togither and not anie part of it taken alone causes the object I end this chapter with two reflections The first That Mr. Rodon and other protestants to impose upon men their word for the word of God use violence to the words of Christ when they explaine these his words This is my Body thus This Bread signifies my Body or thus This Bread is a sign of my Bodie especiallie since Christ prevented all such interpretations by his following words Which is given for you Luke 22. v. 19. This is my blood Which is shed for you Was Bread sacrificed for us or wine shed for us The second Since God speaking by the scripture is their only judge of Controversie why will not they understand his words in their proper signification How shall a judge do the dutie of a judge if he give his sentence darkly and enigmatically so that the two parties go still by the ears after they have heard his sentence neither they nor anie other who was present seing clearly in whose favour he hath given it The second Chapter Concerning the exposition of these words He that eates my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed Jo. 6. SECTION I. Some remarkes for the intelligence of the 6. Chap of S. Io. In order to the precept given there v. 52. of eating and drinking the body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally Remark 1. That Christ by the occasion of the Jewes seeking him for Bread called himselfe Bread and told them that they did not seek him for the miracles he had done by which viz. he intended to move them to beleive in him but for the loaves sake with which he had filled them Then he bad them work or earnestly seck not the meat which perishes but which dures untill life everlasting and told morover that this work was to believe in him Rem 2. That this meer spiritual eating of him or believing in him he then at that time exacted of them to wit That they should believe that he was the son of God and therefore he checked them for not believing in him saying v. 36. You have seen me viz. In the miracle of giving them miraculously bread and his crossing the water without a boat and you doe not believe to wit some of you Rem 3. After some believed that he was the son of God as S. Peter for himself and some other Apostles testified v. 69. And consequently were disposed to believe whatsoever he should propose to them then v. 51. he told them plainly that he would give them his flesh to eat saying The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the World at which proposition when he saw some stumble then he repeated it again in stronger termes with a threatening Amen Amen I say unto you Unlesse you eat the flesh of the sone of man and drink his Blood to wit when I will give it to ye You shall not have life in you 53. Rem 4. here That this eating is different from that meer spiritual eating of which he spoke in the beginning of the Chapter when he aimed onlie to make them first believe that he was the son of God That he required at that present time and therefore checked them then for not believing This he required only after he had given them his flesh to eat which he then promised and performed only a year after to wit when he instituted the Sacriment and after gave it to his Disciples for we cannot eate a thing afore we get it to eate and Christ did not say then v. 52. The bread which I give but which I will give is my flesh Which as I said he performed only at the nixt passover or Easter Hence gather that that eating was a Sacramental or sensible eating by the mouth of the Body and not a meer spiritual eating by the mouth of Faith Which he exacted v. 36. and which some had performed alreadie Rem 5. That 't was our Saviours custome to warn his Disciples afore hand of things he was to do or suffer after when he foresaw that they would be very surprising And this for two reasons First that they might not be scandalised when they fell out So he sayes Io. 16. v. 1. I have said those things that you be not scandalized viz. When for my sake you shall be your selves cast out of the Synagoges but rather that you have a ground of comfort and saith in me who fore-told you of it 2. That when they â—ell out they might not be starteled but to re confirme in the belief of them by reason they hâ—â— been fore-told by him So he said Io. 14. v. 29. And now I have told you afore that when it will be fulfilled you believe Thus he fore-told that persecution of his Disciples Io 16.11 His own ignominious death Math. 20. v. 18. That he wâ—uld be scourged c. He fore-told that he w uld institute Baptism and solved Nicodemas his difficulty Io 3. v. 5. He fore-told his sending of the H Gh st Io 14. v. 16. Now shall n t we also believe That he fore-told this great mystery of giving his Body and his Blood at the last supper to his disciples since they were not surprised when he said Take eate This is my Body which had it not been fore-told might have seemed very strange and a subject of asking him with submission what he meant by those words as they asked him the meaning of the parable of the tares of the field Math. 13. v. 36. But he fore-told this mysterie no where if not in this 6. Chap. of S. Io. then those words Unless you eate the flesh of the son of c. were meant of the sacramental eating by the mouth or the Body as the Disciples did eate it at the Last supper and not only by the mouth of Faith If Protestants to justifie their eating by faith only bring this passage of S. Austim tract 25. in Io. Quid paras denies ventrem crede manducastâ— Wherefore do you prepare your teeth and st mach believe and you have eaten I answer believe and you have eaten meer y spiritually of which Christ was speaking in the beginning of that 6. Chap. of S. Io I grant Sacramentallie of which we are speaking in our controversie with protestants and of which our Saviour spoke when he said Take eate This is my Body I deny For the sacramental eating must be a sensible eating by the mouth of the body That S. Austin did not mean there a sacramental manducation or eating is clear because he admitted Infant communion or the sacramental communion of Infants who could not receive the Body of Christ by faith or eate it by faith when they receaved it sacramentally See S. Aust lib. 1. De pec Meritis Remis Chap. 20 where to prove to the Pelagians That there is a necessity to baptise Children Dâ—minum sayes he audiamus non quidem hoc de
figure or representative of the passion of Christ Teaching us continues S. Austin viz. preist's such as he was to partake of Christ's passion to wit when it represents it to them by their eating the Bodie under the form of Bread separate from the species of Wine and after drinking the Blood under the species of Wine which was consecrated separate from the species of Bread And to imprint adds S. Aug in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us For can it be but delightful to a man to think of his salvation purchased to him by the death of Christ if he pleases and profitable to encourage him to live a good life in order to make it sure Having answered this objection by which he would have S. Augustin seem to deny the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist Let me bring him a passage from the same S. Austin by which he clearly asserts it It is conc 1 in Psal 33. where he speaks thus Et ferebatur in manibus suis sayes he speaking of Christ hoc sayes he quomodo possii fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur manibus suis Manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David secundùm literam non invenimus in Christo autem invenimus ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum Corpus suum ait Hoc est Corpus meum ferebat enim illud Corpus in manibus suis And he viz. Christ was carried in his hands who can understand says he how this could be done if a Man A man may be carried in the hands of others in his own hands no man is carried We do not understand how this may be understood in David himself literallie or according to the letter but we find it in Christ For Christ was carried in his own hands when commending that same Bodie of his he said This is my Body for he did cary that Body in his own hands Calvin lib. 4. iust Chap. 17. Answers and explanes this passage thus Christ carried himself in his own hands but improperly and figuratively to wit because he carried the sacrament of his Body Answer I could also carrie a sign or picture of my self in my own hands and that is not hard to be understood but S. Austin says ' Tuas impossible to other men to carry their Bodies in their own hands as Christ did his S. Aug. again lib. 2 cap. 9. cont adver Legis proph sayes We receive with faithful heart and mouth the mediator of God and Man Man Christ Iesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk though it seem more horrible to eat mans flesh then to kill and to drink man's blood then to shed it And again Epist 162. Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam diabolum furem proditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod fideles norunt Pretium Nostrum Our Lord himself suffers Judas a Divel a thief and his betrayer he lets him receive among the innocent disciples that which is known to the faithful Our price i. e. ransom Be pleased now to reflect out of these passages 1. That Judas his eating our price to wit Christ was a Corporal eating by the mouth of the Body for he did not eat him by faith 2 That our receiving our mediator with faithful heart and mouth as S. Austin speaks cannot stand if we exclude our corporal eating Christ's Body in that spiritual manner I explained in the second section of this Chapter Obj. 4. Cardinal Cajetan in his Com on S. Iohn 6. sayeth To eate the flesh of Christ and drink his Blood is faith in Christ's death c. I answer that 't is faith in Christ's death that makes us eate the flesh and drink the blood of Christ so that if I cease to fulfil this his commandement of eating his flesh and drinking his blood I shew I have no faith in his death without which there is no life of the spirit Moreover when we eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ we ought not flightly to reflect but as we chew our meat and let down our drink by little and little ruminate and consider maturely the death of Christ represented to us in our communion Christ saeth not says the Cardinal he that eates worthily or drinks worthily hath to wit eternal life but he that eates and drinks Hence Mr. Rodon infers this eating and drinking is to be understood not of the sacrament but of an eating and drinking viz. by faith the death of Christ Answer Tho Christ did not say who eates or drinkes worthily he meant so as may be gathered from the following words hath eternal life for none I suppose will ascribe eternal life to an unworthy eating as to its cause and condition But how does Mr. Rodon from eates or drinks solitarily put without by the mouth of the body or by the mouth of faith gather that the Cardinal and Christ before him meant of an eating by saith or an eating of the death of Christ since when we hear mention of eating and drinking without any addition we presently understand by the mouth of the body as when we hear named a man we understand a rational sensible creature not a painted man or that which improperly is called a man Obj. 5. The action wherby Jesus Christ is applied to us for Righteousnes and sanctification is nothing else but faith therefore the spiritual eateing and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is the action whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ has purchased to us by his death Answer I deny the Antecedent and say we are justified also partially by good works Iac. 2. One of which is to obey Christ's command in taking by our corporal mouth his Body under the forme of Bread And so S Paul Rom. 5. is to be understood when he sayes we are justified by faith As the other passages Act. 15. and Io. 6. That God purifies our hearts by faith but not by faith only but also by good-works Was not St. Marie Magdalen justified when her sins were pardoned her because she loved much And is not her love here alleadged by Christ for the cause of her justification I do not deny but that she had faith also as a disposition to the same justification Does not S. Paul say 1 Cor. 13. v. 2. Had I faith to remove a mountain Si Charitatem autem non habeam Nihil sum And have no charity I am nothing I grant again that eating and drinking by saith as Protestants speak to wit Faith while we eat with our corporal mouth our Saviours real Body obtaines remission of sins c. but not if we condemn or neglect the eating of it by the mouth of the Body Take notice when Mr. Rodon quotes S. Iohn 3. v. 3. Except a man be born again he leavs out by
were still called Blind by that way of speaking If yow ask me what he invited them to drink when he said to his Disciples Math. 26. Drink ye all of this I answer be invited them to drink a cup of Blood for the Wine was converted into Blood afore they drunk the cup for the cup's being the cup of his blood was the reason he brought to move them to drink it now we do not bring the reason to move a man to do a thing after he has done it but before Also the demonstrative particle This as it does not demonstrate a thing that is not yet neither does it demonstrate a thing that is past but joyned to a verb of the present tence with a full sense it demonstrates a thing present If Chrict had meant of what they had drunk afore he would have said That was and not Tkis is so you may suppose he did not give them the Cup afore he had ended his speach But why does S. Mark chap. 14. Set the consecration after the drinking Answer it 's a figurative speach we call Histerologia when we relate first that which was done last As when S. Math. in the 27 chap. relates the Resurrection of the bodies of the Saints afore the Resurrection of Christ who nevertheless rose first Again by the same figure S. Math. Chap. 11. from the 2 verse to the 20 relates concerning Iohn Bap. the things that fell out afore the mission of the Apostles which mission he had related before in the 10. Chap. Nay I hope Mr. Rodon will not have our Saviour to have consecrated or blissed the wine by saying this is my blood when it was in the disciples stomacks Mr. Ro. urges When a thing is converted into another wee cannot see the property of the thing converted but only that into which it is converted Answer In a natural conversion which is not a Sacrament I grant in a supernatural which makes a Sacrament I deny for the Eucharist being a signe of our spiritual nourishment it is such by the species of Bread which nourishes the body Also the property of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist which is to nourish the soul by Grace being an object of saith is seen by the understanding but not by the eye of the Body so Abraham saw by faith that those who appeared to him Gen. 18. like men were Angels For brevities sake to his saying In everie substanstial conversion c. Answer in every substantial conversion which is not of the whole substance there must be a subject to passe from on substance to another I grant if it be of the whole as Transubstantiation I deny for God's almighty power is able to change the matter as well as the form of a thing when it pleases him Neither is it a Creation because the accidents are something common to both and the Body of Christ was before existent To his saying that Transubstantiation destroyes the nature of Accidents this I deny because the nature of an accident is not to inhere actually but to have an exigency or an innate appetite of inhering which a substance hath not because naturally a human nature demandes a human subsistance would Mr. Rodon have said that there is a human person in Christ To his saying that Transubstantiation destroyes the nature of Sacraments that I also deny and shew the contrary Because the Body of Christ as it is united to the species of Bread is the Sacrament which hath not only an absolute being but also a relative Sacramental and significative being as Mr Ro. requires for as the species of Bread represent and signify to us bread which nourishes the Body so do the same species by the Consecration of the Host represent to us the Body of Christ which nourishes the soul by the grace it produces in it Thus you see 1. In the species an Analogie or relation to the thing signified viz. Nourishment 2. A double being of the Sacrament the absolute being in the Bodie of Christ and the Relative being in the Species And so you see that Transubstantiation does not any wise destroy the being of a Sacrament ar Sign Note that the substances of Bread alone or Wine alone are not signs for substances do not fall under or affect our senses but by their accidents so the whole force of signifying is in the species which move our senses and consequently 't is not required that the formal signs be such that they may nourish our Bodies to save the likeness between the Sacrament and nourishment signified by it It 's enough that the species signifie nourishment in the Eucharist as they did afore in the Bread in the Bread nourishment of the Body by Bread in the Eucharist nourishment of the Soul by the Body of Christ If you say the Body of Christ under the species cannot nourish the Soul I answer Materially and corporally I grant Effectively and Spiritually producing grace in it I deny To Mr. Ro. saying The Council of Trent commands the adoration of the Eucharist And therefore the accidents of Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Answer The accidents are not a part of the Sacrament I deny they are not the whole Sacrament I grant The Sacrament is said to be adored when the cheif part of it the Body of Christ united to the Divinity is adored for the species they are only adored per accidens as the garment of Christ by him who adored his person To his saying a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace But in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ are not visible Therefore in the Eucharist they are not the Sacrament Answer I distinguish the minoâ— They are not a visible sign alone I grant joyned to the species I deny Neither do we say That the Body and Blood alone are the Sacrament nor the species alone but the Body and Blood joyned to the species are the Sacrament and that whole is a visible sign To his saying that nothing can be both the sign and thing signified Answer Nothing can be the sign and the thing signified in the same manner in which it is the sign I grant in an other manner I deny Did not the Angel give the sheepheards for a sign of our Saviour Born that they should find a Child in a manger who was the Saviour himself He in the qualitie of a Child in a manger is a sign of himself as the Born Saviour So Christ in the Eucharist may be a sign of himself on the Cross Also a loafe of Bread exposed in a window is a sign of it self to be sold But to give you more the Body united to the accidents of Bread is a visible sign not of Christ's Body but of the invisible grace which this Sacrament produces in the Soul so the sign and the thing signified are different CHAPTER IV. Against the real presence of Christ's Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer SECTION I. A
to doubt if such a man were my Father for no other reason but because many have thought him to be their Father who really was not To Mr. Rodon's saying That Heathens might have retorted the Catholick arguments made against them by S. Chrysos c. If the Church had then believed that Christ's Body was in the Eucharist As when S. Chrisos said they bring their gods into base Images of Wood and Stone and shut them up there as in Prison And Arnobius Lib. 6. Your Gods dwells in Plaister c. and they suffer themselves to be shut up and remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison Answer 1. No they might not because our mysteries were not known then to them as they are now to Protestants Nay they were keep secret from the very Catechumens Hence that famous saying in primitive times speaking of his Mystery norunt Fideles The Faithful know to wit what we believe there Quaeres Why was this Mystery concealed from the cathecumens or those who ware not yet Baptized Answer Because they had not yet the Eye of Faith by which they might see it Hence don't wonder if you find some Fathers to have wrot some what obscurely of this Mystery in the Birth of the Church Answer 2. No the Heathens might not equally retort c. because 1. Christ is in the H Host and was in his Mothers Womb so that his God-head is and was else where 2. We do not say That Christ leaves Heaven to come to the H. Host as the false Gods one place to come to another 3. Their Consecration was the meer word of Man ours the words of Christ commanding Do this and speaking by the mouth of the Preist This is my Body 4. They adored the Mettal after its dedication as God We do not adore so the species Answer 3. If the Church did then believe that Christ had remained hid and shut up in his Mothers Womb as in an obscure Prison might not the Heathens have retorted what Arnob. Lib. 6. said against their Gods detained in an obscure Prison And for their Retortion in this particular would Mr. Rodon have denyed that Christ remained nine months in his B. Mother's Womb I end this Chapter with this Quaere Wherefore do we adore Christ more particularly in the B. Sacrament then his God-head every where Answer Because God the Father will have God the Son specially honoured by men for his special Love to them in their Redemption of which we are particularly minded by the presence of his Body in the Eucharist 2. Because the humanity of Christ represented to us by the Eucharist is personally united to the Divinity And God the H. Ghost who guides the Church inspired her in her invocations of the three Divine Persons in the begining of the Mass to invoce the first and third Person under the common name of LORD Lord have mercy on us But God the Son under the Name of his Man-hood saying thrice Christ have Mercy on us so honoured will God have and dear to us this Man-hood of Christ the instrument of our Redemption CHAPTER VI. Against the taking away of the Cup or the Communion under one kind SECTION I. The lawfulness of Communicating under one kind is proven 1. THE precept of Communicating or of taking the Body and Blood of Christ is only Io. 6. v. 53. in these words Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you But with those words stands the lawfulness of Communicating under one kind Therefore 't is lawful to Communicate under one kind I prove the minor 1. Because there is only commanded the sumption or receiving of both Body and Blood as to the substance not the manner of receiving them under both kinds 2. If you think the manner is commanded also giving not granting you that we answer that the Particle And may be taken for Or as in many other places of Scripture for example when Salomon speaking to God sayes mendicitatem divitias ne dederis mihi Poverty and Riches give me not Prov. 30. v. 8. Where And is taken for Or he desiring of God neither to be Rich nor Poor And Act. 3. v. 8. Argentum Aurum non est mihi Silver 2. And Gold I have not for Silver Or Gold I have not If with the Hussits you will not relish this solution then we answer 3. That this command was given by Christ not to every particular man but to the community of Christians by which it is fulfilled some viz. Preists taking it under both kinds to represent announce to the People the death of Christ according to the command layed upon them Math. 26. In these words Do this in remembrance of me there also was the command to the Preists of making the Sacrament for the People So Exod. 12. v. 3. 't is commanded that The whole multitude of the Children of Israel shall Sacrifice viz. the Paschal Lamb. Did every one in particular sacrifice No but only the heads of families in their families Also Genes 9. v. 1. Increase and multiply Doth not oblige every particular man to marry Again when our Saviour said Math. 28. Teach all nations baptising them he laid that command on the Church not on every particular man to teach Now to make appear that this answer is not brought without ground from Scripture take notice that when Christ would signifie that every one or every individual person should be baptised he expressed himself in the singular number Io. 3. v. 5. Nisi quis c. Except a man be born of water nd of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Whereas Io. 6. v. 53. he sayes in the plural number Nisâ— manducaveritis Unless ye eat c. which is fulfilled by the community if some of them receive under both kinds altho all do not And a little after when he turnes his speach into the singular he speaks indifferently of both or one kind He that eates my Flesh and drink my Blood hath life everlasting v. 45. and v. 58. He that eates this Bread shall live for ever Which passages signifie that one kind suffices for if by an impossible supposition Christ could contradict himself yet our opinion would stand since in jure if what is said last contradict what was said afore Iura posteriora corrigunt priora The latter Law corrects the former That the precept of receiving this Sacrament was here Io. 6. v 53. I prove again The command of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or Baptism Sacramentally was Io. 3. v. 4. For in no other place is mentioned Water which Protestants acknowledge to be necessary in Baptism as well as Catholicks Therefore the command of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body Blood Sacramentally viz. in a sensible way by the mouth of the Body is here Io. 6. v. 53 I prove the consequence because a like expression to the same people caries a like command
but Io. 3. He commanded Baptism saying Except a man be born of Water c. Then he commands the receiving of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood saying Except ye eat c. Obj. The command of receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was Math. 26. in these words Take eat this is my Body Drink ye all of it this is my Blood But there both kinds are particularly commanded therefore 't is not sufficient to receive under one kind Answer 1. I deny the major and say that those words were not a precept but an invitation only made to the Apostles alone as a Friend does to his Friends invited to Dine with him For when S. Mark Chap. 14. sayes They all drunk of it All those who drunk were all those or comprehended all those who were bid drink but all those who drunk were only the Apostles then all those who were bid drink were only the Apostles and consequently if you make it a command 't was a command only obliging the Apostles Answer 2. The washing of the Feet to one an other Io. 13. v. 14. was not a precept therefore far less these words Take eat for there he sayes positively Debetis alter alterius c. Ye ought to wash one another's Feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you Out of my answer to the Objection Remark that the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. from the v. 23 to 27. relates only what Christ did to the Apostles and what he commanded them viz. as they were Preists to wit to make this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death telling them that as often as they eat that Bread and drink that Cup they should announce his Death viz. by their separate taking of the species of Bread from that of Wine Then S. Paul of himself adds Whosoever shall eate this Bread or drink the Cup of our Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As if he had said altho you eate the Body of our Lord in a good estate if you drink the Cup after having conceaved in your heart afore the drinking a grievous sin you are guilty of both unworthily receaved Why but because under each kind both are contained And thus on the contrary we receave the essential good effect of both under one kind as we incurr the guilt of both profaning both by an unworthy receaving under one I know some Protestant Bibles have Whosoever shall eat this Bread And drink this Cup. c. 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. AND for OR but that is a corruption as you may see in the Greek Printed at London the year 1653. by Roger Daniel which has OR with the Latin version By this essential effect of the Sacrament we distinguish what belonges to the substance of the Sacrament from what belonges not to it For example because in Baptism by aspersion is had the same effect of the Sacrament as by a triple mersion we conclude the triple mersion is not of the Essence Say the same of one kind in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For I hope Protestants will not say that when Christ gave the Sacrement in the time of Supper Math. 26. v. 26. Under the forme of Bread the effect of the Sacrament was suspended till he gave the Cup after supper Luke 22. v. 20. If not then the giving of the Cup was not necessary for receaving the Grace of the Sacrament This Mr. Rodon seems to avow in his 12 number of this Chapter when he sayes Drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it I infer then they who cannot drink it may have the effect of the Sacrament without the Cup. And this the Calvenists must say in France when they give the Eucharist under the kind of Bread only to those who cannot tast wine as you may see in their 7 Art of the 12 Chap. of their discipline which is of our Lord's Supper And Mr. Jurieux a Minister in France confirmes this custome in his book entituled Le Preservatif c. Pag. 267. When speaking of the Person who has receaved only under one kind This says he N'est pas un veritable sacrement quant au signe mais c'est un veritable sacrement quant a la chose signifieé puisque le fidele recoit J. Christ signifie par le sacrement rccoit tout autant de graces que ceux qui communient au Sacrement meme que le Sacrement luy est presente tout entier de voeu de caeur That is This sayes he is not a true Sacrament as to the sign but 't is a true Sacrament as to the thing signified since the faithful receives J. Christ signified by the Sacrament and receives as much grace as those who receave the Srcrament it self and that the whole Sacrament is represented to him to his sight and heart Also since Protestants believe they receive not only the figure but also the proper substance of JESUS CHRIST at least by saith I ask when they have received the Bread of our Lord's Supper before the Cup have they received the whole substance of Christ or not If they have received the whole then they have received the whole Grace of the Sacrament and consequently the Cup is not necessary If not I ask again is the substance of Christ divided of which one part is receaved with the Bread the other with the Cup Note when S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. sayes Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. he does not give a command 'T was Christ only who gave the command of eating his Body and drinking his Blood as to the substance of the Sacrament but not as to the manner which certainly is not of the Essence of the Sacrament the Sacrament being a permanent thing for Christ having said This is my Body 't was now a Sacrament before the eating according to that of S. Aug. tract 80. in Io. Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum And the use of every permanent thing being posteriour to it and consequently not Essential SECTION II. Other objections answered Obj. 2. A Broken body by wonds is void of blood and has not blood by concomitance but Christ's Body was broken therefore it had not Blood by concomitance and so we ought to take the Blood a part Answer I distinguish the minor Christ's Body was broken on the Cross and there void of Blood be it so when he offered it up for us at the last Supper and after his Resurrection I deny And consequently when we receive it in the Sacrament it has Blood by coneomitance and therefore we need not receave the Blood a part It 's true also that Christ's Body at the last Supper or in the sacrifice is dayly broken as to the species but not in it self and therefore being a living Body it hath Blood by concomitance
debet in aliqua reali mutatione rei quae significatur that it ought to be founded in some real mutation of the thing which is Sacrificed To whom my answer is In other Sacrifices which have not the force to signify God Author of Life and Death without their own Destruction 't is true in the Eucharist I deny it for the reason I gave afore But if this my answer does not satisfy you know that the Sacrament is destroyed or ceases to be what it was by the Preist's consuming of it In which consumption you see a real change of the Victime which is not only Christ's Body and Blood but Christ's Body and Blood joyned to the species which whole is destroyed by the alteration of the species in the Stomach SUBSECTION III. The Mass proved by the Tradition of our Country WIll we condemn the Piety of our Ancestors marking the chief terms of the Year by a singular devotion above all other Nations to this Mystery with the name of Mass or Oblation Missah in Hebrew signifies Oblation or Offering as to mind us to offer up then a Mass of Thanksgiving either for special Spiritual favours bestowed upon mankind on those dayes or for Rents or Fruits of the Earth coming in at those times We have upon record that all the tennants that held Lands of the Cathedral Church of York which is dedicated to S. Peter ad vincula which is the first of August were bound by their Tenure to bring a Lamb alive into the Church at high Mass on that day hence they call'd and likely we from them the first of August Lammas-day Since we are speaking of Lambs I mind that in the written Law the Children of Israël were commanded Exod. 29. v. 38. to Sacrifice every day a Lamb in the morning and another at night Why supposing the general reasons of a Sacrifice but moreover to foresignify by the offering of a Lamb the daily offering of the Lamb of God in the Law of Grace which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass SUBSECTION IV. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Scripture PROOF I. THe Evangelical Prophet Isaiah c. 61. v. 6. Prophecied that there would be Preists in the New Law who would be called the Ministers of our GOD and consequently he Prophecied that there would be Sacrifices no other beside that of the Cross but the Sacrifice of the Mass therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true Sacrifice Quaeres Why are Protestant Church-men called Ministers and not Preists Answer Because they have no Sacrifice to which Preist-hood relates Every High Preist sayes S. Paul is ornained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices Hebrews 8 v. 3. Note the difference between the high Preist and low Preist is not in their offering of Sacrifice which is common to both for the low Preists in the Old Law offered Sacrifice as well as the High Preist but in this that the High Preist has a superiority over the Low Preists and a special assistance of the Holy Ghost to judge in matter of religion Sacerdotes sayes Guliel Whitaker contra Grego Martin ii verè propriè sunt qui Sacrificia faciunt qualis fuit Aaron Aaronis filii Melchisedech quem illi adumbrabant that is Preists truly and properly are they that offer Sacrifices such as was Aaron and the Sons of Aaron and Melchisedeck and Christ whom they prefigured .. So that Protestant Doctor PROOF II. The Mass was also fore-told by the Prophet Malachie c. 1. v. 11. where having reprehended the ancient Preists for their offering polluted Sacrifices God promises that a pure Sacrifice shall be offered among the Gentils in these words from the rising of the Sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentils and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering Which cannot be understood but of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which for the Sanctity of the Victime is called pure and for the universality of the offerers is said to be offered in all places from the rising to the going down of the Sun Again it s called pure sayes the Council of Trent Sess 22. cap. 1. because it cannot be defiled either by the malice or unworthiness of the Offerers Mr. Rodon's interpreting Malachie by what S. Paul sayes Rom. 12. v. 1. and 15. v. 16. is of no force since S. Paul's offering the repenting Gentils and they their repentance and the Romans the like or other acts of vertue by which their bodies became living Hosts breathing the service of God are only Metaphorical Sacrifices Whereas the Prophet foretells a true Sacrifice like to that of the Iews and such is that of the Eucharist of which S. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 10. v. 20. and 21. The things which the Gentils Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God And I would not that you should have Fellow-ship with them Viz. eating a part of what they Sacrifice and so becoming Participant of their Altar For Are not they who eat the Hosts partakers of the Altar v. 18. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table that is Altar and of the Table of Devils to wit eat the Body of Christ which we sacrifice on our Altar and a part of the beast which they sacrifice on theirs Don't wonder that S. Paul calls the Altar Table because on the Altar on which we Sacrifice is set down to the faithful the Bread of Life and the food of our Souls so the Prophet Malachie called also the Altar Table chap. 1. v. 12. having said before to the wicked Preists v. 7. Ye offer polluted Bread upon my Altar Be pleased to read this chapter from the 14 verse to the 22. where the Apostle dehorts and fears the Christians from eating of meats offered to Idols because who eates of the sacrifice offered to Idols is partaker of the Altar of Idols or a worshiper of Idols as who eates of the altar of Chrst and is partaker of the altar of Christians or a worshiper of Christ and as who eates of the altar of the Jews is partaker of the altar of the Jews or a follower of the Mosaik law And consequently since the Christians would not be nor be thought Idolaters they ought not to eat of meats offered to Idols But here take notice he mentions three tables or altars one upon which the Gentils sacrifice to Idols a second on which the Jews offered victims of beasts to God and a third on which Christians offer the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently this oblation of the Eucharist in S. Pauls opinion is a true sacrifice as that of the Jews and that of the Gentils But were offering of the Prayers and other such acts of vertue Sacrifices yet they are not the Sacrifice of which Malachy speaks because the y are not pure not in themseleves as Protestants avow nor pure because they are accepted as pure for say I their impuritie hinders
Transitively i. e. passing and so making them two divers substances I deny the antecedent The Eucharist then is the Sacrament of Christ's Body i. e the Sacrament which is Christ's Body or Christ's body under the outward form or accidents of Bread is a Sacrament or a sensible sign by the Species of Grace which it work 's in us Answer 2. The Eucharist taken inadequately or partially for the Species is a Sacrament or sign of Christ's Body the Consecration being made I grant Adequatelie and Totally taken for the whole Eucharist I deny For so it includes both Christ's body and the Species afore of Bread now of his Body Thus the Eucharist may be called a figure or representation viz. the Species of Bread and Wine separated from one another a representation of Christ's death The Species of Bread alone the consecration being made a figure of the Body contained under it Note An Image sign or Sacrament may have within it the substance or essence of the thing by it signified or represented in another manner God the son is the Image of his father and has his father's substance yea the father all within him by circumincession i. e a mutuall being of the divine persones in each other So Christ's flesh invisible and spirituall in the Eucharist is the sacrament or sign of the same flesh palpable and visible crucified In the Sacrament it represents it self as on the Cross not different in substance but in qualitie and manner As when God 1. Reg. 10. v. 9. is said to have given to Saul another heart viz. in qualitie not in substance So it 's said 1. Cor. 15. v. 50. Flesh and blood shall not possesse the Kingdom of Heaven and again it 's certain flesh and blood shall possess the Kingdom of Heaven viz. When it has put on Incorruption The same in substance in both propositions but not the same in qualitie Obj. 3. In these two propositions This is my Bodie This Cup is the new testament in my Blood The word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alyke having been pronunced on the same matter viz. the one upon the one part of the Sacrament and the other on the other part of it and because of like things we give alike iudgement But in this proposition This Cup is the new Testament the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being c Therfore in this proposition lykwayes This is my Bodie the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being Answer If the two propositions be set down as S. Math. who was present and heard them out of the mouth of Christ relates them Chap. 14. v. 22. and v. 24 This is my Bodie This is my Blood granting the Major I deny the Minor proposition If the one as S Mathew sets it down and the other as S. Paul who was not present and sets only down the sense of Christ's words in a figurative way I let pass the Minor and deney the consequence because the two propositions so taken are not alike as to their expression and I say that the H. Ghost might have had a particular reason to move S. Paul to rehearse the sense of what had been related by S. Mathew This is my Blood in these words This is the new testament in my Blood to give us another sensible impression of the mysterie viz. This Cup is the new testament in my Blood as if he should say This cup is an authentick instrument or as it were paper in which my new testament and last will of giving you eternal life if you believe and obey me is written not with Ink but with my oun Blood which this Cup contains as the Paper the writing of the Testament So Alapide Now in this proposition the word is cannot be taken in the proper sense of the words as in the other This is my Body because there would follow an absurditie viz. a real Identity between the Cup or what is contained in it and the testament signifying or the outward expr sion of his will which is absurd and evidentlie false And in that sense above I let passe the Minor for if by Testament you understand the Testament signified not the Testament signifying the word is may be and is taken for a real and transubstantiated being because the Blood contained in the Cup is that which he left by his last will to the faithfull So that which is in the Cup is changed into a Testament being by the whole proposition as the cause transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ and consequently this proposition This Cup is the New Testament must not be expounded thus the wine that is in the Cup is the sing and Sacrament of of the new Testament but thus The consecrated wine that is in the Cup is the real Blood of Christ and new Testament That he made then his new Testament I shall prove in my 8 Chap. When I say that all that Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literallie and without a figure I mean as the institution of the Eucharist is related to us by S. Mathew who was present at it and heard the words out of the mouth of Christ in the verie institution it self Since Mr Rodon contends so much for the figurative sense of the words in the Consecration I avow that in the consec ation as related by S. Luke in these words Touto to potéèrâ—on heè kainéè diathèkee en to haimatÃ-mou to huper humon ekkunòmenon This Cup is the new testament in my Blood which is shed for you The word Cup is taken figurativelie for the thing contained in it because from it taken in the proper sense would follow an absurdity viz. That the Cup it self wood or mettal was shed for us because the Relative Which and the participle Shed is referred by S. Luke to Cup as he who understands Greek sees in the forementioned words not properly taken then Metaphorically or Figurativelie taken for the thing contained in the Cup or Blood of Christ which is said to be shed for us Obj. 4. When a man saith a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he employes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition then Christ according to Romanists made a false proposition when he said This is my Body because his Body was not under the forme of Bread the whole time he was pronouncing the proposition Answer I dist the antecedent If the proposition be purely Enunciative or speculative its true because such a proposition presupposes its object If it be a factive or practical proposition such as the proposition of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist was it 's false because a factive proposition makes it's object and consequently supposes it not to be afore the whole proposition is utered which whole proposition taken all
sacramento S. lavâ—eri dicentem sed de sacramento â—rensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit â—isi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. non habebitis vitam in vobis quid ad hoc responderi potest c. An veâ—â—ò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quòd ad parvulos haec senten iâ— non pertineat possintqùe sine participatione Corporis hujus sanguinis in se habere vitam i. e. Let us hear sayes he our Lord not indeed speaking of the sacrament of the holy layer Baptism but of the sacrament of his table to which no man comes lawfullie unless he be baptized Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c You shall not have life in you What can be answered to this c. Dare anâ—e say that this sentence does not belong to Children and that they may have life in them without the participation of this Bodie and Blood Rem o. That it is not likely that S. Io. whose desing in his Ghospell was to speak of the greatest mysteries of the life of Christ would have omitted that of the Eucharist or of his giving his Body and Blood to his Disciples at the last supper which the three other Evangelists so accurately set down as if one would not omit to confirm what the other said of this mysterie but if he did not mean of it when he relates what Christ in his 6. Chap. said of giving his body and his Blood threatening them if they did not eate it and drink it he has omited it SECTION II. We must eate the real flesh of Christ and drink his Blood sacramentallie i. e. sensibly by the mouth of the body and not by the mouth of faith onlie TO prove this Catholick truth we bring these two passages Unless you eate the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you shall have no life in you Io. 6. v. 54. and v. 56. For my Flesh is meat indeed c To prove that this eating and drinking is to be understood only of an eating and drinking by faith protestants according to the principle of comparing scripture with scripture the obscurer passage with the clearer to know the true sense of both bring two passages which follow relating to the same matter to be compared with ours viz. 'T is the spirit that quicknes the flesh profits nothing The words which I have spoken are spirit and truth v. 64. We say that these latter passages are the obscurer and do not prove so clearly that we must eate and drink the Body and Blood of Christ only by faith as ours prove that wee must eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body 1. Because these two passages do not speak of faith but only of spirit and life there are other acts of spirit and life than acts of faith the acts of love The zeal of thy house hath eaten me sayes David Psal 69. v. .9 in the protestant Bible in ours 68. v. 10. How prove you that Christ means here an act of faith 2. We know there is no other proper mouth in man but that of the body wherefore when Christ sayes unless you eate the f esh and drink the blood of the son of man c. We understand he means with the mouth of the body Again since to eate and drink are the proper acts of the mouth till you prove to us that we cannot receave the body of Christ spiritualised or having the property of a spirit into our mouths why shall not wee believe that Christ meant we should eate his flesh with the mouth of our Body since a terme sine addito if you add nothing is alwise taken for the thing for which it supposes properlie So Homo a man if you add nothing supposes for a true man and not a painted man wherefore Christ saying Unless you eate the body of the son of man without adding by faith that eateing he speaks of is to be understood by the mouth of the body this being that which we understand properly by the tearm eating Nor doth it s not nourishing the body hinder it to be eaten by the mouth of the body no more then poyson tho it nourish not hinders to believe that many have drunk poison Since then these two latter passages are the obscurer they ought to be explained to the sense of the former two passages brought by us or so that they do not contradict them which are clear Wherfore I explaine them thus 'T is the spirit that quickness c. i. e 'T is my divine spirit or my Divinity that quicknes the receaver of my Body to a supernatural life as the soul quicknes the body to actiones of a natural life and as the bodie could not be quickned to hear or see without the soul so could not the receaver of my Bodie or he who eates it sacramentallie be quickned to a supernatural life were it not united to my divinity Of which divine spirit quickning or giving life to wit supernatural the words I have spoken are to be understood 2. My words are spirit and life i. e. They are to be understood spiritually or that you are to eate my flesh being in the sacrament after a spiritual way with the propertie of a spirit for the nourishment of your soul not being there in a carnall way like a piece of dead flesh to be divided with your teeth for the nourishment of your body 3. My words are spirit and life i. e. My words intimated v. 54. Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c Obeyed will give you my spirit and by it a supernatural life or grace which leads to eternall life Christ adds presently v. 65 There are some of you which do not believe as if he should say the reason wherefore you stumble at my promise of giving you my flesh to eate is because you do not believe really that I am the son of God and so able to do all things howsoever strange they may seem to be By what I have said in this section you see proven that these words of Christ He that eates my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternall life Io. 6. v. 55. and my flesh is meat indeed c. v. 56. are to be understood of a corporall eating by the mouth of the body and not of a meer spiritual eating and drinking by faith I say not a meer spiritual eating because we hold we must add an act of faith to our sensible eating of his Body nay this Corporall eating may be cald a spiritual eating in a good sense in as much as we believe That the Bodie of Christ in the sacrament as it is reallie there so it is spiritualiy I mean with the propertie of a spirit As S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. v. 44. sayes Our bodies shall rise spiritual i. e. spiritualized viz. in glory they shall have the properties of a spirit Note
as Heat is cal'd the propertie of Fire because the nature of Fire has a clame to Heat and an exigence or a natural appetite of it tho actual Heat not the exigence or natural apetite of it might be given to water so to be all in all and all in every part of an improper place is called the propertie of a spirit because the nature of a spirit has an exigence of it tho this way of existing not the exigence of it may by the almighty power of God be communicated to a body If then a glorious body has this property of a spirit to enter through a wall without making a breach why may not the whole body of Christ be in the whole and least part of the host So our way of eating him there is conform to his way of being there which is spiritual with the propertie of a spirit his whole Body being in the least particle of the host not carnal as if we divided his body with our teeth Spiritual again in as much as we believe That his real Bodie so receaved in that spiritual manner as he commands under the accidents of bread by the mouth of the Body feeds the soul or spirit by the grace it produces there And this eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood that way satisfies the hunger and thirst we had of his grace Another proof that Christ meant the real manducation of his true Body when he said Take eate c. For this is my Body is what he said to the Iews Io. 6. v. 51. The Bread which I will give you is viz. at present my Flesh Where I remark the word is the sacrament not being yet made could not import Signifies my flesh but because the Bread only as a sacrament could signifie his flesh imports an identitie or samety of that bread he spoke of with his flesh Hence the sacrament he made after and which we now receive under the form of Bread being that bread he promised to give it follows that it is his real Flesh and therefore our eating of it is a real and corporal manducation of his Body Add to all I have said that Christ's flesh is not meat really and indeed to him who believs only no more then the King's picture is to him that sees it the King indeed or truely the King For things that are said to be such indeed according to our common way of speaking are understood to be such properly and not figuratively SECTION III. Mr. Rodon's objections against our understanding of those words of Christ He that eates my Flesh c. of a corporal eating by the mouth of the Bodie and not only by Faith answered Ob. 1. Christ sayes Io 6. v. 35. He that comes to me to wit by faith shall never hunger and he that believes in me shall never thirst Then the eating of Christ's flesh is spiritual by Faith and not corporal I answer denying the consequence And say that who believes in Christ shall neither hunger nor thirst because to the believer Christ will give his Body and Blood to be eaten and drunken corporally which will satisfie the Believer's hunger and thirst of him and more over hinder in him the hunger and thirst of perishing things 'T is not then a bare believing which is only a beginning and disposition to the satisfying of the hunger and thirst of the soul but the worthy eating the body and blood of Christ which gives that satisfaction Who eates my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him Io. 6 v. 57. Belief alone does not do the turne Not everie one that sayes to me Lord Lord and consequentlie believes shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ma. 7. v. 21. Obj. 2. Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 55. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life But a reprobate according to the Romanist may eate the Body and drinke the blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body then it 's the eating and drinking by faith that gives eternal life Answer I deny the censequence and say that the reason why the reprobate receiving the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body has not eternal life is because he presumes to receive it being in mortal sin and so eates and drinks unworthily and consequently eates and drinks his damnation according to S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 27. And here I remark that according to protestants Christ's body cannot be eaten unworthily For according to Mr. Rodon in this chapter and other protestants Christ's bodie cannot be eaten but by faith viz. a saving faiâ—h for historical faith or the faith of miracles is not a manducation or eating of the Body of Christ but who eates the Body of Christ with a saving faith doth not eate it unworthilie for I cannot save and damn my self both at once by the same act but the eating with a saving faith saves me and the eating unworthily damnes me then if I Could eate the Bodie of Christ unworthily I could save and damn my self by the same act then a protestant cannot eate the Body of Christ unworthily which is flat a-against S. Paul and consequently heretical Obj 3. S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct ch cap. 16. speaks thus To eate the flesh of Christ is a figure c. Answer 1. S. Aug. does not say simply To eate the Flesh of Christ is a figure but bringing the words of Christ Io. 6. Unless you eate my flesh c. says Christ seems to command a wicked act or hainous offense Figuraest ergò it is then a figure I subsume but Christ does not seeme to Ro Catholicks who believe he spesaks in that place only of a sacramental manducation to command there a heinous offense then according to S. Austin we have no need to take his words figuratively But for Capharnaites to whom he seems to command a heinous offense they ought to take them figuratively that they may not censure him To understand then this passage in the apprehension of the Capharnaites you must reflect that as we are wont to kill those beasts whose flesh we eate afore we eate them So the Jews out of Christ's words had apprehended that they ought first to kill Christ and after to eate his flesh cut in pieces boiled or rested This without doubt was a wicked or heinous offense He means then saith S. Augustin a figure of his death not his true death and that they ought not to kill Christ truly but by taking the sacrament of the Eucharist represent his slaughter and by their manners express his death that they ought not to kill Christ but to mortifie themselves and do what S. Paul said he had done Colos 1. v. 24. I fulfill those things which are wanting of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church So Maldonat upon the 6 Chap. of S. Io. v. 53 Answer 2. We heartily acknowledge that the Eucharist and the Preist's eating of it is a
Sacred Science teaches us that tho there be three different Persones in God there are not three different things because A different thing signifies a different essence Hence S. Aug. lib. de Fide ad petrum chap. 1. sayes Una est patris Filii Spiritus Sti. essentia in qua non est aliud Pater aliud Filius aliud Spiritus Sanctus quamvis personaliter sit alius Pater alius Filius alius Spiritus Sanctus The essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is one in which the Father is not one thing the Son another and the H. Ghost another altho as to Person the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another If he was rash in touching the B. Trinity we must not wonder to see him stray also in this Mystery following only the strain of his human Philosophy Mr. Rodon then was not content meerly to believe but would see that he might believe tho S. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 13. v. 12. That such a sight is reserved for the next Life and that now we see only through a Glass darkly But I desire him who is so earnest to have a clear accompt of Divine Mysteries to clear me first in some natural things How is it possible to cover the whole Heavens with the Wing of a Fly Yet this can be done if it be divided in as many parts as God can divide it For after every division the least part will still have its three dimentions length breadth and thickness by all which it may be still divided Now if he deny this saying the Wing is composed of Indivisibles he runs himself into as great difficulties as to avow that a snail makes as much way in an hour as the sleetest Race-Horse for the Race-Horse cannot make an Indivisible of space or way without some part of time and that cannot be less then an Indivisible of time and in the same Indivisible of time the Snail moving cannot make less then an Indivisible of space and so go along with the Race-Horse the rest of the Indivsiibles of the hour and consequently the Snail will have made as much way as the Race-Horse at the hours end which is absurd Neither tell me the Horse can run over a hundred points or parts of space in an instant for his motion is also divisible in points one part must begin afore the other and so comes in again my argument As for the sweld points maintained by some they confound a Body with a Spirit and therefore are to be rejected How is it possible that since three Men cannot get in at once at a narrow Door the pictures or species which are not Spirits but material things of a whole Army should all at once enter without confusion into the apple of the Eye of a Man who from an eminence regards it If all Philosophers Wits are drowned in a drop of water not being able to fell with satisfaction what is the matter or the Form of it and whither it be compounded of divisible or indivisible parts must we claim to a full satisfaction of our reason afore we will believe this Mysterious Transubstantiation and thus banish Faith out of the Church of Christ Let us not soare to high nor dive to deep in this matter since a searcher of the Divine Majesty will be oppressed by Glory Having premitted this discourse to raise Men above their senses when they come to consider mysteries of Faith I now prove the mystery of Transubstantiation thus As God can create so he can Transubstantiate And as he hath revealed Genes 1. That he hath created Heaven and Earth so he hath revealed Math. 26. v. 27. That he hath made a Transubstantiation of Bread into his Body in the Eucharist If you wonder at the strange things that follow from this Transubstantiation consider that creation made something of nothing which seemed so strange to the ancient Philosophers that they tell us flatly Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made Had they had Faith they would have acknowledged Creation submit you your Judgment to Faith and you 'l acknowledge in the Eucharist Transubstantiation SECTION II. Mr. Rodon's objections answered Object IN every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwise newly produced as when Christ turned the Water into Wine was the Wine was newly produced But the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Eucharist Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist Answer 1. I distinguish the Major In every substantial conversion that thing c. Is alwise newly produced Entitatively or modally I grant alwise Entitatively I deny that is in every substantial conversion there is alwise the production at least of a new manner of being So the Body of Christ in the Eucharist has a new manner of being viz. a Sacramental being which it has not out of the Eucharist But there is not alwise in every substantial conversion a production of a new substance Answer 2. I dislinguish the Major again Naturally be it so Supernaturally and when the question is about the almighty Power of God I deny it and say that it is sufficient that the whole substance of Bread be destroyed and the Bodie of Christ put in its place something remaining common to both viz. the accidents of Bread which now by the consecration become the accidents of the Body of Christ morally in as much as they shew to all the faithfull the consecration being made that the Body of Christ is now there and receives a new being not as to the substance which it had already but as to the manner of being a sacramental being under the form of Bread If you ask how the Body of Christ can begin to be there without leaving the place where it was before I answer when a child grows by the nutrition or feeding does the reasonable soul leave the rest of the Childs body to come to the added part of matter or is there a new reasonable Soul produced in it If not but the same Soul acquires only a new presence of relation to the added part of matter reason the same way concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Ob. 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed but the Bread is not destroyed in the Eucharist because after Consecration it is said to be Broken Divided c. therefore it is not destroyed Answer I distinguish the Minor The Bread is not destroyed as to the substance which is only required I deny as to the accidents I grant and say that by reason of these remaining the Host is said to be broken divided c. and is still called Bread Per distractionem as we speak in Philosophy So our Saviour said to the Disciples of Iohn Math. 11. v. 5. The blind see because they who then did see were afore blind They
and for this reason we need not take the Blood a part Obj. 3. We go from the practise of the primitive Church Answer As to the essence of the Sacrament I deny as to the manner of administration of it upon some considerable circumstances be it so So the Protestants go from the practise of primitive times in Baptism by using now the sprinkling of water on the Child whereas a triple dipping was used in primitive times I said be it so because in primitive times they gave it also sometimes under one kind If you ask me why Christ gave it to his Apostles under both kinds I answer he both foresaw Hereticks as the Manicheans who would deny the thing in it self to be lawful which is an errour and different circumstances in which the Church should think good to give it under the species of Wine as to infants which action of his justified the Church in that and the like circumstances We avow then that the Sacrament was given some times under both kindes and in particular to discover the Manicheans in the time of S. Leo Pope But we deny that there was a command from Christ of giving it so Obj. 4. To take Christ's Blood in taking the Host is not to drink it Answer 'T is not to drink it cannally that is to be carnally refressed with it I grant Spiritually that is to be Spiritually refressed with it I deny So S. Cypr. sayes in the beginning of the Sermon of the Lords Supper manducaverunt biberunt de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem that is they eat and drunk of the same Bread according to the vibsile form Remark he sayes They drunk of the same Bread and makes no mention of Wine Also Tertul. lib. de Resur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur that is The Flesh feeds of the Body and Blood of Christ that the Soul may be full of God And S. Augustin lib. quaest in Levit. q. 57. speaking of this Sacrament sayes A cujus Sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum c. that is from the Blood of which Sacrifice to be taken for aliment c. Where you see the Blood is called food or aliment By which passages you may take notice that the Holy Fathers put the force of their words in the thing and not in the way of taking it because whither taken by way of food or of drink it has the same effect Ob. 5. He that eates Bread dipped in Wine altho he hath Wine in his mouth doth not drink Therefore he who receives only under the form of Bread doth not drink Answer 1. I distinguish the antecedent He who eates Bread dipped c. doth not drink it in the strict acception of drinking I grant In the less rigid acception of drinking I deny did you never hear say of him who drinks a heavy thick Wine he eates and drinks both at once Answer 2. He doth not drink as to the substance of drinking which is to take a liquid matter by the mouth I deny As to the whole corporal manner and effect of Drinking I grant So Pascasius lib. de Corp. Christ speaks thus Hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus Ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes that is It s he alone who breaks this Bread and by the hands of the Ministers distributes it to the faithful saying Take and drink all of this to wit Bread where he makes no mention of Wine But much less do Protestants drink Christ's Blood by an act of faith that Christ dyed for them in which the eating and drinking is one and the same Ob. 5. The sacramental words operate what they signify but they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood therefore they operate the separation of the Body from the Blood and consequently we ought to receave under both kinds to receave both Answer I distinguish the Major The Sacramental words operate what they signifie formally I grant what they signify occasionally I deny And say that these words This is my Body and these This is my Blood signifie formally and primarly the Body and Blood of Christ altho occasionally and secundarily they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood of Christ in as much as they are an occasion to me hearing them pronounced apart and knowing that the force of these words only attended the Body would be under one species and the Blood under the other tho by concomitance both are in each to represent to my self the death of Christ or his Body separated from his Blood Ob. 6. As much as is taken away of the Sacrament as much is diminished of the perswasion of the certainty of God's promise Answer As much as is taken away of that part of the Sacrament which causes Grace be it so Of that which does not cause grace but only compleats it in the being of a representation of the death of Christ I deny I said be it so because the Sacraments were cheifly instituted to signify and cause in us sanctifying grace which is both signified and caused by the Body and Blood of Christ under on kind as much as under both Yet the other kind is necessary in the Priest not to confirm more God's promise as Mr. Rodon would have it but to represent the death of Christ And since he thinks two Sacraments better then one why does not he take in the Sacrament of Pennance so signally set down Io. 20. as a sensible sign of sanctifying Grace brought forth in a penitent Soul by the absolution of the Preist signified by these words Whose sins ye remitt are remitted to them Since three Sacraments are as much better then two than two are better than one Or how proves he the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrament the Preists absolving a sorrowful penitent from his sin to be none Ob. 7. Christ fore-saw the inconvenences of taking under both kinds for Lay-people as well as we and yet he commanded it to them as S. Paul to the Corinthians after him Answer I deny that either Christ or S. Paul commanded the lay people to take the Eucharist under both kinds more then Christ commanded that the Ministers should wash the Communicants feet by his example of Washing them to those to whom he gave the Sacrament See the ground of this my denial in the 1. Sect. of the 6. chap. nay Christ signified aboundantly one kind to suffice when he said Who eates this Bread shall live for ever Ob. 8. God's word should not be taken from all because some are deaf therefore the Cup should not be taken from all lay people because some cannot drink Wine Answer The Cup is not taken from all lay people for that reason but because that and other reasons being on one side and on the other side it not being necessary to give it the lay people for
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
lo I come c. Hebr. 10. to do thy Will O God a Body thou hast prepared to me v. 5. to wit in which he might Sacrifice himself Sacrifices for other ends God required and accepted from meer men shewing the pleasure he had in them as in that of Abel and Elias which he consumed with fire from Heaven 3 Reg. 18. in the Protestant Bible 1 Reg. 18. and that of Noë for which he promised not to drownd the Earth again Genes 8. v. 21. II. REASON REligion according to the common opinion of Divines is a vertue inclining man to give to God his due Honour And shall those men claim to have any Religion let Protestants be pleased to reflect who find in themselves no inclination to give to GOD a true and proper Sacrifice which is the Honour due to Him III. REASON A True Sacrifice is the Worship only due to God all other Worship may be given to men If Kings will not want the Worship due to them above their Subjects should we deprive GOD for whole Ages of the Worship due to him above his Creatures No. In the mean time all must acknowledge this to have been done and to be still done who do not acknowledge the Sacrifice of the Mass IV. REASON SAcrifice is the chief Act of Religion or Divine Worship and shall the Church of Christ come short of the Synagogue in this In the Synagogue they Sacrificed daily Exod. 29. v. 38. God having as S. Paul speaks Hebr. 11. v. 40. provided something better to the Spouse of Christ than to the hand made hath not he more loving to her furnished her with a more noble means to obtain it Yes And this is the Sacrifice of the Mass in which the Preist destroying in the Host the substance of Bread and offering to God what is now there by the force of his words both acknowledges him as Supream Master of Life and Death and offers him a Sacrifice worthy of himself The Synagogue was with us participant of the Sacrifice of the Cross as general to all but Christians alone have an application of it more powerful then by any other way in the Sacrifice of the Mass V. REASON IF the Preist-hood being translated it is necessary according to S. Paul Hebr. 7. v. 12. that the Law be translated Then the Preist-hood ceasing it is necessary that the Law cease which was under that Preist-hood Hence I infer since the Law of the New Testament doth not cease the Preist-hood of the New Testament doth not cease and under it there are still Sacrifices no other but those of the Mass therefore that of the Mass is a true Sacrifice Quoeres May not the Sacrifice of the Cross be call'd the Sacrifice of the New Testament in this sense that CHRIST made his Testament there Answer No. For I shall prove in the next Chapter that he made it at the unbloody Sacrifice he offered after the eating of the Paschal Lamb. SUBSECTION II. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by the notion of a true and proper Sacrifice A True and proper Sacrifice is an oblation of a sensible thing made to God by a Preist in acknowledgment of his Supream Dominion over all with some change of the Host or Victim But the Sacrifice of the Mass is such then 't is a true and proper Sacrifice 1. The Sactifice of the Mass is an oblation 2. Made to God viz. alone 3. Of a semble thing whether you consider the Bread the substitutive Host about which in imitation of the Old Law preparing the Victimes as by washing the Sheep in the probatick Pond afore they were Sacrificed c. insteed of the Body of Christ it not being there till the Consecration the Ceremonies of preparing the Host are made by laying the Preist's hands over it c. Exod. 29. v. 15. Or whether you consider the Body of Christ under the species or Forms of Bread and Wine the principal Host of this Sacrifice which also the Consecration being made is sensibly known by the species to be there 4 'T is made by a Preist viz. a man call'd by God or his Church lawfully ordained and annointed for that function Exod. 30. v. 30. And having his hands consecrated for that end Exod. 29. v. 9. Clothed with sacred and mysterious vestiments as Aron Exod. 18. significative and relating to the action he is going about 5. In acknowledgment of God's Supream Dominion over Life and Death with some change of the Host or Victime signifying that Dominion or making you mind it This is done by the destruction of the substance of the Bread and by Christ's being there mystically immolated or by his being there by the force of the Sacred words modo mortuo after a Dead manner If because we call the Sacrifice of the Mass a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ you will acknowledg no other Host in it but the principal Host to wit the Body and Blood of Christ which the Preist seems to insinuat when offering the Bread he sayes to the B. Trinity suscipe Sancte Pater receive Holy Father where Father is taken Essentially for the whole Trinity not for the first Person This immaculat Host and offerrimus c. We offer to thee O Lord the chalice of Salvation c. Those terms supposing properly for the Body of Christ and his Blood not for meer Bread and Wine if I say you will not have this Bread and Wine to be any ways the Host but only the Body and Blood of Christ in place of which this Bread and Wine are offered And then you begin to quible about the real change of the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice denying any real mutation of them to be made in it I answer then with Vasquez That there is no necessity of a real mutation in the thing which is offered in this Sacrifice Because the mutation in the thing offered is only necessary in as much as God is signified by it Author of Life and Death therefore if there be any oblation by which without the real immutation of the thing offered God may be denotated or signified Author of Life and Death 't will be a true Sacrifice Such is the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ then it is a true Sacrifice For the immutation is not the formal reason of a Sacrifice but only some thing required Ex parte signi in the Sign that it may be fit to signify the formal term of the Sacrifice to whom tends and in whom ends the Sacrifice which is God as Author of Life and Death Now in the consecration the Death of Christ is represented in this same that by the force of such an action the Body is made separate from the Blood and consequently ut sic as so or as such an action it signifies God Author of Life and Death I know Amicus sayes that this signification of the Almighty power of God over Life and Death fundari
them to be accepted it being as much as to offer God polluted Bread upon his Altar which was rejected Malach. 1. v. 7. PROOF III. What the prophet Malachy fore-told our Saviour insinuated after Io. 4. v. 19. to the Samaritan Woman She finding that he was a prophet proposed to him the Schisme which was then between the Samaritans and the Jews about the place of Sacrifice The Samaritans held they ought to Sacrifice upon mount Garazim the Jews that they ought all to Sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem Our Lord gave her a twofold answer the first as to the place of Sacrifice the second as to the manner of it The hour or time is come that is will be immediatly after my death says he when ye shall neither adore that is Sacrifice on this mountain nor in Jerusalem to wit only As if he had said hereafter the true adorers viz. Christians shall not only offer Sacrifice on this montain or in the temple of Jerusalem but they shall build Churches in everie place to Sacrifice in as Malachy foretold Note by the word Adore is here meant Sacrifice for the Jews did not deny but that they might adore simply and pray God every where but they held it was not lawful to Sacrifice but in the Temple of Jerusalem therefore they came farr and neer to Jerusalem as the Eunuch to adore that is to Sacrifice Act. 8. v. 27. And some Gentils Io. 12. v. 20. had gone up viz. to Jerusalem to adore that is to Sacrifice on a festivall day because there only was the place of Sacrifice As to the manner the true adorers shall adore that is Sacrifice in spirit and truth In truth contrary to the samaritans who sacrificed to a false God and in Spirit otherwise then those Jews of whom God complained that they honoured him with their mouthes but that their harts were farr from him The true adorers then shall accompany their outward offering to the true God with an inward devotion of mind PROOF IV. The sacrifice of the Eucharist fore-told by Malachy and insinuated by Christ to the Samaritan woman S. Paul declares by a particular circumstance of the Christian's partaking of it to the exclusion of the Jews who serving the tabernacle were debarred from sharing in the Host which came of the altar of the Christians Wee viz. Christians have an altar says he Hebr. 13. of which they have no right to eate who serve the Tabernacle Note Altar or as the Greek text hath thusiasteerion that is That place on which the sacrifice is made or put from the verb histeemi I put and thusia an Host from the verb thuoo I Sacrifice and a sacrifice are relatives one of which cannot be conceived without the other Quid est altare says Opt. mil. lib. 6. nisi sedes sanguinis corporis Christi That is What is an Altar but the seat of the Blood and Body of Christ If then the Christians in S. Pauls time had an Altar they had also a true sacrifice no other but that of the Eucharist then the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a true sacrifice PROOF V. Infin What Malachy foretold our Saviour insinuated to the Samaritan woman and S. Paul declares 1. Cor. 10. S. Luke stronly confirms relating to us Acts. 13. v. 2. the practise of this sacrifice in the Apostles leitourguntoon de auton they as Erasmus himselfe explanes sacrificing to the Lord and fasting which Fasting is premitted by apostolical tradition to the ordination of Preists See S. Chrysost on this place 'T is also to be remark'd that S. Luke describing the sacrifice of Zacharie Luc. 1. v. 23. makes use of the word leitourgias to signifie his sacrifice or ministry And again the same S. Luke hath This Cup the New Testament in my Blood which Cup IS powred out for you Note 1. he sayes The Cup is poured out that was not done at the Cross for the Vessel out of which the Blood of Christ was poured there was his Body here the CUP 2. The present time IS poured out declares the pouring out at the last Supper not on the Cross 3. FOR YOU and not TO YOU signifies an Oblation or Sacrifice 4. The pouring out was a Libation or Sacrifice SUBSECTION V. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by the Authority of the Holy Fathers AFter I have proved by Reason the Notion of a True Sacrifice the Tradition of our Country and Scripture the Sacrifice of the Mass I ask Is not that to be believed which was believed by Christians in primitive times or the first five Centuries I ask again Who can tell us best what they believed Men who are living now with us or thoâ—â— who lived in the same times renowned both for Piety and Learning If you grant those ancients can best tell us what they and the People of their time believed consult their works left to posterity and you 'l find In the first age 1. ST Paul We have an Altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle Hebr. 13. v. 10. And 1 Cor. 9. v. 13. They that serve the Altar participat with the Altar Note the English Bible 1562. hath here for Altar Temple though Norton's of 1625. hath Altar 2. St. Andrew who said to the Tyrant Aegaeas I daily Sacrifice to the Almighty GOD the Immaculate Lamb who persevers living and entire altho he be truly Sacrificed and his Flesh truly eaten by the People This is related in the Book of his Passion written by his Disciples who little dreamed then that Protestants in these dayes should question this truth 3. St. Denis speaking of the Eucharist Eccl. Hier. cap. 3. sayes O Divine and Holy Sacrifice And again in the same Chapter Hence the Divine Preist standing at the Divine Altar I know Calvin denies that Book to be St. Denis his but I preser the Authority of St. Iohn Damas Lib. 1. de Fide orth cap. 12. Of the second general Council of Nice approved anno 787. under Hadrian the first Citing in Can. 2. a Testimony out of the Eccl. Hier. under the name of St. Denis whom the Council calles Magnum Great and of others to his vide Gual 1. Saec. pag. 40. 4 St. Ignatius Martyr I do not delight in the nourishment of Corruption nor the pleasures of this Life I will the Bread of God the Heavenly Bread which is the Flesh of Christ the Son of God Epist ad Rom. beyond the middle This passage is not for the sacrifice but proves strongly that the sâ—â—rament is the true Body of Christ In the second age 1. ST Iustin Martyr in his Dial. with Tryph. post medium Neither doth God receive Hosts from any but from his Preists All then who in his Name offer the Sacrifices which Jesus left or signified to be made that is in the Eucharist of Bread and Wine which are made in every place of the Earth by Christians c. 2. S. Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. speaking of
the Spirit of God as St. Paul Nay after he had received the Spirit of God he was feared to loose it again saying I chastise my Body and bring it under servitude lest after I have Preached to others I become a reprobate my self 1 Cor. 9. v. 27. How know you then that at this time you are guided by the Spirit of God especially if it be true that a man knows not whether he be worthy of Love or hatred Eccl. 9.1 S. Iohn if you would hear him would tell you a better way to try your Spirit to wit by the Church's approbation of it Io. 4. v. 6. We viz. Governours of the Church are of God he that knows God heares us viz. Governours of the Church he that is not of God heares us not in this we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Errour To wit those who are led by the Spirit of Truth submit themselves to the Church whereas those who let themselves be guided by the Spirit of Errour will not this submission but rest in their own Judgment and by this wedding themselves to their own Judgment they become Hereticks being condemned of themselves as S. Paul speaks Tit. 3. v. 11. Other great Sinners are cast out of the Church by the Governours of the same but the Heretick he retires or withdraws himself by his singular and self Judgment contrary to the Judgment and Sentiment of the Catholick Church If you ask me what gives a man so much security in addressing himself to the Church as we are advised by S. Iohn c. 4. v. 6 Answer 'T is that she shews her self by her marks to be the Oracle of God to Men and as it were his mouth by which he speaks sensibly to Men. 1 Thes 2.12 Her marks are these 1. Her perpetual visibility Math. 5. v. 14. 2. Her antiquity Ierem. 6. v. 16. 3. Her easie way to Heaven for the Ignorant as well as the Learned by following only Her Direction Isa 35.8 4. Her having converted all Nations which now acknowledge Christ from Paganism to the Christian Religion Isa c. 2. v. 2. and chap. 60. v. 1. 5. 11. 5. Her working of Miracles Mark 16. v. 17. Note 't is not necessary that every one to believe see Her Miracles 't is enough they be very credibly related to them Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed Io. 20. v. 29. and Mark 16. v. 14. Our Saviour blamed his Disciples for their not believing the relation of Mary Magdalen and others of his Resurrection 6. Her unity and having an efficacious means to conserve unity among Her Children by their submission to Her in matter of Faith and by Her Authority given Her by God to condemn all Hereticks Isa 54. v. 17. 7. Her being Holy in Her Doctrine which breads People up to Saintity 1 Petr. 2. v. 9. And who by their lives shew the force of the Grace of the Passion of Christ as is seen in many of our Religious Persons Ephes 5. v. 25. and 26. 8. Her being Catholick or universal spreading through all times and sending of Her Children to all places to Convert Souls Math. 28. v. 19. Note the Roman Church would not justly be called Catholick if she had not had in all ages from Christ to this present time a Body of Men believing all the same Articles of Faith which she believes now For if they had only believed some of Her Articles they had not been the same Church with Her And by this mark all other Congregations pretending to the name of Catholick are excluded from it 9. Her having a Succession of infallible Pastors lawfully descending from S. Peter to this present Pope Innocent the 11. Ephes 4. v. 11.12.13 10. Her having a true and proper Sacrifice foretold Malach. 1. v. 11. All which marks taken together you will find in no Church but the Roman and therefore she is the Church God will have us hear Math. 18. v. 17. For brevities sake I send you to other Controvertists for a larger explication of those marks I am of opinion that this sole Argument which proves that the Protestants cannot be infallibly sure that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion not to speak of what I have said beside to the same purpose in this 6. Subsection being well weighed in all its parts and set together in the consideration of a serious well meaning Man free from Passion and Interest may make in his understanding to use Mr. Rodon's expression the Funeral of the whole Protestant Religion SECTION II. The Solution of Objections Mr. Rodon's Objections against the Sacrifice of the Mass answered TO his first Argument saying that Christ in the institution of the Eucharist did not Sacrifice nor offer his Body and Blood to his Father and that in the three Evangelists and St. Paul there is not the least Foot-step to be seen of a Sacrifice or Oblation of Christ's Body and Blood Answer Christ was a Preist and in acknoledgment of his Father's Supream Dominion over Life and Death he put his Body under one Form viz. of Bread and his Blood under an other separate Form viz. of Wine upon the Altar having by Consecration destroyed the Substance of Bread and Wine and so offered them to his Father for them and others or the Remission of Sins if we may believe him saying to his Disciples Luke 22. This is my Body which is given Greek didomenon for you Which is broken kloomenon for you viz. quoad speciem Sacramenti This is my Blood which IS poured out Ekkunomenon for you Neither for you only but for many was not this an unbloody Sacrifice Is not there a Foot-step of a Sacrrifice Hebr. 13. where St. Paul speaks of an Altar which is a correlative of a Sacrifice He Objects that Bellar lib. 1. of the Masse chap. 27 confesses that the Oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament Bellar. hath Sacrifice but is not of its essence Answer And so do I too but telling you withall that the oblation which is made in the Consecration is of the essence of the Sacrifice Deo offertur viz. Christus sayes Bellar. That sacred thing viz. the Holy Host is offered to God when it is put on the Altar of God and this one suffices for that part of the essence lib. 1. de Missa c. 27. towards the end For Salmeron and Baronius his putting the Sacrifice of the Eucharist among unwritten traditions Answer They do not deny it to be written also Some things the Apostles have delivered to us by writ word and practise as the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Baptism adultorum of adults that is of those who are come to a full age others only by word and practise as the Baptism of Infants The belief of three persons in the H. Trinity is it only an unwritten tradition If so and you believe it why may not you as well believe the unwritten tradition
of the Sacrifice of the Mass If you say 't is also written I answer And so is the Sacrifice of the Mass in clearer terms for which I attest your own Conscience A strange thing says Mr. Rodon that the Mass which is the fundation of the Romish Church for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass Answer that 's false we require moreover they live a good life and if they fall in Sins they confess them c. cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ Answer If an Arian should say to him It 's a strange thing that the God-head of Christ who is the fundation of the Church cannot be found in all the Scriptures Mr. Rodon would answer you are deceived it is found there but your pride in wedding your self to your own judgement hinders you to see it So say I to him the sacrifice of the Mass is found in scripture to have been instituted and practised by Christ himself and his Apostles Luc. 22. This is my Body which is given for you That is offered to my eternal Father for you and commanded by Christ to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me which they did Act. 13. As they ministred to the Lord the Greek word leitourgountoon is turned by Erasmus himself Sacrificing Remark the Apostles ministred to our Lord when they Sacrificed and ministred to the People when they gave them the Sacrament And Heb. 13. v. 10. St. Paul sayes We have an Altar whereof they have no right to Eat who serve the Tabernacle Now an Altar relates to a Sacrifice as I said so since Christians had Altars in S. Pauls time they had also a Sacrifice no other but that of the Eucahrist then the oblation of it to the eternal Father is a true Sacrifice since a Sacrifice is a visible offering of a sensible thing to God by a Preist And to eat relates to the Fucharist not to the Sacrifice of the Cross All had right if they pleased to eate that is to believe and participate of Christ's death but Christians only have right to eat of the Altar of the Eucharist not the Jews Thus you see the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be found in scripture though Mr. Rodon merited for his vanishing away in his own thoughts refusing to submit them to the Church to have his heart obseured Rom. 1. v. 21. and to have this Mysterie which is revealed only to litle ones or the Humble hide from him Math. 11. v 25. From the Testimony of the H. Scripture the Council of Trent hath declared to all Christians that it is an arrticle of our faith Sess 22. de sacrif Miss can 1. 2. 3. We have also the unanimous consent of all the Holy Fathers Is then that to be called only an unwritten tradition which a General Council and all the Holy Fatthers and Scripture it self attests Object 1. St. Paul Eph. 4. mentioning the offices which Christ left his Church makes no mention of Sacrificers Answer When St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 11. sayes that Christ made some Apostles he mentioned Sacrificers sufficiently because to Sacrifice is one of the frunctions of an Apostle Neither doth he mention Baptisers in that place it being sufficiently understood by his making some Pastors of whom one duty is to Baptize Neither had the same Apostle writting to Timothee and Titus about the duty of a Bishop need to instruct them to Sacrifice since they had been newly instructed as to that when he made them Bishops and were now in a daily exercise of that function Moreover Non valet consequentia ab authoritate negata no good tonsequence is drawn from a negative or denyed authoritie Obj. 2. The thing Sacrificed must fall under our senses Answer I grant it and tell him That the thing Sacrificed is the Sacrament or Christ's Body with the Species of Bread and not Christ's Body alone Which Sacrament is not hid but is visible by its Species though a part of it viz. Christ's Body be not seen just as the Substance of Bread visible by its species is not seen Note then that though the Body of Christ is not cognizable afore the Consecration by this visible Species of Bread yet the Consecration being made the Sacrament is cognizable to the Faithful by it because this Species belongs now as much to the Sacrament being a part of it as afore it belonged and was a part of the visible Bread Hence it is clear that the destruction or change of the Species suffices for the verifying of this proposition The thing Sacrificed is changed or destroyed For if it were necessary to have the whole thing destroyed the Material part as well as the formal part of a thing there had never been a true Sacrifice Which to say is absurd It suffices that the whole or the totum which was before cease to be by the change which the Preist makes of it You 'l say the Council of Trent sayes the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same Answer As to the substance of the Victime I grant As to the manner of Sacrificing or Sacrification I deny The action by which Christ was offer'd on the Cross differs effentially from the action by which he is offer'd in the Sacrament since that was a real distruction of the union between the Body and the Soul this but a Sacramental one but a Sacrifice if you regard the thing signifying consists chiefly in the Immolating action Sacrificium exparte rei significantis ex actione immolativa maximè constat Then if this Immolating action be of a different kind in the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Altar the Sacrifices also will be of a different kind as to the sacrificing action though the same as to the thing offered and the last terme signifyed which is God as author of Life and Death Note in the adductive or productive action of Christ's Body and Blood is pointed out that two fold dominion of God of Death by the distruction of the Bread and Wine Of Life by the production of the Body and Blood of Christ Note 2. Though bloody or unbloody are accidents to the Body of Christ they are not accidents to a Bloody or Unbloody Sacrifice as altho Colour be an accident to the Wall 't is not an accident to a coloured Wall so that if you destroy colour in it you destroy the Essence of that whole which was before viz. a coloured Wall Hence it follows first that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of an Accident but of a whole Sacramental being rising out of Christ's Body and the Species of Bread and that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrifice is the same with that which was produced or made by the Consecration viz. the Sacrament of the Body of Christ under the species of Bread Secondly it does not follow that the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offer'd in the
to his Inheritors he promised Remission of Sins to his Apostles and many or to the Jews in the word vobis and to the Gentils in the word multis so called because they were truly many in respect of the litle number of the Jews and left them his Body and Blood to be offered for that end Thirdly he ordered some thing to be done by his Inheritors viz. That they should love one another As God in the Old Testament proposed by Moyses the Commands of the Law Fourthly He did it afore witnesses viz. the Representative Church or all the Apostle who knew he was making his Testament Fifthly Here he was in a living condition at the signing of his Testament not so at the Cross Hence avow that at our Lords Supper the New Testament was made and the figure of the Old fulfilled Quaeres Did he speak plain when he said Drink ye all of this Cup Answer Grant he did not that was not of the essence of the Sacrament Next a figurative speach so commonly used that it would be odd to understand it otherwise then in the sense of the speaker is aequivalent to a proper speach CUP hath two significations by the institution of men Taken alone it signifies a certain Vessel joyned to DRINK it signifies the thing contained Note Altho we say he spoke without figure in instituting this Sacrament as it is set down by St. Matthew who alone of all the Evangelists that relate to us the institution was present We do not say that he spoke always so Obj. The Apostles asked Christ the meaning of Parables why did not they ask the meaning of these words which carried such strange consequences as one Body to be in diverse places at once c. Answer He had cleared them sufficiently by what he said in the 6. Chap. of St. Iohn so that St. Iohn having spoken of it there does not so much as mention it afore his Passion nor any Disciple seemed to wonder hearing the words of the Institution altho many of the Disciples afore Io. 6. v. 61. had said This speach is hard and who can hear it They were wiser after they had heard what he said Io. 6. than to say with the Capharnaites How can he give us his Flesh to Eat Or with the Protestants How can he be at once in two places SECTION II. For the Real Presence Our second Proof WE say the Type ought not to be more excellent than the thing Typified since S. Paul Collos 2. v. 17. compares the Type to a shadow and the thing typified to a Body but if the Eurharist be a meer piece of Bread the Paschal Lamb being the Type of it the Type will be more excellent than the thing Typified then the Eucharist is not a piece of Bread Mr. Rodon To avoid this Argument sayes That the thing Typified by the Paschal Lamb is not the Eucharist but Christ as St. Paul shews clearly says he 1 Cor. 5. saying Christ our Passover was crucified for us Answer 1. Should I rely upon Mr. Rodon's sentiment against the Judgment of the Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. in Marcionem Cyprian lib. de unitate Eccles Hierom. in cap. 26. Math. Chrysos Homil. de Prodit Iudae August lib. 2. contra Literas Petiliani cap. 37. saying Aliud est sayes he there Pascha quod Iudaei de Ove celebrant aliud quod nos in Corpore Sanguine Domini accipimus I bring only the Passage of St. Aug. a Father of great Authority with Protestants for brevities sake The Passover that the Iews celebrated in a Lamb was different from that we take in the Body and Blood of our Lord. Here he calles the Body and Blood of our Lord the Passover And this Sentiment of his and the other Fathers hath its great ground out of the Ghospel Math. 26. and Luc. 22. Because our Lord for no other cause instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist after he had eaten the Paschal Lamb according to the Iudaick rite and Ceremony but that he might signifie as S. Leo serm 7. de Pas remarks That the Old observation or Figure was fulfilled and taken away by the New Testament When the Legal Festivity is changed sayes he 't is fulfilled Answer 2. The Paschal Lamb may be considered First as killed only and so it is a figure of Christ's Death Secondly as 1. Immolated 2. And eaten 3. The 14 day 4. In the evening 5. Within the House and so it s a Figure not of Christ's Death but of the Eucharist or his Body Sacrificed or given for us Luhe 22. And eaten the 14. day in the evening for he died the 15. day being the Full Moon and eaten only by those who are within the Church or the House of God Exod. 12. v. 46. Whereas the Passion of Christ extends to all men to those who are within and to those who are out of the Church that they may come in See S. Cypr. lib. de unit Eccles Note St. Paul does not say 1 Cor. 5. v. 7. Our Passover Christ was Crucified but Immolated Greek Ethutee that is Sacrificed He adds v. 9. Let us keep the Feast c. with the unleavened Bread of sincerity and Truth This relates to eating indeed we keep the solemn Feast of our Passover by eating the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was first instituted and made for us at our Lords Supper Object 1. The Types of the Old Testament were instituted that the Faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things Typisied and signified in the New but those of the Old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal Lamb then the Paschal Lamb was not a Type of it Answer They were not instituted only for that reason but also that we in the New Law might understand that we are one and the same Church with them they having had at least in Figure and consequently an obscure knowledge of what we have in reality And so the Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist altho the Iews came not by it to a knowledge of the Eucharist Ob. 2. The Passover was a Type and the Eucharist is also a Type of Christ Therefore if the Passover had been a Type of the Eucharist it had been a Type of a Type and not of a thing Typified Answer A bare Type may be the Type of that which is not a bare Type So the Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which in one respect is the thing Typified and in an other the Type The thing Typified in respect of the Paschal Lamb and a Type in respect of Christ's Death which it represents So also the Paschal Lamb was in one respect a true Sacrifice and in an other it was the Type of the Sacrifice of Christ made in the Eucharist and on the Cross The nullity of Mr. Rodon's answer to St. Rigau's Proof which he looks upon as our third Proof may be seen in my Chapter 4. Sect. 1.