answer that as heat is proper to fire and rational essential to man so is also to suffer a property to a patible living body sacrificed and not to suffer a property to an impatible or glorious body such as Christs body is sacrificed in the Mass where is now then the Mounsieurs strong argument out of clear and apparent scripture Rodon Thirdly these words from the foundation of the world are of great weight for t is as much as if the Apostle had sayd if the only sacrifice of Christ on the Crâ—…ss be not sufficient to take away sins which shall be committed hereafter it follows that it was not sufficient to take away sins which have been committed heretofore from the creation of the world for it is very unsuitable that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross should have more vertue before it was offered then since but the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross had the vertue to take away sins before it was otherwise saith the Aposile he should often have suffered from the foundation of the world Therefore it hath also vertue to take away sins committed since it was And consequently there is no need that it should be reiterated in the Mass. Answ. Sure it is and we confess it thâ—… the foundation of the world or to speak more properly the world upon its foundation is a thing of very great poyse and weight in it self But alas the argument which the Mounsieur draws from it is of no weight at all it is as light as any fly or feather for we grant that the sacrifice of the Cross is sufficient to take away the sins committed not only before it from the creation of the world but also that shall be committed hereafter and that his bloudy sacrifice was offered for all people in general yet since as holy Primasius saith our sins do dayly increase and all ages grow more and more corrupt it is not only convenient but also necessary that this bloudy sacrifice typified by all the Sacraments of the old Law and virtually in its self sufficient to destroy all the sins of the world even from the foundation thereof until dooms-day should be reiterated rememorated and applyed by the Church for the dayly sins of the faithful not bloudily as it was upon the Cross for that would be a cruel â—…nd Jewish action but unbloudily as it is in the Mass for Christs body being now glorified can suffer no more Rodon Fourthly the Apostles comparison is câ—…nsiderable the sense whereof is this as men suffer death but once and after death appear nâ—… more till the dâ—…y of the Resurrection and day of Iudgmeâ—… sâ—… Christ hath offered himself to his father once for all on the Cross to take away sins and will be nâ—… more upon earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead This utterly destroyes the Mass in which Iesus Christ is said to be offered and sacrificed continually by the ministery of Priests Answ. Notwithstanding the Apostles considerable comparison this argument of the Mounsieurs is as inconsiderable as his last was light for we confess that as men suffer death but once and after death appear no more until the day of refurrection and judgement so Christ hath offered himself to his father once for all on the Cross to take away sins and will be no more in his humane shape upon earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead but we deny that he will not be really upon earth also in the Sacrament until the consumation of the world as he himself promised us he would be and to his illative exclamation or out-cry viz. This utterly destroys the Mass I answer as lowd as he that his consequence makes him an Ass for it follows not at all that because Christ will appear no more upon earth in his humane shape that he is not really in the Mass or that the Mass is utterly destroyed how does the Mounsieur infer this how does he prove it out of this Passage verily no better then an Ass would if he could speak Rodon Fifthly sacrifices that take away sins and sanctifie those that come thereunto ought not to be reiterated for the only reason which the Apostle alledgeth why the old sacrifices of the law were reiterated is because they could not take away sins nor sanctify the comers thereunto as appeare by the Text above cited But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross takes away sins and sanctifies those that come thereunto therefore the sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross onght not to be reiterated and consequently is not reiterated in the Mass. If Iesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and and purchase eternal redemption for us then it is evident that the fruit and efficacy of this sacrifice endures for ever and that we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross But Iesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us as appears by the Texts afforesaid Therefore the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross endures for ever and we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross. In a word either we must confes that the sacrifice of the cross hath no vertue to take away sins and to sanctify us for ever which is contrary to what the Apostle saith or else if it hath this vertue and sufficiency then Iesus Christ hath offered one only sacrifice once for all and consequently is not offered dayly in the Mass by the Ministery of Priests Answ. These two pittifull illations deduced out of your fifth argument are chopt off in two words for as to the first we consess again and again that Christs bloudy sacrifice which takes away sins and sanctifies people onght not be reiterated bloudily again unbloudily we deny and this we told the Mounsieur a hundred times over as to the second we also deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is any other sacrifice distinct from that of the Cross as we also told him as many times over and over which two principles of ours until he destroys which he nor any of his will ever be able to do his Illations will remain pittyful and never be worth a rush Rodon The Apostle almost throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebr. saith that Jesus Christ was constituted and consecrated by his father high Priest for ever and particularly Chap. 7. he saith that many were made Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death But Jesus Christ because he continueth for ever hath an unchangeable Priest-hood and that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them And consequently infers the wise Mounsieur he hath no need of vicars or companions in his Priesthood Answ. Why Mounsieur is
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
light and glory that now you see it is Ninthly I give and bequeath to all broaken Aldermen defunct Committees and accused Members of the House of Commons my nâ—…w Creed and by them to be disposed of to their Creditors and all others as they shall see cause that they may renew their faith and againe become credible men by which meanes the publique faith may againe revive and the City looke up and whereas my Predecessor knowne by the name of Doctors Commons of famous memory did decease about sixe yeares since having first made a will which was made publique in print and for as much as the said Doctors Commons is againe revived to my great and unspeakeable terrour I doe hereby bequeath unto my said Predecessor all jurisdiction priviledges profits and emoluments whatsoever so unjustly usurped and detained by me and the rest of my precious Brats Tenthly All my zeale for the Cause I give and bequeath to the dissenting Souldiers that have deserted the Army that they may stand up mightily in the gap and stop the plaguy devouring Army of Sir Thomas Fairfax Eleventhly I give and bequeath all my new invented Oathes and Covenants all my Schismaticall Sermons all my Perjuries Forgeries Plots Treacheries Rebellions Equivocations and mentall reservations to my deare children the Scots provided that they shall make use of them in their owne Countrey and not else where Twelfthly I give and bequeath unto Dr. Cyballs 10. l. of lawfuâ—…l money of England in consideration of my Funerall Sermon besides two Canenicall Coats which he may turne as he sees fitting and I desire him to make his prayer shorter then the ordinary use hath been for I my selfe must confesse the blasphemies treasons heresies incongruities tautologies absurdities of my children in their measure of Prayer from time to time observed by the people hath beene a great cause of my untimely disease And also I desire that his Sermon may be printed and published and that Wal-ey'd Bartlet at Austins-gate and Bellamy at the Old Exchange have the Printing thereof and that an Ordinance may bee desired that none dare to reprint the same Lastly I do intrust all that out of a conscientious duty to me shall suddenly after my discease leave and abandon the House of Commons Provided they exceed not the number of threescore to be my Executors that they see this my last Wil and Testament performed without any fraud according to the true sense and meaning thereof and the severall legacies to be paid to the persons aforesaid within five moneths after my death And this my Will to remaine in full force revoking all former Wills Bonds Bills Gifts whatsoever Witnesse my hand and Seale Adoniram Byfield Scribe Sealed and delivered Iuly 1647. Iohn Presbyter Simon Synod Cornelius Burges Postscript REjoyce O heavens sing aloud O earth clap thy hands for joy O England post nubula soles thou shall now have a time of quietnesse of peace of content for Presbyter Iohn is dead and will never vex thee more nor imprison thy free Denizens nor eate up thy fat things nor devour thy good things nor eate the bread out of thy childrens mouthes Therefore farewell persecution for conscience farewell Ordinance for Tythes farewell Ecclesiasticall Supremacy farewell Pontificiall Revenue farewell Dissembly of Divines dissembled at Westminster you shall constult together no more farewell Sir Simon Synod and his sonne Presbyter Iack Gens antiqua ruit multos dominata per Annos And therefore O England Interpone tuis interdum gaudia curis His EPITAPH HEre lies Jack Presbyter void of all pity Who ruin'd the Countrey and fooled the City He turned preaching to prating and telling of lies Caus'd jarres and dissentions in all Families He invented new Oathes Rebellion to raise Deceiving the Commons whilst on them he preyes He made a New Creed despised the Old King State and Religion by him bought and sold. He foure yeares consulted and yet could not tell The Parliament the way Christ went into Hell Resolved therein he never could be Therefore in great haste he 's gone thither to see FINIS gratiously to hear the humble Prayers of his hidden Petitioner and MADAM Your Majestie 's most Loyal Devoted Beadsman W. C. Chapter I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my body MOnsieur de Rodon against ths exposition of the Roman Catholicks who by this passage of Scripture This is my body understands the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament of the Altar frames his argument thus Rodon 1. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscurely but if Iesus Christ by these words This is my body had meant the real presence of his body in the host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial Conversion of the bread into his body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of aâ—… the world and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I prove thus Theâ—… was never any author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my body to signifie the real presence of a thing immediatly after the pronouncing of them and not before on the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was to be For example when God the Father speaking of Iesus Christ said this is my beloved Son it is certain that Iesus Christ was the son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example we do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Iesus Christ this is my body to signifie thâ—… substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before seeing then that Iesus Christ when he said this is my body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all â—…hâ—… world and dâ—…d not takâ—… the wordâ—… otherwise â—…hen all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Iesus Christ when he said this is my body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body nor the real presence of Christs body in the host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in Scripture Answ.
the force of his creative word unless they can prove that it is beyond Gods power to transubstantiate one thing into another which no body can demonstrate because it is an â—…asier thing in its self to Transubstantiate then to create What we say of God the fathers word the same we say of Christs because of their equality in power Hence followeth evidently that Mr. de Rodons second Instance viz. This is a Table is to no purpose because of the disparity between Christs word and the words of all Authors sacred and prophane Therefore Mr. de Rodon must give us leave to conclude thus contrary to him viz. that since Jesus Christ exprest his minde by saying This is my body and since his power is so great that he is able to do what he sayes and since his word is verity and truth it followeth evidently that he did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the world and that he did not take the words but in their proper and litteral meaning as all other men do when they say this is my hand this is my cloak he being able to effect what he said which no other Author sacred or prophane are able to do It followeth also that the Romisâ—… doctours need not seek and cannot have a clearer passage out of scriprure to prove the real presence then this This is my body whence also followeth that this conversion and presence have an excellent foundation in holy scripture But let us now examine his grounded reason concerning the common usage of words thus he argues Rodon 2. Things must be before there be any Image Picture or representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images but words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Christ held and gave to his disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said this is my body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words tâ—…is is my body that that which Iesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it followeth that these words This is my body must be expounded thus This bread is my body and these words This bread is my body must be expounded thus This bread is the Sacrament of my body Answ. To this Argument I answer granting the Antecedent with its sequel But that which he inferrs viz. that words are the Images of conceptions I distinguish thus words are the improper Images of conceptions I confess words are the proper Images of conceptions I deny for although words be signes of conceptions yet they are not their proper Images because as Dialecticks commonly say though every Image is a signe yet every signe is not an Image and the reason is because an Image hath alwayes an essential relation or likeness to its prototype which a signe hath not alwayes to the thing it signifies nâ—…y the very signum naturale natural signe it â—…elf hath not that similitude for otheâ—…wise smoak which is a natural signe of fire and the voice of a man which is the natural signe of a man the one would be like fire and the other like a man sure it is and to every mans eye that the kings head set up before a Tavâ—…rn signifies that wine is to be sold there and yet the kings head is no Image of wine because it is not like wine so that an Image and a signe are two different things But suppose a signe is an improper Image because as an Image is like to its Prototype so a signe represents the thing it signifies I distinguish his minor thus but words are the Images of conceptions and consequently must come after the things they signify humane words are signes and must come after c. I confess divine words such as Christs are are signes and must come after c. I deny for humane words are nothing else but meer empty and speculative signes or shadows of the things they signifie but Christs words are practical signes and causes of what they signifie and so they precede and must not come after the thing by them signifyed And so Transubstantiation which was the concept of Christs words when he said This is my body followed and was made by his effective word This solution is grounded on the omnipotent vâ—…e of Christs words which are not only signes but also do cause by creation or production what things he pleaseth and how he pleaseth to conceive they shall be for we never heard as yet of any other way God either creatâ—…d or produced any thing but by hâ—…s bâ—…re word therefore although every creatures word comes after the thing it signieth yet Christs word which is both a practical signe and cause of things must precede what he intends to create produce or change Secondly I answer the said minor that whereas the Romish Doctors hold Transubstantiation to be not only the real presence of Christs body bâ—…t also the signe and Sacrament thereof For they say 't is both Sacramentum res the Sacrament and the thing it self As it is a Sacrament or signe we say it pre-supposeth the thing it represents viz. Christs patible body upon the Cross for although it be still the self same body yet it is not still in the self same manner it is now glorified and it was then patible it was then in its human shape it is now in the Sacrament but veiled under the Sacramental species of bread and wine Neither is there any repugnance or inconvenience that the same thing should signifie or represent its own self when the manner of the thing is changed for example it is neither repugnant or inconvenient that a man upon a theatre should represent and signifie what he did himself when he was in an army or to represent his own youthfull actions in his old age it is not repugnant to any man and yet the self-same man is the representer and represented even so is it in our case concerning Christs glorified body in the Sacrament and the self same when it was patible upon the Cross. And whereas Mr. Rodon saies that it was rather by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it I ask him this question if a bare blessing or thanksgiving can make this Sacrament why were not the loaves and fishes our Saviour multiplied for those that followed him into the wilderness made this Sacrament also for Christ blest them and gave the glory and praise of
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
these other two Qui Ecclesiam non audit sit tibi tanqnam Ethnicus Publicanus He that hears not the Church let him be unto thee as a heathen and Publican S. Math. 18 and to this Qui vos audit mâ—… audit qui vos spernit me spernit he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me S. Luke 10. where note that in the first passage is said that all power in heaven and earth is given to Christ and in the second is said that Christ bequeathed the Power he received from his father unto his Church representative for what else do these words as you my father sent me so I send them into the world import but that they had I mean his Apostles and disciples who were his Church Representative the same spiritual power delegated unto them by him as he received from his heavenly father the difference being only this that his power from his father was absolute and Principal in him the Power he gave to his Church if compared to his power is but a subordinat or delegat power Now then if we consider that Christ having celâ—…ated and bequeathed his power on earth to his Church and commanded us to hear her if we will not be counted as heathens and publicans and tells us also that by despising her we despise himself what I pray good Mounsieur consequence follows or flows from these evident passages of Scripture and all uttered by Christs own sacred mouth but that we are to hear and obey the Church representative which were the Apostles and his disciples in their time and the general Councils ever since their time concerning her canons and statutes and her other direction and guiding of our souls So that until Mr. de Rodon can prove that the Council of Constance was â—…n unlawful or Acephal Council and no Church Representative which he undertakes not in this Tract he hath no reason to exclaim against her Canons and statutes nor to make them so horrible to the world neither have we any reason to be terrified at it because as I shall now shew you it is in effect nothing but a meer sâ—…are-crow For what Christian of any understanding or belief can judge or think that Christ who is verity it self and his heavenly fathers wisdom should contradict his own commandments and yet if the Canons and statutes made by his Church in her General Councils were opposit and contradictory to his commandments it would necessary follow that he contradicted himself Because he and his holy spirit is the self same thing and so by contradicting his spirit he must needs contradict himself But he promised his Church militant that he would be with her all days unto the Consumation of the world and in another place he tells her That his spirit which is in her and his words which he put in her mouth shall not recede from her mouth nor from the mouth of her seed nor of her seeds seed from that time and for ever which is as much as to say that his spirit should be alwaies her directour and guide in all her conciliary definitions and decrees Yet if notwithstanding this reason deduced out of clear Scripture Mr. de Rodon will still persist in his fearful exclamations and object against us that nothing can be more evident and clear then that this Constantian Canon or Law is contradictory to Christs institution and command concerning the Cup we deny that Law to have at all opposed Christs commandment because of the difference of time that interceded betwiâ—… the commandment and that Law Christ told his disciples or Church Representative that he had many things to say to them but they could not bear them at that time Iohn 16. whence follows that Christ by his holy spirit might have revealed some things to his Church which he would have observed by her children whereof he made no express mention to his disciples while he was conversant with them If the Constantian Canon or Law had been made just at the same time when Christ instituted this Sacrament and â—…ommanded it should be received under both species something might be said in the matter But who knows that Christ in future times would not have something altered concerning this Institution by his Church to whom he promised his holy spirit should be her directour and guide in all her statutes and ordinances unto the consummation of the world All divines hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity because without it no body can be saved then that of the Eucharist is And was it not one of the last commandments our Saviour left his Apostles that they should go preach the Gospel and Baptize in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Ghost Math. 28. however the Church of her own proper authority even in the very Apostles times changed this form for a time for some certain reasons and Baptized in the name of Jesu as may be seen in the Acts of the Apostles 19. chap. was not the keeping of the Sabbath-day commanded by God in the first table of his commandements written by his own holy finger But by whose authority was the day altered we have no scripture for it we have no other but the authority of the Church This was an express commandment of God no Christian nay no Jew will deny it all Christians know that the Church altered the day for certain grave reasons viz. that we shold not communicate with the Jews because our Savior rose again upon our Sabath because the Holy Ghost descended upon our B. Lady and the Apostles upon our sabath and for sundry others which the holy Ghost inspired her with wherefore then may not the Mounsieur exclaim and cry out against her as well for this as for her constantian Canon may not he say that she contradicted Gods expresse commandement of keeping the Jewish sabath when by her Canons or ordinations she commanded our sunday should be observed and their sabaoth slighted yes truly that he may and yet as we nay and the Protestants themselves I hope will deny any transgression to have been done by the Church against Gods commandement by her statutes or Canons for not keeping the Jewish Sabaoth so we also deny that by her Constantian Canon she contradicted Gods commandement concerning denying the cup to the Lay-people and the reason is because the commandements and the Canons were not made the same time and because the holy Ghost for sundry reasons inspired the Church to alter some things concerning the former commandement Christ left her but for a certain time as he himself told her before that he had many things to say to her but she could not bear them at that time which is not to contradict but rather to dispense with Christs former commandements To this I add the Apostles command concerning not eating bloud nor strangled meat which notwithstanding is not observed even by those of the Reformed
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
teach us and consequently of the same force and value to remit sins to those that receive it worthily as the bloudy sacrifice is in it self to remit all sins in general if no obstacle were put to it The last words of this Passage viz. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God for by one offering he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified we understand in the same sense as we understood the words of the former Passage viz. that after Christ offered one bloudy sacrifice for sins he forever after sits at the right hand of his heavenly father until doomsday and we also understand these words viz. By one offering he hath perfected them that are sanctified we understand I say that his once bloudy offering himself upon the Cross was in it self a perfect rigorous satisfaction and of worth to sanctify all those that are sanctified But that which we deny is that this once-bloudy sacrifice doth oppose or exclude the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass which we say with the holy fathers is the self same essentially with it and consequently of the same force with it in order to the remitting of sins and sanctifing of those who receive it worthily and to whom it is particularly applyed unto as Learned Primasius says in the place above-mentioned Now then to the Mounsieurs arguments Rodon First the old sacrifices were reiterated for the Apostle saith that the high Priest entreth into the holy Place every year with the bloud of others But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ must not be reiterated for the same Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often and that he hath once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass is not the sacrifice of the Cross reiterated or the reiteration of the sacrifice of the cross as our adversaries would have it Answ. If the Mounsieur takes all those to be his adversaries that say the sacrifice of the Cross and of the Mass are the self-same sacrifice I am sure all the fathers of the Church are his adversaries I quoted some of them already and could quote many more if need were But what cares the Mounsieur for all the fathers why may not he answer for himself as well as Luther the chief Apostle of the Protestants did to king Henry the 8th thus Luth. tom 2. con Reg. Aug. fol. 34â—… Against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of devils set no old custome nor multitude of men but the word of the only eternal Majesty the Gospel here I stand here I sit here I glory here I triumph here I insult over Papists Thomists Henricists Sophists and all the gates of hell much more over the sayings of men be they never so holy Gods word is above all the divine Majesty maketh for me so as I pass not if a thousâ—…nd Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand King-Harriâ—… Churches stood against me God cannot err or deceivâ—… Austin Cyprian and likewise all other elect might err and they have erred Here answer Master Harrie here play the man I contemn thy lies I fear not thy threats here thou standest astonished like a stock c. Just the same language may the good Mounsieur give to all General Councils and holy fathers that ever treated of this question for they are all unanimously against his opinion so that since he hath nothing to stand unto but his own bare word or the sayings of those that were since Luthers time and derived from him I see no reason why he should not stand in defiance of them all as well as Luther did Therefore he may very well say with Luther here I stand here I sit here I glory here I triumph and exult over all the General Councils and old fathers that were in the Apostles time or ever since Gods word is above all and the divine Majesty maketh for me so as I Pass not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians Ambroses Chrysostomes and a thousand holy fathers be against me and I contemn your words your lying authorities concerning Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass and have no more esteem for you then for so many stocks this I say and such like good language may the Mounsieur give to the holy fathers as well as Luther gave to King Henry for they both go upon the same Principles viz. upon their one bare words for de Rodons strawy illation drawn out of this passage of Scripture I break thus By confessing the major viz. that the old sacrifices were reiterated as the former words of the Apostlâ—…s Passage do prove and I distingush his minor viz. but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ must not be reiterated Bloudily I confess unbloudily I deny and the subsequent words of the Apostle from whence this illation is drawn do prove no more so that I deny his consequence also viz. that the sacrifice of the Cross and of the Mass are not the self-same which cannot follow from his minor before he proves that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ cannot be reiterated unbloudily a thing which he nor his will ever be able to do out of S. Pauls words here or any where else Rodon Secondly the Apostle adding Else he should often have suffered from the foundation of the world makes it apparent that Christ cannot be offered without suffering for as he that should say this is not fire else it would be hot doth necessarily presuppose that fire is hot and as he that should say he is no man else he would be rational So when the Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered doth necessarily presuppose that Iesus Christ cannot offer himself without suffering But Iesus Christ doth not suffer every day in the Mass therefore he is not offered every day in the Mass by the ministry of Priests Answ. The foresaid words of the Apostle makes it rather evidently appear that Christs bloudy sacrifice is there meant which is just as we expound and understand them which bloudy sacrifice we confess cannot be reiterated without suffering which makes nothing against us for we say not that Christs bloudy sacrifice ought to be reiterated But we deny that Christs body may not be offered or sacrificed unbloudily in the Mass without suffering or that the forementioned Passage makes it apparent and to the proofs or parities the Mounsieur produces as touching fire and heat man and rational sacrifice and suffering first I say that suffering is not essential to sacrifice as rational is to a man nay nor its property also as heat is to fire if we take the word sacrifice in its whole extent and latitude for there were many sorts of rigorous sacrifices of the old Law wherein the things that were sacrificed did not suffer or were capable of suffering as were the sacrifices of meal oyl bread wine c. secondly I
it because God the father did constitute Christ high Priest for to sacrifice himself bloudily upon the Cross for our sins and unbloudily upon the Altar you inferr he hath no need of vicars or companions in his Priesthood what a fine consequence is this Christ sacrificed himself once bloudily therefore there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily this antecedent and consequence hangs not together Nay nor supposing Christ sacrificed himself once unbloudily as we hold he did at the first institution of this Sacrament doth it follow that there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily for he commanded his Apostles to do as he did himself when he said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me But good Mounsieur tell me how could Christ be constituted by his Father high priest but in reference to some vicar or underpriest are not high and low relative terms you told us once that under and above do denotate different places and different you know is a relative because it imports inequality between two things or more therefore I beleeve you will not deny but that high is a relative word because it signifies as above does But all correlatives be simultanean that is together or at the same time Therefore Christ was constituted high-priest in respect to some Vicars or inferiour Priests and since he was constituted high-priest of the New Testament or Law it follows evidently that there must be Priests his vicars and substitutes of the same Law and if there be Priests of the New-Law then follows it as clearly that there is a sacrifice of the new Law to be offered by them for Priest and sacrifice are also correlatives But there is no more bloudy sacrifice of the new Law therefore the sacrifice which the Priests of the new law now offer is the unbloudy sacrifice of Christs body in the host really Mounsieur these consequences do hang better together then yours doth of its antecedent drawn from the Apostles words For besides its impertinency it openly contradicts the same Apostle who in his 1. Tim. 5. says the Priests that rule wellâ—… let them â—…e esteemed worthy of double honour and again the same place Against a priest receive not accusation Therefore in the Apostles time there were Priests and yet de Rodon concludes there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood The Apostles themselves were all Priests and high-Priests too for they constituted Bishops and Priests as S. Paul did Timothy Titus and many others yet in comparison to Christs Priesthood they were but vicars and substitutes The holy fathers called themselves Priests and said that they offered every day a sacrifice whose examplar was the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross as I have shewed before where I cited their very words yet the Mounsieur confidently inferrs out of scripture that there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood an excellent consequence and wittily deduced against S. Pauls express words who mentions Priests and against the whole torrent of holy fathers This is that smart divine of the Reformed Religion whose small treatise in his Translatours opinion is the best Antidote against Popery the holy scripture excepted that over he read and for ought he knows it is not inferiour to the best of this kinde that ever was yet extant these be his own words in the Preface of his Translation But our Diana and Popery will never be annoyed or destroyed with such silly and ungodly stuff as this Christ said Ego sum Pastor bonus I am the good Pastor Iohn 10. wherefore may not the Mounsieur inferr as well out of this text Therefore Christ hath no need of vicars or under Pastours to feed his flock or to be companions in his Pastorship and yet Christ bid Peter pasce oves meas pasce agnes meos feed my sheep feed my lambs In a word if the Mounsieurs consequence holds the Reformed Church needs no Preachers Teachers Ministers or Pastors for Christ himself the good and high Pastor will do it all for them and the people will but displease him for constituting Ministers and Pastors over them to be his companions or vicars in his high Pastorship to say the truth I think their flocks for the most part do not regard very much what they preach or teach for if they did so many sectaries would never sprout from them and without any other commission but their own private spirits invade the pulpit undertake the task of preaching upon themselves I mean both men and women also and many of them but ordinary tradesmen But if their flocks would take away their fat Benefices and stipends from these godly Pastors as their Ancestors did deal with us I doubt whether they would stick so close to their principles as we do to ours and endure so much for their Religion and consciences as we do After this short digression let us return again to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 17. In answer to these Argument's the Romish Doctors are wont to say that the Sacrifice of the masse is the same with that of the Crosse in respect of the essence of the Sacrifice the same thing being offered in both viz. by Iesus Christ. But it differs in respect of the manner of offering for on the Crosse Iesus Christ offered himself bloudily that is when he died he shed his bloud for mankinde but in the masse he offers himself unbloudily that is without shedding his bloud and without dying On the Crosse Iesus Christ was destroyed in respect of his natural being but in the masse he is destroyed in respect of his sacramental being They add that all the arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews respect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Cross but besides this bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass. Lastly they say that the sacrifice of the Cross is primitive and original but that of the Mass representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross as the Council hath it in its 22. session Answ. All this doctrine is sound irre fragable and orthodox save only this clause viz. but besides bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass for the Mr. belyes the Romish Doctors who say not that it is another sacrifice but another maner of offering the self same sacrifice of the Cross viz. unbloudily and in that sense the whole doctrine is Catholick Rodon To these distinctions I reply that the sacrifice of the Masse doth not differ from that of the Cross in respect of the manner only which is but an accidental difference but it differs in respect of essence too Answ. That we deny he proves it thus Rodon First because the natural death of Iesus Christ is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the
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
Therefore whether you will or no Mounsieur you must confesse accoridng to this Text that our Saviours glorified body did penetrate the doors of the room where his disciples were or else say that he entred while the doors were open and shut together which is both non-sensical and contradictory Neither do your clear passages out of Act. 5. and the 12. avail you a jot for first there is a very great difference between Christs glorified body and the Apostles patible body as it was when he lay in prison and therefore to let a patible body go out of prison it was necessary the doors should be opened by an Angel or some body But Christs glorified body needed no such help Secondly because the Text says not that Peter went out of prison the doors being shut as it is said that Christ entred to his disciples while the doors were shut therefore these passages of Scripture are nothing to your purpose Rodon Secondly I answer that the Virgin Mary was a true Virgin both before and after her delivery if by being a Virgin he meant not to have had the company of a man but it is certain that Iesus Christ came out of the Virgins belly by opening her womb for it is said Luke 2. that Joseph and Mary carried Iesus Christ to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law Every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord. Answ. Concerning our B. Ladies virginity your answer Mounsieur is also impious and false for strict and rigorous virginitie such as the mother of Gods is consists in the integrity of a virginal inclosure Therefore it is so far from being certain that it is a false and an arrant lie that Jesus Christ came out of the virgins womb by fraction or overture for that is contrary to virginal integrity But most certain it is and a thing questionlesse that de Rodon deserves a double fee one for vilifiing Christs Sacraments and another remarkable brand upon his ungodly tongue or lips for speaking blasphemously against the B. virgins virginal integrity which according to his impious doctrine would not be as entire as that of ordinary young little maidens is The Scripture which you alledge for it helps you not out also for although Ioseph and Mary carryed Iesus to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law Every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord yet it follows not nor proves at all that Christ at his birth did open his virgin-Mothers womb for when Iesus and Mary came to the Temple and he was to be presented there to the Lord it was not for any obligation he or she had to the Law for as they were both most free from sin so were they exempted from the Law also which was made only against sinners But he was pleased to be presented at the Temple like a sinner because all other males but he that openeth the womb were really sinners and consequently subject to the Law But he as he said of himself came not into the world to destroy the Law but to fullfill it and therefore for to give no occasion of scandal unto others he was pleased to be presented to the Lord like unto a sinner although both himself and his most blessed mother were clear from all sorts of sins and consequently not subject to the Law he was also perhaps pleased to be presented in the Temple to the Lord the better to conceal himself from the devil for the same reason as Martyr Ignations gives why he chose rather to be born of a Married woman then of a virgin unmarried because the devil only suspected and guest who he was and was not quite certain of it as it evidently appears by these words of S. Math. 4. If thou art the son of God command that these stones be made bread where as one may clearly see the devil spoke doubtfully So that as Jesus Christ was exempted from the Law and yet fulfilled the Law even so he came out of his mothers belly without opening her virginal womb as all other males when they are born do open their mothers wombs Certain it is therefore and most certain too that as Jesus Christ was conceived in the virgins womb without any detriment to her virginal integrity so he also came out of her womb leaving her as pure and entire a virgin as she was before his birth and consequently as entire as any little mayden virgin and this susliceth to refute de Rodons blasphemous answer against the B. virgins Integrety Rodon Thirdly I answer that Iesus Christ did not penetrate the stone that was layd on his sepulchre for it is said S. Math. 28. that the Angel of God rolled it back from the door of the sepulchre Answ. Neither will this text serve your turn Mounsieur for the stone was not rolled by the Angel to make way for Christs body to come out of the sepulchre as de Rodon falsely glosseth it and heaps curses more and more upon his own head by so doing But the stone was rolled for the Maries who came to visit our Lords sepulchre and he rose before they came for when they came with oyntments to anoynt his body they found the sepulchre shut and S. Mary Magdalene said quis revolvet nobis lâ—…pidem who will roll the stone for us S. Mark 16. Therefore the stone was rolled for them and not for Christ to come out of his sepulcher because he could and did make way for himself by his own proper might and vertue without needing the help or administry of his Angels as he assended into heaven without their aid or help Rodon 14. fourthly I answer that when it is said Heb. 4. that Iesus Christ penetrated the heavens we must understand it improperly in the same manner as it is commonly said that an Arrow penetrates the Air that is the Air gives way to the Arrow that Passeth through the Air and so Iesus Christ penetrated the heavens because the heavens gave way to his body and not that the heavens and his body wère in one and the same place But why Mr. de Rodon when the Apostle says plainly and exnresly that Jesus Christ penetrated the heavens why I say must we understand his words improperly do you think that Penetration is an impossible thing to God have you an Augustine a Hierome an Ambrose a Gregory a Chrysostome or any of the ancient Fathers to second you or have you any Text of Scripture or General Council that backs you in it if you have produce them in the name of God if you have not as I am sure you have not is it not a very great presumption and audacity in you to offer to interpret clear passages of Scripture and turn them to what sense you please upon your own bare word and authority or finally do you not see your own heretical Pride in offering to perswade the world to
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
these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest instead of putting them without a Parenthesis And he was Priest so that we may say in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it Proferens bringing instead of Protulit brought or drew out Secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos for he was a Priest instead of translating it erat sacerdos and he was a Priest Thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei and he blessed him and so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedeck brought bread and wine and he was a Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedeck bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him Answ. When one tells a notorious and impudent lye indeed and provokes another too much with his lye sometimes he is answered no better then thus The devil take the Lyar. S. Ierom or you must needs be the lyar in this Translation for the Romish doctors do follow S. Ieroms Translation and we know no modern Romish doctors Translators of our Bible we all hold to S. Ieroms Translation which goes by the name of the vulgar Translation among us If he be your adversary then we have one champion of our side worth ten thousand de Rodons and all those of his party But I pray tell me Mr. de Rodon where were you your Bible and your Translators when S. Ierom translated his Bible which we all follow or did any of yours oppose or contradict his Translation for so many hundred years that past betwixt him and Luther Calvin and de Rodon Tell me again I pray whether you and yours translated your Bible by inspiration from God or whether you had your Original from us If you had yours by Gods inspiration then doubtless yours is the true and right one and we must acquiesce to it But how shall we know it or what warrant can you give us for it only your bare word pardon us good sir that suffices us not for we have no reason to believe your bare word against the testimonyes of ten thousand authors better then your self who tell us the contrary But if you had our Bible for your original as you your selves confess you had how can your coppies correct their original but by your adding or diminishing something to it by doing whereof you infallibly purchase to your selves a heavy curse Of. S. Ieroms soul to be in heaven I make no doubt and consequently out of the devils clutches and reach But as for Mr. de Rodon who strikes at S. Ierom through the Romish doctors sides who accuses him of corrupting and falsifiing the text and consequently who presumes to blaspheme against so glorious a saint and eminent doctor of Christs Church I dare not swear but the devil holds him very fast for an arrant Lyar and makes him sit next to himself who is the father of Lyes Therefore I do not think Mr. de Rodon that the Romish doctors or any man of reason and sense will easily leave Saint Ieroms vulgar translation approved of for so many ages by the whole Church to adhere to your simple bare word or to any of your parties whose dictator the devil was that filled both your Bible and brains with falshood and lyes But suppose Mr. de Rodon the right Translation were as you say and that of the words must be made 3 different propositions viz. thus Melchisedeck also brought bread and wine and he was a Priest he blessed him suppose I say the true Text runs so since holy writt makes no mention of any other kind of sacrifice that Melchisedeck ever offered unto God and since he was a Priest and since he blessed Abraham and finally since the holy fathers as I shall hereafter produce agree with us as to the principal and main point of this question viz. that the bread and wine which Melchisedeck brought or offered was a type of the Eucharist there is no reason why the words of the text whether made into three propositions without a Parenthesis as he translates it or made into one proposition with a Parenthesis as S. Ierom or the Romish doctors as he says translated it I say there is no reason why the whole text should not be understood in our meaning and sense for the word brought which he translates for the word bringing may be well understood brought to offer or to sacrifice And these words And he was a Priest which he translates instead of these for he was a priest do signify that Melchisedeck was a priest and we may well think that holy Scripture did not make mention of his Priesthood in this place but in order and reference to some sacrifice as Priest and sacrifice are always correlatives And finally these words and he Blessed him which the Mounsieur translates instead of ours Blessed him may be as well applyed unto Abraham as to God whatever Mr. de Rodon says to the contrary for the Romish doctors do take themselves to be as good grammarians and dialectiâ—…ks too as he is and therefore will not swerve from their Principles nor from the unanimous opinion of the holy fathers concerning the main point of this question for Mr. de Rodons bare word or interpretation unless he proves his conclusion better either by holy Scripture or fathers which it seems he cannot do or if he can wherefore doth he not produce them to make his cause good Rodon 22. Secondly I answer that the hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham and indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle heb 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedeck met Abraham and blessed him and a little after he saith that Melchisedeck blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought him bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedeck blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to noâ—…e but to God Answ. Certainly the Mounsieur would make a better dictionarist then Philosopher or divine for he is mighty
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
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
longo temporum spatio propter simulatam Religionem mystice communicare Christo râ—…usent ab aeterna se vita procul depellere know ye all that are christned and made partakers of the divine favours and grace if you come to the Church but seldom and out of a feigned kinde of devotion refuse to communicate mistically with Christ that you banish your selves farr from everlasting life Great S. Augustine tract 26. in Ioan. courts our ' Diana thus O Sacramentum pietatis O signum unitatis O vinculum charitatis qui vult vivere habet ubi vivat habet unde vivat accedat credat incorporetur ut vivificetur O Sacrament of piety O signe of unity O chain of charity he that has a minde to live has wherewith to live and how to live let him approach believe be incorporated that he might live See what efficacy and vertue this great Doctor attributes to our Sacrament But heark what golden-mouth'd Chrysostome says hom 60. ad pop Antiochen Quoâ—… nunc dicunt vellem ipsius Christi formam aspicere figuram vestimenta calceamenta Ecce cum vides ipsum tangis ipsum manducas how many are there that say now a days I would fain see Christs shape his face his clothes his shooes Behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou earest him and again tu quidem vestimenta cupis videre ipse vero tibi concedit non tantum videre verum manducare tangere intra te sumere And thou desirest to see his garments but he allows thee not only to see him but also to eat and touch him and to receive him into thy body And in his 61. homely to the same people of Antioch he saith tanquam leones ignem spirantes ab hac mensa recedamus facti diabolo terribiles caput nostrum mente revolventes charitatem quam nobis exhibuit nam Parentes quidem aliis saepe silios tradunt alendos ego autem inquit non ita sed carnibus meis alo meipsum vobis appono vos omnes generosos esse volens c. Therefore going from this table let us like Lions breath fire being made terrible to the devil and let us ponder upon our captain and upon the charity he endowed us with for other parents do often send their children to be nurst by others but I quoth he do not so but feed you with my own flesh and do set my self to be eaten before you for to make you all generous and noble hearted c. And again the same holy doctor in his book de sacerdotio says per idem tempus quo sacerdos sacrificium perficit Angeli assident caelestium Potestatum universus ordo clamores excitant locus altari vicinus in illius honorem qui immolatur Angelorum choris plenus est during the whole time that the Priest offers sacrifice both the Angels stand by and the whole order of celestiall Powers do make a harmony and the place next to the Altar is filled with Quirs of Angels in honour of him that is immolated or sacrificed Here you see gentle reader what esteem and value these holy doctors and fathers had for the eâ—…charist and consequently for the mass you see what vertue and force they attribute unto it how they say it incorporates us with Christ how it works charity in us how it makes us generous and resolute to go thorow all crosses and hardship for the love of God and how it renders us terrible and formidable to the very devil himself All these and ten thousand virtuous operations more are in the Mass or unbloudy sacrifice which is offered in it if we of our part did not obstruct its operations for there is no glowing fire â—…evet so active and hot to make iron or any other metall as this Sacrament is in it self to inflame our souls with the love of God if we would put no obstacle to it and nothing debaâ—…s us more from its operation as S. Cyrill tells us then our long abstinence from it for as great S. Gregory says hoc distare fratres charissimi inter delicias corporis cordis solet quod corporales deliciae cum non habentur grave in se desiderium accendunt cum verò habitae eduntur commedentem protinus in fastidium per satietatem vertunt at contra spirituales deliciae cùm non habentur in fastidio sunt cum verò habentur in desiderio c. Brethren this is the difference which is usually betwixt spiritual and corporal delights or fare that when the corporal fare is not had it raiseth and stirrs in one an exceeding desire and longing for it but when it is had the eater through saticty presently begins to loath it But contrarily while one has not the spiritual fare it is irksome and loathsome to him but when he has it the more â—…e feeds on 't the more desire and likeness he has to it From what is hitherto said in this Appendix considering the clear and express Passages of scripture the unanimous consent of the holy fathers concerning the Eucharist and consequently concerning the Mass and their elogies of it and considering the reason I produced of its agreeablenesse with Gods infinite and highest goodness to impart himself really to us and my other reason or parity betwixt the formal words of God the father and God the son I think no man of reason or understanding unless he be a quite partial censurer can approve of the bitter expression of Mr de Rodons Translator in his preface to his authors treatise against our Diana where he bespatters her with superstition Phanaticisme and Idolatry c. for by upbraiding and accusing her with these horrid crimes he involves all her worshippers and well-wishers in them also and consequently not only the Papists but also the holy fathers and doctors whose clear testimonies I lately produced in her behalf nay the very Angels and whole celestial court who as S. Chrisostome sayes assist and sing at this dreadful sacrifice all these if we beleive the Translator must be counted superstitious Phanaticks and Idolaters for adoring Diana or if they be not counted so for adoring her there is no reason why we should be fo doing as they do But O perversnesse and wickednesse of heresy and of heretical spirits who endeavour to ruine and destroy Christs flock for who could believe but that we know it by sad experience that the devil and all his ministers should be so subtil and crafty as to bring it to pass that this sacrifice which is of so old a standing and universally embraced for so many ages by all Christians and left as a perpetual testament by Christ to his Church should be not only rejected and despised by so many thousands that pass under the notion of being Christians but also that they should take a solemn oath and cause others upon severe penalties to do the like or if they refuse it to turn them out
famed through the whole world for sanctity learning and Prowess wheresore dost thou not consider what Religion made thee so glorious and renowned S. Austin the monk and his forty blessed companions were the first that brought the light of the Gospel from Rome to the Angles or english men from whom thou hast thy denomination this Austin and his fellow-Missioners were all Dianaists or Masse-Priests and received holy orders This much thy own Protestant Chronicles can tell thee To this Austin Bakeâ—… sayes king Eâ—…helbert gave his chief city of â—…anterbury and his own Royal Palace there made sincâ—… the Cathedral of that See withdrawing himself to Reculver in the I le of Thanet where he erected a Palace for himself and his successors He gave him also an old Temple standing without the Eastwall of the citty which he honoured with the name of S. Paâ—…cras And then added a Monastery to it and dedicated it to S. Peter and Paul appointing it to be the place of the Kentish kings sepulâ—…hres But in regard of S. Austin the procurer both Panâ—…ras Petâ—…r and Paul were soon forgotten and it was and is to this day called S. Austins which Abbey S. Austin enriched with divers Reliques which he brought with him from Rome which was a part of Christs seameless coat and of Aarons Rodd thus farr Baker Where you may plainly see out of one of your own Protestant Authors how Christian Religion was first brought into England and planted here by Mass-Priests Here you may see how those that brought it in did dedicate Churches unto them with this intention that the Saints should patronize and protect all those that should frequent their Churches with prayers Here you may also see how in those dayes sacred Reliques were held in esteem and veneration by the Propagators of Christian Religion Finally any body may clearly see by the very notions or names of the festiâ—…al tymes viz. of Christ-Masse Candle-Mass Lamb-Mass Miâ—…hael-Mass Martle-Mass that the Masse was used and held in great veneration by our devout Ancestors ever since England was converted to the Christian saith For it is certain these denominations of the holy times came first from Christians and not from Pagans It is also sure that sanctity and Christian learning could never have been attributed to our heathenish Ancestors Therefore if they were attributed to our primitive Christian forefathers why do we swerve from their pious wayes and Religion which is well known and granted by all Historiographers both Catholicks and Protestants to have been the self same which was and is now in communion with the Church of Rome and consequently that of the Masse Or with what Religion and conscience can the Reformists of our time censure all the Primitive Christians of England since Austin the Monks time to be guilty of the horrid crimes of superstition Phanaticisme and Idolatrie and yet by branding us with those crimes they do it for we hold but the same doctrine of the Masse which they practised taught us and delivered unto us so that by attaching us with those horrid crimes they involve them with us in them also But who could not rather think that any man of reason and understanding any man that hath any spark of belief of the love or feare of God in him or that hath any sense or feeling of the hour of his death of the immortallity of his soul of eternity aâ—…d of the terrible judgment of God Who I say would not think but he ought rather to ponder well and consider with himself how dangerous a thing it is and of what weight and concernment to his soul and eternal salvation not to shake of all antiquity and the old lyturgy which hath been used and practised by all the orthodox Christians of all ages since Christs time untill now and which is now also in use amongst the most universal Professors of Christianity a lyturgy so well grounded upon many clear and express texts of Scripture backt and seconded by the unanimous interpretations and definitions of all the General Councils and holy fathers of Gods Church in a word a liturgy so well cohering and agreeing with the infinit goodness charity and mercy of God to us whereby he demonstrated his love to us in the highest degree imaginable that could be in this life This mistical liturgy to reject abandon câ—…shiere and contemn upon the bare words of some self interessed calumnious opiniators who in comparison with the Roman Catholicks of all ages with the General Couneils and with the whole torrent of holy fathers are for fanctity of life for learning and for veneration of antiquity but like a handfull oâ—… wilde rude illiterate cow heards to compare with an innumerable multitude of grave Councellors or Judges What man I trow that has any belief or care of his soul if he were not starkmadd would clâ—…ave to such kinde of fellows and swerve from all the grand heroes of Gods Church what thing else is this but openly and manifestly to turn ones back to Christ and to contradict his express commandement where he bids us hear his Church or he will count us but for heathens and publicans Did not the Apostle forsooth prophecy unto Titus 2. Tit. 4. thus for there shall be a time when they will not hear sound doctrine but according to their own desires they will heap to themselves masters having itching ears and from the truth certes they will avert their hearing c. These words can in no wise be alluded to the Roman Catholick nor to their doctrin of the Mass which is of as old a standing as Popery is for our adversaries say that the Mass and Popery are convertible terms But all Ecclesiastical histories do attest that there have been Popes or Bishops of Rome ever since the Apostles time therefore if Popery and the Mass be convertible terms the Mass has been immediately from the Apostles time and consequently it cannot be that unsound doctrine the Apostle prophecied or spoke of to Titus Neither do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles or elsewhere that the Apostles ever opposed the Mass or Popery either which if it were a Phanatick superstitious or Idolatrous doctrine and liturgy as the good translator stiles it to be doubâ—…less they would have done tooth and nail and would never have suffered it to have â—…rept into Christs Church and so venemously to have infected her S. Pauls faith and the Romans was the same when he wrote these words unto them for I desire to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace to confirm you that is to say to be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both your faith and mine Rom. 1. did the Romans differ then in Religion and Lyturgy from their first Bishop or Pope no certainly therefore it is much to be seared nay in all reason and probability if it be not a theological demonstration that the opposers of the Mass be those peâ—…ple 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