And if Calvin judged their faith Holy can he judiciously challendge us for embracing it nay is it not best to follow the footsteps of Holy men SUBSECTION VI. The Authority of the Church grounded on her infallibility is a strong argument to believe what she asserts MY last Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass is this The infallible Church of Christ hath alwayes believed and still believes that in the Eucharist is the true real Body and Blood of Christ and that in her Liturgy or Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice and therefore I believe it That the teaching Church of Christ is infallible in what she teaches as matter of Faith is clear out of the 4. Chapter to the Ephesians where S. Paul sayes that Christ made some Pastors and Doctors v. 11. Why That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine Hence we Infer Then they are infallible in what they teach us as matter of Faith For if I thought them fallible I might still waver fear and be ready to be carried away with the Wind of another man or Angel's Doctrine which would make void the ayme of Christ in giving us those Pastors and Teachers that we might not waver Thus it is made manifest from Scripture that the teaching Church of Christ is infallible and also clear from reason grounded on the same Scripture that this teaching Church is the Roman For since no other teaching Church than the Roman so much as claimes to this infallibility in teaching and infallibility in teaching must be found in some Church to make good the words of St. Paul and of the Scripture in many other places it follows by a necessary consequence that it is to be found in the Roman And so that in the Mass is made a true Sacrifice because she has ever and still asserts it That the taught Church is also infallible in her assent to what she is taught by those Pastors in matter of Faith or in her receiving their Doctrine is also gathered from these words of Christ speaking to the Church he that heares you heares me Luc. 10. v. 16. for by that promise if I infallibly assent to the Doctrine of Christ I also infallibly assent to the Doctrine of his Church If a Protestant think he can give such a turne to these passages that they appear to have no force to prove the Churches infallibility I ask him if he be infallibly sure that the Protestant Church is the true Church of Christ or not If not then what he believes may be false and consequently it may be false that Christ is God in a word he has no Divine Faith which is an assent to what we believe for the Testimony of God above all that is an assent so ferme that it stands immoveable against all the arguments of Men or Angels ad Gal. 1. v. 8. But the Protestant's assent is not such then 't is not an assent of Divine Faith When Protestants say they have an objective infallibility but not subjective that is that the object of their Faith viz. God and other Evangelical Truths are in themselves infallible while they the Subjects or Receivers of these Truths are fallible they seem to say something in words but in reality they say nothing as to the controversie in question For the question is whether a Christian is subjectively infallible that is whether or no his understanding be the Subject of an infallible assent in matters of Faith or whether it produces in it self in matter of Faith an assent infallible or which stands immoveable against what an Angel not from Hell but from Heaven if that were possible might oppose to the contrary by reason of which assurance the Christian is denominated infallible in his assent S. Paul sayes yes saying altho an Angel from Heaven Evangelize to you beside that which we have Evangelized to you he be Cursed This not standing with Protestant principles they must either leave them or avow they are not of S. Paul's Religion If he sayes he is infallibly sure that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion I ask from whence he has that infallibility Not from the Church as he avows not from the Scripture as I prove 1. Because he can't so much as Read Scripture in order to know infallibly that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion afore he is infallibly sure that the Spirit that Guids him in Reading it is the true Spirit for if it be a false Spirit he will make that appear white which is black and black which is white and again he can't know infallibly that 't is the true Spirit that Guides him afore he has tryed it by Scripture Io. 4. v. 1. Thus he must know the Scripture by his Spirit and his Spirit by the Scripture which is to make a manifest Circle and prove idem per idem the same by the same while he proves ultimately that his Spirit is a good Spirit because it is a good Spirit It s a good Spirit sayes he because its approved by the Scripture taken in the true sense and it is the true sense he takes it in sayes he again because his Spirit tells him so which is equivalently to say my Spirit is a good Spirit since none but a good Spirit can assure us of the true sense of Scripture So a 1. ad ultimum from the first to the last he proves it to be a good Spirit because its a good Spirit which is ridiculous 2. You can't be infallibly sure from Scripture that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion afore you are infallibly sure that the sense in which you understand it is the true sense but of this you can never be infallibly sure then you can never be infallibly sure from Scriptrue that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion I prove the minor A Body of Men I mean the Roman Catholick Doctors using the same means that you use to know the true sense of Scripture and understanding it as we Romanists in a sense quite contrary to you are not according to you infallibly sure that we have the true sense Then neither you using only the same means we use are infallibly sure that you have the true sense when you udderstand it in a sense quite contrary to us Or tell me what it is that makes you hit infallibly upon the true sense more than we If you say 't is this that you are of the Elect and the Elect are guided by the Spirit of God which makes you see the Truth 1. Who told you that you are of the Elect If you say the Spirit which you have received gives Testimony to your Spirit that ye are the Sons of God Rom. 8. v. 16. I Answer from Io. c. 4. v. 1. you ought to try that Spirit afore ye trust it and so ye return into your former Circle 2. Suppose you are of the Elect some of the Elect have not been alwayes guided by
the proofs I have brought above the Church doth not think good to give it at this time which she may change it not being a matter of Faith or Command of God when she pleases But the word of God is necessary to those who hear because Faith comes by hearing and is alwayes supplyed to the deaf by outward signs and stronger inward inspirations from God Be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon who inveighes against the Roman Church for taking away the Cup to avoid scandals or inconveniences for one of the same allows in this 6. Chap. numb 13. to substitute rather the ordinary drink of a Country instead of Wine notwithstanding that Christ instituded it to be given in Wine SECTION III. The discovery of Mr. Rodon's disingenuous representation of the Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. THe taking away says Mr. Rodon of the Eucharistical Cup was established as an Article of Faith by the Roman Church representative assembled in the Council of Constance in the Year 1414. Sess 13. in a Canon Answer That 's a Calumny as shall appear in the discussion of his quotation It is indeed an Article of Faith to believe that under the species of Bread is both Christ's Body and his Blood because his Body is a living Body He dyes no more Rom. 6. v. 9. Wherefore the Council of Constance finding the Church to have been in a long custome of giving the Sacrament under one kind for good reasons to shew that the former Church had not erred in that custome thought good to order them to be punished as Hereticks who should presume to say that that custome was erroneous sacrilegious and unlawful But why punished as Hereticks Because they seem to doubt if the Blood be under the Form of Bread Yet she did not define to be believed as an Article of Faith and of divine right for Lay-people to take it only under one kind for it 's only of Church right for some particular reasons which were not at the time the Apostles gave it One of which is this same which moved the Council Another the Church being now extended to Countries where 't is hard to get so much Wine and many being found in the great body of the Church who have an antipathy to Wine since ther 's no necessity it s better in the way of taking to keep an uniformity in the sick to whom it could not be keept or conveniently carried nor was carried in primitive times and in those who are in health and so avoid scruples which might arise in weak heads not to speak of the danger of irreverence in spilling the Commons of Christians being not now so fervent as they were in the first age Yet we do not hold it unlawful jure divino by divine right for Lay-people to receive under both kinds more then 't is unlawful jure divino to eat Flesh on Frydays Since it is at present the practise of the Greek Church at Rome to give the Communion to the Lay-people once a Year under both kinds Now to shew the infidelity of Mr. Rodon's quotation of the Council's decree The Council sayes Praesens Concilium c. definit quod licè Christus instituerit dederit Sacramentum hoc post cocnam sub utraque specie Discipulis hoc non obstante approbata consuetudo ecclesiae servarit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post cocnam neque a fidelibus recipi non jejuuis Here the Council should have added neque sub utraque specie to make out what Mr. Rodon sayes which it hath not nisi in casu infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel Ecclesiae concesso That is The present Council defines c. That altho Christ instituted and gave this Sacrament AFTER SVPPER these Words Mr. Rodon leaves out under both kinds to his Disciples notwithstanding this the approved custome of the Church has observed and observes that this Sacrament ought not to be made AFTER SVPPER nor to be received by the Faithful who are not fasting these words again which alone relate to the Council's saying NON OBSTANTE he leaves out unless in case of Infirmity or other necessity c. allowed by the Law of the Church Where the Council does not speak at all of both kinds when it sayes This notwithstanding but only of the time of Communicating whither AFORE or AFTER SVPPER Viz. Altho our Saviour instituted it after Supper that does not hinder the Church's now ordaining it to be taken only by those who are fasting unless in case of necessity Note as the Council learned from the H. Ghost that Christ's giving it after Supper did not hinder to take it fasting in another circumstance of time so it also learned from the same that the Primitive Church's giving it under both kinds she giving it also sometimes under one as to the sick see Euseb lib. 6. cap. 44. Edit val in the Hist of Serapion also see Tertul de orat cap. 14. and to Infants see S. Cypr. sract de Laps did not hinder to make a Law at that time to give it to the laytie only under one or special reasons one of which is this Since this custome saith the Council in the same place hath been reasonably brought in by the Church and Holy Fathers it ought to stand for a Law which it is not lawful to disapprove or change at pleasure without the authority of the Church Neither does the Councill say not withstanding Christ's command but only not withstanding his Example Now Christ had a particular reason why he gave it after Supper viz. that the Typical Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb might go afore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which was figured by it Also to conform himself to the custome of those times which was to sacrifice after meat in thanksgiving and the Church an other particular reason to give it since to none but fasting because Christians falling from the primitive servour eate and drunk intemperatly of which S. Paul complains 1. Cor. 11. v. 22. and so rendered themselves unworthy not having that purity of Soul which our Lord gave to understand as a thing required by washing his Disciples Feet afore he gave them the Srcrament Christ then commanded the substance of the Sacrament to be given but left the manner of giving it to the Church changeable in a different circumstance of Times and Persons That particle then of the Council notwithstanding imports only that Christ's giving the Sacrament AFTER SUPPER does not hinder it to be given to those who are Fasting And indeed if that were a breach of his will do not Protestants break it as well as we do not they take their Communion before Supper and for the most part Fasting If the Example of Christ were to be followed in the Ceremony of giving it the Preist or Minister should afore wash the Feet of those to whom he gives it To what Mr. Rodon says at the beginning of this
his precious Death Do this in remembrance of me Item because we have it so in the Form of Consecration of that Sacrament instituted by our Saviour and conveyed by Apostolical tradition down to us So is shed and shall be shed are both true Our Saviour who conversed with and instructed his Apostles fourty dayes between his Resurrection and Ascention of things belonging to his Church could best tell them his mind An OBJECTION Omitted in the II Section of the 7. Chap. Object IF God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the destruction of Christ's Sacramental being only whereas afore it was not satisfied for sin without the Destruction of his natural being his Justice will not be alwayes the same Therefore the Justice of God is not now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being and consequently the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead Answer If God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being as a Ransom for sin I grant that his Justice will not be the same if he be satisfied with it not as with a Ransom but as an application of the Ransom for sin I deny that his Justice will not be alwayes the same And as Protestants think that God's Justice is alwayes the same altho they Judge that it is satisfied with their Faith and Repentance as an application of the Ransom given for them by the Death of Christ and that it would not be satisfied without them on their side for they don't hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross without any more a do suffices for the actual Remission of all the sins of the Elect but moreover they require Faith and Repentance in them so we think also that it is alwayes the same altho we Judge that it is satisfied with our Faith and Repentance and other good works and especially by the Sacrifice of the Mass as an application of the Ransom given for us on the Cross CHAPTER VIII A reply to Mr. Rodon's answers to some of our Proofs both for the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass SECTION I. For the Real Presence Our first Proof OUr Proof that these words This is my Body This is my Blood should be taken in their proper sense and not figuratively is this because men viz. wise men such as eminently Christ was making their Testament speak plain Mr. Rodon to usher in more smoothly his answer sayes first That Articles of Faith and Sacraments are not always expressed in proper terms and busies himself to answer that which is not so much as thought upon to be denied much less Objected Then he sayes I answer that in H. Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure for the Testament of Iacob Gen. 49. and Moyses Deut. 33. are nothing but a chain of Metaphors and other figures and Civilians will have that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator I reply What he brings for Testaments in those places are Prophecies of Iacob and Moyses not Testaments Nay after Iacob had fore-told all the text adds he blessed every one with their proper blessings of which in particular the Scripture is silent and ordered them to bury him in the Field of Ephon Secondly suppose they had been Testaments there was a special reason for speaking in covered terms first because they were at least also Prophecies which the Holy Ghost would not have yet clearly understood by every one but that they should have their recourse to the Preists for the understanding of them thus keeping the People in humility and the Governours of the Church in Authority Next there was no danger of any one's loosing his right by others mis-understanding of the words because Iacob and Moyses were infallibly sure of God's promise But in Christ's Testament there was a reason of making the words clear to encourage men to be earnest to get what he had left them As to the saying of Civilians That in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the Intention of the Testator I Answer the reason is because it falls out sometimes that Testaments conceaved in proper words are ambiguous for example suppose a man who hath two Nephews one the Son of a Poor man to whom he always testified Love above the other who was the Son of a Rich man should Test thus I leave 100. lib. to my Nephew Here the Intention of the Testator is to be attended and by this adjudged to the poor Nephew by reason of his singular affection to him altho the proper signification of the word pleads as much for the other If you ask me how in the best conceived Testaments there may be some thing ambiguous I answer with Aristotle because Res sunt innumerae pauca verba that is Things are without number but words are few and so by one word we must signifie many things He urges Christ did not then make the new Testament but only the sign of it for the Covenant was made with all mankind in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpent's Head and was after renewned in Abraham Answer First Whatsoever was made in the Old Law is not that which our Saviour in the Ghospel calles the New Testament for all that was Old when he spoke Nay the New Testament was not the same Covenant made in the Person of Adam for if the New Testament was made with Adam and renewed with Abraham I ask who was that afore Adam with whom the Old Testament was made Item different conditions make a different Covenant Now to believe in CHRIST COME and TO USE HIS SACRAMENTS are conditions which were not in the former Secondly I deny that he did not make at the last Supper his New Testament because as by God Exod. 24. the Old Testament was made or his will of giving to the Jews the Land of Canaan if they kept his commandments and ceremonies prescribed by him was made I say and signed with the Blood of Beasts Hic est sanguis faederis quod pepigit vohiscum Deus This is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you Said Moyses so Christ by the effusion of his Blood in a Sacrifice for Liquid things are offered by Effusion made and signed his New Testament of giving us spiritual things and a heavenly inheritance if we keep his Commandments and use the Sacraments instituted by him And now I prove that he made it here and no where else Because here and no where else he fulfilled the conditions required in a Testator making his Testament First he signified that he was making his Testament in these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. Secondly he promised and left some thing
else 2. To shew that Christ was a Preist for ever according to that order viz. by his Sacrificing under the formes of Bread and wine till the end of the world how can he say that 't is a manifest falsification to me its a manifest falsification in him when he sayes in the same Num. that the greek septuagint translate it as Protestants do and he was a Preist for the London Edition of the Septuagint 1653. by Roger Daniel has eën de hiereus but or for he was a Preist not and he was a Preistj for the particle de signifies not only but but also gar that is for in good English as Henricus Stephanus tell us in his Greek Dictionary when he comes to that particle to tell the truth I have not by me the old Latin interpreter to see his expression and therefore I will not contradict Mr. Rodon in that If you say Christ is a Preist for ever because he remaines for ever I Answer That remaining for ever makes him capable to do the function of a Preist for ever be being a Preist but that alone does not make him a Preist for ever no more then it makes an Angel who will remain for ever a Preist for ever Neither can you say that he is a Preist for ever because the vertue of his Sacrifice on the Cross remaines for ever For the vertue of the Sacrifice of Noë which obtained that no more deluge should come upon the Earth for ever Genes 8. so remaines or dures for ever yet I hope you will not say that Noë is a Preist for ever Would you say at the death of a man whom the King makes Lord Chief Justice and deprives him of his office at the years end he living yet 19. years after he was Lord Cheif Justice 20. years No because he did the function of a Cheif Justice only one year No more could we say that Christ is a Preist for ever if he did not do the function of a Preist for ever And the function of a Preist according to St. Paul Hebr. 8. v. 3. is to offer every High Preist is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man viz. Christ have some what also to offer He speak's not here of intercession as if it were the proper partial function of a Preist by reason of which Mr. Rodon would have Christ called a Preist for ever If you say with Calvin lib. 4. Inst cap. 18. he offers himself in Heaven I ask is that oblation made in Heaven a proper Sacrifice If so then the Christian Religion is no more upon Earth but translated to Heaven because The Preist-hood being translated there is made of necessity says St. Paul Hebr. 7. v. 11. A translation also of the Law Note 8. Christ is not called a Preist for ever because he intercedes for ever for to intercede is common to a Preist and other men but because he Sacrifices for ever That is to the end of the World the Sacrifice of the Eucharist of which he is the chief offerer Note 9. Altho it was not necessary we should know how Melchisedeth executed his Kingly Office yet is was necessary we should know how he exercised his Preist-hood because he is not mentioned to have had aspecial Kingship but he is mentioned to have had a special Preist-hood And because no mention is made in the Scriptures of the end of his Preisthood more than of the end of his Life he is called in them a Preist for ever and in that a figure of Christ's Preisthood for ever but not that he was truely a Preist for ever as Christ So he is said to have been without a Father or Mother not that truely he was so but only without Parents mentioned in the Scripture Mr. Rodon in his last answer num 28. sayes its false that the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloody Sacrifices of Beasts and Melchisedech offered an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine Also he sayes its false that the likeness of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS doth consist in this viz. That as Melchisedech did Sacrifice Bread and Wine so JESUS did Sacrifice his Body and Blood under the Species of Bread and Wine And that these are human inventions neither founded on Scripture or Reason Answer They are not human inventions since they are grounded on Scripture as the Church and Fathers interpret it against whose Authority if Mr. Rodon thinks his bare assertion is of sufficient force I may say in French Mr. Rodon radote or deviats from the right tract As to that he sayes That the Apostle writing to the Hebrews places the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing then in that we alleadge this I deny and grant that he places the difference of the Person of Melchisedech from that of Aaron and some likeness of the Person of Melchisedech with that of CHRIST in quite an other thing but not the difference of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech from that of Aaron or the likeness of the Preist hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS in other things than those which are asserted by the Roman Church St. Paul is here silent of both as to their formal difference or likness for a reason which I shall bring by and by By this that Melchisedech receives tithes from Abraham and blesses him he is declared by the Apostle to be a greater Person then Abraham but by this is not signified the difference of his Preist-hood from that of Aaron and others who were yet in the Loines of Abraham by that also that he was a King and a King of Peace the greater likeness of his Person than that of Aarons to CHRIST is intimated but not the likeness of his Preist-hood If you ask me why the Apostle does not here assign formally and openly the difference between the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and that of Aaron And the resemblance of Melchisedech's with that of Christ in the Eucharist My answer is that the controversie between the incredulous Jews and St. Paul was not about that difference or resemblance and besides by reason of their incredulity weakness they were not capable of understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist but whither or no all the Sacrifices of Aaron and his order were sufficient for the general redemption and satisfaction for the Sins of all mankind and he answers no and sayes that they had need of a greater Sacrifice viz. that of the Cross and a greater Person to be Preist figured by Melchisedech who was eminently above Abraham and all the Order of Aaron and who was to be a Preist for ever viz. by the proper act of Preist-hood that is was to Sacrifice till the end of the World which is not done by a perpetual intercession unless it be joined to