the proofs I have brought above the Church doth not think good to give it at this time which she may change it not being a matter of Faith or Command of God when she pleases But the word of God is necessary to those who hear because Faith comes by hearing and is alwayes supplyed to the deaf by outward signs and stronger inward inspirations from God Be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon who inveighes against the Roman Church for taking away the Cup to avoid scandals or inconveniences for one of the same allows in this 6. Chap. numb 13. to substitute rather the ordinary drink of a Country instead of Wine notwithstanding that Christ instituded it to be given in Wine SECTION III. The discovery of Mr. Rodon's disingenuous representation of the Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. THe taking away says Mr. Rodon of the Eucharistical Cup was established as an Article of Faith by the Roman Church representative assembled in the Council of Constance in the Year 1414. Sess 13. in a Canon Answer That 's a Calumny as shall appear in the discussion of his quotation It is indeed an Article of Faith to believe that under the species of Bread is both Christ's Body and his Blood because his Body is a living Body He dyes no more Rom. 6. v. 9. Wherefore the Council of Constance finding the Church to have been in a long custome of giving the Sacrament under one kind for good reasons to shew that the former Church had not erred in that custome thought good to order them to be punished as Hereticks who should presume to say that that custome was erroneous sacrilegious and unlawful But why punished as Hereticks Because they seem to doubt if the Blood be under the Form of Bread Yet she did not define to be believed as an Article of Faith and of divine right for Lay-people to take it only under one kind for it 's only of Church right for some particular reasons which were not at the time the Apostles gave it One of which is this same which moved the Council Another the Church being now extended to Countries where 't is hard to get so much Wine and many being found in the great body of the Church who have an antipathy to Wine since ther 's no necessity it s better in the way of taking to keep an uniformity in the sick to whom it could not be keept or conveniently carried nor was carried in primitive times and in those who are in health and so avoid scruples which might arise in weak heads not to speak of the danger of irreverence in spilling the Commons of Christians being not now so fervent as they were in the first age Yet we do not hold it unlawful jure divino by divine right for Lay-people to receive under both kinds more then 't is unlawful jure divino to eat Flesh on Frydays Since it is at present the practise of the Greek Church at Rome to give the Communion to the Lay-people once a Year under both kinds Now to shew the infidelity of Mr. Rodon's quotation of the Council's decree The Council sayes Praesens Concilium c. definit quod licè Christus instituerit dederit Sacramentum hoc post cocnam sub utraque specie Discipulis hoc non obstante approbata consuetudo ecclesiae servarit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post cocnam neque a fidelibus recipi non jejuuis Here the Council should have added neque sub utraque specie to make out what Mr. Rodon sayes which it hath not nisi in casu infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel Ecclesiae concesso That is The present Council defines c. That altho Christ instituted and gave this Sacrament AFTER SVPPER these Words Mr. Rodon leaves out under both kinds to his Disciples notwithstanding this the approved custome of the Church has observed and observes that this Sacrament ought not to be made AFTER SVPPER nor to be received by the Faithful who are not fasting these words again which alone relate to the Council's saying NON OBSTANTE he leaves out unless in case of Infirmity or other necessity c. allowed by the Law of the Church Where the Council does not speak at all of both kinds when it sayes This notwithstanding but only of the time of Communicating whither AFORE or AFTER SVPPER Viz. Altho our Saviour instituted it after Supper that does not hinder the Church's now ordaining it to be taken only by those who are fasting unless in case of necessity Note as the Council learned from the H. Ghost that Christ's giving it after Supper did not hinder to take it fasting in another circumstance of time so it also learned from the same that the Primitive Church's giving it under both kinds she giving it also sometimes under one as to the sick see Euseb lib. 6. cap. 44. Edit val in the Hist of Serapion also see Tertul de orat cap. 14. and to Infants see S. Cypr. sract de Laps did not hinder to make a Law at that time to give it to the laytie only under one or special reasons one of which is this Since this custome saith the Council in the same place hath been reasonably brought in by the Church and Holy Fathers it ought to stand for a Law which it is not lawful to disapprove or change at pleasure without the authority of the Church Neither does the Councill say not withstanding Christ's command but only not withstanding his Example Now Christ had a particular reason why he gave it after Supper viz. that the Typical Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb might go afore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which was figured by it Also to conform himself to the custome of those times which was to sacrifice after meat in thanksgiving and the Church an other particular reason to give it since to none but fasting because Christians falling from the primitive servour eate and drunk intemperatly of which S. Paul complains 1. Cor. 11. v. 22. and so rendered themselves unworthy not having that purity of Soul which our Lord gave to understand as a thing required by washing his Disciples Feet afore he gave them the Srcrament Christ then commanded the substance of the Sacrament to be given but left the manner of giving it to the Church changeable in a different circumstance of Times and Persons That particle then of the Council notwithstanding imports only that Christ's giving the Sacrament AFTER SUPPER does not hinder it to be given to those who are Fasting And indeed if that were a breach of his will do not Protestants break it as well as we do not they take their Communion before Supper and for the most part Fasting If the Example of Christ were to be followed in the Ceremony of giving it the Preist or Minister should afore wash the Feet of those to whom he gives it To what Mr. Rodon says at the beginning of this
Chapter of the Churches forbidding Marriage and certain Meats After Mr. Rodon had unadvisedly said that we freely confess that the Decree of the Council of Constance is contrary to the institution and command of Christ which we are so far from confessing that we have proven the contrary He adds If we alleadg that S. Paul Timot. 4. saith That they who forbid to marry and command to â—ob slain from Meats do teach the Doctrines of Devils Romanists need only answer that altho S. Paul doth say so yet they must not believe it because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise Again if we alleadg sayes he that the same Apostle Ephesians 2. saith That we are saved by Grace through Faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of GOD not of works least any man should boast Romanists need only Answer that although this was written by the Apostle yet they must not believe it because the Romish CHVRCH hath determined that we are Saved by Works and Faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of our own free will Answer We know the general approved Councils being guided by the H. Ghost cannot determine against S. Paul We avow 't is a Doctrine of Devils to forbid absolutely to marry as if marriage were ill in it self and of Satan as the Ebionites taught see S. Irereus Lib. 1 Cap. 22. And to command to abstain from certain Meats believing they were of the Devil with the Manicheans See S. Aug. Haeres Manich. 46. But we do not hold it to be a Doctrine of Devils to forbid Preists to marry who cannot use their marriage without breaking their vow made to God If a man be bound to keep his promise of fidelity or conjugal chastity to a Wife is not he as much bound to keep his promise of perpetual Continency made to God The Church I say does not determine against S. Paul 1 Timot. 4. nor against what he sayes Ephes 2. But heartily believes with him that we are saved by Grace through Faith and that this Faith is not of our selves but it is the gift of God not of works done by the force of nature or of the Old Law of which the Jews boasting thought themselves more worthy of Salvation than the Gentils Yet she determines against Mr. Rodon that S. Paul here by Works doth not exclude Works that flow from Faith as acts of Hope Repentance and Charity for S. Mary Magdalen was justified because she loved much Obj. They do not celebrate the memory of Christ's Death as they ought who do not partake of the Cup whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christ's Blood therefore all ought to partake of the Cup. Answer I distinguish the antecedent they who do not partake of the Cup do not as they ought celebrate the Death of Christ Passively that is they have not an occasion of receiving and do not receive a representation or a memory of the Death of Christ I deny They do not celebrate the memory of the Death of Christ Actively I subdistinguish within themselves producing in their mind a thought of the Death of Christ I deny without themselves putting the Body of Christ under the species of Wine I grant but all are not bound to do so or celebrate a memory of his Death so but only the Preists to whom he gave that command saying Do this in remembrance of me and as often as you sball eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shall shew the Death of the your Lord untill he come And that Protestants understand this to be said to the Ministers only they shew when they say that this Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred without a Sermon of the Death of CHRIST I ask do the Lay-people Preach then CHAPTER VII The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Reason by the notion of a true Sacrifice By Scripture By the tradition of our Country By the Authority of the Holy Fathers and the Church SECTION I. Proofs SUBSECTION I. Proofs from Reason I. REASON WE must not refuse to Christians that which all other People have had by an instinct of nature viz. to offer a true Sacrifice to the Supream Being God in the 1. Chapter of Leviticus v. 2. does not say by way of command ye shall offer But supposing what they knew to be done by the light of Nature he only prescribes there the manner of Sacrificing S. Paul having cured with a word of his month a Lame man at Lystra the People thinking him for that to be God presently found themselves naturally moved to bring Oxen to Sacrifice to him Act. 14. Men Sacrificed in the Law of Nature in the written Law the Pagan infidel as well as the Faithful Soul all led by this innate light he is to be honoured in a singular manner who is above all The chief end of a Sacrifice is to acknowledge by it God's supream Dominion over us his Creatures as Author of Life and Death and shall Christians who have been by divine favour enlightened above other People be ignorant of this or less sensible than others of their duty to him from whom they have received more Grace No. Then Christians have a true Sacrifice but no other than that of the Mass then that of the Mass is a true Sacrifice I prove the minor proposition because beside the Sacrifice of the Mass Christians have now no Sacrifice but their offerings of Prayers or other Acts of vertue which are only Sacrifices improperly nay God himself distinguishes them from a true Sacrifice saying by the Prophet Samuel 1 Reg. 15. v. 22. Obedience is better then Sacrifice and Math. 9. v. 13. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice You 'l say we have the Sacrifice of the Cross Answer That is past People in succeeding Ages could not be present at that to do their due homage to God That was made and was sufficient to Redeem all men from their Sin 's past present and to come as much as was required of Christ or on his side as Redeemer but it was not made to Redeem them from their first Duty to God which is still and ever to acknowledge him as Supream Lord as well in all other times as in that at which the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered If that Sacrifice sufficed for all Duty 's what need have we now of Sacraments Faith repentance c. If we have moreover need of Faith for our selves why have we not need of a true Sacrifice as a testimony of our Faith in God to others The holy Patriarches had Faith in their Hearts but did not think themselves to do sufficiently by that their Duty to God without a Sacrifice as a publick profession to men of this their Faith in him You must distinguish the condigne or fully satisfying Sacrifice for Sin from other Sacrifices That the eternal Father required and accepted from his Son alone in Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices for Sin thou hast no pleasure then said I God the Son
AN ANSWER To Monsieur DE RODON'S Funeral of the MASS IHS NOMEN DOMINI LAVDABILE By N. N. At DOUAY in Flanders 1681. To the Honourable SIR IOHN SETON OF GARLETON Son to Lord GEORGE Late Earl of WINTON SIR THE great Obligations I had to your Honour afore I parted from Scotland claim with much reason to some Fruit of my Labour Be pleased then to accept of a little work of mine from Flanders I am confident the Subject will please you because it is sutable to your Devotion and to the piety of your most Noble and ancient Family Our Saviour by the occasion of the Jews seeking him for Bread spoke to them of the Bread of Life and I by the occasion of three sheafs of Corn I find in your Scutchion or in the Honours of your House will speak to you in reference to the Subject of this little Book of the Bread termed by the Church the Bread of the strong I mean of the most Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Altar Ligor ne dispergar saycs your motto I am bound lest I scatter your glorious ancestors being united and tyed together in the Faith of this Sacrament were not scattered by the Enemies of their Souveraign when helped by the miraculous valour in a Child of the house of Duglas they galantly brought Queen Mary out of the Bondage of Lockleven and lodged Her safely the first night in my Lord SETON'S own House at Netheree in West Lothian They keeping still Faith to God and their Soveraigns after this action spread even under Persecution as Camamoile trodden down both to more Wealth and Honour 'T was for the Vertue of the SETON'S that Noble Motto invia virtuti via nulla no way hard or unpassible to Vertue was given them And where I pray in their perswasion then and still in yours is the seat of Vertue but in this Bread of the strong If the Prophet Elias refreshed with that Bread which was only a Figure of our Sacrament walked fourty days and as many nights wonder you that those great Men of whom you have the Honour to descend receiving it often were quickned to generosity and Christian Duty to King and Country Sir CHRISTOFER SETON by ROBERT A BRUCE sutnamed the Good merited for his Devotion to the Sacrifice of the Mass to have after his Death the daily Sacrifice offered for him and this was perform'd by the same King ROBERT whose Sister he had Married for he founded a Chapel near Dumfrice call'd Christel Chappel and a Preist to offer Sacrifice in it for the Soul of Good Sir Christofer as he out of a loving respect was pleased to call him This renowned Champion dyed at London as Honourably as Cruelly by the hands of the English whom he had often stoutly opposed and pestured in the service of his Country But why was Christofer the first his Predecessor call'd more Devout than Worly But because his Heart was powerully tho sweetly drawn to this Sacracrament as Iron to a Load-Stone Hoc specialiter sayes Thomas a Kempis l 4. de imit Ch. c. 1. Devotorum corda trahit this Sacrament draws by a special way the hearts of Devout People and thus from a special respect to this Sacracrament a Man worthily obtaines the tittle of Devout Lord George the third a Prudent Man and very Familiar with King James the third devided his Devotion to the Altar with his Lady Dame Jeane Hepburn called by the History a Noble and Wise Lady Daughter to the Earl of Bothuel O Lord said the Royal Prophet I have loved the beauty of thy House Psal 25. Were not those two great Souls inflam'd with the same Zeal when striving as it were who might do best they set themselves to decore the Colledg-Church of SETON The Lord paved and seiled the quire and the Lady â—aised an I le on the North-side and having taken down that on the the South side Built by the Devotion of Dame Catherine Sinclar rebuilded it again with proportion to make a perfit Cross and founded two Prebends to serve the Altars The Lord not to speak of other Ornaments gave it a compleat Sute of Cloth of Gold And the Lady compleat Sutes of all the Colours of the Church for Advent Lent Martyrs Confessors Virgins for all the solemn Feasts of the Year of Purple and Crimson Velvet richly flower'd with Gold white Damask c. Not forgetting a Sute of black Vestiments for the Dead with other fine Chasubels Also a great Silver Cross a Silver Eucharist Ciborium or Remonstrance for the B. Sacrament with a fair Chalice Silver and Gilt all for the Majesty and Decorement of the Altar Some may think I had done better in a Dedicatory to busie my Pen in describing the Courage of a Governour of Barwick of the House of SETON who in cold Blood chused rather to see his Son violently put to Death than to faile in his trust to King and Country and in such like signal actions admired by Men than in rehersing these liberalities made to the Altar which are but petty things in the Eyes of worlings But my ayme is not so much to shew the worly grandeur of your Family as the Devotion to this Mystery which makes the Subject of my Book of the great ones in it This their Devotion made them truly great Take from a Man the sense and respect he has for God and for what relates to him and what is he with all he has or may possess little a nothing an object of contempt As God dismaly at last slights them who slight him and what regards his Honour so he stupendiously glorifies them who have made it their work to seek his Glory 1 Samuel 2. v. 30. Live then for ever Souls nobly affected to contribute to the Majesty of this daily Sacrifice which is upon Earth God's greatest Glory O change of times and manners where is he or she in Scotland now a dayes who make it their study to imitate those forementioned Noble Persons What a loss is the want of such for the House of God! How many poor Families monasteries Churches and Altars mourned at the Death especially of that pious Lady If the monastery of Seins in Burromure nigh Edinburgh were standing it would tell you 't was hither she retired her self after the decease of her Lord to attend in solitude with more freedom to God I am now defac'd she is Dead who having chiefly founded me while she lived conserved me and decored me SIR can you forget or not respect the memory of so much piety To which they were powerfully moved by the belief they had of the adorable Sacrifice of the Altar As often as you see the three Crescents in your Arms remember that you must increase or grow as they did in a lively Faith of this Mystery which is the seed of Divine Love and Charity to your Neighbour I know you have hazarded something already for your Faith but if an other occasion be given you
and for this reason we need not take the Blood a part Obj. 3. We go from the practise of the primitive Church Answer As to the essence of the Sacrament I deny as to the manner of administration of it upon some considerable circumstances be it so So the Protestants go from the practise of primitive times in Baptism by using now the sprinkling of water on the Child whereas a triple dipping was used in primitive times I said be it so because in primitive times they gave it also sometimes under one kind If you ask me why Christ gave it to his Apostles under both kinds I answer he both foresaw Hereticks as the Manicheans who would deny the thing in it self to be lawful which is an errour and different circumstances in which the Church should think good to give it under the species of Wine as to infants which action of his justified the Church in that and the like circumstances We avow then that the Sacrament was given some times under both kindes and in particular to discover the Manicheans in the time of S. Leo Pope But we deny that there was a command from Christ of giving it so Obj. 4. To take Christ's Blood in taking the Host is not to drink it Answer 'T is not to drink it cannally that is to be carnally refressed with it I grant Spiritually that is to be Spiritually refressed with it I deny So S. Cypr. sayes in the beginning of the Sermon of the Lords Supper manducaverunt biberunt de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem that is they eat and drunk of the same Bread according to the vibsile form Remark he sayes They drunk of the same Bread and makes no mention of Wine Also Tertul. lib. de Resur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur that is The Flesh feeds of the Body and Blood of Christ that the Soul may be full of God And S. Augustin lib. quaest in Levit. q. 57. speaking of this Sacrament sayes A cujus Sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum c. that is from the Blood of which Sacrifice to be taken for aliment c. Where you see the Blood is called food or aliment By which passages you may take notice that the Holy Fathers put the force of their words in the thing and not in the way of taking it because whither taken by way of food or of drink it has the same effect Ob. 5. He that eates Bread dipped in Wine altho he hath Wine in his mouth doth not drink Therefore he who receives only under the form of Bread doth not drink Answer 1. I distinguish the antecedent He who eates Bread dipped c. doth not drink it in the strict acception of drinking I grant In the less rigid acception of drinking I deny did you never hear say of him who drinks a heavy thick Wine he eates and drinks both at once Answer 2. He doth not drink as to the substance of drinking which is to take a liquid matter by the mouth I deny As to the whole corporal manner and effect of Drinking I grant So Pascasius lib. de Corp. Christ speaks thus Hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus Ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes that is It s he alone who breaks this Bread and by the hands of the Ministers distributes it to the faithful saying Take and drink all of this to wit Bread where he makes no mention of Wine But much less do Protestants drink Christ's Blood by an act of faith that Christ dyed for them in which the eating and drinking is one and the same Ob. 5. The sacramental words operate what they signify but they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood therefore they operate the separation of the Body from the Blood and consequently we ought to receave under both kinds to receave both Answer I distinguish the Major The Sacramental words operate what they signifie formally I grant what they signify occasionally I deny And say that these words This is my Body and these This is my Blood signifie formally and primarly the Body and Blood of Christ altho occasionally and secundarily they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood of Christ in as much as they are an occasion to me hearing them pronounced apart and knowing that the force of these words only attended the Body would be under one species and the Blood under the other tho by concomitance both are in each to represent to my self the death of Christ or his Body separated from his Blood Ob. 6. As much as is taken away of the Sacrament as much is diminished of the perswasion of the certainty of God's promise Answer As much as is taken away of that part of the Sacrament which causes Grace be it so Of that which does not cause grace but only compleats it in the being of a representation of the death of Christ I deny I said be it so because the Sacraments were cheifly instituted to signify and cause in us sanctifying grace which is both signified and caused by the Body and Blood of Christ under on kind as much as under both Yet the other kind is necessary in the Priest not to confirm more God's promise as Mr. Rodon would have it but to represent the death of Christ And since he thinks two Sacraments better then one why does not he take in the Sacrament of Pennance so signally set down Io. 20. as a sensible sign of sanctifying Grace brought forth in a penitent Soul by the absolution of the Preist signified by these words Whose sins ye remitt are remitted to them Since three Sacraments are as much better then two than two are better than one Or how proves he the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrament the Preists absolving a sorrowful penitent from his sin to be none Ob. 7. Christ fore-saw the inconvenences of taking under both kinds for Lay-people as well as we and yet he commanded it to them as S. Paul to the Corinthians after him Answer I deny that either Christ or S. Paul commanded the lay people to take the Eucharist under both kinds more then Christ commanded that the Ministers should wash the Communicants feet by his example of Washing them to those to whom he gave the Sacrament See the ground of this my denial in the 1. Sect. of the 6. chap. nay Christ signified aboundantly one kind to suffice when he said Who eates this Bread shall live for ever Ob. 8. God's word should not be taken from all because some are deaf therefore the Cup should not be taken from all lay people because some cannot drink Wine Answer The Cup is not taken from all lay people for that reason but because that and other reasons being on one side and on the other side it not being necessary to give it the lay people for
his precious Death Do this in remembrance of me Item because we have it so in the Form of Consecration of that Sacrament instituted by our Saviour and conveyed by Apostolical tradition down to us So is shed and shall be shed are both true Our Saviour who conversed with and instructed his Apostles fourty dayes between his Resurrection and Ascention of things belonging to his Church could best tell them his mind An OBJECTION Omitted in the II Section of the 7. Chap. Object IF God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the destruction of Christ's Sacramental being only whereas afore it was not satisfied for sin without the Destruction of his natural being his Justice will not be alwayes the same Therefore the Justice of God is not now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being and consequently the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead Answer If God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being as a Ransom for sin I grant that his Justice will not be the same if he be satisfied with it not as with a Ransom but as an application of the Ransom for sin I deny that his Justice will not be alwayes the same And as Protestants think that God's Justice is alwayes the same altho they Judge that it is satisfied with their Faith and Repentance as an application of the Ransom given for them by the Death of Christ and that it would not be satisfied without them on their side for they don't hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross without any more a do suffices for the actual Remission of all the sins of the Elect but moreover they require Faith and Repentance in them so we think also that it is alwayes the same altho we Judge that it is satisfied with our Faith and Repentance and other good works and especially by the Sacrifice of the Mass as an application of the Ransom given for us on the Cross CHAPTER VIII A reply to Mr. Rodon's answers to some of our Proofs both for the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass SECTION I. For the Real Presence Our first Proof OUr Proof that these words This is my Body This is my Blood should be taken in their proper sense and not figuratively is this because men viz. wise men such as eminently Christ was making their Testament speak plain Mr. Rodon to usher in more smoothly his answer sayes first That Articles of Faith and Sacraments are not always expressed in proper terms and busies himself to answer that which is not so much as thought upon to be denied much less Objected Then he sayes I answer that in H. Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure for the Testament of Iacob Gen. 49. and Moyses Deut. 33. are nothing but a chain of Metaphors and other figures and Civilians will have that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator I reply What he brings for Testaments in those places are Prophecies of Iacob and Moyses not Testaments Nay after Iacob had fore-told all the text adds he blessed every one with their proper blessings of which in particular the Scripture is silent and ordered them to bury him in the Field of Ephon Secondly suppose they had been Testaments there was a special reason for speaking in covered terms first because they were at least also Prophecies which the Holy Ghost would not have yet clearly understood by every one but that they should have their recourse to the Preists for the understanding of them thus keeping the People in humility and the Governours of the Church in Authority Next there was no danger of any one's loosing his right by others mis-understanding of the words because Iacob and Moyses were infallibly sure of God's promise But in Christ's Testament there was a reason of making the words clear to encourage men to be earnest to get what he had left them As to the saying of Civilians That in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the Intention of the Testator I Answer the reason is because it falls out sometimes that Testaments conceaved in proper words are ambiguous for example suppose a man who hath two Nephews one the Son of a Poor man to whom he always testified Love above the other who was the Son of a Rich man should Test thus I leave 100. lib. to my Nephew Here the Intention of the Testator is to be attended and by this adjudged to the poor Nephew by reason of his singular affection to him altho the proper signification of the word pleads as much for the other If you ask me how in the best conceived Testaments there may be some thing ambiguous I answer with Aristotle because Res sunt innumerae pauca verba that is Things are without number but words are few and so by one word we must signifie many things He urges Christ did not then make the new Testament but only the sign of it for the Covenant was made with all mankind in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpent's Head and was after renewned in Abraham Answer First Whatsoever was made in the Old Law is not that which our Saviour in the Ghospel calles the New Testament for all that was Old when he spoke Nay the New Testament was not the same Covenant made in the Person of Adam for if the New Testament was made with Adam and renewed with Abraham I ask who was that afore Adam with whom the Old Testament was made Item different conditions make a different Covenant Now to believe in CHRIST COME and TO USE HIS SACRAMENTS are conditions which were not in the former Secondly I deny that he did not make at the last Supper his New Testament because as by God Exod. 24. the Old Testament was made or his will of giving to the Jews the Land of Canaan if they kept his commandments and ceremonies prescribed by him was made I say and signed with the Blood of Beasts Hic est sanguis faederis quod pepigit vohiscum Deus This is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you Said Moyses so Christ by the effusion of his Blood in a Sacrifice for Liquid things are offered by Effusion made and signed his New Testament of giving us spiritual things and a heavenly inheritance if we keep his Commandments and use the Sacraments instituted by him And now I prove that he made it here and no where else Because here and no where else he fulfilled the conditions required in a Testator making his Testament First he signified that he was making his Testament in these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. Secondly he promised and left some thing