Sacred Science teaches us that tho there be three different Persones in God there are not three different things because A different thing signifies a different essence Hence S. Aug. lib. de Fide ad petrum chap. 1. sayes Una est patris Filii Spiritus Sti. essentia in qua non est aliud Pater aliud Filius aliud Spiritus Sanctus quamvis personaliter sit alius Pater alius Filius alius Spiritus Sanctus The essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is one in which the Father is not one thing the Son another and the H. Ghost another altho as to Person the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another If he was rash in touching the B. Trinity we must not wonder to see him stray also in this Mystery following only the strain of his human Philosophy Mr. Rodon then was not content meerly to believe but would see that he might believe tho S. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 13. v. 12. That such a sight is reserved for the next Life and that now we see only through a Glass darkly But I desire him who is so earnest to have a clear accompt of Divine Mysteries to clear me first in some natural things How is it possible to cover the whole Heavens with the Wing of a Fly Yet this can be done if it be divided in as many parts as God can divide it For after every division the least part will still have its three dimentions length breadth and thickness by all which it may be still divided Now if he deny this saying the Wing is composed of Indivisibles he runs himself into as great difficulties as to avow that a snail makes as much way in an hour as the sleetest Race-Horse for the Race-Horse cannot make an Indivisible of space or way without some part of time and that cannot be less then an Indivisible of time and in the same Indivisible of time the Snail moving cannot make less then an Indivisible of space and so go along with the Race-Horse the rest of the Indivsiibles of the hour and consequently the Snail will have made as much way as the Race-Horse at the hours end which is absurd Neither tell me the Horse can run over a hundred points or parts of space in an instant for his motion is also divisible in points one part must begin afore the other and so comes in again my argument As for the sweld points maintained by some they confound a Body with a Spirit and therefore are to be rejected How is it possible that since three Men cannot get in at once at a narrow Door the pictures or species which are not Spirits but material things of a whole Army should all at once enter without confusion into the apple of the Eye of a Man who from an eminence regards it If all Philosophers Wits are drowned in a drop of water not being able to fell with satisfaction what is the matter or the Form of it and whither it be compounded of divisible or indivisible parts must we claim to a full satisfaction of our reason afore we will believe this Mysterious Transubstantiation and thus banish Faith out of the Church of Christ Let us not soare to high nor dive to deep in this matter since a searcher of the Divine Majesty will be oppressed by Glory Having premitted this discourse to raise Men above their senses when they come to consider mysteries of Faith I now prove the mystery of Transubstantiation thus As God can create so he can Transubstantiate And as he hath revealed Genes 1. That he hath created Heaven and Earth so he hath revealed Math. 26. v. 27. That he hath made a Transubstantiation of Bread into his Body in the Eucharist If you wonder at the strange things that follow from this Transubstantiation consider that creation made something of nothing which seemed so strange to the ancient Philosophers that they tell us flatly Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made Had they had Faith they would have acknowledged Creation submit you your Judgment to Faith and you 'l acknowledge in the Eucharist Transubstantiation SECTION II. Mr. Rodon's objections answered Object IN every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwise newly produced as when Christ turned the Water into Wine was the Wine was newly produced But the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Eucharist Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist Answer 1. I distinguish the Major In every substantial conversion that thing c. Is alwise newly produced Entitatively or modally I grant alwise Entitatively I deny that is in every substantial conversion there is alwise the production at least of a new manner of being So the Body of Christ in the Eucharist has a new manner of being viz. a Sacramental being which it has not out of the Eucharist But there is not alwise in every substantial conversion a production of a new substance Answer 2. I dislinguish the Major again Naturally be it so Supernaturally and when the question is about the almighty Power of God I deny it and say that it is sufficient that the whole substance of Bread be destroyed and the Bodie of Christ put in its place something remaining common to both viz. the accidents of Bread which now by the consecration become the accidents of the Body of Christ morally in as much as they shew to all the faithfull the consecration being made that the Body of Christ is now there and receives a new being not as to the substance which it had already but as to the manner of being a sacramental being under the form of Bread If you ask how the Body of Christ can begin to be there without leaving the place where it was before I answer when a child grows by the nutrition or feeding does the reasonable soul leave the rest of the Childs body to come to the added part of matter or is there a new reasonable Soul produced in it If not but the same Soul acquires only a new presence of relation to the added part of matter reason the same way concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Ob. 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed but the Bread is not destroyed in the Eucharist because after Consecration it is said to be Broken Divided c. therefore it is not destroyed Answer I distinguish the Minor The Bread is not destroyed as to the substance which is only required I deny as to the accidents I grant and say that by reason of these remaining the Host is said to be broken divided c. and is still called Bread Per distractionem as we speak in Philosophy So our Saviour said to the Disciples of Iohn Math. 11. v. 5. The blind see because they who then did see were afore blind They
water and the Holy Ghost Why was it not that he had not a mind to avow that Baptism has a force to justifie and that it is necessarie for the salvation also of Children as you may clearly see in these following passages of S. Paul and S. Peter You were given to lust drink covetous but yow are washed but you are sanctified to wit by that washing or Baptism but you are justified in the spirit of God 1 Cor. 6. v. 11. S. Cyprian lib. 2. ad Donat confesses what he was afore Baptism and what he presentlie became after Baptism and what Christianity gave to him calling Christianismus his Christning Mors criminum vita Virtutum The death of Crimes and life of Virtues And Peter 1 Cap. 3. v. 21. Quod nos nunc similis formae salvos facit Baptisma The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us as if he should say As the Waters of the deluge raising the Ark and with it Noë and his people did not only declare but saved them really from death so Baptism saves us makes us just and holy and does not only declare us to be such as Luther with other Hereticks would have it understood Also ad Ephes 5. v. 26. He loved his Church Purifying her with the Laver of water and in the word of life Wher you see the word of Life added to the matter viz. of waeter sanctifies and purifies the Church from sin Obj. 6. The flesh of which Christ speaks when he sayes My flesh is meat indeed is a spiritual food but the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a spiritual food but only his body on the Cross then he meant of his Body on the Cross and not his Body in the Eucharist when he said My flesh is meat indeed Answer I deny the minor proposition and say that the flesh or bodie of Christ in the Eucharist is a spiritual food called so without a figure because producing by a supernatural operation which force it hath from its union with the divine nature grace or sanctification in us it is realy food and meat indeed to the soul without a figure So that FOOD is Genus to corporal and spiritual food To strenghten or increase Life is Genus or the more universal term to strenghten by changing into the thing strenghtened and to strenghten not by changing but by Producing grace by which we are strenghtened are the two differences or the less universal terms The first makes Corperal food the second Spiritual The bare sign is no meat because not it but the act of Faith only btings forth Sanctification as Protestants hold in them Moreover I say that Christ's Flesh broken and his blood shed on the Crosse was not spiritual food indeed because they were never to coëxist actually with our spiritual feeding as Christ's flesh in the Eucharist does and therefore is meat indeed The food to be food indeed to one and the feeding must be joined together but when we now believe Christ's death it is not present but past and therefore is not food to the believer but when we believe and take by the mouth of our Body Christ's flesh it is there joyned with our spiritual eating producing Grace strenghtning and encreasing our spiritual life and therefore is meat indeed Obj. 7. That doctrine which opposes sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions is to be rejected if a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages which seem to prove it I Answer 1. What if the Sabellians not conceiving how the Paternity should not be communicated to God the Son as well as the Divine Essence since the Paternitie and the Divine Essence are one and the same thing should have said it's a more suitable and rational sense of passages which seeme in scripture to say there are three distinct persons in the Divine nature that there is only one persone having three different functions called Father as he creats Son as he redeems and Holy Ghost as he sanctifies Would this prettie doctrine please Mr. de Rodon No neither can his conceit in the matter of the Eucharist be applauded by Romanists Answer 2. Our doctrine in the Eucharist neither opposes sense nor reason as I have shewn Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Nor seems so much to imply contradiction as the Mystery of the B. Trinitie which will be seen better in the next chapter Nor is the way he and other Protestants have found out rational to explane the passages we bring for our Doctrine as I hope will appear to the impartial and serious considerer of our proofs in the first Chapter To end this Chapter remember again that Christ by the occasion of the Jews seeking him more for bread to eat then for his miracles Io. 6. v. 26. by which miracles he laboured to perswade them to believe in him or that he was the Son of God called himself bread that doth not perish and spoke first of spiritual eating by faith that he might advance his hearers by litle and litle to this mysterie of a Real eating of his Flesh teaching them first what they ought to do to merite this true and heavenly Bread saying Work or seek earnestly not the food that perishes but which remains to eternall life c. Adding This is the work of God that ye believe as if he should say This is the work of God That ye believe that I am come from Heaven and that I am the Son of God which if you once believe you will not stumble at what I shall say to you here-after concerning the real eating of my flesh and drinking of my Blood nor be at all amased as appeared in the Apostles when actually viz. at the last supper I shall give it you CHAPTER III. Of Transubstantiation SECTION I. Transubstantiation is proved IS it not prettie to hear Mr. Rodon with some other Protestants speak of one of the darkest mysteries of our faith as of a natural thing and when their weak reason looking only to nature cannot reach it conclude as it were with triumph in the Eucharist there 's no transubstantiation Would that man be thought a good Christan who because it thwarts his grosse understanding to conceive a father to beget a son by speaking should conclude that the divine word is not the son of the eternal Father or a good divine who because it 's true to say in the B. Trinity that the essence is communicated to the son and the peternitie is not communicated to the Son should conclude that the essence and the paternitie are not the same thing Here I remark in passing that Mr. Rodon's Philosophy unwarilie touches the mysterie of the most B. Trinity in his 4. chap. where numb 12. for an example of a plurality of things really different he assignes the three Divine persones and concludes from thence that a real difference of things does not infer Division But he should have taken notice that the
to doubt if such a man were my Father for no other reason but because many have thought him to be their Father who really was not To Mr. Rodon's saying That Heathens might have retorted the Catholick arguments made against them by S. Chrysos c. If the Church had then believed that Christ's Body was in the Eucharist As when S. Chrisos said they bring their gods into base Images of Wood and Stone and shut them up there as in Prison And Arnobius Lib. 6. Your Gods dwells in Plaister c. and they suffer themselves to be shut up and remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison Answer 1. No they might not because our mysteries were not known then to them as they are now to Protestants Nay they were keep secret from the very Catechumens Hence that famous saying in primitive times speaking of his Mystery norunt Fideles The Faithful know to wit what we believe there Quaeres Why was this Mystery concealed from the cathecumens or those who ware not yet Baptized Answer Because they had not yet the Eye of Faith by which they might see it Hence don't wonder if you find some Fathers to have wrot some what obscurely of this Mystery in the Birth of the Church Answer 2. No the Heathens might not equally retort c. because 1. Christ is in the H Host and was in his Mothers Womb so that his God-head is and was else where 2. We do not say That Christ leaves Heaven to come to the H. Host as the false Gods one place to come to another 3. Their Consecration was the meer word of Man ours the words of Christ commanding Do this and speaking by the mouth of the Preist This is my Body 4. They adored the Mettal after its dedication as God We do not adore so the species Answer 3. If the Church did then believe that Christ had remained hid and shut up in his Mothers Womb as in an obscure Prison might not the Heathens have retorted what Arnob. Lib. 6. said against their Gods detained in an obscure Prison And for their Retortion in this particular would Mr. Rodon have denyed that Christ remained nine months in his B. Mother's Womb I end this Chapter with this Quaere Wherefore do we adore Christ more particularly in the B. Sacrament then his God-head every where Answer Because God the Father will have God the Son specially honoured by men for his special Love to them in their Redemption of which we are particularly minded by the presence of his Body in the Eucharist 2. Because the humanity of Christ represented to us by the Eucharist is personally united to the Divinity And God the H. Ghost who guides the Church inspired her in her invocations of the three Divine Persons in the begining of the Mass to invoce the first and third Person under the common name of LORD Lord have mercy on us But God the Son under the Name of his Man-hood saying thrice Christ have Mercy on us so honoured will God have and dear to us this Man-hood of Christ the instrument of our Redemption CHAPTER VI. Against the taking away of the Cup or the Communion under one kind SECTION I. The lawfulness of Communicating under one kind is proven 1. THE precept of Communicating or of taking the Body and Blood of Christ is only Io. 6. v. 53. in these words Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you But with those words stands the lawfulness of Communicating under one kind Therefore 't is lawful to Communicate under one kind I prove the minor 1. Because there is only commanded the sumption or receiving of both Body and Blood as to the substance not the manner of receiving them under both kinds 2. If you think the manner is commanded also giving not granting you that we answer that the Particle And may be taken for Or as in many other places of Scripture for example when Salomon speaking to God sayes mendicitatem divitias ne dederis mihi Poverty and Riches give me not Prov. 30. v. 8. Where And is taken for Or he desiring of God neither to be Rich nor Poor And Act. 3. v. 8. Argentum Aurum non est mihi Silver 2. And Gold I have not for Silver Or Gold I have not If with the Hussits you will not relish this solution then we answer 3. That this command was given by Christ not to every particular man but to the community of Christians by which it is fulfilled some viz. Preists taking it under both kinds to represent announce to the People the death of Christ according to the command layed upon them Math. 26. In these words Do this in remembrance of me there also was the command to the Preists of making the Sacrament for the People So Exod. 12. v. 3. 't is commanded that The whole multitude of the Children of Israel shall Sacrifice viz. the Paschal Lamb. Did every one in particular sacrifice No but only the heads of families in their families Also Genes 9. v. 1. Increase and multiply Doth not oblige every particular man to marry Again when our Saviour said Math. 28. Teach all nations baptising them he laid that command on the Church not on every particular man to teach Now to make appear that this answer is not brought without ground from Scripture take notice that when Christ would signifie that every one or every individual person should be baptised he expressed himself in the singular number Io. 3. v. 5. Nisi quis c. Except a man be born of water nd of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Whereas Io. 6. v. 53. he sayes in the plural number Nisâ— manducaveritis Unless ye eat c. which is fulfilled by the community if some of them receive under both kinds altho all do not And a little after when he turnes his speach into the singular he speaks indifferently of both or one kind He that eates my Flesh and drink my Blood hath life everlasting v. 45. and v. 58. He that eates this Bread shall live for ever Which passages signifie that one kind suffices for if by an impossible supposition Christ could contradict himself yet our opinion would stand since in jure if what is said last contradict what was said afore Iura posteriora corrigunt priora The latter Law corrects the former That the precept of receiving this Sacrament was here Io. 6. v 53. I prove again The command of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or Baptism Sacramentally was Io. 3. v. 4. For in no other place is mentioned Water which Protestants acknowledge to be necessary in Baptism as well as Catholicks Therefore the command of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body Blood Sacramentally viz. in a sensible way by the mouth of the Body is here Io. 6. v. 53 I prove the consequence because a like expression to the same people caries a like command
mindful of one of the Noble Motto's of your House hazard yet further in what is prudently acknowledged to be the Service of God there is no danger to be redouted or so much as apprehended Your very name SET-ON minds you of generosity in what you act for God or may undertake for the Service of his Vice-gerent upon Earth the King God and you know best what hope you have lay'd up in Heaven as the Apostle speaks to the Colos 1. v. 5 But much of Your Charitie the World has seen I am the Subject of a notable part of it and Witness of your sheltring poor Strangers considering distressed Tenents clothing the naked feeding orphelins visiting the imprisoned in Person the sick by almes entring some fore-lorne into the number of your domesticks and honestly burying the Dead that had no Friend or Relation able to do that Duty Such actions done in the Spirit of Christ make savour at present in the Eucharist the sweetness of the hidden Manna there and will Crown hereafter the Christian in the solemn day of the general Resurrection Infin Since the Treassures of your Arms being Flower Delucies as good as tell you you must flowrish strive to flowrish in the Faith of your ancestors Ambulo in fide sayes the Author of the Imitation of Christ l. 4 C. 11. exemplis confortatus Sanctorum I walk in the Faith of the Real Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist comfortably held in it by the example of the Saints this Faith gives Men a Victory over the World making them fear esteem and Love only this God of Love a Love surprising in this Mystery And being fully satisfied with the expected possession of him breath now after the Loveliness of his Eternity This flowrishing condition I cordially wish you as I am SIR Your most humble and obliged Servant N. N. THE PREFACE NO wonder our Ghostly Enemy is so earnest to perswade men that there is no true Sacrifice in the Mass He knows that it is the very Center of Christian Religion the Arcenall of armes against him the Store-house of all perfection and the great means the Church has to pacifie God in his Wrath and draw down from Heaven blessings upon her Children He knows it is the permanent succeeding Sacrifice to all the Sacrifices of the Old Law a most perfit holocaust in which JESUS is Sacramentally consumed in the fire of his Love in acknowledgment of the grandour of his Father An Eucharistical because in thanksgiving for the daily benefits we receive from above we can offer nothing more pleasing A Sacrifice of Satisfaction because the hatred which God carries to the sins of the World is not so great as the Love he bears to his Son whose merits far exceed the enormity of our offences A Sacrifice of Impetration because the Father cannot refuse any thing to a Son who in all his life and death upon Earth has so highly obliged him Wherefore the Preist tho in contemplation of his own sinful condition is always bound to say O Lord I am not worthy yet having at the Altar Christ in his hands he may also say with an humble confidence Respice in faciem Christi tui Eternal Father tho' I am not worthy to petition either for my self or others yet be pleased to grant us what we in humility demand for the Love of him who vouchsafed to dye for the Love of us since as our offering is the offering of Christ so our request is his and he ordained us to mind thus Your Majesty by this commemoration of his Death The Son of God finding his Father not content withall the oblations which pure men could offer him for their sins Sacrificium oblationem noluisti Hosts and oblations and holocausts and for Sin thou wouldst not neither did they please thee then said I the Son of God behold I come that I may do thy will Hebr. 10. v. 5 6 7. Out of his Love to men resolved to be both our Preist Victime a Body thou hast fited to me behold I come So sacrificing himself in a bloody way upon mount Calvarie he laid into the Treasury of the Church an inexhaustable ransom for all mankind having provided before by the Sacrifice he made at the last Supper commanding his Disciples to offer in like manner in remembrance of him for our daily necessity of a daily Sacrifice daily Sacrifice of a Lamb commanded Exo. 29.38 daily to acknowledge God's supream being to give him daily thanks for his daily benefits and to obtain new helps in our daily infirmities where he instituted his Body and Blood to be offered daily under the Forms of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedech commanding hoc facite do this Luc. 22. v. 10. his Apostles and their Successors in that function to make the Sacrament in it for the spiritual food of the Faithful To prove this truth efficaciously as I undertake by the help of God to do in this Book in which I answer Chapter for Chapter Monsieur Rodon's funeral of the Mass I prove first of all the Catholick tenet both for the Reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist with other Doctrines relating to it and that in our Liturgy or Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice every one in their proper place by proofs which either did not come into Monsieur Rodon's mind or if they did he thought good to take no notice of them Next I solve his objections some of which if the Catholick Reader find set out by me in a more convincing way then by Monsieur Rodon himself let him not censure me for that but remember that sometimes a Surgeon makes the wound the wider to cure it the better Moreover let the Protestant Reader be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon's arguments are drawn from our senses which are plausible to men of Flesh and Blood whereas many of our answers in this Mysterie of Faith are drawn from Faith or Reasons grounded upon Faith which are above the reach of Flesh and Blood and must mount to a higher story than that of our senses to be applauded Math. 16. v. 17. If he who has not been acquainted with Philosophy much less with Divinity think my expressions to be harsh not to say Barbarous when I repeat Monsieur de Rodon's terms A quo and Ad quem and use others of that nature common in the Schoole I answer for us both that we cannot discourse properly on Schoole matters but in Schoole terms as he who speaks pertinently of Herauldry uses terms which are no more understood than Hebrew by him who is ignorant of that Court and noble Knowledge Nevertheless here and there I render them in English or give an English explication of them For my Greek and Hebrew quotations I was advised to put them in Characters common to our Language so they who are ignorant of those Tongues may have the satisfaction to pronounce the words to
but is produced in the Body spectato secumdum se considered in it self which indeed materially was afore at Paris but by a new ubication is also at Rome If you say the Roman ubication must be produced at Rome but it cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome therefore the Body must be at Rome before it be at Rome which is absurd Answer I distinguish the minor It cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome consecutively I grant antecedently I deny And therefore I also deny the consequence The Roman ubication is then produced in the Body existing at Rome ut quo in as much as it is the Form which makes the Body or the subject to be at Rome Ob. 2. In a true human Body such as Christ's Body is the Head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders but this cannot be in a Point then Christ's Body cannot be in every least part of the Host Answer I distinguish the major In a true human Body c. naturally existing the Head is above the neck its true supernaturally existing being Spiritualized or having the quality of a Spirit by which it is all in all and all in every part of the improper place in which it is I deny the major Mr. Rodon confounds here Entitative quantity which is to have a number of parts with Situal quantity or Extent which is to have all its parts one without another The Body of Christ hath its Entitative quantity but not its situal quantity in the Eucharist this Extent or Situal quantity is an accident which the Entitative quantity can want Ob. 3. To move and not to move c. in the same time are contradictory things Answer Considered under the same respect its true under a different respect its false For example my Soul moves in my hand at the same time that it is stock still in my head The same way the Body of Christ may be moved as it is in Heaven and not be moved as it is in the Host Ob. 4. Two relatives are alwise different as the Father and Son Answer I grant it and tell you that a Body in two places is not two Bodies so the relation of distance of which we speak here is between the two places not between two Bodies Mr. Rodon urges It is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in them I Answer once again we are not speaking here of things but of one thing But let us speak of two other things existing in two different places I say that the distance of place is only the partial Cause of their distance and that the total Cause is the dlstance of places and the existing of things in them Otherwise things which are now together might be said to be distant because the places in which they were before are still distant Mr. Rodon presses further Peter at Rome might draw nigher to himself as he exists at Paris Answer Neigher to himself I deny neigher to his ubication at Paris I grant that is he might have an ubication nigher to that he has at Paris but he would never come so close that the same parts of his Body would meet with the same but the right hand with the left or the palm of the hand with the back of the hand And so as there is a difference between those different parts there may rise a relation of meeting and as there is no repugnance that I touch my self making one hand touch the other so there is none that I meet with my self different parts of my Body meeting with different parts of the same And if I will have my right hand which meets with my left press forward I must also will to put back or aside my left they being both solid parts Let my Reader take these answers to divert himself a litle with the humour of Mr. de Rodon but let him not think that his objection presses us for as distance supposes proper places so meeting supposes a proper motion And the Body of Christ is neither in a proper place nor properly moved in the Eucharist as I said afore But were it Circumscriptively there these foresaid answers and the following in this matter blow-up all his objections Ob. 5. It 's a perfit contradiction that a Body should be one and not one but if Christ's Body should be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host upon Earth 't would be one and not one then it can not be in Heaven and in the Host both at once 'T would be one as is supposed and not one as is proven because it would be divided from it self Answer I deny the minor and as to its probation I distinguish 'T would be divided from it self Extrinsecally that is as to place I grant Intrinsecally as to it self or Essential principles of which it 's composed I deny For nothing of it's Essential principles would be in one place which were not in the other The Body of a man for example bilocated would not be in one place where the Soul were not nor the Soul in another where the Body were not with it The sole Ubications of the same Body are divided Now since two Bodies may be in one place by penetration as when Christ entred into the Caenacle of the Apostles the Doors being shut and came out of his B. Mother's womb she still remaining a Virgin why may not one Body be by a like miracle in two places since the thing placed relates to the place just as the place relates to the thing placed in it As one thing naturally requires to be in one place at once so one place naturally requires to have only one thing in it at once why then may not one thing supernaturally by the almighty power of God be in two places at once Mr. Rodon urges 1. The division is true when between two there be Bodies of divers natures Answer This I grant and say That our supposition is not of two but of one Body which is the same in Heaven and in the Host He urges 2. Things that are divided locally are also divided Entitatively Therefore the Body of Christ being in divided places must be divided Entitatively He proves the antecedent thus else no reason can be given why two glasses of Water taken from the same Fountain are really different since these Waters are like in all things except in reference to place Answer 1. Our supposition is not of things but of one thing or Body as I said afore Answer 2. I grant that local division infers alwise Entitative division if we look only to the ordinary course of nature but not in cases in which God will shew his almighty Power we know then that the Body of Christ being only one is now sacramentally in different places by the almighty power of God because he hath revealed it as we know the same Body was
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
SECTION III. For the Real Presence Our fourth Proof GOD can put two Bodies in one place then he may put one Body in two places or at once in Heaven and in the Host The antecedent is proven by Christ's entring into the Canacle of the Apostles the doors being shut Io. 20. v. 19. Mr. Rodon's answer is to explane those words thus The doors having been shut which explication suffers the opening of them again to let Christ in But that which annull's all his frivolous explications of those words is that the Greek Original text has thuroon kekleisménoon in the Genetive absolute the doors being shut and the English Protestant Translation has when the doors were shut came Iesus Both which import a simultaneus entry of Iesus with the door 's being shut or that Iesus entred while the doors were shut and consequently two Bodies were penetratively in the same place 2. Christ came out of his Blessed Mother's womb without opening it but Mr. Rodon for certain assures the contrary because Luke 2. he was presented to the Lord as is written in the Law every male that opens the womb Luke 2. v. 23. But let me ask Because Christ submitted himself to the Law was he subject ro the Law Because he took upon him Circumcision the mark of a Sinner was he a Sinner No more had he opened his Mother's Womb altho he was presented to the Lord. Must we degrade the Mother of God of the title of a Virgin or go from the common notion of a Virgin to ply to Mr. Rodon's Faithless imagination 3. Was not Christ risen afore St. Mary Magdalen said who will roll away the Stone Mark 16 And consequently in rising penetrating it was in the same place with the Stone 3. St. Paul sayes Hebr. 4. That Iesus Christ penetrated the Heavens and consequently the Heavens and his Body were in one and the same place Mr. Rodon answers That is to be understood improperly that is that the Heavens gave way to his Body as the Air to an Arrow But I reply The Holy Scripture is to be taken in the litteral sense when so taken as here it implies no contradiction nor any thing against Faith or good manners Moreover St. Paul spoke so to let us know that Penetrability or subtility is one of the Gifts or Endowments of a Glorious Body Mr. Rodon is not of that Authority to make his bare word be taken against the sentiment of all the Orthodox Divines Mr. Rodon objects Numb 15. That a modal accident in the opinion of those Romish Doctors who hold them cannot be without a subject therefore the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist cannot be without a Subject Answer I deny the consequence because the Modal Accident in the opinion of those who hold them is jultima rei determinatio it ultimatly determines its Subect and consequently when it exists it is with its Subject But other Accidents as the Species of Bread or Wine as Colour Savour c. do not ultimately or actually determine a Subject but only have naturally an appetite to be in a Subject so Fire naturally has an appetite to burn yet by Divine power its actual burning was hindered in the Furnace of Babilon SECTION IV. For the Sacrifice of the Mass Our first Proof TO Mr. Rhodon's answer to our first Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass out of the Prophet Malachy I reply in my 7 Chap. Subs 4. where I deduce that proof at length What he says about the word New offering is out of purpose for we have not that word in our Bible but only Oblatio munda a pure offering Only let his Defender take notice that Sacrifices are not acceptable to God by Jesus Christ unless the Offerers be living stones or living members of his Church by Grace 1. Pet. cap. 2. v. 5. And not that every abominable sinner who breaks the Commandments of God tho he believe in Christ may think his Sacrifice will be accepted so he offer it by Jesus Christ No God hates the impious Prov. 15. So far he is from accepting their offering And Christ says Not every one that says to me Lord Lord this I repeat often to imprint it well in Protestants mind such believe in him otherways they would not call him Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven but who does the will of my Father Math. 7.2 Christ is not a coverer of iniquity that still remaines in the heart of the sinner SECTION V. For the Sacrifice of the Mass Our second Proof WHich Mr. Rodon answers is taken from these words Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine for he was a Breist of God the most High blessed him Gen. 14.18 From these words according to the unanimous consent of Greek and Latin Fathers whose passages you may read in Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa chap. 6. We say 1. That Melchisedech Sacrificed there 2. That the cheif difference between the Sacrifice of Aaron and that of Melchisedech made there was in this that Aaron's was Bloody and Melchisedech's Unbloody or in Bread and Wine and therefore since Christ according to David Psal 109. and St. Paul Hebr. 7. is called a Preist after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron as St. Paul v. 11. expressely intimates it behoved him to Sacrifice under the formes of Bread and Wine as he did at the last Supper when having changed a peece of Bread into his Body he said This is my Body which is given that is offered for you and This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood which is poured out that is Sacrificed for you Luke 22. And consequently the oblation which is made in the Mass it being the same with that which Christ made at the last Supper is a true Sacrifice An other difference taken from the Person Sacrificrificing is that Melchisedech neither succeeded to any in his Presstly dignity being without Father and Mother in order to his Preist-hood which he had not carnally by right of Inheritance but was the first of that order neither had he a Successor as Aaron had Eleazer and in this he was a Type of Christ a Preist for ever Mr. Rhodon to weaken this our Argument for the Sacrifice of the Mass from these words Genes 14. Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine for he was a Preist of God the most High blessed him Says we falsifie the Text in three places putting the Participle Bringing for brought the causal For for And. and leaving out another And. Answer I freely avow our Translation does not follow the Hebrew Text word for word Is a Translator bound to more than the true and full sense of what he Translates May not he change an active Verb into a Passive a Verb into a Participle c. If I should translate the French Jay froid thus I have cold would not I be rediculous to an English man who says I am cold Do not the