or This is my body in bread it was necessary the Accidents of bread and wine should be in the Sacrament without their connatural subjects therefore by vertue of his omnipotent word he gives the Sacramental species a substance-like existence in and by themselves without any subject and he props them miraculously with his own infinite power though still with this difference that the sacramental species retain their aptitudinal inherence which substances do not Moreover it was necessary seeing he is in his humane shape in heaven that he should be sacramentally on earth for to verify his above mentioned saying viz. that he would be with us unto the consummation of the world he then being sacramentally with us it follows that he may be in an equivocal place and consequently in a point as the soul is in the body And whereas this Sacrament was instituted to be our spiritual food and we are commanded to eat it we being in a thousand million of places together it was necessary that the Sacrament may be in so many places together also for us to be fed therewith It is also necessary it should be obvious to the good and wicked for to make the good better and to make the wicked people good and devout the which if it doth not alwaies it is no fault of Christ or of the Sacrament but our own fault As no more is an Apothecarys shop the worse for having all sorts of excellent medicines and druggs in it although some of them may chance to kill here and there some people that take them undisâ—…reetly In like manner although some Iudas-like people receive the B. Sacrament unworthily and to their own spiritual ruine and damnation yet it is necessary that it should be ministred to all sort of people to the wicked as well as to the faithfull being it was instituted for us all as also because the Priest who is the right minister of this Sacrament cannot discern the worthy from the unworthy for if Christ himself who knew Iudas his heart gave him his body to eat though he was sure he would receive it unworthily why may not Christs minister not knowing the unworthi ness of the receiver give it him in hopes it would make him better Christ gave his own body to Iudas though he knew it would work his damnation because though he knew Iudas to be wicked and unworthy yet his sins were not publick and known to the world but only secret sins viz. of avarice or theft even so doth our holy Mother the Church to whom the administration of this Sacrament is left she bars no body for his private sins from receiving it knowing that as Christ was tender of Iudas his fame and reputation though he was a vile sinner concealedly and therefore denied not him his body because he was to communicate publickly with the rest of the Apostles so she ought also to deal in this matter with her children But unto publick sinners or Excommunicated persons she flatly and openly denies this Sacrament before they become wholly reconciled and penitent at lest exteriorly to the sight of the world And although it be not necessary that a devil incarnate or a beast should eat it or that it should be stoln burnt or taken away by the devil yet because it is very necessary in it self for our spiritual nourishment and because we are not Gods but only his unworthy ministers to discern a devil incarnate from a meer man also because we know not what future accidents may chance by reason of fire water thieves or bruit beasts and especially because we believe and are sure no annoyance or harm can come to a glorified body from any of all those forementioned things we hold it necessary and not at all inconvenient to keep the B. Sacrament in decent Tabernacles deputed and consecrated meerly for that use and nothing else for to have it always ready at hand in time of need for the spiritual refreshment and nourishment of the faithfull especially of those who are very sick and like to take their leave of this world And as our Tabernacles are only for this purpose so are our Churches for no other use but prayer and offering this Sacrifice whatever use the Mounsieur and this confederate reformers put their Churches to as also those of ours which they wrongfully wrested out of our hands notwithstanding our quiet and peaceable enjoyment of them for many hundred years successively even since their erection by our Ancestours who built them and planted Christian Religion here in England Nay all this the very Protestant chroniclers themselves assert and cannot deny That the devil ever ventured immediately upon the Sacrament either to touch it or take it away I never read nor heard as yet and therefore believe not Mr. de Rodon as to that point But that Jews witches thieves or such like rabble may have carried it away and abused it and also of stupendious Miracles and exemplary punishments that often happned unto the malefactours in sundry ages and countries I have read in several grave and credible Authors Therefore all the
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
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 Chriâ—…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 eâ—…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 aâ—…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 undâ—…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 eâ—…presseth the concept But in this passage This is my body the words are instituted to signifie properly and immediately aâ—…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 grâ—…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 inâ—…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
he spok the words CHAP. II. Concerning the exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath everlasting life My flesh is meat indeed c. MOunsieur de Rodon did promise in his precedent Chapter to prove in this that Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by faith which he sayes is the mouth of the soul and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body his first argument is this Rodon 1. When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he oâ—…th and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by faith that is by beleiving in Iesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which Iohn he that cometh to me shall never hunger he that believes in me shal never thirst and he that beleveth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by faith or by beleving that we eat and drink Iesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his blood is spiritual and not corporal Answ. To this argument I answer granting the major and distinguishing the Minor thus but it is by faith as by a condition requisite that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ I confess but it is by faith as by the proper and formal cause of satisfying our hunger and quenching our thirst after him or as faith is the spiritual mouth of the soul to convey Christ into her I deny the minor and both the consequences following Therefore I say although not only faith but also hope and charity be requisite conditions wiihout which no body can have the spiritual refreshment this divine food gives unto the soul and which the soul so much hungers and thirsts after yet neither faith hope nor charity jointly or severally are the cheif cause of this refreshment and spiritual satisfaction but the real entity of Christs body which is in the consecrated host being received corporally by us while we are in the state of grace is that which chiefly and principally causeth this spiritual refreshment in us it is that glorified body that satisfies our spiritual hunger and quenches our spiritual thirst and faith is only one of the requisite conditions that Christs body should feed us spiritually just as the application of fire to wood is a condition requisite that fire should burn the wood but none can say that the application the condition requisite is that which burns the wood but the fire is the whole cause of burning Even so we say of Christs body in the Sacrament that it is the chief and whole cause of the spiritual refreshment of the soul and the thing which she chiefly hungers and thirsts after and faith is but a condition requisite when his body is taken corporally by us that it should refresh us spiritually To the passage he alledgeth out of S. Iohn I answer that his words must not be understood that he that cometh to me by faith alone shall never hunger and he that only beleiveth in me shall never thirst for many may believe in Christ and yet be actually in mortal sin and yet certain it is that mortal sin causeth a divorce betwixt Christ and the soul or dare Mr. de Rodon say that if he or any of his party should chance to be drunk to swear or to envy another man that by such an action he forfeiteth his belief if so then he presently becomes an heretick for heresy is nothing else but forfeiture of belief in a Christian. Therefore the said passage must be understood thus he that cometh to me by vertue of this or any other of my Sacraments or by true contrition and believeth in me taking faith as a condition requisite not as the cause of coming unto him such a soul if she leaves him not by falling into sin again through her own fault shall never hunger nor thirst spiritually but be for ever refresht by vertue of his body and bloud with increase of charity and all other vertues Neither is it to be doubted but Christs body when worthily received by the mouth of the body doth work spiritually upon the soul which I prove thus because where Christs glorified body is really present there is his divinity humanity and person also by concomitance and where his person is there the persons of the father and of the holy Ghost are by circumincession as Diviâ—…s â—…all it but where the divinity personally iâ—…abits it replenishes and satiats that soul and body with spiritual food and joy Therefore whosoever takes the body of Christ worthily and puts no obstacle to its spiritual operations he is satiated spiritually with the the same body by reason of the concomitance of the divinity and soul of Christ that alwayes accompany his glorified body as also by reason of the circumincession of all the three persons of the most blessed Trinity inhabiting the soul. But now let us come to his second argument which is this Rodon 2. Iesus Christ saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the son of man drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by faith that gives life everlasting and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body Because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life Answ. To this Argument I answer denying Mr. de Rodon's supposition viz. that the soul eateth spiritually by faith for faith being no mouth of the soul in any sense as I proved before and nothing being able to eat properly or improperly without a proper or improper mouth it follows that the soul cannot eat by the mouth of faith Besides the Angels do eat of this celestiall food not with the mouth of faith for there is no faith in heaven but a clear vision Therefore the thing that seeds the soul spiritually is the real substance of Christs body received by the corporal mouth of him that is in the state of Grace while he receives the Sacrament which real substance of Christs body works spiritually upon the soul by reason of the concomitance of Christs divinity and soul and of the circumincession of the other two divine persons with Christs person there really present with the substance of his body however I confess faith and the other Theological vertues are conditions requisite for one to be sed spiritually and I confess also that a reprobate can take the real body of Christ by his corporal mouth without any spiritual nourishment or satisfaction but the fault is in him not in the Sacrament which alwaies operateth spiritually in such souls as are well disposed by faith and the other Theological vertues to receive it
then to death the one having a positive being and the other consisting in a privation only But let us hear the Mounsier speak Rodon 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine we must consider wherein the life which Iesus Christ gives us doth consist for seeing the flesh of Iesus Christ is meat to us because it gives us life it is evident that if we know what life that is which Iesus Christ gives us we must know likewise hâ—…w Iesus Christ is meat to us and consequently how we eat him But to know what that life is which Iesus Christ gives us we must consider what that death is in which we are involved which is expressed by S. Paul Eph. 2. in these words When we were dead in sins and trespasses God hath quickned us together with Christ by grace ye are saved and consequently the death in which we were involved consists in two things first in the curse of the Law which imports the privation of felicity and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins secondly it consists in an habitual corruption whereby sin raigns in us and therefore it is said 1. Tim. 5. The widdow that lives in pleasure is dead while she liveth Also sins are called dead works Heb. 10. So that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in two things first in deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins as S. Paul tells us Colos. 2. God hath quickned you together with Chriâ—… having forgiven you all trespasses blotting out the 〈◊〉 that was against us which obligation â—…receded from the Law because it did oblige all thâ—… transgressors of it to a curse secondly it consists in regeneration or sanctification whereof Iâ—…sus Christ speaking in John 3. saith Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdome of God And S. Paul Heb. 12. without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Therefore seing that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in the pardon of our sins and in our regeneration and sanctification which ends in glorification and that Iesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life we must consider the me nâ—… whereby Iesus Christ hath purchased these things for us and seing it is certain that his death is the means by which he hath purchased Pardon of sins and regeneration we must conclude that Iesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death But that Iesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us that is Iustification which consists in the pardon of our sins and regeneration which consists in holiness of life appears by these passages of Scripture viz. We are justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God by his death Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud even the remission of sins c. Therefore seing Iesus Christ hath purchased life for us by death and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink because they purchased life everlasting for us on the Cross viz. the remission of our sins and sanctification ending in glorification it follows that the action whereby Iesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But this action is nothing else but faith as the Scripture tells us Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. God purifiâ—…s our hartâ—… by faith Act. 15 he that beleiveth hath eternal life Iohn 6. from what hath been said I form this Argument That action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in Glorification is the same whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification as we have proved But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is that action where by we obtain remission of sins and sanctification as we have also proved therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased us by his death and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth And consequently seing in S. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is evident that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of and not a corporal Answ. Now after clearly understanding Mr. de Rodons long sermon-like doctrine we confess the flesh of Christ is meat to us because it gives us spiritual life we confess also that the life it gives us consists in the forgiveness of our sins and in our sanctification which ends in Glorification Thirdly we confess that the death wherein we were involved consists in the privation of eternal felicity and in the suffering of eternal and temporal punishment for our sins in a word we grant our souls are quickned from the death of sin and all its effects and that she liveth spiritually by the merits of our Saviours death and passion and lastly we grant also that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applyed unto us for righteousness and sanctification ending in Glorification is the sâ—…me by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But that this action is nothing else but faith as Mr. de Rodon inferrs we â—…atly deny and maintain that besides the act of believing there must be also an act of corporal eating Therefore to his proofs out of Scripture we answer that the three forementioned passages speak not of faith alone nor of faith as the cause of our sanctification but of faith as a condition requisite to it as I have formerly proved And being action proceeds from a suppositum as Schoolmen call it or cause and is attributed to it and not to a bare condition as 't is to be evidently seen in the example of fire which is the cause of burning wood not the application which is only a condition requisit where the action of burning is attributed to fire the cause not to application the bare condition Even so is it in this case The Sacrament is the cause of our sanctification and to receive it with faith as a remembrance of Christs death and Passion is only a condition requisit for receiving it spiritually and with profit to our souls By this solution Mr. de Rodon's concluding argument upon the premises above-granted and passages of Scripture clearly expounded vanisheth into smoak his argument is this That action whereby â—…e obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in glorification is the same wâ—…ereby we have that life which Jesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life chiefly consists in the remission of sins and sanctification that I confess But quoth he the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by
alive we count to be an inhuman tyranny and most horrid and execrable act We then believing our Mass is alive and will be untill the worlds end cannot but censure and accuse Mounsieur de Rodon of inhuman tiranny unless he demonstrats that he killed the Mass before he made the funeral that he is sure to do by destroying Transubstantiation and therefore ayms at it with his first arrow thus Rodon 1. In every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwaies newly produced for example when seed is converted into an animal that animal is newly produced when Iesus Christ turned the water into wine the wine was newly produced c. But the body and bloud of Iesus Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The second proposition viz. that the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced I prove thus that which is newly produced receives a new being because to produce a thing and give it a being is the same thing but the body and bloud of Christ cannot receive a new being which I prove thus A man cannot receive that which he hath while he hath it and therefore cannot receive a being while he hath a being for as it is imposible to take away a being from that which hath no being so is it imposible to give a being to that which hath a being already and as you cannot kill a dead man so you cannot give life to one that is living But the body and bloud of Christ have and will allwaies have a being therefore they cannot receive one and consequently cannot be reproduced in the Eucharist Answ. To this argument I first answer that in every substantial conversion there must be some thing newly produced or adduced and so we say bread and wine are converted substantially into Christs body and bloud by an adductive action because by vertue of the words of consecration Christs body which is in its humane shape in heaven is brought into the Sacramental Species and remains in them in a Sacramental manner without any new production of his body which was produced already Secondly I answer to the said major thus In every substantial conversion that thing c. is alwaies newly produced entitatively or modally I confess entitatively only I deny And to his minor thus but the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist entitatively and in his humane shape I confess modally or Sacramentally I deny the minor and the consequence also and all Mr. de Rodon's ensuing proofs militate against an entitative production only which we grant him but not at all against a modal or Sacramental production Therefore we say that Christs body being already produced as to its entity and natural being the same entity is not newly reproduced in the Sacrament in order as to give his body a new essential being because he hath that already in heaven But we say that the entity of his body is newly produced or rather adduced into the Sacrament in order to a sacramental or modal being against which modal being Mr. de Rodon's proofs are of no value or force and so his first arrow has miss't the mark Rodon 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed for example when the water was turned into wine the wine was destroyed But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine are not destroyed by the consecration which I prove thus In the celebration of the Eucharist there is breaking giving eating drinking after the consecration as appears by the very practise of our adversaries who after consecration break the Host and divide it into three parts give nothing to the communicants but consecrated Hosts and eat and drink nothing but what was consecrated But the Scripture saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist bread is broken and bread and wine are given and that bread is eaten and wine drunk as appears by these following passages S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. saith the bread which we break is it not the communion of Christs body and 1. Cor. 11. S. Math. 26. S. Mark 14. and S. Luke 22. it is said that Jesus Christ took bread brake it and gave it and S. Mark 14. and S. Math. 26. Iesus Christ after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine and 1. Cor. 11. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. Answ. To this argument I answer granting the major and distinguishing the minor thus But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the accidents of the bread and wine are not destroyed I confess the substance of the bread and wine are not destroyed I deny To what he farther urgeth viz. that there is breaking giving eating and drinking after the consecration as concerning their accidents I grant as concerning their substances I deny for their substances are converted into Christs real body and bloud by vertue of the words of consecration though their accidents remain un destroyed and are sustentated supernaturally by the power of God for we hold of no transaccidentation in the Sacrament but only of Transubstantiation As concerning the passages by him alledged out of Scripture to prove that â—…t is bread that 's broken that it is bread and wine that are given I answer that in every of these passages the words bread and wine must be taken Analogically not litterally because Christ in other places calls them expresly his flesh his bloud and his body and all orthodox Christians from the first institution of this Sacrament for many ages did without controulment hold as we do that after the words of consecration the bread and wine are converted into the real body and bloud of Christ. Therefore although because of the symbolls or accidents of bread and wine which still remain in the Host after consecration they retain the denomination of bread wine yet they are not really but Analogically only bread and wine and really the true body and bloud of Christ and they are analogically called bread and wine because of the Analogy or likeness real bread and wine have with this Sacrament the one nourishing the body the other the soul but now to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 3. When Iesus Christ said to his disciples drink ye all of this Math. 26. that is drink ye all of this cup either he commanded to drink of a cup of wine or of a cup of bloud if he commanded them to drink of a cup of wine then it follows that they drank nothing but wine because it is certain that they obeyed Iesus Christ for it is said Mark 14. that they all drank it or if he commanded them to drink a cup of bloud then it follows that the wine was already changed into his bloud because it
is not probable that Iesus Christ said to them drink ye all of this cup of bloud and yet that it was not a cup of bloud but a cup of wine But when Iesus Christ said drink ye all of this he did not speak to them of a cup of bloud for the wine was not then converted into Christs bloud because according to our Adversaries it was not changed until Iesus Christ had made an end of uttering these following words for this is my bloud But he uttered these words drink ye all of this before he uttered those for this is my bloud because a man must utter a proposition before he can give the reason of it Answ. To this I answer that when Christ said drink ye all this he meant of his bloud for although by reason of the sacramental species he gave it the donomination of wine and although it was not his bloud immediatly after he said drink ye all this untill he added these other words for this is my bloud yet by so saying he made it his bloud and consequently he meant that they should drink of his bloud for I suppose and to think otherwise is not at all propable his disciples were not so rude illbred and irreverent to their Lord and Master as to snatch the cup out of his hand and drink it before he made an end of his speech to them the last part whereof viz. for this is my bloud made it his bloud and so is this arrow of Mr. de Rodons blunted in bread and wine and cannot pierce Transubstantiation Therefore he outâ—… with his third arrow Rodon 4. When a thing is converted into another we cannot see the effects and properties of the thing converted but only of that into which it is converted for example when the seed is changed into an animal we can see no more the effects and properties of the seed but of the animal only and when Iesus Christ turned water into wine the effects properties and accidents of the water were no more seen but of the wine only c. But in the Eucharist we cannot after the consecration perceive the effects properties accidents or parts of the body and bloud of Christ but we see there all the effects properties and accidents of bread and wine Therefore in the Eucharist the bread and wine are not converted into the body and bloud of Christ. And the truth is if that which appears to be bread and hath all the effects accidents and properties of bread be no bread but Christs body clothed with the accidents of bread then it may likewise be said that they that appear to be men and have all the effects properties and accidents of men are not men but horses clothed with the accidents of men Answ. I distinguish the major proposition thus When a thing is converted c. we cannot see the effects and properties c. with our corporal eyes I confess with the spiritual eye of our soul viz. with our understanding supported by divine faith I deny the major with its minor also in the same sense which being both shattered the consequence must needs vanish away The reason why the effects and properties of the Sacrament are not seen with our corporal eyes is because they are objects of faith which objects are beyond the sphere and capacity of our corporal eyes and other senses for the object of our corporal sight is coloratum quid some coloured thing and the objects of our other senses are meer corporeal things but objects of divine faith are never seen nor known by their colours nor by smelling touching or tasting from whence a man may see how sharp keen and witty this arrow of Mr. de Rodon's is against Transubstantiation which is a high object and mystery of divine faith As to both his examples of seed into an animal and water turned into wine without any of their effects seen either in the animal or in the wine I confess all that to be true and the reason is because those are but meer simple conversions and no sacraments But Transubstantiation is not only a conversion of one substance into another but it constitutes a Sacrament also and because it is a Sacrament it is necessary that although the entityes of bread and wine are destroyed their accidents should remain to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment and are therefore called Analogically bread and wine though they are not really but meer accidents of bread and wine and the natural entityes of bread and wine wherewith they were formerly sustentated are really changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This then being so the truth is that although the Sacramental species appear to our corporal eyes to be but bread and wine and according to our senses seem to have but the effects accidents and propertyes of bread and wine yet to the eye of our soul viz. to the understanding supported by divine faith they are not really such but the true body and bloud of Christ because he himself said so and his word could make them so And it is also plain truth that if Mr. de Rodon had ever received the Sacrament worthily but alas he never did it would have wrought its spiritual effects and properties upon his poor soul as it doth upon all other devout ones and fils them with interior joy devotion and tranquility of mind and conscience But since he never did or believed in Christs words as his Church understands them but was alwaies led by the track of his senses only to the sight of this supernatural object certain I say it is and the very plain truth that he had no more faith in him then a horse hath that followeth the sent of oats But let us hear him farther Rodon 5. In every substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substance to another for else it would be a creation which is the sole action that doth not presuppose a subject But in the Sacrament of the Eueharist after the consecration there is no subject because according to our adversaries there remains no subject for at they assert the accidents of bread and wine remain without any subject at all Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is no substantial conversion Answ. To this argument I answer denying the major for this proposition is verified only in formal substantial conversions that is to say when one substantial form is changed or converted into another as when the form of seed is changed into the form of an animal and the form of water was changed into the form of wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee which are but simple substantial conversions in which the matter or subject passes from one form to another But Transubstantiation is a quite other sort of substantial conversion for not only the forms of bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ but also their matters or subjects by vertue of the
signes Answ. To his third I answer and acknowledg the holy Councils definition of a Sacrament but I deny that the body and bloud of our saviour are not visible by the eye of our understanding holpen and supported by the supernatural light of faith although we cannot see them with our corporal eyes as no more can we see the entities or substances of bread and wine with our corporal eyes if they were not destroyed but their accidents only and those accidents we see in the Sacrament also which is sufficient for to constitute a Sacrament being we firmly believe his body and bloud are in the species But the Mounsieurs faith is so nice and delicate that unless he sees and smells the object he will not believe it certainly this divine man saw and smelt the Mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of Christs Incarnation or if he did not why does he believe them O curious eye O delicate nose Rodon 10. Lastly I say that in every Sacrament the signe relates to the thing signified and Relation is alwaies between two different things because nothing relates to it self and consequently nothing can be both the signe and the thing signified But the body and bloud of Christ are the things signified therfore the body and bloud of Chrst are not the signes And it is to no purpose to say that Iesus Christ in the Mass is the signe and figure of himself on the Cross for Iesus Christ wheresoever he is is one and the same yesterday to day and for ever and therefore Iesus Christ not being different from himself cannot be relative to himself nor the signe of himself Answ. To his last reply I answered sufficiently already where I shewed that it is neither inconvenient nor contradictory that the self same thing may represent and signifie its own self for example that an old man may represent his own self in his youthfull actions or represent upon a Theater what feats of armes he did in the feild where the representer and the represented is the self same man which thing is so clear that every old woman and little child can easily apprehend and understand it what hard matter is 't then to understand that Christ can represent himself in the Sacrament as he was upon the Cross although he be still the same Christ It is a great wonder and admiration to me that such a famous Philosophy-professour as the Mounsieurs Translator takes the Mounsieur to be especially he having so curious an eye and dainty a nose as can reach up to objects of divine faith that he should be so sensless and dull as not to apprehend that which is obvious to all old women and childrens understanding Mr. de Rodons Quiver being quite exhausted his arrows vainly spent Transubstantiation untoucht and consequently the Mass alive as yet Let us now see what great feats he will perform in his next chapter for he vowed our Diana's death resolves here to give her her healing-stroak and to that intent he in his next chapter more then double fills his Quiver for whereas in this chapter he had but six in the next he has thirteen keen arrows Therefore let us for shame accompany our old Mistriss and forsake her not while she has any life in her and we any hope to save her from her Tragical end CHAP. IV. Against the real presence of Christs body in the Host or consecrated wafer LOok now very well to your self Madam Diana for Mr. de Rodon hath bent his bow and aims thus at you Rodon 1. The Romish doctors affirm That immediatly after the Priest in the celebration of the Mass hath pronounced these words this is my body the â—…ody of Christ is really present in the host and that it is whole and entire in every part and point of the host which doctrine I destroy by these following arguments Answ. The Romish Doctors have an excellent ground and reason for saying so because the Priest received power from Christ to do as he did himself when he took bread and changed it into his body saying this is my body for Christ commanded his Apostles whose successors the Priests are to do as he did himself and gave them power to do it by vertue of these words as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me for he commanded them to do this that 's to say the same thing he did himself when he uttered these words this is my body But they could not make it his body unless they had power from him to do it therefore since they did as he commanded them to do 〈◊〉 follows evidently that if he made it his body and bloud they did so also for most certain it is that he commanded them not to â—…o a thing impossible and consequently that 〈◊〉 gave them power to consecrate bread and wine into his body and bloud as he did himself Or dare the Mounsieur say that Christ could not Transubstantiate bread and wine into his own body and bloud and after Christ said in express terms this is my body dare he say it is not his body what thing else I pray is this but to contradict Christs words and give him the lie in his teeth for what else are It is and it is not but contradictories when they are said of the self same thing at the same time and after the same manner so that as any man may clearly see this good Mounsieur opposes here not only the Priests but also Christs power concerning the real presence of his body in the consecrated host and he gives no more vertue to Christs effective and creative word then he gives to the words of other ordinary men But let us hear this Lucifer like Goliah speak that dares oppose Christs plain words aâ—… they are generally understood by his whole Church If he can by true Philosophy I mean by a Philosophical conclusion deduced out of any Philosophical principle generally allowed of by all Christian Philosophers demonstrate against the Romish Doctors that Transubstantiation is a thing impossible and beyond Christs power then I confess he carries away the victory and prize for all men of understanding agree in this that implicancies and contradictions are impossible even to God himself because they quite destroy reason and sense and God is reason it self But if he be not able to perform this task and demonstrate that it is not in Gods power and might to Transubstantiate a thing which he nor any else will be ever able to do then how can he appear to the world and especially to all Christians but as a Lucifer-like heretick for opposing Christs omnipotent power and word I am no Romish doctor but one of their meanest disciples and yet I dare take up the â—…udgells in this just quarrel against great and famous de Rodon next unto holy writ as his Translator esteems him one of the smartest and best of his party that ever wrote yet and is extant against
do them any harm nor his arrows able to transfix them But now I hope he will come better provided with his new ones against Diana Behold he comes Rodon 2. The first argument is drawn from this viz. that in the Institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Iesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle S. Paul in which there is not the least footstep to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap 27. in these words the oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not of its essence which I prove because neither our Iod nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Iesuit Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul makes a Catalogue of unritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy The worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the Tradition that Iesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and wine Card. Baronius in his Annalls on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Trâ—…dition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Iesus Christ. And the truth is if Iesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offored unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross. To this I add that S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. mentions the offices which Iesus Christ left in his Church when he ascended into heaven in these words he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1. Tim. nor in the Epictle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud Answ. But I pray good Mr. de Rodon wherefore do you not produce some Passage out of the three Evangelists or S. Paul to prove your assertion for according to all Philosophers and I believe you esteem not your self amongst the meanest of them arguments that only consist of negatives do never conclude or prove any thing you say it appears by what is mentioned by the three Evangelists and S. Paul that Christ at the Institution of the Eucharist did not sacrifice or offer his body and bloud to his father you tell us not in which of the Evangelists or wherein S. Paul and we finde no such thing in them But we finde these express words in S. Luke 22. Chap. and taking bread he gave thanks and broke and gave to them saying this is my body which is given for you If these last words viz. which is given for you signifie not to be offered or sacrificed for you I pray tell us what else do they signifie for the Evangelist said before that the bread was given them and immediatly after in the same sentence he adds which was given for you Sure if these last words signifie not which was offered or sacrificed for you they must needs be nonsensical and a vain Battalogical repetition of the same words for the sense would be this and gave to them his body which is given for them Therefore these words which is given for them is as much as to say which is offered or sacrificed for them And yet the Mounsieur is not ashamed to say that there is not the least foot-step of a sacrifice to be seen in what was mentioned by any of the three Evangelists But perhaps S. Luke was not of the three he meant whether he was or no it is certain that in this very Passage he left us a true and plain track of Christs unbloudy sacrifice But I cannot conceive nor understand how Mr. de Rodon or his Translatour too is able to save him from the infamous brand of heresy for obstinately denying what so many general Councils holy fathers do unanimously assert an Heretick as he is distingushed from a Turk Jew or Pagan is thus described viz one that professes to believe in Christ and yet dissents in opinion from the rest of the orthodox obstinately But now let us see how the Mounsieur agrees with the whole Church as to this point first with the great and most eminent doctor S. Aug who in his 20th Book de civit Dei speaking of Christ who saith thus per hoc sacerdos est ipse offerens oblatio cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae sacrificium cum ipsius corporis ipse caput ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri By this meaning the Eucharist he himself is both the Priest offering and the oblation the signe or Sacrament whereof he would have the dayly sacrifice of the Church to be for whereas he is the head of his Mystical body and she is the body of her Mystical head she was as well wont to be offered by him as he by her and again lib. 17. de civit c. 20. the table which the Priests of the new-Testament doth exhibit is of his body and bloud for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all those sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come for the which also we acknowledg that voice of the same Mediatour in the Psalm But a body thou hast fitted to me because instead of all these sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and is ministred to the partakers or receivers With S. Cyprian more ancient then the former and in learning inferiour to none who in his 2. Epistle to Pope Cornelius hath these words Sacerdotes qui quotidie Sacrificia dei celebramus hostias Deo victimas praeparemus We priests who dayly celebrate the sacrifices of God let us prepare hosts and victimes for him with S. Ambrose in cap. 10. hebreor Quid ergo nos c. What we then do not we offer every day we offer surely but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer allwaies the selfsame and not now one lamb to morrow another but alwaies the self-same thing therefore it is one Sacrifice otherwise by this reason because it is offered in many places there should be many Christs not so but it is one Christ in every place here whole and there
the Testament c. he has This is the Covenant c. the reason I believe why he puts Covenant instead of Testament is because he denies the Eucharist to be a Testament of the new Law saying that it is only a figure or sign of it and therefore being he could not handsomely translate the text thus this is the sign of the Testament which I will make with them after those days seeing the word Testament was more against him then for him he changed it into Covenant whether this corrupting the text be his own or the translatours of his Bible it matters not so long as the corruption is evidently to be seen In the second place by him falsisied where the true text runs thus and their sins and iniquities I will now remember no more but where there is remission of these now there is not an oblation for sins instead of But where there is a remission of these c. the Mounsieur has Now where remission of these is c. and this changing of But into Now was that he may the easier inferr that now after the once bloudy sacrifice of the Cross there is no more sacrifice offered for he forms his argument thus where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or a propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle saith 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 oblation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Whatever his or the Translators reason was to change But into Now I will not stickle with them about it Therefore I answer his argument granting the major and distinguishing the minor thus in the Christian Church by vertue of the bloudy sacrifice of Christs body upon the Cross there is remission of sins without any repetition of the same bloudy sacrifice again and without any other oblation or sacrifice essentially different from this bloudy Sacrifice I consess the minor In the Christian Church by vertue of the bloudy sacrifice of Christs body upon the Cross there is remission of sins without any repetition of the same unbloudy sacrifice or of a sacrifice only accidentally different from his bloudy sacrifice upon the cross I deny the minor the reason is this because Christ suffered and sacrificed himself bloudily for all men and for the sins of all the world in general Behold the lamb of God behold him that takes away the sins of the world S. Iohn 1. for if Christ had not suffered for all mankind in general but only for the elect besides that it would sound something of a personal acception which is not at all in God the reprobates may justly alledge that the chief cause of their damnation was because Christ did not suffer nor satisfy for their sins But if Christ suffered for the sinns of all mankind as certainly he did else how could he be called the Redeemer of the world then according to the Mounsieurs argument and Principles by reason of this general satsfaction and bloudy sacrifice all the sins of the world are remitted and so by reason of this bloudy sacrifice once offered in general for all men without exception all will be saved be they Jews Turks heathens believers or unbelievers virtuous or vitious why for there is no need of offering sacrifice or oblation to God any more and the bloudy sacrifice is still in force if we believe the Mounsieur sure this is the shortest openest and easiest way to heaven that ever was heard of and yet Christ himself says Regnum Caelorum vim patitur that the kingdom of heaven doth suffer violence S. Matt. 11. Or can the Mounsieur say that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not fatisfactory in rigour for all the sins of the world if he doth I tell him another man for saying so would be counted an arrant lyar and a most impious blasphemous heretick Therefore we say that although Christs Passion and bloudy sacrifice was in it self of force vertue sufficient to take away all the sins of the world and although he suffered for all mankinde in general without excepting one yet we say that unless his Passion be applyed to every one in particular I mean to all those that fell into relapse of sin after Baptisme it will not avail them at all and his application we say is made by reiterating the same sacrifice unbloudily as Christ himself expresly commanded when he said unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you Iohn 6. That Christs body was given him to be sacrificed not only upon the Cross but upon the Altar also S. Aug affirms in his 17th book de civit Dei 20. chap. The table quoth he which the Priest of the new Testament doth exhibit is of his body and bloud for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all the sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come for the which also we acknowledge that voice of the same mediatour in the Psalm But a body thou hast fitted to me because in stead of all these sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and is ministred to the partakers and receivers And again lib. 4. de Trinit c. 14. Who so just and holy a Priest as the son of God what might be so conveniently offered for men of men as mans flesh and what so fit for this immolation or offering as mortal flesh who so clean for cleansing the vices of mortal men as the flesh born of the virgins wombe and what can be offered and received so gratefully as the flesh of our sacrifice made by the body of our Priest Could the holy Doctor or any man breathing have spoken more clearly and manifestly in the behalf of Transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the Mass than this first he calls it the table of the body and bloud of Christ then he says it is offered by men for men the holy Doctor meant not by men the Jews that killed our Saviour but the Priests that sacrifice him unbloudily for men or for the sins of men for all the world knows that the Jews killed our Saviour out of meer hatred and spleen and not with intention to sacrifice or offer him to God the Father to satisfie for the sins of mankinde Lastly he says nothing can be offered and received so gratefully as the flesh of our sacrifice made by the body of our Priest where calling it our sacrifice he says it is a sacrifice and not the bloudy one which was rather for us then ours and by saying made by the body of our Priest he expresly owneth Transubstantiation that is to say he expresly owneth that very thing we understand by the word Transubstantiation or he owneth expresly the self-same thing we hold
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
any body yet spoke more divinely of this grand Mistery of the B. Sacrament then our famous Thomas Aquinas did and so great was his devotion to this Sacrament that he was the first who obtained of the Pope to institute a solenm holy-day throughout the whole Church in its honour he himself composed the whole office which we use in this festivity both in Church and at Masse In his Rithem upon the Masse of corpus Christi day he says thus docti sacris institutis panem vinum in salutis consecramus hostiam we are taught by holy statutes and ordinances that we consecrate bread and wine into an host of health or safeguard here he calls it an host and consequently a sacrifice for an host and a sacrifice are correlatives Again in the same Rythem he says Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit Panis vinum in sanguinem a decree is left to all Christians that the bread is changed into flesh and the wine into bloud And again Caro cibus senguis potus manet tamen Christus totus sub utraque specie The meat is flesh the drink is bloud and yet Christ remains entire under each species In a word there is nothing more clear and palpable then famous S. Thomas of Aquins opinion is in all this holy Rythem concerning the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist and concerning his unbloudy sacrifice Nay if the Mounsieur were pleased but to be so just as to prosecute the said doctors words in the self saâ—…e place where he cites him he may easily see that this testimony is also quite against him for the holy doctor hath these ensuing words in that very place viz. Quantum igitur ad primum modum poterat dici Christu immoâ—…sri etiam in figuris veteris Testamenti c. sed quantum ad secundum modum proprium est huic sacramento quod in ejus celebratione Christus immoletur As concerning the first acception of a sacrifice Christ may be said to have been sacrificed in the types of the old Law also c. But as concerning the last acception of a sacrifice it is peculiar and proper to this Sacrament that Christ is sacrificed in its celebration where he clearly says that although in the first acception of a sacrifice viz. as the Sacrament is a signe Image or representation of Christs passion it may be called a sacrifice as the word sacrifice is common to the Sacrifices of boâ—…h Laws yet in the later acception of a Sacrifice viz. as by this Sacrament we are made partakers of Christs passion in this later sense the holy Doctor says it is proper and peculiar only to this our Sacrament in its celebration to be called a sacrifice which is the self-saâ—… thing we say for we hold that we are made partakers of Christs passion and of his bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross by receiving this our Sacrament offered unbloudily in its celebration of the Mass for us Therefore M. de Rodon all other arguments failing him if he were not mad would never pitch upon our Thomas Aquinas of all men in the world and he with his whole party subscribe to his Testimony here which is father quite against them for 't is very well known to all the world that our Venerable Lady Diana never had a stouter Champion to deâ—…end her then Thomas Aquinas However while the Masse is sound and saâ—… and will be alive until the worlds end maâ—…gre all the devils of hell as Christ promised it should be We must give leave to malicious and mad hereticks to speak madly and make 〈◊〉 Funerals as this of de Rodons concerning the Mass is the maddest and most malicious that ever was written CHAP. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors ALthoug when conbatants or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fight they commonly before they go to the field choose what arms they are to fight with and foresee lâ—…t there should be any inequality in their weapons veâ—… it was never heard or seen that the advers party should choose his enemies sword before they went to fight weild it for him while they are actually a fighting that he leaves to himself to make use of as he pleaseth and much less ought he to blunt it However prudent Reader I would have you take notice that Mr. de Rodon observes not this common way with us in this controversal conflict which all duelists use but chooses such arguments of ours as he please and puts them in such order or form as he likes best he mentions not our authors that we may know whether the arguments be theirs and set out in their manner or form this is the way to blunt our weapons and to give us directions how we must fight him but so and so make our blow or thrust at him but so and so what else is this but that he weilds our sword for us while we are actually fighting against him and blunts it while he sets out our arguments in his blunt manner or form Sure any body may see that this is a very unjust and inequal manner of fighting with ones adversary Nevertheless being he has no other shift left him now to oppose and annoy Diana he shall be answered and encountred this way also for although he chose the weapons both his and ours yet I am sure we stand upon the firmer and better ground Behold him coming against us thus Rodon 1. In the two first chapters we have answered the two principal objections of the Romish doctors drawn from these words This is my body c. and from these he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life c. Now we must answer the rest Answ. In the first two chapters of this book these your answers are clearly refuted shattered and quasht therefore answer the rest better then you did these otherwise your labour will prove but ridiculous and vain and I question not but it will prove so at last Objection 1. Romanists 2. The first objection is this when the establishing of articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments and the making Testaments and covenants are in agitation men speak plainly and properly and not obscurely and figuratively But in the celebration of the Eucharist Iesus Christ established an article of faith Instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist and spake of a Testament and a covenant for it is said of the Cup that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ yea he spake then to his disciples to whom he spake in plain and proper terms and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables as he did to the people Answer Rodon â—… To this objection I answer first that it is false that Articles of faith are always exprest in proper terms in holy scripture as when it is said in the Creed that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God it is evident that this is a figure
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
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
highest degree as we see Christ imparted himself to our humane nature in the highest degree by the mystery of his Incarnation suppositating our nature substantially and covering it under his divine Personality But it is a far higher degree of communication to impart himself to the rest of mankinde really and corporally for to make them his mystical members then to impart himself to them figuratively only or typically therefore this real communication in the Sacrament is more agreeable to Christs infinite goodness then a typical or figurative communication is and also his real body is of more vertue and efficacy to incorporate us mystically and make us his members then the type or signe of his body is The second reason is this God the father and God the son are of equal power and verity therefore when God the father and God the son do express themselves in the self-same manner of speaking their words ought to be understood in the same meaning and sense But when God the father in the second of S. Matthew said This is my son every one that heard him understood that Christ was his true and real son and to understand his words otherwise would be open blasphemy Therefore it is open blasphemy to deny when Christ said This is my body that it is not his true real body but the figure or signe of his body only The words were uttered alike the power and verity of the uâ—…terers were alike why then should not their words be understood alike I see no reason for it because I see no disparity in the case Many other reasons and plausible proofâ—… do our Catholick divines and Romish doctors produce for the verity of this conclusion deduced from holy scripture which are theological demonstrations But what need I repeat any of them in this place where the case is so clear out of sundry express texts of holy writ and backt by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers and General Councils all which to contradict is not only an intolerable impudence but a meer frantick maddness Therefore leaving such giddy-brain'd people to the mercy of God and to be more pittied or prayed for then farther refuted I conclude out of these irrefragable proofs and premises that the Mass whom our adversaries in derision call the great Diana is of the noblest highest and most eminent extraction imaginable This Diana whereof we here treat derives her immediate root and being from heaven her descent and pedegree from Christ and his twelve Apostles her father is the first person of the most blessed Trinity her mother a most pure and immaculate virgin her Majesty and glory none can paralel her face is so resplendant and bright that the very cherubins seraphins are dazled when they behold her In a word her brightness is so eminent that it is inaccessible and the greatest beatitude and felicity of Angel or man consists in contemplating upon her beauty and yet notwithstanding all this she endured many a harder shock from her adversaries then Mr de Rodon or his bitter translatour will ever be able to give her but yet she still comes off with glory and victory All the heathenish Philosophers and their mighty Emperours she vanquished the learned Rabbins could never shake her all the hereticks from Simon Magus to the Quaker she crusht and quasht therefore she need not fear the Mounsieurs translator as for matter of superstition Phanaticism or Idolatry happy are we in her and thrice happy too if we can but serve her as we ought but as she deserves we are not able in this frail life however all our felicity and rest of conscience we own unto her in this life also for without her we should become restless and distracted or desperate Having hinted a little at her extraction or pedegree which no Angel or tongue is able to express or come near for its loftiness and celsitude I must say something of her vertue and worth which because it is infinite and in exhaustible I confess I know not how to begin however this I am sure of that her father who is omnipotent bequeathed unto her all power and dominion over heaven and earth Math. 28. so that there is no creature whatsoever of what rank be it never so high but must acknowledge his being vertue and power to depend wholy on hers It is in her as the Apostle sayes Acts 17. vivimus movemur sumus we live we move we be whatever perfections are dispersedly in every creature are all united in her and all their perfections and vertues are but shaddows and a meer participation of her essential ones Christ by his Incarnation noblisied and raised our humane nature above all the quires of Angels by his bloudy sacrifice of the Cross he purchased our Redemption and by this unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass he unites us unto himself and makes us his Mystical members for he sayes Ioh. 6. qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo he that eats my flesh and drinks my bloud he sayes not the signes of his flesh and bloud abides in me and I in him that is to say we shall be knit and united together and sayes again with an oath ibid. Amen amen unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall have no life in you And again he that eateth me the same also shall live by me So that according to the clear expression of those texts our union with Christ consists in the Mass or which is the same thing in eating the sacramental bread which is offered in the Mass and our disunion or separation from Christ consists in our not eating it and by the third text we are taught that in it our life consists for he sayes presently after he that eâ—…teth this bread shall live for ever The Angelical doctor S. Thom. Aquinas to whose arbitration Mr de Rodon profers with his whole party to subscribe concerning the Eucharist in opusc 57. hath these words O pretiosum admirandum convivium salutiferum omni suavitate repletum quid enim hoc convivio pretiosius esse potest in quo non earnes vitulorum hircorum ut olim in lege sed nobis Christus sumendus proponitur verus deus quid hoc sacramento miralibius in ipso namque panis vinum in corpus sanguinem Christi substantialiter convertuntur O pretious wonderful and healthful banquet replenished with all sweetness for what can be more pretious then this banquet in which not calves or goats flesh as in former times but Christ the true God is set before us to be eaten what is more wonderful then this Sacrament for in it bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and bloud of Christ. S. Cyril in Ioan. admonishing the faithful people sayes sciant igitur baptizati homines divinae gratiae participes facti si rarius in Ecclesiam proficiscantur
enough to pearce or annoy our Diana in any thing the leaâ—…t so likewise his Translators rayling and sâ—…olding at her can do her no more harm then a doggs barking can do to the Moon therefore he had better follow the good counsel of grave Gamaliel to the Jewes concerning how they should deal with the Apostles whose words be these And now therefore I say unto you depart from these men and let them alâ—…ne for if this counsel or work be of men it will be dissâ—…lved but if it be of God you are not able to dissâ—…lve them lest perhaps you be found to â—…esist God also Act 5. Even so in my poor judgement had the Translator best do to the Masse for with railing and scolding at it he will never be able to hurt it It hath stood from all ages since Christs time untill now and if it be of God it is not the Translator or I that shall be able to put it down alas both he and I shall be dead and rotten while noble Diana will be as brisk merry and fresh as she was the very first day she came into this world However I cannot but exâ—…use the good Translator because of his great zeal if his bitterness towards us proceeded onely from ignorance and not from malice or interestâ—… for S. Paul himself out of his ardent zeal to the Synagogue wherein he was born and bred was once a severe enemy and violent Persecutor of Gods Church But after he was illuminated by Christ and knew better things who ever after was more zealous for her honour and glory then he and yet he himself doth confess that God shewed him his great mercy quia ignorans feci because I did it quoth he ignorantly so I beg God heartily that this small book of mine by his blessing may illuminate the minds of those that are plunged â—…n the Abyss of heresy and Ignorance through the means of Mr de Rodon and such like Phanatick hereticks who by their false interpretations and applications of holy scripture set out and garnished with their sophistical arguments do deceive and mislead many thousands of poor ignorant souls to their utter ruine and everlasting damnation for leaving their true Mother the Church out of which there is no salvation for any And amongst the rest of the illuminated I wish the Translator were one To conclude this Appendix I exhort all the Catholicks of England and I earnestly beg and beseech them for the love of our sweet saviour Jesus Christ and the tender bowells of his infinite mercy towards them to stick closly and cleave constantly to their pretious Diana and for her sake to be always ready and prepared to undergoe all manner of persecutions tribulations and losses rather then forsake her for whatever damage or ill-entreatment they suffer upon her account they may be sure she will requite them a hundred-fold double for it with full interest Our saviour himself did â—…id us Not fear them that kill the body and after this have no more to do but I will shew you quoth he whom ye shall fear fear him who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell Luke 12. for your momentary sufferings in this life for his sake your crown and reward will be everlasting hereafter More then eye can see ear can hear or understanding can comprehend 1. Cor. 2. verity himself doth promise it and his promise he can and will perform Expect him but a little while with patience and in your patience ye shall possess your souls S. Luke 21. It is far better for you to suffer a little and short famine cold want misery imprisonment nay death it self for her sakes then to live plentifully and abundantly here for a moment and for ever after for denying her to be in everlasting famine imprisonment torment misery and want for unless we be Christs fellow sufferers in this life we shall not be his copartners in glory as the Apostle tells Timothy 2. If we shall sustain we shall also reign together In a word I conclude my book with the â—…ame prayer the Translator ends his preface with viz. I earnestly beseech my Lord and God he would make it prosperous and successfull for the good of souls and if any shall receive benefit by it I desire them to give him all the glory and I shall think my self infinitely recompensed for my pains in composing it yet if there be any thing in it that is not orthodox and sound I humbly submit my poor judgment to the censure of our holy mother the Church Errata PAge 13. line ult for it is not repugnant r. is not repugnant p. 37. for Iohn he that r. is mentioned in S. Iohn 6. he that p. 67. l. 19. for the wine was destroyed r. the water was destroyod p. 85. l. 25. for charity sake r. clarity sake p. 87. l. 21. for neither r. either p. 115. l 5. for place r. places p. 118. l. 8. for would r. could p. 130. l. 14. for between corporal things r. but between corporal things p. 168. l. 27. for that charity r. that clarity p. 171. l. 9. for therein r. their p. 175. l. 11. for consure r. censure p. 192. l. 21. for next under the holy writt r. next unto holy writt p. 204. l. 14. for in this glory r. in his glory In the Appendix p. 3. l. 27. for your r. our p. 24. l. 23. r. metal â—…iery p. 25. l. â—… r. corporis cordis FINIS AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS Contained in this Book Chap. I COâ—…cerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body p. 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Exposition of these woâ—…ds He that eateâ—…h my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Everlasting Life My Flesh is Meat indeed p. 36. Chap. III. Against Transubstantiation p. 64. Chap. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or Consecrated Wafer p. 96. Chap. V. Against the Adoration or Worshipping of the Host. p. 199. Chap. VI. Against taking away of the Cup. p. 242. Chap. VII Against the Mass. p 293. Chap. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors p. 345. The Preâ—…ace of Monsieur dâ—… Rodons Translator p. 461. An Answer to the Preface and an Appendix to the Book p. 1. An INDEX of the chief things contained in this Book CHrists word is Creative productive and effective pag. 4 Transubstantiation cannot be plainlier exprest than by these woâ—…ds This is my Body p. 6. Christs words are practical Signs and causes of what they signifie other mens words are but speculative signs only of things signiâ—…fied by them p. 12. An Image hath always an Essential relation to its Prototype p. 11. Transubstantiation both a Sacrament and the thing signified p. 13. It is not repugnant that the same thing should signifie its own self p. Ibid. The Bread and Wine were not made the Body and Blood of Christ by a bare Blessing or Thanksgiving p. 14. The words of
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 iâ—… is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which iâ—… 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 Answ. To this Argument I answer granting the major and denying the minor and to its probation I confess that the bare cup is neither a proper testament or transubstantiated But that the consecrated wine in the cup is not the new Testament transubstantiated into Christs bloud I flatly deny because Christ himself in express words said hoc est novum Testamentum in meo sanguine This is the new Testament in my bloud he said not it was the signe or Testament of his bloud but in his bloud that is to say that the Testament did consist in his bloud or which is the same thing that the new Testament is his bloud Thus all the holy Fathers and General Councils ever understood these words of Christ yet the Mounsieur without any farther proof but his own bare word saies that the wine in the cup after consecration is but a sign or Sacrament of the new Testament But of what weight his bare word ought to be against Christs clear expression and the common explication of the whole Church I leave the reader to consider Therefore the Mounsieur muâ—…t give me leave to conclude thus contrary to what he holds and say that in this proposition This is my body the word is ought to be taken for a real and transubstantiated being and not for a Sacramental and significative being only And consequently that this proposition This cup is the new Testament must be expounded thus The consecrated wine that is in the cup is the real bloud of Christ and new Testament of his law And although we confess with Mr. de Rodon that in these words viz. this cup is the new Testament there are two figures or Metonimies to be taken one in the word cup and the other because the Sacramental species do signifie Christs bloody Passion yet we deny but that Transubstantiation is there chiefly by vertue of Christs effective word and the Sacrament consignified only because as I said before we hold the consecrated Host to be both Sacramentum rem 〈◊〉 the Sacrament and the thing it self together And therefore we deny that the Romish doctours are mistaken when they tell us tha what Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken litterally and not figuratively only neither have we any reason to imagine that he spake obscurly for his real Presence could not be with plainer words exprest but let us now hear the Mounsieur speak Rodon 5. But when we say that these words This is my body this is my blood must be expounded thus this bread is the sign and Sacrament of my body this wine is the sign and Sacrament of my bloud we do not mean that the bread and wine are barely and simply signes of Christs body and bloud but we believe that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are signes that do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to believers for when they do by the mouth of the body receive the bread and wine of â—…he Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by faith receive the body of Christ broken and his bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter Answ. I must confess if we hold to the common usage of words and to their proper signification according to the institution of all authors Mr. de Rodons exposition is unto me both very obscure and repugnant to the expression of all solid divines and Philosophers for first he saies that bread and wine in the Eucharist are not barely and simply signes of Christs body and bloud and he saies presently again that they are signes which do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to believers here me thinks the Mounsieur doth plainly contradict himself for either the bread and wine do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to the believeâ—… precisely and reduplicatively by reason of their signification or by reason of their natural entitie if by reason of their signification or as they are signes precisely what are they then else but bare and simple signes If by reason of their entity then according to Mr. de Rodons opinion Christs broken body and his spilt bloud are
carried or exhibited to the believers upon or by a bare bitt of bread or in a cup of bare wine But how nonsensical this exposition is and how ill grounded in true divinity and Philosoâ—…hy I will presently prove But first I would have the Reader take notice that these words Sacrament or signe have if not a predicamental at least a transendental Relation to the things they signify what is formal in Relation according all Philosophers is not at all operative or exhibitive but only meer resultative in order to the thing it relates unto as for example a father is a Relative word because he relates to his son the formality of this word father consists in his fatherhood and the entity or substract whereupon fatherhood relies is in his human nature for he was a man before he could be a father It is not the fatherhood which is the formal part of the Relative that operates or exhibites a being to the son which is his correlative word but his humane nature or rather his act of Generation and the fatherhood only results from his act of Generation and looks upon the filiation or as one may say sonhood which was operated or exhibited by a foregoing generative act so that although the father and his act of Generation are elder then the son because they are his effective or exhibitive cause yet the fatherhood is not elder then the sonhood because the fatherhood which is but a meer Relation did not effect or exhibit the sonhood but only relates or looks upon it whence followeth clearly that although the father is before his son in his enâ—…itative being yet he is not a father before he has a son or child in his fatherhood or relative being Even so I say of the word Sacrament or signe which are also relative words that what is formal in them is not at all operative or exhibitive but only resultative because they only behold and look upon the things they signify and effect or exhibit them not from whence followeth evidently that signification which is the formality of a signe or Sacrament cannot exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to the believers and therefore if any thing in the Sacrament exhibits them it must be the entity or substract whereupon signification is founded But according to Mr de Rodon the entities whereupon signification in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is founded are but bare bread and wine which entities are not exhibitive of Christs body and bloud to the believers I demonstrate thus If the bare entities of bread and wine could exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to the believers as often as they are received by the mouth of the body it would necessary follow that as often as a man eates or drinks bread and wine they convey Christs body and blood into his soul and so every fellow that drinks his belly full of wine although he drinks himself drunk especially if he eats but a bit of bread with it his soul will be full of Christ. But it is both impious and absurd to say that Christ should be conveyed into a drunkardâ—… soul after this manner Therefore the doctrine that teacheth this is absurd and impious The major I prove thus all the entities of bread and wine do agree if not specifically at least univocally that is to say as a man a horse and a cow are true and real animals and this word animal agrees properly to every of them so the words bread and wine are said truely and properly of all sorts of bread and wine and they all agree in name But according to all divines and Philosophers univocal causes do produce effects alike all men other men all horses other horses and so â—…orth therefore if the entities of bread and wine agree univocally as certainly they do it follows that their effects must be all alike and consequently if the bare entities of Mr. de Rodons communion bread and wine for their signification as I have already proved cannot do it can exhibit convey or carry Christs body and bloud to believers the entities of all other breads and wine can do so also for they agree all univocaly all univocal causes do produce effects a like Therefore the Mounsieur must either contradict all Philosophers and be the only Philosopher himself or else grant that as often as he eats and drinks bread and wine which was perhaps too much and too often in a day he received the Sacrament and consequently if as often as he took bread and wine he did not examine himself and discerne the body of our Lord according to the Apostles saying judicium sibi mandâ—…cavit â—…ibit he did eat it as Iudas did to his own damnation what impious nonsensical and Blasphemous doctrine this is let any rational man consider But according to the doctrine of the Romanists the Eucharist is quite another thing they say that bare bread and wine are not the substract or foundation whereupon signification relyes in the Sacrament but that the Sacramental species are the foundation whereupon signification is grounded which Sacramental species being received worthily by the mouth of the body because they contain the body and bloud of Christ they say that at the same time they feed the soul also because they have a spiritual exhibitive faculty to convey Christ into the soul and work upon her by uniting her to Christ and making her one os his mistical members and thus the soul by feeding upon his body now glorified and impatible if she receives him worthily he changes her affections wholy into himself and as it were incorporates her for all the delight of a devout soul is to be wholy united and absorpt in Christ and yet his body being now impatible and glorified receives no damage or harm thereby more then the sun doth by casting his beames upon a dunghill And although faith be necessary in him that eateth this bread we say that hope and charity must also accompany this morsel unless a man eats it to his damnatian for faith alone is not enough to give it a relish in the soul. The Royal prophet calls it the bread of Angels for it feeds their spirits also which if it were but the meer entity of bread it could not do for they never eat wafer nor bakers bread nor drink of the entity of our corporal wine neither do they eat the Sacrament it self by the mouth of faith as Mr. de Rodon would have our soules to eat it here for if we believe the Apostle there is neither faith nor hope in heaven where the Angells are but only charity And since we are come to the mouth of the soul faith for so the Mounsieur calls it saying by the mouth of the soul viz. by faith I wish he would shew us either by the common usage of speaking or in true Philosophy that faith is the mouth of the soul. If he takes the word mouth litterally the soul being a pure
Therefore what the Mounsieur objects concerning eating Christs body corporally by reprobats is to no purpose for we confess that to eat him corporally only without faith and the rest of the Theological vertues brings rather eternal damnation then eternal life to the soul and yet we still deny that he is eaten spiritually by the mouth of faith alone or that there is any such thing as mouth of faith Rodon 3. His third argument he takes from S. Augustine and Cardinal Caietan who expound he saies the words of Iesus Christ as he doth S. Augustine in Book 3. of Christian doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Cardinal Caietan in his commentary on S. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you And having sufficiently proved this exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he faith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he faith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh whence it clearly appears that according to the letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Iesus Christ. Answ. This exposition of the holy Father we embrace for it makes nothing against us but rather for us for we say also that when we receive the substance of Christs body which is his flesh by our corporal mouth under the species of bread and wine we say we eat the Sacrament which is a figure or sign that makes us partake of Christs Passion and impriâ—…ts with delight and profit Christs Passion in our mindes for we hold with the great divine S. Thomas of Aquin that the figure or Sacrament which we eat is a signum rememorativum a rememorative sign of Christs death And our Saviour himself said when he instituted this Sacrament as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me which we understand thus as often as you eat this Sacrament which is an unbloudy sacrifice and a figure of my bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross remember my bitter Passion for by offering this unbloudy sacrifice unto my father he will be pleased with it and since your prayers fasting almesdeeds and all your other best works as they are precisely yours are not satisfactory to him for your offences against his divine Majesty and are not of themselves able to appease his just wrath against you according to the rigour of the attribute of his divine Justice which he cannot but uphold when he beholds this pure Sacrifice and sees that I am become your mediator and that it is offered him in remembrance of a rigorous satisfaction for your sins by my bloudy sacrificing my self unto him upon the altar of the cross it will incontinently pacify and reconcile him unto you it will encourage you and delight your souls for it will put you in hopes of your salvation whereof you would be otherwise for want of this inter-mediation in a deep dispaire This and many more vertues and graces doth this Sacrament operate in our souls unless we our selves by receiving and offering it in mortal sin do obstruct or hinder them which if we do the fault is ours not the Sacraments which retains alwaies this vertue in it self If any man can with reason and faith attribute such vertue to the bare entities of bread and wine I leave any prudent reader to judge As to the learned Cardinal however his exposition alledged against us upon S. Iohn 6. must be understood no body doubts but his opinion concerning the real presence was the same ours is and that he died in it therefore if he be of any authority with Mr. de Rodon he ought to understand him according to his meaning The words be these but if rightly understood and according to his meaning not at all against us To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you the accute Cardinals meaning was to expound the true meaning and sense of these words is saith in Christs death and also to instruct people how to receive this Sacrament with profit to their souls Therefore he sayes that the sense of those words is to use the death of the son of man as meat and drink if we intend to receive profitably and what else is it to use the death of the son of man as meat and drink but to ruminate and meditate upon his death so that the Cardinals meaning was that to receive the Sacrament profitably when we eat and drink the body and bloud of Christ we must do it in remembrance of his Passion which is the self same thing Christ commands us to do and which Catholicks practise dayly And his additionate words viz. to eat and drink the Sacrament is commonly as well c. do clear his meaning for he knowing that to eat Christs body corporally is a thing common as well to the reprobate as to the elect he tells us that to eat it profitably we must beleive it to be a rememorative of Christs death and that by so eating it we eat and ruminate upon his death Therefore although we confess that faith is necessary in him that receives the Sacrament to take it worthily and profitably yet we deny that faith is the mouth wherewith we eat it or that by faith alone we eat the death of Christ for we deny that faith is the mouth of mans soul or body and without a mouth there can be no eating As to the Cardinals last words viz. he saith not he that eateth worthily or drinketh worthily but he that eateth or drinketh I am sure he meant by eating and drinking to eat and drink it worthily for he could not mean to eat and drink it unworthily and betwixt eating and drinking worthily and unworthily there is no medium so that of necessity when he speaks of eating and drinking it spiritually or with profit as he meant here he must be understood by eating and drinking eating and drinking worthily from whence it doth not clearly appear that according to the letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Jesus Christ for these words eating and drinking may better in a litteral sense be alluded to the Sacrament
same time that the bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ which were before that accidents may be without a subject c. And the passages that are impertinently alledged to prove such a presence and such a change have a sense very commodious and very rational for the avoiding all these contradictions as appears in this and in the former chapter where I have rationally expounded those two passages which the Romish doctors impertinently make use of for this subject Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational sense which we have given them and to reject the doctrine of the real Presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the Host and the doctrine of Transubstantiation Answ. How much this grave consideration of the Mounsieur can work upon ignorant illiterate people upon heathens Jews or Turks or upon brute beasts of best sensation if they had intellectual or cogitative faculties agreeing with their sensation I know not But sure I am that no good Christian or man of learning or knowledg ought to regard or value it for all Christians and all rational and learned men do know that objects of divine faith such as this is ought not to be levelled or measured by our reason and senses for otherwise some beasts and birds whose sensitive faculties surpass mans must also surpass him in faith And if the best reason should carry away the cause then the best Philosophers would be the best believers and so Plato and Aristotle who were far more Eagle-sighted concerning objects of natural reason then many millions of poor Christians are would surpass all these Christians in divine faith a thing both impious and ridiculous to assert amongst Christians neither do seeming contradictions unless they be real ones validate or strengthen this his profound consideration for many things may seem impossible to us which are not so really to God This the Mounsieur I am sure must grant unless he maintains that man can comprehend Gods omnipotency which to say is open Blasphemy However for disputation sake we let pass the major but we deny the minor as to all its parts first we deny that the real Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is repugnant to reason and sense though it be above them so we say that the raising of a dead man to life and all miracles are only above reason and sense but not repugnant or against them for what is repugnant or contrary to reason and sense quite destroyes them as to be and not to be at the same time and after the same manner is impossible and destroyes reason and sense but we deny Transubstantiation to be of that kind Secondly we deny that it implyes or seems to imply a contradiction that a human body should be Sacramentally in a point without any local extension though we grant it cannot be circumscriptively in a point Thirdly we deny that Christ to be in his human shape in heaven and to be at the same time sacramentally upon earth or for him to be sacramentally in ten thousand places together upon earth is at all any contradiction because to be sacramentally in a place or places requires no local extension for as in true Divinity if Christ should assume and suppositate hypostatically three several humane natures altogether to his Divinity they would all in that case have but one person without any implicancy or contradiction so Christ may also without any contradiction be at once sacramentally in several places who is then able to penetrate and dive into the infinite power of God finally we grant that accidents cannot be naturally without their connaturall subjects but supernaturally they can as Christs humane nature is now without any other but the divine personality of Christ and yet naturally it should have a humane person which no body can say it hath without being an heretick for otherwise he must own that there are two persons in Christ a divine and a humane one and consequently say there is a quadrinity in the mystery of the blessed Trinity Even so I say that as Christ without contradiction supplyeth the human personality with his divine so can he also without contradiction supply the connatural subjects of bread and wine with his infinite power Therefore since this answer is well grounded in true divinity and Phylosophy and that all the holy fathers and General Councils that ever have been in Christs Church and treated of this matter were of the same belief concerning the real presence as we are of and since it is more consonant both to reason and faith that the substance of Christs body is more nourishing to the soul then the bare entities of bread and wine are Farthermore since the question here in agitation is above though not repugnant to reason and sense it being an object of divine faith which Christ revealed unto his Church and she ever practised from the Apostles time as all Ecclesiastical histories do testify Neither could our adversaries ever shew what year or in what place or country the Mass crept first into the Church nor who were the orthodox fathers or general Councils that ever opposed it untill many hundred years after it was in practise throughout the Christian world and finally since the first oppo ser of it was presently cried down by all the orthodox for a publick heretick For these and sundry other such reasons I say no rational or learned man ought to value the groundless and weak consideration of Mr. de Rodan which hath no other prop to uphold it but frail human reason wherewith he intends to inveagle and deceive the poor ignorant illiterate sort of people who ought rather submit their judgements and understanding humbly to the common belief of the Universal Church concerning matters of faith then rely upon either their own or the grave Mounsieurs deep reason and wit This ancient and universal doctrine of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist do the Romish Doctors must solidly and pertinently maintain and desend against all the enimies of Christs Church against Luther Calvin Rodon and all his impertinent sophisms nay and against all the devils of hell if they should come to assist him and furnish him with their arguments Neither hath he hitherto in this nor in his former chapter said any thing against it which I have not fully and sufficiently answered as I leave any indifferent impartiall Reader to judge CHAP. III. Against Transubstantiation BY destroying Trasubstantiation which is the life of the Mass the Mass must perish also Mr de Rodon considering this picks out of the storehouse of his Philosophy his keenest arrows wherewith having as he questions not in this Chapter hit the the mark home although he conceits he is the killer himself yet he is pleased to bestow the funeral exequyes as the Title of his book shews To bury the dead I confess is with us one of the seven works of corporal mercy but to bury one
omnipotent effective word of the infinite Agent who hath an absolute power over all sorts of entities as well material as formal Therefore the material entities of bread and wine being as subject to Christs effective word in order to a substantial conversion as their formal entities are and Transubstantiation being a total conversion of both the material and formal entities of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as the words of consecration do plainly import it follows evidently that although in every simple formal substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substantial form to another yet in Transubstantiation which is not a simple conversion of one substantial form into another but a totall conversion as well of the material entityes of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ as of their formal entityes I say in this extraordinary supernatural and total substantial conversion there need be no subject to pass from one substance or substantial form to another because here the subject it self is as well changed as its substantial form And yet this miraculous conversion cannot be tearmed a creation because it is not productio rei ex nihilo a thing produced of nothing or a sole action that doth not presuppose a subject as the Mounsieur saies right creation is However though the Sacramental species because they are accidents and no accidents can properly be called subjects be not the proper subjects of this conversion yet they are somewhat subject-like for they pass through the whole conversion and exist supernaturally without any subject to prop or sustentate them God miraculously supplying the place of their connatural subjects as he supplies the natural subsistence or personality due to Christs humane nature which if Mr. de Rodon will not believe because he cannot see it with his corporal eyes nor apprehend it with any of his other senses he will be forced besides the three Persons of the B. Trinity to allow also of a humane person in Christ to personate his humane nature which is plain and manifest heresy Now to the Mounsieur again Rodon 5. That doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but substances destroys the nature and essence of Accidents because it is impossible that an accident can be a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but that they are substances which I prove thus That doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not inherent but that they subsist by themselves doth assert that Accidents are not Accidents but that they are substances because inherence is the essential difference of a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not inherent but that they subsist which I prove thus That Doctrine which asserts that Accidents may be without a subject doth assert that Accidents are not inherent in a subject but that they subsist by themselves But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents may be without a subject viz. the Accidents of bread and wine without any substance and without any subject to sustain them For by Transubstantiation the substance of the bread and wine is gone and their Accidents remain Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not inherent but do subsist by themselves and consequently asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but substances and so destroyes the nature and essence of Accidents But here it may be said that actual inherence doth not constitute an Accident but Aptitudinal only Against which I form this Argument Whatsoever doth exist actually either it exists in some thing else actually so that it cannot be without it which Philosophers call actuall inherence as walking or else it exists by it self actually so that it may be alone by it self which Philosophers term actual existence the former of these constitutes an Accident and the later constitutes a substance But the Accidents of the bread and wine after consecration do exist actually therefore they must exist either in something else actually or in themselves actually But they do not exist in and by themselves actually for then they would subsist by themselves and bâ—… real substances which iâ—… impossible therefore they exist in something else actually viz. in the substance of the bread and wine and consequently the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration and so there can be no Transubstantiation Answ. As to this fifth arrow of the Mounsieurs we deny that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Accidents yet we grant it is impossible that an Accident can be a substance we also deny that the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but substances And to his Probation viz. that doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not inherent are not Accidents I answer and distinguish this proposition thus That doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not inherent actually nor aptitudinally asserts I consess that Accidents are not Accidents that doctrine that asserts because Accidents are not alwaies actually inherent asserts they are not Accidents I deny And consequently I deny that because the accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist do not inhere actually in their connatural subjects viz. in the entities of bread and wine that therefore they are no accidents And the reason is because it is not actual but Aptitudinal inherence that is essential to accidents which aptitudinal inherence to their natural subjects viz. to the substances of bread and wine we say the Sacramental species have still also after the words of consecration for an aptitudinal inherence consists in a natural sympathy inclination or dependence which the Accident hath to its own natural substance or subject insomuch that iâ—… its subject were reproduced and restored to its former being again the Accident would naturally cleave adhere and result unto his proper subject if God did not supernaturally supply the subjects place as he doth in this misterious converâ—…on just as I said before he supplies Christs humane subsistence or personality in the Mystery of his Incarnation Therefore though the actual inherence of the Sacramental species be hindred and supplied yet they still retain their natural sympathy inclination and propensity to their proper subjects in case they were reproduced in which inclination and propensity the â—…ature of Accidents doth consist and not in their actual inherence And consequently since Transubstantiation destroys not the Aptitudinal inherence of Accidents but only their actual it follows evidently that it leaves them in their essential being which consists in an Aptitudinal inherence only As to his reply concerning aptitudinal inherence viz. that it mâ—…st exist in somthing else actually or else in or by it self I deny that accidents naturally do properly exist but rather coexist with their subjects for existence pertains properly to substances and is called by all Philosophers modus substantialis a substantial mode and takes its seat in the indirect line of the series or Predicament of
substance and it is properly excluded from all the Predicamental Accidents however we own that the Sacramental species do supernaturally exist in and by themselves without any subject at all and yet we deny they are substances therefore because although they exist supernaturally in and by themselves as subjects do exist naturally in and by themselves yet their existences are for unlike for their existence hath a natural inclination and propensity to their proper subjects if they were restored to their being again But substantial existences have no such inclination or propension to any subject so that the Sacramental species although they exist in and by themselves supernaturally and miraculously by the power of God like substances yet they are still essentially Accidents â—…or they retain their aptitudinal inherence and inclination to their proper subjects which aptitudinal inherence substances have not Rodon 7. Every Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in sess â—… and every sign reâ—…ates to the thing signified so that we must speak of signes and Saâ—…raments as of things relating to something else But all Relative things have as it were a double being viz. an absolute being which is the natural being of the thing and a relative being whereby it relates to something else for example in a man that hath begotten a child we consider his absolute and natural being as he is a man as others are and his relative being whereby he is a father and is distinguished from other men that have no children and so are not fathers So in the Sacrament of Bapâ—…ism the signe viz. the water 〈◊〉 an absolute and natural being viz. it s cold and moist substance whereby it is water as other waters are and a relative Sacramental and significative being whereby it is the signe and Sacrament of Christs bloud Even so is the Sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine which are the signes have their natural and â—…blute being viz. their substance whereby they are bread and wine as other bread and wine which we commonly use and their relative Sâ—…cramental and significative being whereby they are the Sacrament and signes of the body and bloud of Christ and differ from all other bread and wine that is not thus imployed To this I add tâ—…at it is impossible a relative being should be without an absolute because a relative cannot be withouâ—… its foundation for example it is impossible to be a father without being a man to be equal without quantitie c. and this being granted I form my Argument thus That which takes away the natural being from signes and Sacraments destroys their naturâ—… and essence because the relative and Sacramental being cannot be without the absolute and natural as hath been proved Bâ—… the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the natural being of the bread and wine which are signes and Sacraments of Christs body and bloud for by Transubstantiation the whole substance of the bread and wine is destroyed Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the nature and essence of Sacraments Answ. All this doctrine viz. as concerning the definition of a Sacrament That it is a relative and that all relatives have a double being and that it is impossible that a relative being should be without an absolute we grant we grant also that the substantial entities of bread and wine which be the subject and foundation whereupon the sacramental species before the words of consecration relied are by the same words of consecration destroyed or rather changed into the body and bloud of Christ and yet we deny that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments And the reason is this because signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament is not destroyed and this signification relies upon the quantitative and qualitative accidents of the former bread and wine which accidents are absolute entities and remain still undestroyed in the Sacramental species miraculously without their natural and proper subjects so that though the absolute accidents of bread and wine viz. their quantitie and quality which are no relatives exist supernaturally and miraculously without any subject yet signification which is the â—…ormal part of the Sacrament and a relative term has something subject-like to rely upon viz. the quantity and quality of the consecrated host which being supplied and maintained by Gods infinite power are stronger props then the bare entities of bread and wine were Neither do we grant unto Mr. de Rodon that to keep up the Analogy signification and likeness betwixt the Sacrament and the thing by it signified corporal nourishment is requisite in the Sacramental species for this Analogy is evidently saved and seen in the meer Accidents of bread and wine for it is they that signify spiritual nourishment and not their substances so that whether they nourish the body or no is impertinent to their signification for which they were instituted By this answer the Mounsieurs first reply is also precluded yet for charities sake I answer his argument in form thus That which takes the natural being from signes and Sacraments destroys their nature and essence I distinguish this Major if it takes away their formal being and supplies not their material and fundamental with another as good or better I confess the major if it takes away their material being only and leaves the formal supplying it with another as it were materal being as good or better I deny the Major and in the same sense I distinguish the Minor and deny the consequence This may be exemplified in a house or any other such like thing for who can say that a house is destroyed while it keeps its form and shape is it because forsooth its first foundation which was but a mudd-wall was destroyed if another better of brick or free-â—…tâ—…ne be set under it to supply the muddwalls place no man I am sure will say so Even so â—…is in our case here for the entities of bread and wine which did sustentate the significative part of nourishment before the words of consecration by vertue of the said words those entities are destroyed But after the words of consecration instead of those substantial entities God with his infinite power supplies their place makes the Sacramental species exist in and by themselves and serve instead of subjects to prop and sustentate signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament Now these spocies upheld and supplied by Gods power and word are firmer props then the entities of bread and wine were and as I said before because their existence hath alwaies a natural inclination and sympathy to their proper subjects it retains alwaies its aptitudinal inherence and consequently is no substance and so because the sacramental species which be the absolute accidents of the bread and wine do sustentate signification which is the formal and relative part of the Sacrament it remains still verified that a relative being is not without an absolute being
and because the existence of the sacramental species retains its inclination to its proper subjects and has anaptitudinal inherence in it it follows evidently that Transubstantiation which is the causer of all this neither destroys the nature of Accidents nor of Sacraments neither Let this then suffice for his sixth arrow and its first reply Now to his second reply Rodon 8. Secondly the Council of Trent in sess 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latria which according to our adversaries is the sovereigne worship due to God only but the Accidents of the bread and wine ought not to be adored because they are creatures and that God alone must be adored Therefore the accidents of bread and wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Answ. To this second reply we answer and obey the holy Councils commands and we adore the most blessed Sacrament with the adoration of Latria which is the highest soveraigne worship due to God only And to what he inferrs viz. that the accidents of bread and wine because they are creatures ought not to be adored so I answer and distinguish that proposition thus with an absolute Adoration I confess with a relative adoration I deny for we give a relative adoration of Latria not only unto the Sacramental species but unto the holy cross also and yet we deny it to be Idolatry because the Adoration redounds wholy upon God but if we should give unto the Cross or any other creature an absolute adoration of Latria that is if we should adore them absolutely as they are in themselves without any relation or reference unto God then indeed I confess it would be Idolatry But far is that from our intention when we adore them or any other pictures or Reliques however our adversaries are pleased to interpret and force our intentions Nay more then that we give but a relative Adoration of Latria even unto the body bloud and soul of Christ inasmuch as they are but creatures and yet we hold them to be more and better then the accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament nevertheless we afford both them and the Sacramental species too an absolute Adoration of Latria inasmuch as they are united hypostatically to the Divinity and yet deny it is Idolatry to do it But since the Mounsieur and his Translator do impeach us with Idolatry concerning the Adoration of Latria we give to our Sacrament as also concerning our worshiping of Images wherefore may we not also pose them and those of their party concerning their communion bread and wine wherefore I say may not we ask them whether they afford any spiritual worship adoration or reverence to their communion bread and wine after they are consecrated by them or no If they answer no then what respect have they for their Sacrament or communion more then they have for the other ordinary bread and wine which they dayly eat and drink aud why may not they carouse with their communion wine and drink to one another with it as they do ordinarily with the other wine when they drink together in a Tavern or why may not they throw a bit of their communion bread to a dog as they use to do when they are at their common meales for if they have no more spiritual reverence or worship for the one more then they have for the other there is no reason why they may not use them both alike If this be their principle and tenet concerning their Sacrament or communion and if they have no more adoration or worship for it then they have for their other ordinary bread which they often throw to dogs I would have them consider to what a pass they have brought one of the two Sacraments they only own of the seven which the Church doth hold Christ himself did institute and which he called that of his last supper among other of his divine words he said Nolite sanctum dare canibus give not that which is holy to the dogs But if they have no more worship or respect for their communion bread then they have for their ordinary other bread whereof they give some to their dogs I know not what their consecration signifies if it hallows the bread then the bread must be holy and to any holy thing a reverence veneration or worship is due if it doth not hallow the bread then the bread is as it was before and consequently it may be given to dogs as other bread is often thrown to them and what would else forsooth follow from this doctrine but that their communion-bread may lawfully be given to dogs it follows also that if bread can be consecrated and hallowed that water may be consecrated also and then they will be forced to acknowledg some vertue or force in our holy water But if their answer be affirmative and they give a spiritual worship and adoration to their Sacrament or communion this adoration or worship can be no less then a Relative Latria for they worship their communion-bread because it is a sign or Sacrament of Christs broken body and spilt bloud upon the Cross and consequently they adore it in relation to Christ or if they adore and worship it not in order to Christ but as it is in it self then they give it an absolute worship which is a far grosser kind of Idolatry then that they attach us with for they believe their Sacrament to be nothing else but bare bread and wine and consequently nothing else but meer creatures but we believe our Sacrament to be the real body and bloud of Christ with his divinity and therefore we adore our Sacrament upon far better grounds then they do theirs Moreover if they give a Relative adoration of Latria to their Sacrament and may lawfully do it because it is a sign or it signifies Christ why may not we also give a relative adoration to our crucifixes and Images because they are signes of Christ and of his Saints whom they represent or if they call us Idolaters for for doing this why may not we call them Idolaters for adoring their communion-bread In a word they must either give it no adoration worship or reverence at all no more then they give to their unconsecrated bread and consequently they may as well give it to their dogs as they do their other bread or if they give it any adoration worship or Reverence it must be some kinde of a Latriacal adoration either Relative or absolute for they must adore it because it signifies Christs passion or they must adore it as it is in it self without any Relation to Christ which if they do they fall into a grosser Idolatry then we do Rodon 9. Thirdly a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in sess 6. and 13. But in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not visible therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not
the Romish heresies and I leave the decision and arbitration of our contest to the verdict of any judicious and 〈◊〉 Reader But lo here he comes with his first keen arrow Rodon 2. If a thing be created in a place either it must be produced there or it must come or be brought thither from some other place for it is impossible to finde out a third way of putting any thing in a place And the Romish Doctors have hitherto been able to invent but one of these two waies of putting Christs body in the host The Jacobins telling us that it is brought thither from some other place and the Iesuiâ—…s that it is produced there But the body of Christ can neither come nor be brought thither into the host nor can it be produced there Therefore the body of Christ is not in the host Answ. To this argument I answer denying Mr. de Rodons supposition viz. that Christ body is created in the Sacrament but only the bread and wine Transubstantiated or converted into his body and bloud at which conversion one substance succeedeth another so that Christs body is in the Sacrament immediatly and formally by reason of its substance and not by reason of its quantitative dimensions But all Philosophers agree in this that a thousand substances can be altogether in one point without taking up any proper place And yet we confess that where his substance or body is that there his quantity is also by concomitance though not with its quantitative dimensions in order to its parts as they are extended in a place for extension of parts in order to a place is but a property of quantity or of a quantitative body and the essence of quantity consists in the extension of the parts of a quantitative body as they are in order to themselves and if the Mounsieur ask us how this is feasable or how can a body be without being in a place we will ask him how Sydrach Mysach and Abednego could be in the Babilonian furnace without feeling the heat of the great fire that was put under it and if he sayes as he ought to say that God supplied or hindred the heat notwithstanding the fire remayned because heat is only a property and not essential to fire the same thing say we also of quantity or of a quantitative body and of its parts as they are extended in order to a place Therefore since Christs body is really in the Sacrament by reason of a substantial conversion and no substance is properly in a place by reason of its own self but only by reason of its quantitative dimensions since Christ hinders or obstructs the quantitative dimentions of his body in the Sacrament as he did obstruct the heat of the fire of the Babilonian furnace it follows evidently that Christs body in the Sacrament is there without being in any proper place Rodon 3. The body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the host from any other place because it can come from no place but heaven being no where but in heaven But Christs body neither comes nor is brought from heaven into the host which I prove thus when a body comes or is carried from one place to another it must leave its first place for example if a man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris but the body of Iesus Christ never leaves heaven for the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts. 3. Therefore Christs body neither comes nor is brought from heaven into the host Besides it is impossible that Christs body should come or be brought into the host without passing through the space that is between heaven and earth where the consecrated hosts are because a man cannot pass from one extream to another without passing through the space that is between them But the space between heaven and earth is too vast to be passed through in a moment for these doctors will have it that immediatly after pronouncing these words This is my body the body of Christ is brought into the host Moreover it must in a moment be in all the heavens and in all he Aires between the highest heavens and this earth where the hosts are because a man cannot pass through a place without being there and then it would have three sorts of existences at once viz. one natural and glorious existence in heaven one Sacramental existence in the hoji and one ayery existence in the Ayr But sâ—…ing all thâ—…se things are absurd we must conclude that Iesus Christs body neither comes nor is brought into the host Answ. I told you just now Mounsieur that Christs body is not in the Sacrament as in its proper place for the reason all Philosophers give viz. that no substance is in a place but by reason of its quantitative dimensions which dimensions we say Christs body has not in the Sacrament but is in it immediatly by reason of the substantial conversion wherein one substance immediatly succeeds the other and so according to this answer we deny that Christs body is either brought from another place into the Sacrament or produced in it as in its propor place but rather that it exists in it without any local dimensions as all other substances if they were without their quantitative dimensions would exist in and by themselves without taking up any place yet since you are so acute a Philosopher or at least taken by your party to be so and do make use of Philosophical principles against us I think it not amiss for the clearer understanding of my answer first to set down the common definition which all philosophers give of a place as also to let the Reader know how many manner of ways all divines and Christian Philosophers do acknowledg a thing may be in a place As to the first they unanimously own a proper place to be defined thus Ultima superficies corporis continentis immobilis primi The last superfice or overmost part of the first immovable containing body for example my proper place is the next hollow superfice of the air surrounding my body and the proper place of water in a vessel is the next hollow superfice of the vessel not the exterior but the interiour superfice Where note that according to Philosophers a proper place hath also these two properties or faculties in order to the thing that it contains first it circumscribes and environs the thing placed of all sides and round about Secondly a proper place is a preservative of the body which it contains and therefore it is that every corporal thing hath a natural inclination to tend to its own proper place and center So we see fire hath a natural inclination to ascend towards its own Element and when it is there in its proper center and place it rests and is quiet Water also tends naturally towards the sea and until it be in its Element center is never at rest so is it also
with all other Elementary and mixt bodies As to the second all Philosophers agree in this that a thing may be in a place two manner of ways viz. circumscriptively and definitively corporal things circumscriptively and spiritual things as an Angel or mans soul definitively that is to say they are not in every place as God is but in some finite or limited place wherein they operate and yet they are not circumscribed by the place wherein they are because they are no bodies nor have any superfice nor also depend of their places in order to their conservation as corporal things do Besides these two manner of ways of being in a place which all Philosophers own the divines hold of a third way viz. to be Sacramentally in a place from whence we have from both divines Philosophers that a thing may be in a place 3 manner of ways viz. circumscriptively definitively sacramentally what is in a place circumscriptively is properly in its place because the superfice of the place touches surrounds the superfice of the body which it contains so the hollow superfice of the vessel touches and surrounds the water which is within the vessel What is in a place definitively or Sacramentally is not properly in any place because the superfice of the place and of the thing contained touch not one another immediatly as all proper places ought to touch immediatly all the things properly contained in them for an Angel and a soul have no superfices wherewith to touch the superfices of the place wherein they are contained for they are pure spirits and only corporal things have superfices however they are said to be in a place improperly because they are contained within some limits of bounds where they operate or else they would be in all places as God is like unto corporal things which are contained strictly within the immediat limits of their proper places yet with this distinction still that spiritual things never touch the superfice of their proper places and consequently are not circumscribed by them as corporal things touch and are circumscribed by their proper places All proper places are called by divines and Philosophers univocal or circumscriptive Places and all improper places they call Equivocal places such as are definitive and sacramental oneâ—… for properly and in rigour they are no places at all because the definition of a proper place agree not with them for want of a superficial manner of containing the things that are said to be within them This received doctrine of all divines and Philosophers presupposed I answer the Mounsieurs major with this distinction the body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the host circumscriptively as into its proper and univocal place I confess the major sacramentally as into its equivocal place I deny the major Therefore I say that Christs body is really in the host but not as in any proper place for to be in an equivocal place is as much in a manner as to say in no place at all and certain it is that an equivocal place is no more a proper place then an equivocal or painted man is a proper and reall man so that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the body and bloud of Christ without any circumscriptive motion or bringing it circumscriptively from one proper place to another as our circumscriptive bodies move from one place to another but by vertue of the effective words of consecration and omnipotent power of God his substance succeeds the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated host without any proper local motion for he is there by reason of his substance and substances are incapable of any proper motion and although his quantity be where his substance is by concomitance yet it is not there with its quantitative dimensions for these are hindred in the Sacrament as I sayd before the heat of the Babilonian fire or surnace was hindred supernaturally and being Christs body is in the host as we say by reason of its substance it is in it in one respect like as our souls are in our bodies that is to say totus in toto totus in qualibet parte all Christ in the whole host and all Christ in every point and particle of the host as all Philosophers say the whole soul is in the whole body and the whole soul in every part and point of the body yet the manner of Christs body being in the host differs from the manner of the souls being in the body in this viz. that the soul is in the body but as in one definitive or limited improper place but Christs body is in the Sacrament as in its improper place not definitively or limited to one host as the soul is to one body but Sacramentally that is to say in all places where the words of consecration are uttered upon the bread and wine and this Sacramental existence Christs body hath by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity which is in all places and yet the Sacramental ubication or existence differs from the the divine general ubication in this that the Sacramental ubication is but where the words of consecration are uttered and the general divine ubication is in all places for without it the creatures would desist to be But here the Mounsieur may object that there is a great difference betwixt Christs body and an Angel or mans soul for an Angel and a soul are pure spirits and therefore be not capable of an univocal place but only of an equivocal one But Christs body is a true real body and therefore it can have but an univocal circumscriptive place To this I answer and confess that Christs body is a true real body no spirit yet I deny but that it may have an equivocal place in the host because it is now a glorified body and as it were spiritualized with spiritual qualities which redound into it from his glorified soul which spiritual qualities the Divines call dotes corporis gloriosi the dowries of a glorified body as are subtility impassibilitie Agility and clarity By reason of the all manner of subjection a glorified body hath to its soul in so far that it neither cloggs nor burthens her as our lumpish bodies do our souls here the body may move in an instant by the instantanean motion of its soul or of her minde and by reason of the Hypostatical union betwixt the divinity and soul of Christ and of his glorified body it may accompany them into ten million of equivocal places at once according to the Apostles saying 1. Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body it shall rise a spiritual body that is to say a real body endowed with spiritual qualities such as those of the soul are not with a spiritual entity or substance because the substance of a spirit and the substance of a body are two different entities essentially differing the one from the other so that if Christs body
takes its force from heaven viz. from Christs glory and unless it be waved will descend like a thunderbolt upon Diana's head and crush her in peeces if the Mounsieur can but hit right now she is utterly destroyed and Popery too out comes this celestial dart thus Rodon 14. Iesus Christ being sat at Gods right hand is in a glorious estate and yet the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host subjects him to divers ignominies viz. that his body goes into peoples bellies and among their excrements that it is subject to be eaten by his enemies yea by Mice and other beasts Hear what Claude de Xaintes a famous Romish doctor saith of it Repet 5. Chap. 2. Of all these we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lords flesh in the Sacrament let him be Turk Athiest Infidel or Hypacrite yea though he should be the Devil himself incarnate It is also subject to be stoln for about 25. years since a thief was executed at Paris for stealing out of a Church a chalice and this God in it and the Priest went to the prison in his sacerdotal ornaments and falling on his kneâ—…s before the Thives pocket pulled his God out of it And as it is a God that cannot keep himself from being stolen so neither can he keep himself from being burnt as it appeared when the Pallace-hall at Paris was burnt In short the host or God of the Mass hath been seen in the hands of one possessed by the Devil and consequently in the devils power yea there are charms made by the Romish Priests to compel the devil to restore God to them a horrible and prodigious thing to put God into the devils power and into a capacity of being eaten by the devil incarnate especially being he is now glorious in heaven Answ. While de Rodon pretends to vindicate Christs glory in heaven he blaspheâ—…nously derides him just as the high Priests and scribes did when he was crucified alios salvos fecit seipsum non potest salvum facere he saved others said they but he cannot save himself and as it is a God quoth the Jewish-like Mounsieur deriding the B. Sacrament that cannot keep himself from being stolen so neither can he keep himself from being burnt These Jewes believed not that Christ was the son of God because he descended not from the cross when they uttered therein geering tants against him and yet all Christians believe that if Christ would it was in his power then also to save himself from that ignominious death De Rodon believes not Christ is really in the consecrated host because the host is liable to be stoln or burnt and yet all orthodox believers are certain that if Christ would it is in his power to hinder both So that as you see the Jewes derided Christ upon the Cross even so is he derided by this godly Mounsieur in the Sacrament for as the Jews argued that he was not the son of God because he could not descend from the cross so he argues that he is not in the Sacrament because he cannot save it from being stolen and burnt and consequently thus far he jumps with the Jews against Christ. Now then to his Thunderbolt or celestial arrow The doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host subjects him says the Mounsieur to divers ignominies That I deny it goes into our bellies and among our excrements quoth he suppose it doth what ignominy is that to a glorified body as much as it is to the sun to cast itâ—… beams upon a dunghil Certain it is that Christ ordained this Sacrament for to be eaten by us that by receiving it into our bodies we may become his mystical members as the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. insinuats by these words For being many we are one bread one body all that participate of one bread what can incorporate us mystically unto Christ more then his body taken in the form of bread was not this the food Christ meant when speaking to one of his favorits he said cibus sum grandium cresce manducabis me nec ego mutabor inâ—…e sed tu mutaber is in me I am the food of the great ones encrease and thou shalt eat me I shall not be changed into thee but thou shalt be changed into me and S. Ciril of Ierusalem Catechesi Mistagog 4. says non siâ—… haec attendas velim tanquam sint nudus simplex panis nudum simplex vinum corpus enim sunt sanguis Christi I would not have you take these things so as if they were but bare and simple bread and bare and simple wine for they are the body and bloud of Christ. Thus this holy father understood what the B. Sacrament is thus all the rest of the holy fathers understood it thus all General Councils that ever treated of this matter defined it Christ did institute it as a mean to incorporate us into himself mysticaly and says it shall not be changed into us but we into it what ignominy or hurt then can our bellies or excremenrs do it more then the sun or its beams receive from a dunghil the Mounsieurs thunderbolt I think will prove but a Buggbeare at last to terrifie children or ignorant childish witts for Christs divinity and glorified body also are incapable of ignominy or being hurt by any thing It is says the Mounsieur subject to be eaten by his enemies yea by mice and other beasts What of that so was his body also while t' was patible subject to be abused and ignominiously treated by his enemies and although Christ could hinder them yet he did not however though he foresaw the ignominies that should happen to his sacred humanity he was nevertheless pleased to become Incarnate can the Mounsieur find fault with him therefore even so although Christ was pleased to bequeath his body now glorified and consequently incapable of ignominy to his Church in the Sacrament for to be her spiritual food and to incorporate her unto himself because forsooth the Sacramental species are liable to some accidental mischances which reflect not at all upon his glorified body to do it any annoyance or hurt it being incapable thereof therefore Mr. de Rodon thinks it a horrible prodigious fault that his body should be really in the host But his communion bread and wine are as liable to these ignominies at least to some of them as our Sacrament is Therefore he must either think it is of no value or worth or if he thinks there is any thing of divine in it he must needs grant that it is a horrible and prodigious thing to expose it to those ignominies it is liable to and so consequently lest we should fall into prodigious crimes and sacriledges we must have no Sacrament of the Eucharist at all O brave Mounsieur As to Claude de Xaintes if his words be rightly understood they import not any the least
5. The Romish doctors have sought all the remedies imaginable to prevent this danger Pope Adrian Quest. 3. speaks thus In the adoration of the Eucharist there is always a tacit condition viz. if the consecration be duly made as hath been decided at the Council of Constance otherwise they could not be excused from Idolatry that worship the host when the Priest pretends to celebrate and is no Priest as it many times happens observe these words it many times happens for they shew that there is great cause of doubting and that much caution must be used for as if a woman in her husbands absence should say to a man that comes to her and tells her he is her husband and she hath probable grounds to suspect him If thou art my husband I will receive thee and thereupon endeavours to clear it before she admits him to privacy this condition frees her promise from blame but if she gives her self up to him before she clears this doubt saying I will receive thee if thou art my husband this condition doth not free her action from blame but she will be reputed an adulteress Even so if a man to whom an host is proposed to be adored and he hath reason to doubt whether it ought to be adored should only say If thou art Christ I will adore thee and should not adore it before he be well assured of it this condition would render him blameless But if notwithstanding his doubt he adores it this condition If thou art Christ I adore thee doth not exempt him from the crime of Idolatry for to what purpose is the condition whether it be tacit or exprest I adore thee if thou art Christ because he actually adores it without knowing whether it be so or not Answ. Mr. de Rodon whatever shifts and remedies the Romish Doctors sought out to answer your unconsiderable pernicious and impious proposition which I manifestly proved not to be worth a rush I am sure these last words of Pope Adrian viz. as it many times happens of whom you desire a particular notice should be taken strengthens not your very considerable Proposition at all for they may be well applyed to two or three or half a dozen desperate miscreants who in some ages might have oftentims committed such horrid sacriledges But not to the generality of all Christians and Priests for otherwise Christs providence for his Church would be insufficient as hath been proved already But I believe the Mounsieur had rather Christ should fail in his providence then be adored in the Sacrament The said Popes first words concerning a conditional adoration do clear the case and difference between a woman receiving another man for her pretended husband and the conditional adoration of the host for the woman before she receive such a man may and ought strictly to enquire and be surely informed that he is her husband indeed which morally speaking she may easily do by reason of some fore-passed circumstances of speech place and time when they were married by his or her own relations or a hundred other ways But no such inquiry can be made of a Priest or of his intention of celebrating the only enquiry which can be made about his Priesthood is that he shew his sacerdotal Patents or some authentical letters from his superiours for his being a Priest which if he hath not to shew and is in a strange Countrey where he is not known the custome of our Church is not to let him celebrate at all and this we hold to be sufficicient for a moral certitude of ones Priesthood and consequently of adoring the host by him consecrated relying as to the rest upon Christs providence and care for his Church Neither if we should chance to adore an unconsecrated host for a consecrated one if we know it not is the Idolatry but material just as the drunkenness or fornication of a pure naturalist or ninny are but materiall and not sinful at all according to the laws of God and man If some of our Monks or Priests that Apostatized from us for the love of a wench or some such thing which is commonly their cause and you receive them with open arms and presently to fasten them the more unto you bestow benefices upon them and make them Parsons or Pastors of your flocks If I say such devout honest and exemplary persons that so well kept their solemn vows made even to God himself to please or rather to delude you the more do tell you sacrilegious tales of themselves or scurrilous lies of us after they are converted by your mony or to speak more truly perverted by wenches you have very great reason to believe them but much more to trust your souls to them and their doctrine Make much of them much good may they do you for I am sure that amongst us they are esteemed the archest Rogues and knaves in nature Rodon 6. To what hath been said I add that the Primitive Church never adored the host nor believed that the body and bloud of Christ were really and invisibly in the Sacrament of the Eucharist for if the Christians of the Primitive Church had believed it they had furnished the heathens with specious pretences to excuse their Idolatry of their Image-worship and to retort upon the Christians those very arguments which they had made use of against them for First the heathens did maintain that their Idols were composed of two things viz. of a visible Image and an invisible Diety dwelling in it They bring their Gods saith S. Chrysostome in Theodoret in Atress into their base Images of wood and stone and shut them up there as in a prison your Gods saith Arnobius book 6. dwell in playster and baked earth and that they may make these materials more venerable they suffer themselves to be shut up and to remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison But might not the heathens have justly replyed â—…o the ancient Christians if they had believed what the Romish doctors do now adays And do you not believe the very same of your host that it is composed of two things viz. of the visible species of bread and the invisible body of Christ which is hid under the species doth not your Christ dwell in baked dough and that he may make a piece of bread more venerable doth he not suffer himself to be shut up and doth he not remain hid as in a Prison Secondly the heathens held that consecration was the means whereby the diety which they adored was made present in the Image So Tertullian in his Apolog. chap. 12. saith I find nothing to object against Images but that the matter of them is such as our frying-pans and Kittles are made of which changeth its destiny by consecration And Minutius Felix speaks thus of a Pagan Image Behold it is melted forged fashioned and yet it is not God behold it is gilded finished created and yet it is not God behold it is adorned
consecrated and worshiped and then it is God And Arnobius in Book 6. Dedication and consecration makes them dwell in Images they refuse not to dwell in habitations of earth or rather being forced to go into them by the right of Dedication they are incorporated and joyued to the Images But might not all heathens have replyed to the Christians thus we find it just so in your Eucharist viz. that the signes are of the same matter with our common bread wine but change their destiny by consecration Behold it is kneaded and moulded and yet it is not God Behold it is baked in the Oven and yet it is not God Behold it is consecrated and adored and then it is God for your Christ doth not refuse to enter into these earthy matters or rather being forced to go into them by the right of consecration he is incorporated and joyned to the species of bread and wine Thirdly the heathens had both great and little Images and did believe that the deity which they worshiped was as well in the little as in the great ones Arnobius in Book 6. jears them for this saying that if their Gods had their great and little Images in which they dwelt they must needs be straightned for want of room in the little ones whereas in the great ones they might strech themselves out at their full length But might not the heathens have reproached the Christians of those times in the same manner if they had believed that Iesus Christ had been wholy contained as well in a little host as in a great one and as well in the least part of the host as in the greatest Lastly the heathens were reproached for worshiping wood and stone the work of mens hands things that cannot see hear smell taste breath speak or move things exposed to age rust corruption dust falling breaking burning c. to the injuries of worms mice and other beasts subject to the power of Enemies to be stolen lockt up c. as you may read in Arnobius Lactantius Minutius Felix and other ancient doctors of the Church But if those ancient doctors had believed what the Romanists now do might not the heathens have replyed thus And can you deny that the host which you worship is the work of mans bands that moulded it and gave it such a form as pleased him and then consecraâ—…â—… with certain words to make your Christ come into it whole and entire do not you adore your host which neither sees nor hears nor smells nor breaths nor walks nor speaks non moves Is not your host subject to age dust felling burning to worms to mice and to other beasts Is it not subject to be taken away stolen lockt up c. But if it be said that the accidents of the host are only subject to these inconveniencies and not Iesus Christ that is under them I answer that the heathens had said the same viz. that their Gods were not subject to these inconveniencies but the Images only in which they were for in Arnobius his 6 book they speak thus We believe not the copper gold and silver whereof the Images are made to be Gods and Deityes that of themselves deserve adoration but in these materials we adore those that sacred Dedication introduceth and causeth to dwell in the Images Answ. Certainly what you add Mounsieur viz. that the Primitive Church never adored the host nor believed that the body of Christ and his bloud were really and invisibly in the Sacrament is most false and you may easier prove that all the Romances that ever were made were true histories and the Moon is made of green cheese then either prove or maintain this assertion for besides that Christ himself in most plain and express terms said This is my body the practise of his Church from all ages has been to adore the host and believe the Sacrament as we do All Ecclesiastical histories all General Councils and all the holy fathers of the Primitive Church bare witness against Mr. de Rodon and contradict him in plain terms in this point S. Alexander 1. that glorious Pope and Martyr of Christ who lived in the year of our Saviour 121. is numbred by all the orthodox amongst the holy fathers of the Primitive Church this holy prelate passing his verdict upon the Eucharist says Nihil in sacrificiis majus esse potest quam corpus sanguis Christi In sacrifices there cannot be a greater thing then the body and bloud of Christ which is as much as to say that in the Eucharist are sacrificed the body and bloud of Christ which is the greatest of all sacrifices Cyrillus the most worthy Bishop of Alexandria one also of the holy fathers of the Primitive Church speaking in the name of the whole Council of Ephesus declareth the verity of the Eucharist in these terms Incruentam celebramus in Ecclesiasticis sacrificiis servitutem sanctificamur participes corporis pretiosi sanguinis Christi non ut communem carnem percipientes sed vere vivificatricem ipsius verbi propriam factam We celebrate an incruent service in our Ecclesiastical sacrifices and are sanctified being made partakers of the body and most precious bloud of Christ not receiving it as common flesh but as the true life-giving and proper-made flesh of the word To these S. Hillary not Iess renowned for learning and sanctity and also of the Primitive Church subscribes in his 8. Book de Trinit with these words de veritate carnis sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus nunc enim ipsius Domini professione fide nostra verè caro est verè sanguis est Concerning the verity of flesh and bloud there is no doubt left for now both by the consession of our Lord himself and by our own faith it is truely flesh and truly bloud what could be said more plainly S. Damascen also adds his suffrage to these holy fathers above mentioned lib. 4. de fid orthod c. 14. Non est figura quoth he panis vinnm corporis sanguinis Christi absit enim hâ—…c sed est ipsum corpus Domini deificatum ipso domino dicente hoc est meum non figura corporis sed corpus non figura sanguinis sed sanguis Bread and wine are not the figure of the body and bloud of Christ God forbid but they are the very body and bloud of our Lord Deified our Lord himself averring this is my not figure of body but body not figure of Bloud but Bloud Oh what a frind and favorit was Damascen of de Rodon and of his Presbyterian opinion and faction great S. Aug. testimony is also for us lib. sent Pros. Caro saies he ejus est quam forma panis opertam accipimus sanguis ejus quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is his flesh we take covered under the veyle of Bread and it is his bloud we drink in the shape and taste of wine S.
Hierom also an old father and one of the chief doctors of Christs Church inferiour to none in sanctity and learning is unanimous with the rest in this point Nec Moyses saith he dedit vobis panem verum sed Dominus Iesus ipse conviva convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur Neither did Moses give you the true bread but our Lord Jesus he is the Inviter and the feast ne the eater and the eaten S. Ambrose must not be forgotten who in all persections is equal to any of the rest he says lib. de Sacramentis quod erat panis ante consecrationem jam corpus Christi est post consecrationem What was but bread before the consecration after consecration is the body of Christ. To these I add great S. Gregory commonly called the fourth universal doctor of the Church he in hom Pascha has these words Quotidiè ipse Christus comeditur bibitur in veritate sed integer vivus immaculatus manet Christ himself is dayly eaten and drunk in verity or reality but he remains entire alive and unspotted If the authorities of the above-mentioned holy doctors and fathers susfice not the curious Reader let him read S. Chrysost. dial 3. de dignit sacerd cap 4. Theophilact in comment sup Iob S. Anselm and all the rest who treat upon this subject which would be too tedious for me to reckon up he shal find them all unanimous amongst themselves and in most plain and express terms agreeing with us Neither is it likely or credible at all that after Christ himself promised his Church that the gates of hell should never prevail against her this Idolatry should creep into her bosome infect all her noblest members enlarge it self through all countries and nations where the name of Christ was ever known and last for innumerable ages without controulment or opposition for none of dianas adversaries could hitherto ever tell when she begun to shew her face in Christs Church or who for many ages opposed her entrance All heresies that ever crept or were introduced into the Church were presently taken notice of opposed and condemned with their chief authors and ringleaders only our Diana the Idol in the Mounsieurâ—… opinion maugre Christs promise to the contrary had the good luck to stand it out all along from Christs time untill now and made all the Christian world adore her But sure it is that if heresy cannot prevail against Christs Church Idolatry also cannot and consequently since our Diana or Mass hath held it out so long doeth still and is like to do untill the worlds end she is no Idol as Mr de Rodon takes her to be but that truo incruent or unbloudy pure sacrifice of Christs body which his spouse the Church offers dayly to his heavenly father for a reconcilation and attonment with him for her childrens sinns from whence followeth that she ever did doth and will exhibite unto the host the adoration of Latria which is the highest adoration solely due unto God Of what value or force Mr. de Rodons bare confident I mean impudent assertion is against the whole torrent of the chief doctors and holy fathers of Christs Church I let any reasonable man judge and deny that if the Primitive Christians had believed and adored the Sacrament as we do they had furnished the heathens with specious pretences to excuse the Idolatry of their Image-worship and that they could have retorted upon the Christians these very arguments which they made use of against them for first the ancient Christians believed but in one God never owning but one deity in the three divine persons whereas the Heathens believed in many dieties or Gods Secondly the primitive Christians believed there is no other substance in the Sacrament or host but only the substance of Jesus Christ and consequently they owned no composition in Christ or in the host as that Christ or the host are composed of Christs body and of the sacramental species because Christ is in the host substantially as he is composed of his body soul and divinity or which is the same thing the host is nothing else but Christ in his substance and the sacramental species or accidents of the bread and winâ—… which remain in the sacrament after Transubstantiation by vertue of the words of consecrâ—…on enter not at all into the composition of Christ or of the host but they only serve for significations sake viz. to signify our spiritual nourishment But the heathens believed that the very metals or materials whereof their Idols were composed after they were consecrated and dedicated to their Gods were a substantial part of them They believed and adored their materials and statues after their consecration and dedication as Gods The ancient Christians nor the modern Catholicks also ever believed that the bare accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament are Jesus Christ or his body and bloud though they believe they signifie his body and bloud and that his body bloud soul and divinity also are personally present by reason of the pronoun demonstrative This which is uttered in the consecration where the sacramental species are and consequently they do very well and piously in adoring the host with the adoration of Latria But if those of the Primitive Church or we either should hold with the Apostle of the Protestants Luther that Christ is in the Sacrament impanated that is in bread then the heathens may indeed have someâ—…ing to say against us for then there would be a kind of composition of Christs body 〈◊〉 of the bread in the Sacrament as the heaâ—…hens made a composition of their materials or Images and of their false deities which they pretended were in them But no such heretical thought ever entred into the hearts of any orthodox Christian of the Primitive or modern Church That as the heathenish Idols were madâ—… by consecration dedication and adoration so our Sacrament is also made by consecration and after consecration offered and dedicated by us unto God the father and that we adore it we cannot deny But the ground upon which our consecration is built and the ground upon which the heathenish was are quite different our consecration is built upon the effective words of the son of God who is omnipotent and gave us power to consecrate as he did himself when he said to his Apostles whose successors we surely believe our Priests are as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me But the heathenish consecration had no other ground but their own bare ayery words and consequently there is no parity betwixt both consecrations Lastly that as the heathens were upbraided jeared and reproached by the holy fathers because of their great and little Images or Idols so may the primitive Christians be by the heathens for believing that Christ could be in a little or great host or in the least part of it is false for the heathens believed their Gods were in their Idols
our own free-will c. a thing which she never dreamt of and utterly detests as meer Pelagianism But it is a common saying that it is easier for a man to defend himself from a thief then from a Lyar. Therefore we may well say with the Royal Psalmist in his 42. Psalm from the unjust and deceitful tongue of Mr. de Rodon O Lord deliver us Now then M. de Rodons exclamations being proved frivolous and vain and he himself a calumnious Lyar the Romish doctors need not run for shelter to any place or thing for whether it was a command or no practised by the Primitive Church or no to minister the Sacraments under both kinds it imports not neither doth it contradict Christs commandment at all to receive it now but under one kinde only for that commandment was but for a time and until his holy spirit moved the Church for sundry grave reasons to alter it as he did in other things of as great and greater moment for the Salvation of mans soul viz. the altering of the form of Baptism by the Apostles for a while which Sacrament is of greater necessity for mans salvation then the Eucharist is as I have already sufficiently shewn Therefore being I fully answered the Mounsieurs argument a quite other way his replies against the Romish doctours answers which are very good need no farther answer by me here however this ought to be well considered that whereas Christ instituted this Sacrament for our spiritual nourishment and since his body which we receive in it is a glorified body consequently as the Romish doctours well say where his body is there is his bloud also by concomitance It followeth evidently that by receiving the Sacrament under one species we receive his body and bloud both together or dare de Rodon say that Christs body and bloud are now separated if he doth I dare say he is a most impious heretick But if they be not now separated then by receiving the one species we equivalently receive both which is all we are commanded to do according to the Institution of the Sacrament so that whether we eat the Sacrament and drink it formally or virtually is the same thing for it nourisheth our souls all alike and we observe Christs command as well by eating and drinking it virtually as we do by eating and drinking it formally there being no more vertue or substance in the one eating then in the other nor no more spiritual nourishment which is the cause why this Sacrament was instituted in the one more then in the other and all the Mystery and difference is only this that the Priests by reason they represent or act Christs person when he instituted this Sacrament are commanded by reason of their ministery and function to compleat the Sacrament by consecrating under both species as Christ himself did and therefore he commanded his Apostles whom he then made Priests saying unto them As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me to consecrat under both kinds And yet neither the Apostles did then nor do the Priests now receive more then the lay-man do when they receive but under one species only because of the concomitance of Christs glorified body and bloud as they are in the Sacrament To conclude this chapter I say that whether our Saviour laid his commands upon the Apostles and Priests only or upon all the believers of the Primitive Church both Priests and Lay-men together to receive the Sacrament under both kindes or species all that can be deduced from thence is that his commands were to be observed punctually as thereunto during the time his commandement was in vigour and force and no longer But after by his holy spirit whose assistance he promised to his Church for to guide and direct her in all her Canons and Laws this command was altered and changed otherwise we are firmly to believe and adhere to what she determineth concerning matters of saith and Sacraments and to hold that what is done by her orders is done by the orders and appointment of Christ and not at all contrary to his commands or Law because amongst others of his commands he commanded us to hear the Church and told us that by dispising her we should dispise him Therefore it is a far surer and safer ground for any man of prudence and understanding to rely upon the authority of the Church as to this high question we here treat of and as to all other questions which are built upon divine faith then upon Mr. de Rodons bare frevolous exclamations and outcryes for Christ promised his Church that she should be always guided by his holy spirit which is a surer warrant for her Canons and Laws then the hidious exclamations of the Mounsieur are to whom no promise as we know of was by Christ ever made concerning this question or any other To what is by me answered touching this point I also add Christs own practise to the contrary of what Mr. de Rodon exclaimeth against the Church Representative for Christ himself did not alwaies give the Cup with the consecrated host as may be seen when he gave the host to his two disciples whom he accompanied going to the Castle of Emaus and afterwards vanished immediatly out of their sight where the holy text makes no mention of his giving them the Cup. The like was also often done by the Apostles as any man may easily see in their Acts and so I think I have sufficiently answered Mr. de Rodons sixth chapter CHAP. VII Against the Mass. NOw Madam Diana look very well to your self for the Mounsieur is come up to your body if you can escape him this time sure you will live to the worlds end Rodon 1. The Mass according to the Romish doctors is a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sinns of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent sess 22. Against such a Mass we might alledge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass. But in this Chapter we shall only use such arguments as are directly against the Mass and so utterly destroy it Answ. The holy Councils definition of the Mass we acknowledge as also that the arguments which destroy Transubstantiation and the real presence do also destroy the Mass. And Mr. de Rodon doth very wisely we say for not reproducing his old shivered arrows or arguments which we have already brok and shattered into small splinters when they were shot against Transubstantiation and the real presence of Christs body in the host for to say the truth those Buts are so hard and steel-proof that the weak arme of the Mounsieurs understanding was not strong enough to bend his bow to
whole one body But this which we do is done for a commemoration of that which was done for we offer not another Sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but alwaies the self-same c. with S. Chrysostom hom 17. in Epist. ad Heb. and after him with Theophylact. Oecumenius with Haymo Paschasuis Remigius and others who object to themselves thus Do not we also offer every day we offer surely But this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer alwaies the self-same and not now one lamb and to morrow another but the self-same therefore this is one sacrifice otherwise because it is offered in many places there would be many Christs and a little after Not another sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but the self-same we do alwaies offer rather working a remembrance or commemoration of the sacrifice With Primasuis S. Augustines Scholar who preoccupates the Mounsieurs oblections thus What shall we say then do not our Priests daily offer sacrifice they offer surely becaus we sin daily 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 all the world so also this oblation may be a redemption and cleansing to all that offer it in truth and verity in which sense also venerable Bede calleth the Mass Redemtionem corporis animaesempiternam the everlasting redemption of body and soul lib. 4. c. 22. histor To these above mentioned holy doctors who not only unanimously agree that the Sacrament of the Altar is an host and sacrifice but also that it is the self â—…ame sacrifice which was offered upon the Altar of the Cross for our Salvation I add these ensuing General Councils and holy fathers of the primitive Church whereof some were the Apostles contemporaneans and Disciples The first holy Council of Nice chap. 14. in fine tonc ex graeco the Council of Ephesus Anathematis 11. the Chalcedon Council art 3. pag. 112. the Ancyran Council chap. 1. 5. the Neacaesarean Council Can. 13. Laodic can 19. Carthaginian 2. c. 8. Carthag 3. cha 24. and Carthag 4. chap 33. 41. S. Denyse cha 3. Eccles. hierarch S. Andrew in hist. Passionis S. Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrn S. Martialis Epist ad Burdegal S. Iustine dial cum Tryphone S. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 23 24. Tertullian de eultâ—… feeminarum corona militum Origen hom 13. in Levit. S. Cypr epist. ad Cecilium num 2. de coena Domini num 13. and Euseb. demonstrat Evangel lib. 1. c. 10. Let us now compare all these holy Councils Fathers and Doctors unanimous authorities with M. de Rodons bare word without any text of Scripture contradicting them let us I say compare all their affirmative votes to his no mention no foot step and judge which of these two parties deserves to be counted hereticks for they cannot be both counted orthodox because they contradict one another in point of faith what man then unlesse he were willfully prodigall of his salvation would adhere to de Rodons crack-brain'd obstinate self-opinion and forsake for him the whole torrent of General Councils Fathers and Doctors of Christs Church Neither are S. Gregory and Bellarmine for him too but rather point-blank against him as to the main point of this question which is that at the first Institution of this Sacrament Christ offered and sacrificed his body and bloud to his father for Bellarmine in the place alledged by the Mounsieur viz. out of his first book of the Mass chap. 27. speaks only thus that this sacrifice consists not precisely in the consummation of the host nor in any other part of the Mass but only in the words of consecration because S. Gregory said that the Apostles used no other ceremonies at the Mass when they first practised it but only the Lords prayer and immediatly after they consumed the consecrated host But neither he nor S. Gregory ever said that Christ and his Apostles never offered sacrifice to God the father in the Mass for Bellermine says positively in that very chapter that Christ offered sacrifice to his heavenly father and that the Apostles and their successors do the like dayly But he holds that the sacrifice consists precisely in the words of Consecration and not in the oblations before or after nor in the consumption of the host all which makes nothing for Mr. de Rodon who is not ashamed confidently to say that S. Gregory and Bellarmine are of his side whereas there is no such thing to be seen in them but the quite contrary as may be evidently seen in the alledged chapter of Bellarmines said book As for learned Salmeron the Jesuits commentary and Cardinal Baronius his free confession concerning an unwritten Tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist any man of reason or belief would sconer believe the Traditions of the whole Church then admire or stand in doubt of them and much less would they harken against them to Mr. de Rodons bare word or to his srivolous no mention no footstep for Gods Church had no other rule to follow from Adams time until Moses who was the first that ever writ of the old Testament concerning what she was to believe but Tradition And from the time of our Saviours Assension untill some of the Apostles and the Evangelists set their penns to paper what else had the faithful to trust unto but only unwritten Tradition what Scripture have we for changing the Sabaoth day or for the twelve articles of our Creed made by the twelve Apostles which be the Principles and foundation of our faith without which none can be saved only Tradition finally doth not the Apostle in his 2. Epist. to the Thessal 2. chap. command us to hold the Traditions which we have learned whether it be by his word or by his Epistle wherefore then should it be a strange thing that the Mass which is the dayly practise and sacrifice of the whole Church from the Apostles time until ours suppose there were nothing left written concerning it wherefore I say ought it not be held and believed as well as the changing of the Sabaoth day or as the twelve articles of the Apostles creed Moreover being the Mass as we hold and is evidently proved by the testimonies of the General Councils and holy fathers above-mentioned doth chiefly and essentially consist in the words of consecration and that Christ himself was the first that ever consecrated we consequently hold that he was the first and chief Priest that ever said Mass And whereas we find that after he consecrated he commanded his Apostles that as often as they did this that 's to say consecrated they should do it in remembrance of him we find I say that the Mass was instituted and commanded expresly by Christ himself Therefore in my opinion it is a thing far more wonderful and strange that any man of common reason
or sense should join in opinion with Mr. de Rodon against the Mass which has the Tradition and practise of the whole Catholick Church from the Apostles time unto ours of its side and the Mounsieur not a tittle out of Scripture Council or holy father that makes for him but his silly negative no mention no footstep And as the Mounsieur is impudent and obstinate in opposing the universal Church so is he also shamless in believing of her for he says that her doctours require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass which is an arrant lye for although it be true that our holy Mother the Church commands all her children if they have no lawful impediment viz. of sickness or some other very urgent affayrs of consequence to the contrary to be personally present and assist at the oblation of this divine sacrifice on sundays and holy-days of obligation for to hear Mass on workingdays is only of counsel not of precept or command yet she never taught them that by only hearing Mass they should be saved But she rather teaches them the contrary viz. that if they hear never so many Masses while they are in mortal sin they shall reap no benefit by them in order as to any the least jott of merit or reward unless they believe as the Church believes go to confession and do penance for their sinns and firmly resolve to keep Gods commandments and the commandments of his Church for the future and finally do some satisfactory works for the transgressions of their ill life past And far from truth is it also what de Rodon saith viz. that if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist hath offered unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should be again sacrificed on the Cross farr I say is that from truth Because as all the sacrifices of the old Law were but types and derived all their force and vertue from Christs bloody sacrifice upon the Cross so also this incruent or unbloudy sacrifice hath its reference or relation to the said bloudy sacrifice and the difference between the old sacrifices and this our sacrifice of the new Law is this that they were but mediate types and meer shadows of the bloudy sacrifice But our sacrifice is not only an immediate type but also a true Idaea and dayly express real commemoration of it Nay as all the holy fathers do generally accord it is the very self same sacrifice as that of the Cross was though not offered in the same manner for that was bloudy and this is unbloudy and the reason is because Christ as I said before having a desire to be amongst the children of men and promising his Church to be with her alwaise unto the consummation of the world since he is to be in heaven in his humane and glorious shape until the time of the restitution of all things he found out in the infinite abyss of his wisdom this other admirable and ineffable way of being really and personally present with his Church militant in the most blessed Sacrament for to encourage seed strengthen her wirh the manifold graces that flow from his real presence in her into the souls of his elect servants To his farther addition out of S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. 1 Tim. being he inferrs all from negatives he can never conclude However since the Apostle makes mention unto Tymothy of Presbyters that is to say Priests and since betwixt Priest and sacrifice there is a correlation it follows that the Apostle at least virtually made mention of sacrificers Rodon 3. The second argument is drawn from the definition of a sacrifice as it is given us by our adversaries Card. Bellarmine in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 2. defines it thus sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mistical ceremony destroys something that is sensible permanent from those last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form 2. arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass. The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our adversaries say it is a sensible thing but the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing Sacrificed Answ. From these last words viz. that the lawful minister destroys something that is sensible drawn out of Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice Mr. de Rodon forms two arguments like two huge milstones that will crush and destroy the sacrifice of the Mass consequently poor Dianaâ—…s head too To his first crusher which begins thus In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses I grant its major and its minor which is this But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience I distinguish thus but the body and bloud of Christ c. do not fall under our senses in their connatural and proper shape I confess the minor do not fall under our senses in a sacramental shape or in the form and shape of bread and wine which by experience we know falls under our senses I deny the minor and consequence also for we never say that Christ is in the Sacrament in his proper humane shape but only sacramentally that 's to say in the shape of bread and wine and yet we hold that he is really and personally there because he himself said so in most express terms These sacramental species then being obvious to our senses and Christ being really in them they being destroyed although Christs body according to its natural and human shape be not destroyed for he is not reduplicatively so in the Sacrament but only specificatively his sacramental presence is also destroyed in them and consequently we say that by destroying the sacramental species which are palpably obvious to our senses a true and proper sacrifice though an unbloudy one is offered to God the father in remembrance of Christs once-bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross Rodon 4. Against this answer Mr. de Rodon hath these two replies The first is that Christs body is not visible by the species of bread because as his adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it and he says moreover that although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizible by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently he infers
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
natural death of Iesus Christ for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend that which is of the essence of the Sacrifice of the Cross and consequently differs from it essentially and not in respect of the manner only Answ. To this reply I answer first that according to all Philosophers what is essential to any thing if it be abstracted or taken away the thing cannot be understood without it for example if you take away animality or rationality from a man man cannot be understood because animality and rationality belong to his essence for the essence of any thing is the very first that 's conceived of it But a sacrifice yea a rigorous sacrifice too may be well understood without death for death enters not into the definition of a sacrifice being there were many sacrifices of the old law of things that were not capable of dying viz. of oile meal bread wine c. and yet they were rigorous sacrifices for the things offered were sensible and destroyed Therefore as what is not essential to man is not essential to Peter or to Paul so what is not essential to sacrifice in its whole univocal latitude cannot be essential to this sacrifice or to that and being death is not essentiall to sacrifice ut sic as Schoolmen call it that is to sacrifice in its whole extent and latitude it can make but an accidental difference between the same sacrifice offered bloudily and unbloudily because all essential differences proceed from different forms and therefore since all rigorous sacrifices agree univocally in the same reason or form of a sacrifice it followeth evidently that to be sacrificed bloudily or unbloudily is but a meer accidental difference of a sacrifice Secondly I answer distinguishing the minor viz. But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the natural death of Jesus Christ. The sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the death of Jesus Christ actually and practically I confess speculatively significatively commemoratively and applicatively I deny and the consequence also for Christ instituted this Sacrament not only to be a signe or type of his bloudy sacrifice but also to be a commemoration and daily application thereof and therefore he said to his Apostles As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me Rodon Secondly because the representation of a thing differs essentially from the thing represented for example the Kings picture differs essentially from the King Also the memorial of a thing differs essentially from the thing whereof it is a memorial for example the celebration of the Passover which was a memorial of the Angels favorable passing over the houses of the Israelits differs essentially from that passing over and lastly the application of a thing differs essentially from it for example the application of a Plaister differs essentially from the Plaister But aceording to the determination of the Council of Trent in sess 22. the sacrifice of the Mass is representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross therefore the sacrifice of the Mass differs essentially from that of the Cross. Answ. To the second part of this reply I say that the representation of a thing need not always differ essentially from the thing represented in essendo as Schoolmen call it in its natural essence or being but only in representando in its representative or significative being for example when an Angel understands himself or represents his own being to himself sure it is that his being is not essentially different from himself in essendo although his being be essentially different in representando from the form or species wherewith he understands himself the same thing we say of the sacrifice of the Mass that it differs from that of the Cross in its significative or representative being and in its application also from whence follows not that the sacrifice of the Mâ—…ss is essentially different from that of the Cross in its natural entity or being and being it is the self-same essence which is sacrificed in both the distinction or difference cannot be in essendo that 's to say in the entities of both sacrifices but only in representando vel applicando that 's to say in their representation or application Just as I said before that a man in his old age may well represent himself or his childish actions when he was young and yet he differs not essentially in his old age from himself while he was young for otherwise he would not be the same man and so this consequence is also blown Rodon Thirdly because the sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and consequently ought not to be reiterated for its value being infinite it is sufficient to take away all sins past present and to come as Bellarmin saith Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 4. But the sacrifice of the Mass is of a finite price and value according to the same Bellarmin and other Romish doctors at which we may justly wonder seeing as our adversaries say it differs not from the sacrifice of the Cross either in respect of the thing sacrificed or in respect of the chief Priest and yet from these the sacrifice hath all its price and value Answ. To the third part of this reply I say that although the sacrifice of the Cross be of an infinite value and sufficient to take away all sins past present and to come yet no inconvenience follows of its being reiterated unbloudily though it would follow if it were to be reiterated bloudily which we abhorr as much as to think of I say also that as the sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and price so is also the sacrifice of the Mass as to the thing which is sacrificed viz. the body and bloud of Christ though it be but of a finite or limited value as to the Priest or sacrificer and Bellarmin with the rest of the Romish doctors says the like and no more Therefore there is no just cause of wondring that Christ who is both the high Priest and sacrifice too should offer this sacrifice bloudily upon the Cross and unbloudily upon the Altar as he did when he first instituted it and that his sacrifice should be of an infinite price and value because of the dignity of his person though the same sacrifice as it is offered by all other Priests who are but his substitutes be not of an infinite value their persons though never so holy being infinitely unequal in worth and dignity to his and yet as to the thing sacrificed by them viz. the body and bloud of Christ it is of as infinite a value and price as that which Christ himself offered is and no man of reason and belief wonders at it Rodon 19. Secondly I say that an unbloudy propitiatory sacrifice is a feigned and an imaginary thing and thus the arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews do wholy destroy it Answ. I say this Proposition of 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
your consequences to be but frivolous and strange Therefore to the first part of this third principal reply of yours I answer also that the mediate representation commemoration and application which you found out in a good sense to be in the Sacrament or Mass we are glad you found some good thing in it if it contains any such good thing it hinders not but that an immediate representation commemoration and application according to the holy fathers and Council of Trents meaning may be also found in it which immediate representation commemoration and application because they are of far more efficacy and vertue then the former are they may be very well called a true proper sacrifice propitiatorie for the sins of the living and dead which propitiatory sacrifice Mr. de Rodon hath not as yet refuted nor will be ever able to do having all the holy fathers and practise of Gods Church against him Rodon Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Iesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Iesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his word and Sacraments And this is that Iesus Christ teacheth us S. John 3. in these words as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And S. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applys a pluister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinneâ—… to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but faith As for the distinction of the Sacramental and natural being of Iesus Christ it hath been already refuâ—…ed in the 6. number Answ. This second part of his reply I answer thus that Christ being offered not to us as the Mounsieur says but for us as the holy Evangelist tells us we ought on our parts by a true and lively faith to embrace him with all his benefits offered us by vertue of his passion both in word and Sacraments And since by his word we are to believe that it is his body which is offered for us in the Sacrament we ought to believe it without any staggering or hesitation because he himself said absolutely this is my body And as in S. Iohn the third is said that as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up So must we also believe that he was lifted up bloudily on the Cross and is lifted up dayly unbloudily in the Mass for our sins because our mother the Church commands us so to believe and Christ said he that hears not the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and publican Math. 18. However although belief be a condition requisite that the vertue of Christs Passion and his Sacraments should be applyed unto us yet it is not the principal cause of our sanctification but Christs body offered upon the Cross and in the Sacrament for Christs body offered for us is the principal cause of our salvation and the healing Plaister which is applyed to a sick soul to heaâ—… her spiritual wounds and faith whether it be actuall or habituall cannot alone do the deed and consequently S. Paul in the place alleadged where he says God hath set forth Iesus Christ to be a Propitiation through faith in his bloud must be understood through faith as a condition requisite and not through faith as the Principal cause in his bloud for the principal cause of Propitiation is Christs body and bloud offered for us once bloudily upon the Cross and dayly offered for us in the sacrifice of the Mass so that although the Apostle says not explicitly through the sacrifice of the Mass yet he says it implicitly because Christs bloud is there offered and so there is an end to all Mr. de Rodons replys As to the distinction concerning the natural and sacramental being of Jesus Christ the Prudent Reader may judge whether its refutation be not sufficiently answered by me where I solved all his arguments of the said sixth number Rodon 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the doctors of the Romish dâ—…ctors and called by our adversaries the Angelical doctor This Thomas in part 3. Quest. 8. Art 1. having proposed this question viz. whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concluds wiâ—…e these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fittly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterwards he gives his answer in these words I answer we must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrifice of Christ in two respects first because as Augustin to simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a wall or in a frame we say this is Cicero this is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly the celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe to this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas Answ. Will you indeed Mounsieur this profer I confess is fair but I doubt much whether you and yours will stand to his arbitration as to this point as for my own part I take him to be one of the most eminent doctors of our Church and worthy to be called Angelical both for his excellency in learning especially concerning the B. Sacrament and for his purity of life Therefore I wish you and your party would follow his opinion and choose him umpire betwixt you and us concerning this high question we dispute of for never
and a Metaphor for God being a spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of heaven and earth which he hath received from God his father as Earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again when it is said S. Math. 16. upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest thâ—…t these are figures and Metaphors as Bellarmine confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is chiefly by this Passage that they endeavour to prove the Popes authority Answ. If this be our weapon or objection I pray Mounsieur give us leave to handle and order it our selves and then the standers by or arbiters may judge whether we thrust or push home with it or no for as you handle it it is to blunt too pearce through Therefore instead of saying when the establishing of Articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments c. men speake plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively give us leave to say men ought as well as they can and as farr as the subject they treat of bears it to speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively and then perhaps our weapon may do some execution As for example at the Institution of this Sacrament Christ first took bread in his hand and said plainly without any figure this is my body and left it as a Testament with us so wee take it and believe it to be Afterwards he took wine in a cup saying This is the Chalice of my bloud Certainly if the consectated bread be his real body the consecrated wine must needs be his real bloud because as we suppose the words of consecration were uttered upon both in the same sense and meaning Notwithstanding the words spoken of the bread were spoken plainly and not figuratively but the words spoken of the wine were figurative why because he took not the wine immediatly in his hand as he took the bread but he took it in a cup or chalice and therefore to express the Testament of the bloud it was necessary he should speak figuratively and yet he exprest himself as plainly as could be But in the Testament of his body where there was no need of a Metonynâ—…e or figure he exprest himself plainly and down right from whence follows that Sacraments Testaments and covenants ought to be made as plainly clearly and in as proper terms as their subjects will permit them to be exprest Sometimes also a thing is better exprest when one speaks figuratively then by the proper literal Phrase for example when I say such a man is a Lyon a Tygar or a Nero. Such an expression is as plain and yet better and more energical to shew and express strength cruelty or tyrannie then if one should say such a man is mighty strong very cruel and tyrannical So was oâ—…r Saviours expression of S. Peter Math. 16. where he calls him a rock because the word rock is more significative and energical to shew the stability and firmness of Peter and his successours spiritual power then if he had exprest himself in plain terms thou art the head or chief Ruler of my Church And yet I eonfess that Rock there has but a figurative sense Therefore I say that when we have not a proper word to expresse a thing or when we cannot expresse it so well with its proper term as we can with a figure then it is lawful in Sacraments Testaments and covenants to use figurative expressions instead of plain and litteral ones But in our present question or dispute concerning the Eucharist especially concerning the consecration of the Bread there is no need of any figure either for to signify the thing consecrated or to express it with more energy Therefore being 't is left us for a Testament of the new Law we ought to take the words in their plain and litteral meaning without having recourse to any needless figurative glossation or sense Therefore although as Mr. de Rodon handles this weapon or objection it be false that Articles of faith Testaments and covenants are always exprest in proper terms in holy scripture which word Always he has in his answer though he puts it not in the objection yet as I handle it that is thus when the establishing of Articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments c. Men ought as well as they can and as farr as the subject they treat of â—…ears it and when there is no necessity to the contrary in making Testaments covenaâ—…ts or Articles of faith to speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively In this sense I deny our major Proposition to be always or ever â—…lse And being the minor is evident clear aâ—…d uncontroâ—… led by Mr. de Rodon with my good leave I let the consequence follow Rodon 4. Secondly I answer that the holy scripture commonly speaks of Sacraments in figurative terms Thus Circumcision is called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. in these words This is my Covenant every male shall be circumcised that is this is the signe of the Covenâ—…nt as appears by the following verse ye â—…hall circumcise the fleâ—… of your fore-skin and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you So the Paschal lamb is called the Lords Passover Exod. 12. because the bloud of this lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was given as a signe of the Angels favorable passing over the houses of the Israelites â—…s appears by vers 13. of the same chapter So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it is the Sacrament of it In a word the Eucharistical cup is called the New Testament because it is the signe seal and Sacrament of it Answ. Really Mounsieur these wily sophistical excuses or answers will not serve your turn for we grant that Circumcision the Passover and all the rest of the Sacraments of the old Law were but meer speculative signes and tokens of what they signified and that they had no practical or operative vertue in them of themselves to sanctify or give grace to those that received them and God gave grace to the receivers of the old Sacraments only by compact viz. he promised Grace to such as received those Sacraments or signes he then gave them for their distinguishment from the unsaithfull not that those signes or Sacraments contained actually or practically any grace in themselves or that they were immediate instrumental causes of Grace as the Sacraments of the new Law are for the former Sacraments were as divines call them but vasa vacua empty vessels and the new ones are vasa plaena full vessels dipt in his Passion and
filled with his pretious bloud and consequently vessels full of operative Grace for otherwise the Sacraments of the old law would be of as much value and worth as those of the new and so Christs new Sacraments would be instituted in vain which would be a great derogation to to his infinite wisdom and consequently Blasphemous to assert Therefore although circumcision the Passover and all the rest of the old Sacraments were but meer tokens or signes yet it follows not that Baptism the rest of Christs Sacraments and especially the Eucharist which was particularised and pointed at with the Pronoune demonstrative hoc are but meer signes for as Baptism and so I say of all the rest of Christs Sacraments is not only a signe of the washing of Regeneration as the Mounsieur calls it but also the instrumental cause of Regeneration so the Eucharist or that which is in the Eucharistical cup is not only a Sacrament or signe of Christ sacrificed but also his reall body and bloud as he himself said it is in most plain and express terms without using any figurative expression especially concerning the consecration of the bread where there was no need of a figure and consequently the Mounsieurs sly and sophistical Illatives viz. because it is the Sacrament of it and because it is the signe seal and Sacrament of it are sufficiently answered and quasht for his becauses are not the entire and adequate causes that constitutes Sacraments of the new law for besides their significations or being signes of Grace they are also real causers of it and the Eucharist principally because it is both Sacramentum res the Sacrament and the thing it self Rodon 5. Thirdly I answer that in holy Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure for the Testament of Jacob Gen. 49. and that of Moses Deut. 33. are nothing else but a chain of Metaphors and other figures â—…nd civilians will have it that in Testaments we should not regard the proper significatiâ—…n of the words but thâ—… inteâ—…ion of the Testator To this I add that Iesus Christ did not make the new Testament and the new covenant but only instituted the seal Sacrament of them for the covenant wâ—… 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 serpents head This was afterwards reneweâ—… with Abraham when God promised him that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed viz. in Christ the blessed sâ—…ed who hath destroyed the Kingdom of Sathan After this it was confirmed by the bloud of Chrisâ—… shedd on the Cross then it was published through all the world when the Apostles had receiâ—…ved the holy Ghost and lastly Baptism and the Eucharist are the signes seals and Sacraments of it Answ. We grant that for the better expression of things in Testaments and covenants figures may be used and for that reason they are sometimes nay often used in holy Scripture yet to use Amphibologies and figures in Testaments covenants or Sacraments without necessity and when they can be otherwise as clearly or better exprest in plain and proper words we hold neither convenient or lawfull for else how can the Civilians themselves whose great Patron de Rodon is penetrate or dive into the Testators intention sure this were the high way to set all the world together by the â—…ars this is the way to wrong and undo poor widdows and orphans the way to break and distract haman society and to fill Mr. de Rodons favorits the civilians pockets with ill-gott-gold Gods laws and Testaments would be so enveloped and folded up in obscure figures and Tropes that scarce any body could have a glimpse of them even in our time of the Evangelical Law which is called the Law of Grace De Rodon then must of necessity make way for this weapon as I have ordered it or else by enriching his dear Civilians he will quite ruine and destroy not only thousands of poor honest people but also human society and all Christian souls But if neither he nor the Translator his surviver be able to break this thrust as I am sure they are not then will they be forced to submit to the Romish doctors mercy As to the Mounsieurs additionate reason viz. that Jesus Christ did not then make the new Testament and the new covenant but only instituted the seal and Sacrament of them for the covenant was made with all mankinde in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised that the seed of the woman should break the serpents head c. to this additionate reason which is but one of Mr de Rodons start-holes to save himself I answer that whatever the Testament or Covenant between God and Adam was Christ himself called the Eucharist Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine this is the New Testament in my bloud if it be a New Testament or Covenant how can it be the Testament or Covenant made with Adam or did Christ make any Testament or Covenant with any body else before Adam that his Covenant or Testament with Adam may be called the New Testament in Christs bloud Christ said not this is the signe or seal of my new Testament or covenant as Mr. de Rodon glosseth him But perhaps de Rodon the great Civilian understood the Testators intention better then he was able to express himself for Christ the Testatour spoke but plainly and ordinarily and he understood him figuratively elegantly and Rhetorically who then can say but that this grand Civilian received his fee I am sure he deserved it and a good one too Rodon 6. Fourthly I answer that if by these words to speak clearly and plainly be understood to speak intelligibly sâ—… that the Apostles might and ought understand what he said to them then it is certain that Iesus Christ did speak clearly for to speak Sacramentally and according to the stile used in all Sacraments was to speak clearly and not obscurely But if by these words to speak clearly be understood to speak without a figure then it is false that he always spâ—…ke to his disciples wittness the calling his disciples to whom he said Math. 4. follow me and I will make you fishers of men And when he saith elsewhere ye are the salt of the earth and the lights of the world c. To this I add the Apostles did ask Iesus Christ the meaning of Parables and other things which they did not understand and therefore certainly they had much more reason to ask the meaning of so many strange things as follow from the Mass from Transubstantiation and from the pretended presence of Christs body in the host viz. how a human body can be in a point and in divers places at once how the head of Iesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth how accidents can be without a subject c. Answ. I do not
deny Mounsieur but that a man may sometimes better and more significantly express his minde with figurative words then with plain and clear words and therefore I say that figures may be used in Testaments and Covenants when there is need of them to express a thing with more energy or when one hath not proper words to serve his turn however figurative words are never as plain and clear as proper words are for a figurative expression although it may be more significative then a natural expression is yet in comparison to the natural and proper one it is essentially obscure because obscurity is essentiall to every figure Trope and therefore where there is no need especially in Testaments and Sacraments as there is no need of any figure or figurative sense in these words this is my body they ought not be used That Christ spoke to his disciples in Parables and figures in the passages mentioned by Mr. de Rodon what 's that to our purpose at the uttering of these Parables was he instituting Sacraments or making of Testaments our objection speaks of the establishing of articles of faith of the institution of Sacraments makâ—…ng of Testaments and covenants and not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…ords sermons speeches and Parables to his disciples and to the vulgar people for we deny not but that our Lord spoke very often figuratively and parabolically to the people But we deny that when he instituted any of his Sacraments and especially the Eucharist he spoke figuratively or parabolically the matters and forms of all the Sacraments of the new Law have no figures in them the water of Baptism is no figure of water but natural water and these words I Baptize or wash thee in the name of the father son and holy Ghost amen are no figurative words No more is the oyl of confirmation a figurative but a real oyl and the form or words spoken by a Bishop viz. I signe thee with the signe of the cross and confirm thee with the crisme of salvation in the name of the father c. are no figurative or typical words no more are the man and woman that marry figurative but real persons nor their words of contract figurative but plain and proper words viz. I take thee to my wiâ—…e I take thee to my husband And so forth of all the rest of Christs Sacraments Even so I say of the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the bread and wine whereof 't is made are no figures or signes of bread and wine and the words of consecration which are the formal part of this Sacrament are not figurative but plain words so that although every Sacrament of the new Law doth signifie something that is Mystical yet the essence of the Sacramants doth not only consist in the meer signification of the Mystery it signifies but in its own plain matter and form also which form always consignifies something mystical and consequently the stile used in the Sacraments of the new Law is not figurative but rather proper and plain To what he adds I answer that it is pitty the Mounsieur was not with the Apostles when they askâ—… Jesus Christ the meaning of Parables and other things which they did not understand I say 't is pitty he was not with them to help them out concerning this question for when the Jewes askt him Quomodo potest hic carnem suam dare ad manducandum how can this man give his flesh to he eaten and they received no other Answer 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 the Apostles who heard this answer replyed no more but humbly submitted and believed Christs words But if Mr. de Rodon had been by this answer belike would not have satisfied him he would argue the case with Jesus Christ more profoundly according to his Principles of Philosophy he would pose him and pose him again even until he sackt him if he could to fetch out how he could Transubstantiate bread and wine into his body and bloud or else he would not believe him So may he also misbelieve that Christ revived Lazarus until he shewes him the manner how he did it for it seems the Mounsieur allowes of no supernatural power in Christ for if he did he would never so often repeat these frivolous questions viz. how a human body can be in a point and in divers places at once how the head of Jesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth c. Rodon 7. Lastly since Iesus Christ said drink ye all of this Cup all Priests whether Iesuits Monks or other Romish doctors would of necessity be constrained really properly and without a figure to drink of the Cup whether melted or not and really to swallow it untill they should confess that there are figures in the words of Iesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist Answ. No such constraint good Sir for the Romish doctors do allow that there is a figure in the word Cup but they allow not of any figure in the consecrated wine which is in the Cup Neither do they hold that the Cup is the Testament but the consecrated wine which is in the Cup. Therefore I pray give them leave to drink the consecrated wine which is their Testament and has no figure in it and since you are so great a lover of figures drink you the Cup molten or unmoulten if you can Objection 2. Romanists 8. The second objection is this The Sacrament of the Eucharist is more excellent then that of the Passeover because the Sacrament of the Passeover is a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the thing typified is always more excellent then the type But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not realy 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 the Sacrament of the Passeover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist because a lamb and its bloud is more excellent then Bread and wine and the death of a lamb and the shedding of his bloud doth much better represent the death of Christ and the shedding of his bloud on the Cross then bread broken and wine powred into a cup can do Answer Rodon 9. To this I answer first that the thing typified by the Paschat lamb is Iesus Christ and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as S. Paul shews clearly 1. Cor. 5. when he calls Iesus Christ our Passeover in these words Christ our Passeover was crucified for us The truth is a whole lamb without spot or blemish killed and burnt towards the Evening and its bloud shed doth very well represent Iesus Christ perfect without sin put to death and his bloud shed toward the end of the world and in the fulness of time but such a lamb
believe your bare word against the Apostles clear meaning for certainly the Apoâ—…le purposely mentioned the word Penetrated to let us know that Penetrability is a property that belongs to a glorified body heâ—…p on 〈◊〉 heap on more and more curses upon your own self for adulterating Gods clear word but I am sure no body of understanding reason or belief ought to believe you or pin his saith upon your glosses after so many blasphemyes and lyes by you exprest in this small treatise Therefore it is certain that as to be obscure corruptible impenetrable and lumpish or heavy is proper to every patible body so it is proper to every gloâ—…ious body as Chriâ—…s is most glorious to be luminous incorruptible penetrable active or fleet or if you deny penetrability to a glorified body you must deny it agility incorruptibility and clarity also and then you contradict your own self for in your 4th chap. numb 15. you own that the glory of Chriâ—…s body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light which is nothing else but the gift or dowry of clarity Rodon 15. All the Romish doctors agree with us that modal accidents which are nothing else but the manner of being of substances as Action Passion Relation figure c. cannot be without a subject no not by the power of God himself But all the Objections by which they endeavour to prove that the accidents of the bread and wine may exist without a subject that is without their substance do prove the same thing of modal accidents too so that I shall not stay now to repeat these objections with their answers which are set down at large in my dispute about the Eucharist Answ. Certainly Mr. de Rodon you are much mistaken in the general opinion of all the Romish doctors concerning accidents and I believe you never read them all nor the tenth part of them for although these Accidents which you recount if compared to the accidents of Quantity and Quality because of their small entities and being are but modal yet in themselves they are real and positive entities and not pure modes for each of them constitutes a peculiar Predicament or series of Accident as the common opinion of all the best Romish doctors hold with Aristotle commonly called the Prince of Philosophers But whatsoever they hold of these Accidents whether they be proper entities or only pure modes very sure it is that they hold that subsistence and existence themselves which are substantial modes and more intrinsecal and neer to their subjects or substances then modal accidents be may be separated from their substances as Antichrists subsistence and existence are now separated from his Essence for essences as Aristotle says are ab aeterno from all eternity but subsistences and existences are not But suppose these modal accidents for the smallness of their entities cannot be without a subject yet it follows not but that the Quantity and Quality of the Sacramental species which have a greater and more solid entity may be without their connatural subjects their connatural subject being supplyed by a better and stronger as we say the power of God which upholds the Sacrament is a far better and stronger prop of the Sacramental species then the bare entities of bread and wine were And suppose again that according to all the Romish doctours these modal Accidents cannot be even by the power of God himself without a subject yet it follows not that they cannot be without their connatural subject because God can supply their connatural subject with a better and so he does in the Mystery of the blessed Sacrament for he gives the Sacramental species a better and stronger subject then they had before while they were sustentated by their connatural subjects of bare bread and wine In a word it is sufficient for all Accidents to have an aptitudinal inherence to their natural subjects without having an actuall inherence in them Objection 5th Roman 16. The fifth objiction is drawn from Mal. 1. in these words from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the gentils and in every place shall they offer incense to my name and a new pure offering where by this new and pure offering nothing can be understood but the sacrifice of the Mass because by this offering we cannot understand prayers almes contrition of heart and other good works which are sometimes in Scripture called oblations and sacrifices for the Prophet Malachy promiseth a new offering But Prayers Alms and other good works were common amongst the Iews and besides they of the Reformed Religion do believe that all the actions of the faithfull are polluted and the Prophet speaks of a pure and clean offering Again by this offering which Malachy speaks of cannot be understood lambs Bulls and such like animals which were wont to be sacrificed in Solomons Temple because the Prophet promiseth that it shall be offered in every place amongst the heathens Lastly by this offering cannot be understood the bloudy sacrifice which Iesus Christ offered on the Cross because that bloudy sacrifice was offered but once upon Mount Calvary in Judea and the Prophet speaks of an oblation that shall be offered in every place Therefore by this offering must be understood the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine which is nothing else but the Mass. Rodon 17. To this I answer first that by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual worship and service which believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their persons and Religious actions and this is the reason why S. Paul Rom. 12. speaks thus I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And chap. 15. speaking of the grace that was given him of God he saith It is given him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentils ministring the Gospel of God and that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost whence it appears that by this oblation whereof Malachy speaks we must not under stand the offering of Christs body and bloud under the aecidents of bread and wine but the offering up of the persons and Religious actions of those that should be brought unto God by preaching of the Gospel and particularly the Gentiles Answ. I wonder where Mr. de Rodon did reade or learn all these witty commentations he has upon Scripture If they were revealed unto him by God then they carry as much authority with them as Scripture it self doth But if they be not revealed nor seconded by any of the holy fathers upon what foundation doth their verity rely but upon de Rodons own bare word All the
clean one the Prophet spoke of If it be a strict sacrifice a sacrifice with Incense as the Prophet sayes it is it must be destroyed Is the new time you speak of that sacrifice a great deal of that time I confess is past and spent but when was it incenst were the new people the Christians this sacrifice 't is true many of them are dead and gone but were they all thurified an Incenst at their departure out of the world or is the new place the world your new or clean sacrifice that is neither quite destroyed as yet nor in most places Incenst No more are the Lords Prayer the new sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords supper as they are celebrated by you nor your new preaching if they be your sacrifices I say they are not offered with Incensation or thurification But the Prophet promised that at the new or clean offering or sacrifice of the new Law which sacrifice is to be offered every where or in every country or dominion it shall be offered with Incense and thurification to the honour and glory of Gods name and so I am sure do the Roman Catholicks through the whole world when they celebrate or offer the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass solemnly to the honour and glory of Gods name they offer it with Incense and thurification And this sacrifice as we believe it is the real body and bloud of Christ is infinitly cleaner then your bare bread and wine and then all the rest of the sacrifices you mentioned are Therefore since the Prophet says there must be a new or clean sacrifice and that this sacrifice must be offered in every place with Incense to the name of God it followeth according to the Prophets words that the sacrifice of the Mass whereat Incense is dayly offered is that new and clean sacrifice since that of the Cross cannot be it it having not been Incenst nor offered in every place and the Mounsieur nor any of his party can shew us any other clean or new sacrifice of theirs where at Incense is used Moreover God not only changed and multiplied his people but also changed and bettered his sacrifice for in place of sacrificing Cattle birds and other weak and poor creatures which were not able to purge sins and were also often polluted by the sins of the offerers God in this place promised a most effectuall pure and excellent dayly sacrifice to continue perpetually in all places of his Church that cannot be polluted which accordingly our blessed Redeemer and Saviour instituted of his own body and bloud in the forms of bread and wine as all ancient fathers prove So Iustinus Martyr teacheth in dialogo cum Trpihone S. Cyprian lib 1. cap. 18. adversus 〈◊〉 5. Damascâ—…n lib. 4. c. 14. de fide orthedoxa S. Ierom. S. Theodoret and S. Cyril in their comentaries upon this place S Augustine lib. 18 c. 15. de civit S. Chrysost. in Ps. 95. oratione conara Iudaeos shewing plainly and urging the Jews and all oppugners of this Catholick belief and doctrine that this Prophecy is not otherwise fulfilled but in the daily sacrifice of the Church for that here is prophâ—…sied another sacrifice distinct and different from the Jewish sacrifices neither were sacrifices offered in all the world neither could be ordinarily offered out of Ierusalem But of this most sacred Mistery and particularly that this is here prophesied there is so much published by ancient and late writers that more need not to be here added And yet Mr. de Rodon with his bare word or exposition thinks to carry away the prize from all these so great is his opinion of himself and of his illuminated spirit a thing common to all hereticks Rodon 19. Thirdly I answer that the oblation which is offered to God under the Gospel is pure and clean the service which performed unto him according to his word is pure thâ—… preaching of the Gospel is pure In a word the Christian Religion is pure though there be many failings in those that profess it And although the faithfull that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed about with many infermities and that their Religious actions be accompanied with diverse failings yet their persons and words may be said to be pure and clean in Iesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfy God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy bâ—…fore God for it is these S. Peter speaks of in Ep. 1. chap. 2. Who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. And so our sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Iesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holyness so that the defects of them are not imputed to us To this I add that besides the perfect purity which we have by the imputation of Christs rigteousness we have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost of which S. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost for that which God hath decreed Iesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun is reputed by God perfect and compleat And S. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1. Tym. 2. 8. in these words I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie 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 wrinckle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Answ. Your third answer is that the oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel is pure and clean the service which is performed unto him according to his word is pure the preaching of his Gospel pure In a word the Christian Religion is pure though there be many failings in those that profess it All this I confess is true but what is it to your purpose I think if all the holy fathers above-cited ought to be more believed then you and I know not why they should not I think I say and I am sure on 't too that you rather accuse and condemn your self and your whole party by this answer then save or excuse your selves for by that pure oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel all the holy fathers did understand the body bloud of Christ as they are daily offered sacrificed upon the Altar in the Mass then which nothing can be offered and sacrificed more clean and pure but they never made any mention of your bare bread and wine By the pure service which is performed unto him according to his word cannot be understood your
service for you contradict his word his plain express word is that Bread and wine after the words of consecration are converted into his real body and bloud for his express words upon the bread and wine he took in his hand be these this is my body this is my bloud And you say no it is not his body but the signe or Sacrament of his body only and you have no more reason to misbelieve this then you have to misbelieve the Mysteries of his Incarnation and of the Blessed Trinity because his word or Testimony for this is as clear if not clearer then for any of the other two grand Mysteries of our Belief and Gods word or Testimony is the only ground and motive of our faith and as you misbelieve his word in this point so you misbelieve his Church in many things more notwithstanding his express word commands you the contrary as in S. Math. 18. he bids you hear the Church And in S. Luke the 10th speaking to his Church representative he sayes he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me a lesson which every good Christian ought to heed very well It is also one of the Articles of our Creed to believe in the Catholick Church In a word because you believe not him nor obey his Church your preaching the Gospel and your unchristian Religion whereof you so much boast and wherein as in your selves be many failings and absurdities are very far from being pure and clean and consequently the sacrifices you here mention though as they are offered by the orthodox people while they are in the state of grace be pure and acceptable to God yet your schismatical or rather heretical sacrifices are neither pure nor pleasing to him for you like rotten or withered branches are excommunicated and quite cut off from his Church and so will still remain until you be reconciled unto her according to Christs command That your doctrine and preaching and consequently your sacrifice and service to God are not clean and pure but rather putrid and stinking appears manifestly by these your own words which be these And although the faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed with many infirmities and that their Religious actions be accompanied with divers failings yet their persons and works may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy before God for it is these S. Peter speaks of in Ep. 1. c. 2. who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And so you say your sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Jesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holyness so that the defects of them are not imputed to you This I say is very impure and stinking doctrine for it contradicts Gods word who Proverb 15. sayes the victims of the impious are abominable to our Lord. God is no acceptor of persons if a drunkard a whoremaster a murderer or a thief offer him never so many sacrifices while he is out of the state of Grace although he offers them in Christs name they are not pleasing or acceptable to God but rather odious and abhominable and much less are the sacrifices of disobedient and stubborn heretical spirits pleasing unto him for Obedience is with him better then victims and consequently to be obedient to his Church is more acceptable unto him then any victims or sacrifices we can offer him in whose name soever Therefore until Mr. de Rodon can prove that his is the only universal Church of Ood which he will never be able to accomplish he ought not to brag or boast of his sacrifices for all the sacrifices that are offered to God out of his Church as the Jewes offer him sacrifices too are odious and abhominable unto him Certain then it is Mr. de Rodon that you nor any of your party are those persons the Apostle meant in the fore-alledged passage and certain also it is that Christ never covers or hides your or any bodies else his nasty sins and abominable sacrifices which be always more loathsom to him then any cloose-stool or carrion is to us and much less whatever you presume your selves to be are you his members being now as dead branches lopt of from a tree cut off from his Mistical body the Church for no soul can be a living member of Christ before she be renst and washt by vertue of his pretious bloud which boiles in his Sacraments that are the spiritual salves which must be applied unto her to wash and take away all the filth of her sins Then when she is throughly cleansed and purged from sin Christ enters and inhabits her afterwards he beautifies and adorns her with a bright ray of inherent Justice and finally after well seasoning and sweetning her with the fragrant odour of divine Grace he incorporates her unto himself and makes her his mystical member Therefore Mr. de Rodon you grosly wrong Christ by saying that he covers or hids your filthiness and sins because you are his members for Christ hath no commerce with dirt he is no patron protectour or coverer of iniquity or sin he hates it from his very heart and there is nothing that causes a separation or divorcement between him and his creatures but only sin therefore if he does but only cover the sins of his mystical members and not quite wash them and take them away it follows that the dirt of their sins will stick to them also when they are in heaven for Mr. de Rodon says their sins are but covered by Christ and consequently that their sins will follow them into heaven although holy writt says that no dofiled thing shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven by this discourse the Reader may well see how stinking and impure this doctrine of the Mounsieur is as also that neither he nor his party with their confessed failings are those the Apostle spoke of and much less that they are members of Christ and consequently that their sacrifices are not acceptable to God Therefore the Apostle meant only the orthodox Catholicks that offer sacrifice unto God while they are in the state of Grace and yet the sacrifice the Apostle speaks of here is not a strict and proper sacrifice but an improper one for otherwise something must have been destroyed To what you farther answer viz. that besides the perfect purity which you have by the imputation of Christs rightiousness you have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost of which S. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost I answer that you are far deceived in this your proud fancy
spoke To what you say concerning the Apostles words to the hebrews and that he placeth the perpetuity of Christ Priesthood partly in this viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more we confess that there is no need he should be offered bloudily any more because the effect of his bloudy sacrifice lasts for ever but we deny that there is no need he should be offered unbloudily any more because the psalmists words must be verified in him viz. that he being a Priest for ever after the order of Melchesedec there must be an everlasting sacrifice also after the the same order To what you farther say viz. that Christs intercession will continue untill the end of the world we say so too but that his intercession is a partial sacrifice if you intend a strict sacrifice such as we dispute of here I deny for by his Intercession you either understand his prayers as they are offered for us in themselves without a victim or by the mediation of a victim if without a victim then they belong not to the function of his proper Priesthood and consequently they are no part of a strict sacrifice if through the mediation of a victim then it necessarily follows that Christ doth always offer victims which is that our adversaries deny Besides by Christs intercession there is nothing sensible and permanent destroyed which is requisit in a strict sacrifice To this I add these inconveniencies that would follow from the Mounsieurs answer first it would follow that there would be no more Christian Religion or Law here upon earth because the Priesthood being translated into heaven Religion and Law must needs follow it as the Apostle says heb 7. It would follow also that there is no bare and as we may say naked truth in heaven but only shadows figures Types and ceremonies of Truth for all proper sacrifices must be types of that of the Cross and certain Religious Ceremonies It would follow also that Christs oblation must needs be often repeated a thing which our adversaries will by no means hear of Therefore the Mounsieur must seek after a better answer then this or else his cause will be quite lost Rodon 26. Seaventhly I answer that in all the holy Scripture where the Priesthood of Melchisedeck is spoken of three things only are mentioned of him viz. that he was a Priest that he was a Priest for ever and that he was so with an oath according to the application that is made of it to Iesus Christ in Psa. 110 and Heb. 7. in these words the Lord hath sworn and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck But there is nothing at all spoken of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck nor is it said wherein it did consist for as it was fit that all the offices which we finde were born by the greatest kings Priests and Prophets under the old Testament should be collected under the person of the Messiah which was done by proposing them as types and figures of Iesus Christ and that the most illustrious type was Melchisedeck so it was more expedient not to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck because it was not expedient then to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of the Messiah And therefore we know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck yet we know that he was a Priest Even as we know that Melchisedeck was a king though we know not in what manner he executed his kingly â—…ffice Answ. Mounsieur as I told you before that it is pitty you were not with the Apostles to help them concerning this question we are about so I tell you now that it is pity you were not one of Gods grand Councellors of the old time to direct and teaâ—…h the Patriarchs and Prophets of those times what was expedient and what was not to be mentioned in holy writt concerning their rites and sacrifices since all things by your advice must be done by expedience or convenience I pray tell us why was it expedient that Christs bloudy sacrifice should be typified by the Priests of the Levitical Law and the things they were to offer were particularly specified and that it was not expedient the things Melchisedeck offered as a type of Christs sacrifice whether bloudy or unbloudy should be mentioned or specified at all what mystical conceit have you in this I pray let 's hear it or else if you keep it to your self we are never the wiser nor the more illuminated by you to follow your opinion and leave our own and if you know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck God help you the more is your ignorance but we are well enough satisfied as to that because all the holy fathers say unanimously that he sacrificed unto God bread and wine and that holy writ says that he was a Priest for if one should tell us such a man is a father although he makes no mention of his son nor of his nature or quality yet we presently know he has a son or a child so also when we hear the word Priest we presently understand its correlative sacrifice so that when holy Scripture thrice mentions Melchisedeck's Priesthood and makes mention of bread and wine which he brought or offered without mentioning any other kind of thing that he ever offered and the holy fathers all agree that he sacrificed bread and wine to God as types of his body and bloud in the Eucharist we make no doubt of the nature and quality of the things he offered more then we do of his Priesthood let Mr. de Rodon and his party doubt of it as long as they please Rodon 28. Lastly I answer that it is false that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedeck and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread and wine It is also false that the likeness of the Priesthoost of Melchisedeck to that of Iesus Christ doth consist in this viz. that as Melchisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Iesus Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine these are humane inventions and are founded neither on Scripture or reason for on the contrary the Apostle writing to the hebrews placeth the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedeck and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing first he is called Melchisedeck which being interpreted as the Apostle saith heb 7. is king of righteousness and then king of Salem that is king of Peace and herein he very well represents our Lord Iesus Christ who is truely king of Righteousness not only because he is righteous and was always without sin but also because by his satisfaction he hath purchased righteousness for us being made unto us of God righteousness he is also truly king of Peace in
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
the Sacrament of the Eucharist then we say he offered a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck and commanded this sacrifice should be continued and â—…terated unto the worlds end when he said to the Apostles and consequently to their successors as often as yâ—…u do this do it in remembrance of me And so the fox is hunted through all his Blasphemous Treatise and forced to end it in Blasphemy Yet since we had to deal with an obstinaâ—…e and stubborn enemy and one that will not acquiesce to S. Ieromes vulgar translation but prefers his own bare saying as if every word of his were an oracle with him and his Translator before the Saints vulgar received version since I say he will not yeild to us and we think we have no reason to yeild to his bare word concerning the Translation of sâ—…ripture and since he or his may think that our reasons to prove that Melchisedec before he treated Abraham and his army with bread and wine sacrificed it first unto God are not considerable or convincing and we on the other side to hold their reasons against our said proofs do be as inconsiderable and weak since neither of us will submit one to the other in this point who can be better umpiers to decide this obscure question then the holy ancient fathers of Christs Church who not only lived nearer the Apostles times then we but also far surpassed both Mr. de Rodon his party and us in eminency of learning and sanctity of life especially when they are all unanimous and of the same opinion To these great â—…eroes to these holy fathers court of Judicature I humbly appeal and cite Mr. de Rodon with his whole party these I choose for my Umpiers and â—…udges and challenge de Rodon to this scripturistical combat before them and if he and his be not insolently proud they cannot refuse the Gantlet The first of them I pitch upon is Clemens Alexandrinus whose words lib. 4. stromat be these Melchisedec rex Salem sacardos dei altissimi qui vinum panem sanctificatum dedit nutrimentum in â—…ipum Eucharistiae Melchisedec king of Salem Priest of the most high God who gave wine and bread sanctified aâ—…â—…ypes of the Eâ—…charist where note that he says not only wine and bread but wine and bread sanctified or sacrificed After him I rank S. Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium Nam quis quoth he Magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus nester Iesus Christus qui sacrificium Dâ—…o patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtuleâ—… id est panem vinum suum scilicet câ—…rpus sanguinâ—…m for who is more the Priest of the 〈◊〉 then our Lord Jesus Christ who offered sacrifice to God the father and who offered the self same that Melchisedec offered bread and wine that is to say his own body and bloud what I pray could be said more clearly to our purpose S. Ierome the Mounsieurs adversary shall come next In his Ep. to Marcella he writes thus Recurre ad Genesim Melchisedec regem Salem hujus Principem invenies câ—…vitatis qui jam tuno in typo Christi panem vinum obtulit misterium Christianum in salvatoriâ—… sanguine corpore dedicâ—…vit search Genesis and there you shall finde Melchisedec king of this citty who sometime offered bread and wine in the type of Christ and dedicated the Christian Mystery or Sacrament contained in the body and bloud of our Saviour If these Testimonies and authorities of the abovementioned holy fathers satisfy not the Reader I refer him to all these ensuing renowned Interpreters of holy writt and every of them if I be not mistaken will over ballance ten thousand de Rodons with his partitoes Let him then read Euseb. Caesariâ—…nsis lib. 5. demonstrat Evangelica cap. 3. S. Aug. Ep. 95. ad Innocentium Papam S. Aâ—…b lib. 5. sacram c. 1. S. Epiph. haeres 55. quae est Melchisedechianorum S. Chrysost. hom 35. in Genes S. Theodoret in Comment Ps. 109. S. Leo. 1. serm de Annivers assump suae ad Pontificâ—…t Euseb. Eâ—…iss serm 5. Arnob in ps 109. Eucher lib. 2. cap. 18. in Gen Primasius in Comment c. 5. Epist. ad hebraeos Cassiod in ps 109. Reâ—…ig Antisiod and Euthimius Zigabenus upon the same psalm Damascenus lib. 4. de side c. 14. Oâ—…cumen in Comment c. 5. Epist. ad hebraeos Theophilac in cap. 5. ad hebraeos Ansel. in cap. 5. ad hebraeos All these great ones and many more which were too tedious to recount do unanimously combine with the Romish doctors against Mr. de Rodon and his party in this principal point of our controversie Therefore since all the Mounsieurs Arguments and keen arrows are all spent and all his solutions glosses and answers to our Objections do band directly against the whole to rent of holy fathers and since he is not able to produce one of them to stand of his side I see no reason why he should not be hooted at like a mad dog by all rational and impartial readers for his bare word against so many eminent Pillars of Gods Church is but a meer vain barking and consequently unworthy to be farther answered Laus Deo FINIS The PREFACE OF M. de RODONS Translator THe author of this piece was one Mounsieur de Rodon Philosophy Professor in the Royal Colledge at Nismes a Citty of Languedoâ—… in France where it was written But as soon as it was printed it was supprest by the command of authority prohibiting all persons to keep any of them upon I know not what severe penalties and such copies as could be found were publickly burnt by the hangman about 1660. whereupon the poor gentleman for fear of being condemned to keep company with his books was 〈◊〉 to â—…y to Geneva where he not long after dyed These severities of our Adversaries bring to my remembrance what a learned and ingenious frenchman once told me viz. that this small Tract hath more nâ—…tled their party then any one piece that ever was extant in France since the Reformation of Religion there Whether that be a mistake I know not but this I dare affirm that though many famous men of that kingdom have in the memory of this Age written very smarâ—…ly against the Romish heresies yet there is not one of them whose person and writings have had such hard measure Whence it appears that our Author his very enemies being Iudges hath made good what he undertook viz. he hath destroyed that great Diana the Masse and hath also by way of prevention destroyed all the arguments made use of by the Romish doctors for the restoring and re-establishing of her which he hath so well performed that to this very day not one of them hath dared so much as to attempt to revive her by answering his book so that here you may see her laid in her grave without hope of resurrection and therefore the book may very fitly be termed The
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
Consecration ought to be understood according to their immediate sense p. 17. The B. Sacrament is the New Testament in Christs Blood not only of his Blood p. 22. These words This is my Body signifie a substantial being and not a Sacramental only p. 23. The Protestant Communion exhibits not Christs Body Blood to the Believers p. 27. The Sacramental Species receiveâ—… worthily makes the receiver a Mystical Member of Christ. p. 30. Faith alone insufficient for this Sacrament Ib. Faith is no mouth literally or metaphoâ—…ically p. 31. Christs glorified Body never damnified by the receiver of the B. Sacramenâ—… p. 32. To verifie a proposition it sufficeth the thing be as the proposition says it is p. 35. Iâ—… is the Sacrament that is the chief and whole cause of our spiritual refreshment and the thing which the Soul principally hungers and thirsts after Faith is only a conâ—…ition requisite so is Hope and Charity also for to receive worthily p. 38. Christs Body worthily received works spiritually upon the Soul p. 40. These words of St. Aug. To eat the â—…lesh of Christ is a Figure c. which De Rodon alledges against us expounded p. 43. Cardinal Cajetans Authority alledged against us expounded p. 45. The action whereby we obtain remission of sins anâ—… sanctification ending in gloâ—…ification consists not in the spiritual eating or drinking by Faith only p. 5â—… In these words My Flesh is meaâ—… indeed no Figure falls upon the word Meat p. 55. Christs Flesh is a corporal food that nourishes spiritually only p. 57. Objects of Divine Faith not to he levelled by our reason and sense p. 59. Christ comeâ—… into the Sacrament by an adductive power p. 66. He is not produced there entitatively but modally only p. Ibid. Certain passages of Scripture alledged aâ—…ainst us by De Rodon viz. That there is â—…reaking givinâ—… eaâ—…ing and drinking after Consecraâ—…ion answered p. 68. When Christ said Drink ye all this Mat. 26. he meant his Blood p. 71. Why the eâ—…ects of the Sacramental Species â—…emain after Transubstantiation p. 73. Transubstantiation is a total substantial conversion and not a formal substantial conversion only p. 75. The Sacâ—…amental Species are something Subâ—…ect liâ—…e p. 77. Transubstantiation destroys not the nature of Acciâ—…ents p. 79. Transubstantiation destroys not the Nature oâ—… Sacâ—…aments p. 84. Corporal nourishment in the Sacramental Sâ—…ecies nâ—…t requisite p. 85. The Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be adored with a Latria p. 88. If our adversaries give not a Latriacal adoration to their Communion Bread it may be lawfully given to Dogs p. 89. If they adore their Communion they are greater Idolaters than we p. 91. Christ gave power to Priests to Consecrate p. 97. Christs Body is in the Sacrament immediately by reason of its substance p. 99. It s quantity is also there though not with its quantitative dimensions p. 100. The definition of a proper place and how many manner of ways both Christian Divines and Philosophers hold a thing may be in a place p. 103. A glorious Body may be in its equivocal place p. 109. The Iacobins and the Jesuits opinion concerning Christs Body to be brought or produced in the Sacrament saved p. 112. Christs Body is in all things subject to his Soul as his Soul is subject to his Divinity p. 117. Why the local extension of Christs Body in the Sacrament is hindred p. 119. De Rodons Argument of to move and not to move at the same time c. answered p. 121. Wherein a formal contradiction consists p. 123 De Rodons ridiculous quibbles and Unphilosophical illations answered p. 129. Distance is only betwixt corporal things whilst they are in their univocal places p. 130 A Sacramental place is properly no place at all p. 133. De Rodons Dropsical Argument of a drop of water that drowned many thousands c. mouldred p. 136. Division is only between corporal things in their proper places p. 138. God and Nature are not obliged to do what they can do p. 140. De Rodon shoots at Christ through Diana's side p. 143. Christ is seen in the Sacrament by the Spiritual Eye of our understanding supported by the light of Faith p. 146. It is not convenient we should see Christ visibly with our Corporal Eyes in the Blessed Sacrament p. 148. Substances possess no place p. 151. Christs Body in the Sacrament whether taken substantially or quantitatively has no posture or scituation in it p. 154. His Body appears not more or less for dividing or sub-dividing the Host p. 156. Christ is as glorious and happy in the Host as he is in Heaven p. 161. What these terms Reduplicatively and specificatively what sensus compositus and divisus mean p. Ibid. As Christ comes into the Host without local 〈◊〉 so he leaves it without local â—…e 〈◊〉 p. 165. De Rodon gives the Apostle the lie p. 167. Christ Diana and the Apostle saved from De Rodons keen Arrow p. 168. De Rodon jumps with the Iews against Christ p. 170. His Thunderbolt or Coelestial Arrow shivered p. 172. According to De Rodons Principles there ought to be no Sacrament of our Lords Supper at all p. 174. Clâ—…ud de Xaintes defended against De Rodon p. Ibid. Exorcismes p. 176. De Rodons miraculous Arrow put by p. 179. Christ really in Heaven and really in the Blessed Sacrament at the same time p. 182. He is not in the Sacrament impanated p. Ibid. He gave himself to Iudas also p. 18â—… Bellormine and Peron defendeâ—… p. 186. The Sacraments of the old Testament had a relation to those of the new p. 187. The Moâ—…sieurs Scripturistical Arrows shatâ—…ered p. 190. The marks of the Roman Church p. 193. The Seven Sacraments expounded p. 195. Why we keep the Eucharist in our Pixes and 〈◊〉 p. 197. Monsieur and his Party the false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of p. Illid God many manner of ways in his Creatures p. 202. External Adoration due to Christ where he is known to be personally present p. 203. Hereticks uncivil both to God and Man p. 206. According to De Rodons Principles we may adore the Devil instead of Christ p. 209. VVhy External adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament more than in the VVater of Baptism p. 210. Heaven and Hell destroyed by the Monsieurs Principles p. 211. The Monsieurs third Foundation built upon Quick-sands p. 215. De Rodons very considerable Argument pernicious to all mankind p. 218. Destructive to Goâ—…s Providence p. 222. A moral certitude of being Christned sufficient p. 223. Pope Adrian defended against De Rodon p. 226. Apostate Priests and Monks in credit and spiritual jurisdiction with De Rodon and his Party p. 228. The Pâ—…imitive Church adored the Host p. 233. Proved by the Testimonies of sundry Holy Fathers p. Ibid. Our Diana or Mass holds it out from all Ages maugre De Rodon and all Hereticks p. 237. Diana vindicated against Idolatry p. 238. The Church makes no new Articles of
spirit has no mouth as it hath no hands nor leggs If he takes it figuratively or metaphorically he will never be able to make it out in true philosophy that faith is the mouth of the soul which I prove thus a mouth must be an intrinsecal part of that thing whose mouth it is whether the word mouth be taken litterally or figuratively for a corporal mouth is an intrinsecal part of the body that eateth or speaketh and when God or an Angel doth speak methaporically they express themselves by their understandings and wills which are intrinsecal unto them But faith is not intrinsecal to a mans soul for otherwise every soul would have faith besides faith according to all divines is one of the Theological or supernatural vertues but no supernatural thing can be intrinsecal to a meer natural thing such as a soul is Therefore unless he means to make a Monster of mans soul faith which is extrinsecal to her can not be her mouth litterally nor figuratively In short the whole debate betwixt Mr. de Rodon and his party and the Romanists and their party consists in this that Mr. Rodon holdeth Christ is conveyed into our soules and feedeth them spiritually with the meer entities of bread and wine for signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament hath no exhibitive but only resultative power And the Romanists hold that our souls are fed spiritually with the real entity of Christs glorified body which being taken by the mouth of the body we say he is exhibited into our souls Now whether it stands more with reason and faith and whether it be more consonant with sound divinity and Philosophy that the entity of Christs real body can better feed the soul then the bare entityes of bread and wine can we leave the prudent and impartiall Reader to Judge But if our adversaries say that by eating Christs real body we damnify it or do it any irreverence That we deny because we eat his body as it is now glorified and a glorified body we say is uncapable of suffering any harm or wrong Neither can any irreverence be done to it but when it is taken unworthily that is to say while one is in mortal sin and then the receiver takes it to his own damnation but Christs glorified body is never the worse or in the least annoyed thereby for his body is now impatible and as it cannot die again so can it not suffer But now we are come to the Mounsieurs additional argument which is thus Rodon 6. When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imployes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition for example when a man saith that a wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false proposition But according to the Romish Doctours when Iesus Christ said This is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying This is my body for they say it was his body afterward only therefore according to the Romish doctors Iesus Christ uttered a false proposition which being blasphemy to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Iesus Christ gave to his disciples when he said This is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Iesus Christ This is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words This is my body we must take the present-tense for the next future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish doctors will have us take these words This is my body in the rigour of the litteral sense and then the proposition is evidently false I know that the present-Tense may be taken for the next future as when Iesus Christ said I go to my father and to your father I go to my God to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this proposition of Iesus Christ This is my body is either false or figurative and seing that it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonimy whereby the signe takes the name of the thing signifyed as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time Answ. To this additional argument I say that to verify any proposition it is enough that the thing is such as the proposition sayes it to be after the proposition is uttered although it be not such while the proposition is in uttering if by a ptoposition Mr. dâ—… Rodon understands a perfect and significative proposition as he ought to do as this proposition this is my body is But if we should grant that while a meer man uttereth a proposition the thing meant by the proposition ought to be such before he spoke and during the time he is speaking it to have his proposition not to be false yet it follows not that while Jesus Christ who is both God and man doth utter a proposition the thing he speaks of should be such before and while he speaketh to make his proposition be true for as I said often before that as Christs word is an effective word so his proposition is an effective proposition because his word and proposition do make what they signify Therefore the Romish doctors say very well that the bread was made his body only after he pronounced the words and not before and yet we deny that Christ then uttered a false proposition Nay we hold de Rodons layed foundation to be blasphemous because it gives not an effective vertue to Christs words above the words of ordinary men 〈◊〉 we take not only the words but also 〈◊〉 Tense or time while they were spoken in as rigorous a sense as he does viz. in their real litteral meaning and the word is in the present Tense without a recourse either to a Metonimy or Enallage of time and yet we deny the proposition as uttered by Christ to be at all false because his was an effective proposition though other mens are not We deny also that our adversary hath any advantage of belief over us for beleving it was Christs body before while and after
represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist Besides the types and Sacraments of the old Testament were instituted that the faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls But the faithful under the old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal lamb and though they had come to the knowledge of it yet they had had no benefit thereby In a word seeing the Passeover and the Eacharist are types Images and signes of Iesus Christ 't is very impertinent to say that the Passeover is the type of the Eucharist because a type is not properly the type of another type but only of the thing typified as the Image of Caesar is not the Image of another Image of Caesar but only of Caesar himself Answ. Mr. de Rodon breaks this thrust or objection three manner of ways all which I will answer in order to his first wherein he says that the thing typified by the Paschal lamb is Jesus Christ and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as S. Paul shews clearly 1. Cor. 5. when he calls Jesus Christ our Passeover in these words Christ our Passeover was crucified for us I answer that this Passage of scripture shews not clearly that the Paschal lamb is not also a type of the Eucharist Nay I say that this text makes rather for us for whereas all the holy fathers and doctors of the Church with all the general Councils do unanimously hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist offered is nothing else but Christ immolated unbloudily upon the Altar in remembrance of his once bloudy Passion If the same Christ we say then the same thing typified and the only difference is in the immolation or offering viz. that the primary oblation of him was bloudy the secondary incruent or unbloudy all which we grant and for that reason do averr and maintain that the Paschal lamb was a type not only of Christ crucified but also of Christ in the Eucharist And we leave it to any Prudent and impartial Reader to consider and judge whose authority and opinion is surer to be imbraced and followed in this debate Iohn Calvins Mr. de Rodons and a handful of new Phanatick opiniatours or the General Councils of all ages that ever treated of this subject all the holy fathers and the universal Christian Church But replyeth Mr. de Rodon such a lamb represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist I answer that it represents that which is believed to be in it which is a surer and better sight or knowledge then what we see or know with our corporal eyes which may be deceived by the illusions of the devil whereas our understanding supported by the light of saith cannot be because it relyes upon the testimony of Gods word which testimony and word we have expressely in the 6th of S. Iohn of our side But quoth he again besides the types and Sacraments of the old Testament were instituted that the faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls But the faithful under the old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal lamb and though they had come to the knowledge of it yet they had not benefit thereby I confess that the types and Sacraments of the old Law were instituted for the reason you alledge and I distinguish your minor thus But they never came to an explicite sormal knowledge of the Eucharist I confess but they never came to an implicite vertual knowledge of the Eucharist I deny and deny also that they had not the vertual benefit of it for the Eucharist and its immolation being the self same thing with Christ and his immolation upon the Cross although this being the primary immolation as is said before and including virtually the secundary which is that of the Altar yet because the very same thing is still offered it followeth that this secondary immolation which is the Eucharist was typified also vertually and implicitly by the Paschal lamb and that those of the old Law reapt benefit by it as they did explicitly by that of the Cross. In a word seeing the Passeover and the Eucharist are not Types alike but the one mediate and the other immediate the one but a bare type and the other both type and the thing typified it is not at all impertinent that the Passeover should be the type of the Eucharist Neither is the Parity of Caesar with his own Image to any purpose for Caesar and his Image are not the same thing as Christ is the self-same thing with the Eucharist There M. de Rodon ought to hold â—…is impertinent tongue or speak better to the purpose But he that is full of impertinencies and hath nothing else in him must of necessity burst out with some of them or otherwise he would become quite dumb Rodon 10. Secondly I answer that the excellency of one Sacrament above 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 But the form of Sacraments depends on the words of Institution because being signes of divine Institution their form can only depend upon the will of God who chooseth certain things to signifie other things and this will of God cannot he known but by revelation which is the word so that it is properly said that the word joyned with the element makes the Sacrament therefore although the Sacrament of the Passeover be more excellent then the Eucharist in respect of its matter because the Paschal lamb and its bloud are more excellent then the bread and the wine of the Eucharist and that the lamb and its bloud have a greater Analogy with Iesus Christ his bloud shed on the cros then the bread and wine of the Eucharist have yet the Sacrament of the Eucharist is much more excellent then that of the Passeover in respect of its form which depends on the words of Institution because that at the institution of the Sacrament of the Passeover God spake not the word of the principal end for which he did institute it viz. to be the type of Iesus Christ and his death But at the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ declared in expresse terms that he did institute the eating of the bread broken and the drinking of the wine poured into the Cup to be commemorative signes of Christ himself and his death The Sacrament of the Eucharist is yet more excellent then that of the Passeover in respect of its efficacy which depends on two things viz. on the form which being more manifest in the Eucharist doth operate with more efficacy and also because it represents a thing past viz. the death of Christ But the knowledge of things past is more clear and perfect then the