he spok the words CHAP. II. Concerning the exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath everlasting life My flesh is meat indeed c. MOunsieur de Rodon did promise in his precedent Chapter to prove in this that Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by faith which he sayes is the mouth of the soul and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body his first argument is this Rodon 1. When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he oâ—…th and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by faith that is by beleiving in Iesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which Iohn he that cometh to me shall never hunger he that believes in me shal never thirst and he that beleveth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by faith or by beleving that we eat and drink Iesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his blood is spiritual and not corporal Answ. To this argument I answer granting the major and distinguishing the Minor thus but it is by faith as by a condition requisite that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ I confess but it is by faith as by the proper and formal cause of satisfying our hunger and quenching our thirst after him or as faith is the spiritual mouth of the soul to convey Christ into her I deny the minor and both the consequences following Therefore I say although not only faith but also hope and charity be requisite conditions wiihout which no body can have the spiritual refreshment this divine food gives unto the soul and which the soul so much hungers and thirsts after yet neither faith hope nor charity jointly or severally are the cheif cause of this refreshment and spiritual satisfaction but the real entity of Christs body which is in the consecrated host being received corporally by us while we are in the state of grace is that which chiefly and principally causeth this spiritual refreshment in us it is that glorified body that satisfies our spiritual hunger and quenches our spiritual thirst and faith is only one of the requisite conditions that Christs body should feed us spiritually just as the application of fire to wood is a condition requisite that fire should burn the wood but none can say that the application the condition requisite is that which burns the wood but the fire is the whole cause of burning Even so we say of Christs body in the Sacrament that it is the chief and whole cause of the spiritual refreshment of the soul and the thing which she chiefly hungers and thirsts after and faith is but a condition requisite when his body is taken corporally by us that it should refresh us spiritually To the passage he alledgeth out of S. Iohn I answer that his words must not be understood that he that cometh to me by faith alone shall never hunger and he that only beleiveth in me shall never thirst for many may believe in Christ and yet be actually in mortal sin and yet certain it is that mortal sin causeth a divorce betwixt Christ and the soul or dare Mr. de Rodon say that if he or any of his party should chance to be drunk to swear or to envy another man that by such an action he forfeiteth his belief if so then he presently becomes an heretick for heresy is nothing else but forfeiture of belief in a Christian. Therefore the said passage must be understood thus he that cometh to me by vertue of this or any other of my Sacraments or by true contrition and believeth in me taking faith as a condition requisite not as the cause of coming unto him such a soul if she leaves him not by falling into sin again through her own fault shall never hunger nor thirst spiritually but be for ever refresht by vertue of his body and bloud with increase of charity and all other vertues Neither is it to be doubted but Christs body when worthily received by the mouth of the body doth work spiritually upon the soul which I prove thus because where Christs glorified body is really present there is his divinity humanity and person also by concomitance and where his person is there the persons of the father and of the holy Ghost are by circumincession as Diviâ—…s â—…all it but where the divinity personally iâ—…abits it replenishes and satiats that soul and body with spiritual food and joy Therefore whosoever takes the body of Christ worthily and puts no obstacle to its spiritual operations he is satiated spiritually with the the same body by reason of the concomitance of the divinity and soul of Christ that alwayes accompany his glorified body as also by reason of the circumincession of all the three persons of the most blessed Trinity inhabiting the soul. But now let us come to his second argument which is this Rodon 2. Iesus Christ saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the son of man drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by faith that gives life everlasting and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body Because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life Answ. To this Argument I answer denying Mr. de Rodon's supposition viz. that the soul eateth spiritually by faith for faith being no mouth of the soul in any sense as I proved before and nothing being able to eat properly or improperly without a proper or improper mouth it follows that the soul cannot eat by the mouth of faith Besides the Angels do eat of this celestiall food not with the mouth of faith for there is no faith in heaven but a clear vision Therefore the thing that seeds the soul spiritually is the real substance of Christs body received by the corporal mouth of him that is in the state of Grace while he receives the Sacrament which real substance of Christs body works spiritually upon the soul by reason of the concomitance of Christs divinity and soul and of the circumincession of the other two divine persons with Christs person there really present with the substance of his body however I confess faith and the other Theological vertues are conditions requisite for one to be sed spiritually and I confess also that a reprobate can take the real body of Christ by his corporal mouth without any spiritual nourishment or satisfaction but the fault is in him not in the Sacrament which alwaies operateth spiritually in such souls as are well disposed by faith and the other Theological vertues to receive it
then to death the one having a positive being and the other consisting in a privation only But let us hear the Mounsier speak Rodon 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine we must consider wherein the life which Iesus Christ gives us doth consist for seeing the flesh of Iesus Christ is meat to us because it gives us life it is evident that if we know what life that is which Iesus Christ gives us we must know likewise hâ—…w Iesus Christ is meat to us and consequently how we eat him But to know what that life is which Iesus Christ gives us we must consider what that death is in which we are involved which is expressed by S. Paul Eph. 2. in these words When we were dead in sins and trespasses God hath quickned us together with Christ by grace ye are saved and consequently the death in which we were involved consists in two things first in the curse of the Law which imports the privation of felicity and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins secondly it consists in an habitual corruption whereby sin raigns in us and therefore it is said 1. Tim. 5. The widdow that lives in pleasure is dead while she liveth Also sins are called dead works Heb. 10. So that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in two things first in deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins as S. Paul tells us Colos. 2. God hath quickned you together with Chriâ—… having forgiven you all trespasses blotting out the 〈◊〉 that was against us which obligation â—…receded from the Law because it did oblige all thâ—… transgressors of it to a curse secondly it consists in regeneration or sanctification whereof Iâ—…sus Christ speaking in John 3. saith Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdome of God And S. Paul Heb. 12. without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Therefore seing that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in the pardon of our sins and in our regeneration and sanctification which ends in glorification and that Iesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life we must consider the me nâ—… whereby Iesus Christ hath purchased these things for us and seing it is certain that his death is the means by which he hath purchased Pardon of sins and regeneration we must conclude that Iesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death But that Iesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us that is Iustification which consists in the pardon of our sins and regeneration which consists in holiness of life appears by these passages of Scripture viz. We are justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God by his death Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud even the remission of sins c. Therefore seing Iesus Christ hath purchased life for us by death and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink because they purchased life everlasting for us on the Cross viz. the remission of our sins and sanctification ending in glorification it follows that the action whereby Iesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But this action is nothing else but faith as the Scripture tells us Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. God purifiâ—…s our hartâ—… by faith Act. 15 he that beleiveth hath eternal life Iohn 6. from what hath been said I form this Argument That action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in Glorification is the same whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification as we have proved But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is that action where by we obtain remission of sins and sanctification as we have also proved therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased us by his death and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth And consequently seing in S. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is evident that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of and not a corporal Answ. Now after clearly understanding Mr. de Rodons long sermon-like doctrine we confess the flesh of Christ is meat to us because it gives us spiritual life we confess also that the life it gives us consists in the forgiveness of our sins and in our sanctification which ends in Glorification Thirdly we confess that the death wherein we were involved consists in the privation of eternal felicity and in the suffering of eternal and temporal punishment for our sins in a word we grant our souls are quickned from the death of sin and all its effects and that she liveth spiritually by the merits of our Saviours death and passion and lastly we grant also that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applyed unto us for righteousness and sanctification ending in Glorification is the sâ—…me by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But that this action is nothing else but faith as Mr. de Rodon inferrs we â—…atly deny and maintain that besides the act of believing there must be also an act of corporal eating Therefore to his proofs out of Scripture we answer that the three forementioned passages speak not of faith alone nor of faith as the cause of our sanctification but of faith as a condition requisite to it as I have formerly proved And being action proceeds from a suppositum as Schoolmen call it or cause and is attributed to it and not to a bare condition as 't is to be evidently seen in the example of fire which is the cause of burning wood not the application which is only a condition requisit where the action of burning is attributed to fire the cause not to application the bare condition Even so is it in this case The Sacrament is the cause of our sanctification and to receive it with faith as a remembrance of Christs death and Passion is only a condition requisit for receiving it spiritually and with profit to our souls By this solution Mr. de Rodon's concluding argument upon the premises above-granted and passages of Scripture clearly expounded vanisheth into smoak his argument is this That action whereby â—…e obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in glorification is the same wâ—…ereby we have that life which Jesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life chiefly consists in the remission of sins and sanctification that I confess But quoth he the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by
Consecration ought to be understood according to their immediate sense p. 17. The B. Sacrament is the New Testament in Christs Blood not only of his Blood p. 22. These words This is my Body signifie a substantial being and not a Sacramental only p. 23. The Protestant Communion exhibits not Christs Body Blood to the Believers p. 27. The Sacramental Species receiveâ—… worthily makes the receiver a Mystical Member of Christ. p. 30. Faith alone insufficient for this Sacrament Ib. Faith is no mouth literally or metaphoâ—…ically p. 31. Christs glorified Body never damnified by the receiver of the B. Sacramenâ—… p. 32. To verifie a proposition it sufficeth the thing be as the proposition says it is p. 35. Iâ—… is the Sacrament that is the chief and whole cause of our spiritual refreshment and the thing which the Soul principally hungers and thirsts after Faith is only a conâ—…ition requisite so is Hope and Charity also for to receive worthily p. 38. Christs Body worthily received works spiritually upon the Soul p. 40. These words of St. Aug. To eat the â—…lesh of Christ is a Figure c. which De Rodon alledges against us expounded p. 43. Cardinal Cajetans Authority alledged against us expounded p. 45. The action whereby we obtain remission of sins anâ—… sanctification ending in gloâ—…ification consists not in the spiritual eating or drinking by Faith only p. 5â—… In these words My Flesh is meaâ—… indeed no Figure falls upon the word Meat p. 55. Christs Flesh is a corporal food that nourishes spiritually only p. 57. Objects of Divine Faith not to he levelled by our reason and sense p. 59. Christ comeâ—… into the Sacrament by an adductive power p. 66. He is not produced there entitatively but modally only p. Ibid. Certain passages of Scripture alledged aâ—…ainst us by De Rodon viz. That there is â—…reaking givinâ—… eaâ—…ing and drinking after Consecraâ—…ion answered p. 68. When Christ said Drink ye all this Mat. 26. he meant his Blood p. 71. Why the eâ—…ects of the Sacramental Species â—…emain after Transubstantiation p. 73. Transubstantiation is a total substantial conversion and not a formal substantial conversion only p. 75. The Sacâ—…amental Species are something Subâ—…ect liâ—…e p. 77. Transubstantiation destroys not the nature of Acciâ—…ents p. 79. Transubstantiation destroys not the Nature oâ—… Sacâ—…aments p. 84. Corporal nourishment in the Sacramental Sâ—…ecies nâ—…t requisite p. 85. The Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be adored with a Latria p. 88. If our adversaries give not a Latriacal adoration to their Communion Bread it may be lawfully given to Dogs p. 89. If they adore their Communion they are greater Idolaters than we p. 91. Christ gave power to Priests to Consecrate p. 97. Christs Body is in the Sacrament immediately by reason of its substance p. 99. It s quantity is also there though not with its quantitative dimensions p. 100. The definition of a proper place and how many manner of ways both Christian Divines and Philosophers hold a thing may be in a place p. 103. A glorious Body may be in its equivocal place p. 109. The Iacobins and the Jesuits opinion concerning Christs Body to be brought or produced in the Sacrament saved p. 112. Christs Body is in all things subject to his Soul as his Soul is subject to his Divinity p. 117. Why the local extension of Christs Body in the Sacrament is hindred p. 119. De Rodons Argument of to move and not to move at the same time c. answered p. 121. Wherein a formal contradiction consists p. 123 De Rodons ridiculous quibbles and Unphilosophical illations answered p. 129. Distance is only betwixt corporal things whilst they are in their univocal places p. 130 A Sacramental place is properly no place at all p. 133. De Rodons Dropsical Argument of a drop of water that drowned many thousands c. mouldred p. 136. Division is only between corporal things in their proper places p. 138. God and Nature are not obliged to do what they can do p. 140. De Rodon shoots at Christ through Diana's side p. 143. Christ is seen in the Sacrament by the Spiritual Eye of our understanding supported by the light of Faith p. 146. It is not convenient we should see Christ visibly with our Corporal Eyes in the Blessed Sacrament p. 148. Substances possess no place p. 151. Christs Body in the Sacrament whether taken substantially or quantitatively has no posture or scituation in it p. 154. His Body appears not more or less for dividing or sub-dividing the Host p. 156. Christ is as glorious and happy in the Host as he is in Heaven p. 161. What these terms Reduplicatively and specificatively what sensus compositus and divisus mean p. Ibid. As Christ comes into the Host without local 〈◊〉 so he leaves it without local â—…e 〈◊〉 p. 165. De Rodon gives the Apostle the lie p. 167. Christ Diana and the Apostle saved from De Rodons keen Arrow p. 168. De Rodon jumps with the Iews against Christ p. 170. His Thunderbolt or Coelestial Arrow shivered p. 172. According to De Rodons Principles there ought to be no Sacrament of our Lords Supper at all p. 174. Clâ—…ud de Xaintes defended against De Rodon p. Ibid. Exorcismes p. 176. De Rodons miraculous Arrow put by p. 179. Christ really in Heaven and really in the Blessed Sacrament at the same time p. 182. He is not in the Sacrament impanated p. Ibid. He gave himself to Iudas also p. 18â—… Bellormine and Peron defendeâ—… p. 186. The Sacraments of the old Testament had a relation to those of the new p. 187. The Moâ—…sieurs Scripturistical Arrows shatâ—…ered p. 190. The marks of the Roman Church p. 193. The Seven Sacraments expounded p. 195. Why we keep the Eucharist in our Pixes and 〈◊〉 p. 197. Monsieur and his Party the false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of p. Illid God many manner of ways in his Creatures p. 202. External Adoration due to Christ where he is known to be personally present p. 203. Hereticks uncivil both to God and Man p. 206. According to De Rodons Principles we may adore the Devil instead of Christ p. 209. VVhy External adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament more than in the VVater of Baptism p. 210. Heaven and Hell destroyed by the Monsieurs Principles p. 211. The Monsieurs third Foundation built upon Quick-sands p. 215. De Rodons very considerable Argument pernicious to all mankind p. 218. Destructive to Goâ—…s Providence p. 222. A moral certitude of being Christned sufficient p. 223. Pope Adrian defended against De Rodon p. 226. Apostate Priests and Monks in credit and spiritual jurisdiction with De Rodon and his Party p. 228. The Pâ—…imitive Church adored the Host p. 233. Proved by the Testimonies of sundry Holy Fathers p. Ibid. Our Diana or Mass holds it out from all Ages maugre De Rodon and all Hereticks p. 237. Diana vindicated against Idolatry p. 238. The Church makes no new Articles of
To this argument I answer confessing the major viz. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world c. and denying the minor viz. But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my body had meant the real presence c. he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the world And to the probation of his minor viz. There was never any author either facred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my body to signifie c. that I grant and deny the consequence viz. therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ this is my body to signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before And the reason is this because of the disparity that is betwixt Christs words and the words of all authors sacred and prophane for Christs words as uttered by him have a creative productive and effective vertue and force It was with his word he changed water into wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee It was with his wotd he cured and cleansed the Leprous man in the Gospel It is with his word he wrought all his stupendious wonders and Miracles and if Mr de Rodon believes he is God he ought to believe that it was with his word he created heaven and earth or dare the Monsieur say that when God spoke these words fiat caelum fiat terra be the heavens made be the earth made that heaven and earth were in being before God uttered his creative word or thinks he that Christ had no hand in that creation if he doth then I dare say and can assure him he has no more belief then a meer heathen But as for the words of a meer man whether he be an author sacred or prophane sure it is that they are not of a creative productive or effective vertue and force as Christs are and so it is no wonder if according to the common usage of all mens meaning their authors words do presuppose that the things whereof they treat or speak have their being before and not by vertue of their bare significative words But as it is proper to a meer mans word be he never so good an author sacred or prophane not to give a being to the thing he speaks of so it is proper to Chriâ—…s effective word to effect or cause what it signifies and consequently all authors I mean all Christian authors whether sacred or prophane may very well and ought according to the common usage of all faithfull and Christian people understand these words This is my body as spoken by Christ whose words are of a creative productive and effective force and power in a common usual litteral sense as when I or another man should say this is my horse this is my house meaning a real horse and a real house and not the sign or figure of a horse or of a house But if the Mounsieur will not understand words in the same sense as all other Christians do and ought to do and will give no more vertue and power to Christs creative word then Jews Turks and heathens do I see no reason why he and all those that take his part ought to be eâ—…med as to matters of belief better then any of these But let us suppose with the greatest part of all Christians that ever were and now are that Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body that it implyes no contradiction and that at the institution of this Sacrament he intended really so to do I ask Mr. de Rodon how Christ could have exprest his real meaning unto us with clearer words and more to the common usage of all Authors and men then by saying This is my body When a man sayes this is my hand this is my cloke doth he speak contrary to the common usage of all authors aâ—…d men or do they understand by his words the figure or signe of his hand and cloke only when he intends they are his reall hand and cloke Even so supposing Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body really and that when he instituted the Sacrament he meant really so to do would it be contrary to the common usage of all Authors and men to undâ—…rstand his words in a literal sense or how can a conception be more clearly exprest then by the termes and words which were instituted for its proper and immediate signification Dialecticks and Philosophers instead of carrying the things they treate of to School with them do carry only conceptions and words thither and the words serve only to express their conceptions and the properer the word is the better it eâ—…presseth the concept But in this passage This is my body the words are instituted to signifie properly and immediately aâ—…reall corporal thing and not its signe or figure Therefore according to the Rules of Dialectick a reall body cannot be plainlyer exprest then by saying This is my body Doubtless those that said how can this man give us his flesh to eat understood him literally as we do and if our saviour himself had meant it otherwise could he not easily have answered and satisfied them by saying you are mistaken sirs you understand me not right I mean not that it is my reall substantial body but only the representation or Sacrament of it His answer was not so but this Amen I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you Here also he calls it his flesh and bloud therefore he understood it litterally as we do not figuratively only as M. R. doth To this I add that a figurative expression is obscurer then a litteral one why then did not Christ to avoid obscurity foreknowing that in future times should be grâ—…at alterations and hot debates in his Church concerning Transubstantiation wherefore I say did he not say this is only the figure and sacrament of my body inâ—…tead of saying absolutely This is my body for by saying so he would take away all ambiguity concerning Transubstantiation and his Church would be in perfect union concerning this grand Mystery As to Mr. de Rodons first Instance concerning these words of God the father This is my beloved son I confess Christ was his son before he spok them words But these words were spoken by God the father to let the world know that Christ was his true natural son he intended not then to create him his son or to transubstantiate any creature into his sons substance But if God the father had taken bread in his hand and said this is my son no sacred or prophane author considering his omnipotency ought to doubt but that that bread was his real son because of
the force of his creative word unless they can prove that it is beyond Gods power to transubstantiate one thing into another which no body can demonstrate because it is an â—…asier thing in its self to Transubstantiate then to create What we say of God the fathers word the same we say of Christs because of their equality in power Hence followeth evidently that Mr. de Rodons second Instance viz. This is a Table is to no purpose because of the disparity between Christs word and the words of all Authors sacred and prophane Therefore Mr. de Rodon must give us leave to conclude thus contrary to him viz. that since Jesus Christ exprest his minde by saying This is my body and since his power is so great that he is able to do what he sayes and since his word is verity and truth it followeth evidently that he did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the world and that he did not take the words but in their proper and litteral meaning as all other men do when they say this is my hand this is my cloak he being able to effect what he said which no other Author sacred or prophane are able to do It followeth also that the Romisâ—… doctours need not seek and cannot have a clearer passage out of scriprure to prove the real presence then this This is my body whence also followeth that this conversion and presence have an excellent foundation in holy scripture But let us now examine his grounded reason concerning the common usage of words thus he argues Rodon 2. Things must be before there be any Image Picture or representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images but words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Christ held and gave to his disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said this is my body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words tâ—…is is my body that that which Iesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it followeth that these words This is my body must be expounded thus This bread is my body and these words This bread is my body must be expounded thus This bread is the Sacrament of my body Answ. To this Argument I answer granting the Antecedent with its sequel But that which he inferrs viz. that words are the Images of conceptions I distinguish thus words are the improper Images of conceptions I confess words are the proper Images of conceptions I deny for although words be signes of conceptions yet they are not their proper Images because as Dialecticks commonly say though every Image is a signe yet every signe is not an Image and the reason is because an Image hath alwayes an essential relation or likeness to its prototype which a signe hath not alwayes to the thing it signifies nâ—…y the very signum naturale natural signe it â—…elf hath not that similitude for otheâ—…wise smoak which is a natural signe of fire and the voice of a man which is the natural signe of a man the one would be like fire and the other like a man sure it is and to every mans eye that the kings head set up before a Tavâ—…rn signifies that wine is to be sold there and yet the kings head is no Image of wine because it is not like wine so that an Image and a signe are two different things But suppose a signe is an improper Image because as an Image is like to its Prototype so a signe represents the thing it signifies I distinguish his minor thus but words are the Images of conceptions and consequently must come after the things they signify humane words are signes and must come after c. I confess divine words such as Christs are are signes and must come after c. I deny for humane words are nothing else but meer empty and speculative signes or shadows of the things they signifie but Christs words are practical signes and causes of what they signifie and so they precede and must not come after the thing by them signifyed And so Transubstantiation which was the concept of Christs words when he said This is my body followed and was made by his effective word This solution is grounded on the omnipotent vâ—…e of Christs words which are not only signes but also do cause by creation or production what things he pleaseth and how he pleaseth to conceive they shall be for we never heard as yet of any other way God either creatâ—…d or produced any thing but by hâ—…s bâ—…re word therefore although every creatures word comes after the thing it signieth yet Christs word which is both a practical signe and cause of things must precede what he intends to create produce or change Secondly I answer the said minor that whereas the Romish Doctors hold Transubstantiation to be not only the real presence of Christs body bâ—…t also the signe and Sacrament thereof For they say 't is both Sacramentum res the Sacrament and the thing it self As it is a Sacrament or signe we say it pre-supposeth the thing it represents viz. Christs patible body upon the Cross for although it be still the self same body yet it is not still in the self same manner it is now glorified and it was then patible it was then in its human shape it is now in the Sacrament but veiled under the Sacramental species of bread and wine Neither is there any repugnance or inconvenience that the same thing should signifie or represent its own self when the manner of the thing is changed for example it is neither repugnant or inconvenient that a man upon a theatre should represent and signifie what he did himself when he was in an army or to represent his own youthfull actions in his old age it is not repugnant to any man and yet the self-same man is the representer and represented even so is it in our case concerning Christs glorified body in the Sacrament and the self same when it was patible upon the Cross. And whereas Mr. Rodon saies that it was rather by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it I ask him this question if a bare blessing or thanksgiving can make this Sacrament why were not the loaves and fishes our Saviour multiplied for those that followed him into the wilderness made this Sacrament also for Christ blest them and gave the glory and praise of
your consequences to be but frivolous and strange Therefore to the first part of this third principal reply of yours I answer also that the mediate representation commemoration and application which you found out in a good sense to be in the Sacrament or Mass we are glad you found some good thing in it if it contains any such good thing it hinders not but that an immediate representation commemoration and application according to the holy fathers and Council of Trents meaning may be also found in it which immediate representation commemoration and application because they are of far more efficacy and vertue then the former are they may be very well called a true proper sacrifice propitiatorie for the sins of the living and dead which propitiatory sacrifice Mr. de Rodon hath not as yet refuted nor will be ever able to do having all the holy fathers and practise of Gods Church against him Rodon Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Iesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Iesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his word and Sacraments And this is that Iesus Christ teacheth us S. John 3. in these words as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And S. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applys a pluister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinneâ—… to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but faith As for the distinction of the Sacramental and natural being of Iesus Christ it hath been already refuâ—…ed in the 6. number Answ. This second part of his reply I answer thus that Christ being offered not to us as the Mounsieur says but for us as the holy Evangelist tells us we ought on our parts by a true and lively faith to embrace him with all his benefits offered us by vertue of his passion both in word and Sacraments And since by his word we are to believe that it is his body which is offered for us in the Sacrament we ought to believe it without any staggering or hesitation because he himself said absolutely this is my body And as in S. Iohn the third is said that as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up So must we also believe that he was lifted up bloudily on the Cross and is lifted up dayly unbloudily in the Mass for our sins because our mother the Church commands us so to believe and Christ said he that hears not the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and publican Math. 18. However although belief be a condition requisite that the vertue of Christs Passion and his Sacraments should be applyed unto us yet it is not the principal cause of our sanctification but Christs body offered upon the Cross and in the Sacrament for Christs body offered for us is the principal cause of our salvation and the healing Plaister which is applyed to a sick soul to heaâ—… her spiritual wounds and faith whether it be actuall or habituall cannot alone do the deed and consequently S. Paul in the place alleadged where he says God hath set forth Iesus Christ to be a Propitiation through faith in his bloud must be understood through faith as a condition requisite and not through faith as the Principal cause in his bloud for the principal cause of Propitiation is Christs body and bloud offered for us once bloudily upon the Cross and dayly offered for us in the sacrifice of the Mass so that although the Apostle says not explicitly through the sacrifice of the Mass yet he says it implicitly because Christs bloud is there offered and so there is an end to all Mr. de Rodons replys As to the distinction concerning the natural and sacramental being of Jesus Christ the Prudent Reader may judge whether its refutation be not sufficiently answered by me where I solved all his arguments of the said sixth number Rodon 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the doctors of the Romish dâ—…ctors and called by our adversaries the Angelical doctor This Thomas in part 3. Quest. 8. Art 1. having proposed this question viz. whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concluds wiâ—…e these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fittly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterwards he gives his answer in these words I answer we must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrifice of Christ in two respects first because as Augustin to simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a wall or in a frame we say this is Cicero this is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly the celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe to this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas Answ. Will you indeed Mounsieur this profer I confess is fair but I doubt much whether you and yours will stand to his arbitration as to this point as for my own part I take him to be one of the most eminent doctors of our Church and worthy to be called Angelical both for his excellency in learning especially concerning the B. Sacrament and for his purity of life Therefore I wish you and your party would follow his opinion and choose him umpire betwixt you and us concerning this high question we dispute of for never
these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest instead of putting them without a Parenthesis And he was Priest so that we may say in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it Proferens bringing instead of Protulit brought or drew out Secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos for he was a Priest instead of translating it erat sacerdos and he was a Priest Thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei and he blessed him and so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedeck brought bread and wine and he was a Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedeck bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him Answ. When one tells a notorious and impudent lye indeed and provokes another too much with his lye sometimes he is answered no better then thus The devil take the Lyar. S. Ierom or you must needs be the lyar in this Translation for the Romish doctors do follow S. Ieroms Translation and we know no modern Romish doctors Translators of our Bible we all hold to S. Ieroms Translation which goes by the name of the vulgar Translation among us If he be your adversary then we have one champion of our side worth ten thousand de Rodons and all those of his party But I pray tell me Mr. de Rodon where were you your Bible and your Translators when S. Ierom translated his Bible which we all follow or did any of yours oppose or contradict his Translation for so many hundred years that past betwixt him and Luther Calvin and de Rodon Tell me again I pray whether you and yours translated your Bible by inspiration from God or whether you had your Original from us If you had yours by Gods inspiration then doubtless yours is the true and right one and we must acquiesce to it But how shall we know it or what warrant can you give us for it only your bare word pardon us good sir that suffices us not for we have no reason to believe your bare word against the testimonyes of ten thousand authors better then your self who tell us the contrary But if you had our Bible for your original as you your selves confess you had how can your coppies correct their original but by your adding or diminishing something to it by doing whereof you infallibly purchase to your selves a heavy curse Of. S. Ieroms soul to be in heaven I make no doubt and consequently out of the devils clutches and reach But as for Mr. de Rodon who strikes at S. Ierom through the Romish doctors sides who accuses him of corrupting and falsifiing the text and consequently who presumes to blaspheme against so glorious a saint and eminent doctor of Christs Church I dare not swear but the devil holds him very fast for an arrant Lyar and makes him sit next to himself who is the father of Lyes Therefore I do not think Mr. de Rodon that the Romish doctors or any man of reason and sense will easily leave Saint Ieroms vulgar translation approved of for so many ages by the whole Church to adhere to your simple bare word or to any of your parties whose dictator the devil was that filled both your Bible and brains with falshood and lyes But suppose Mr. de Rodon the right Translation were as you say and that of the words must be made 3 different propositions viz. thus Melchisedeck also brought bread and wine and he was a Priest he blessed him suppose I say the true Text runs so since holy writt makes no mention of any other kind of sacrifice that Melchisedeck ever offered unto God and since he was a Priest and since he blessed Abraham and finally since the holy fathers as I shall hereafter produce agree with us as to the principal and main point of this question viz. that the bread and wine which Melchisedeck brought or offered was a type of the Eucharist there is no reason why the words of the text whether made into three propositions without a Parenthesis as he translates it or made into one proposition with a Parenthesis as S. Ierom or the Romish doctors as he says translated it I say there is no reason why the whole text should not be understood in our meaning and sense for the word brought which he translates for the word bringing may be well understood brought to offer or to sacrifice And these words And he was a Priest which he translates instead of these for he was a priest do signify that Melchisedeck was a priest and we may well think that holy Scripture did not make mention of his Priesthood in this place but in order and reference to some sacrifice as Priest and sacrifice are always correlatives And finally these words and he Blessed him which the Mounsieur translates instead of ours Blessed him may be as well applyed unto Abraham as to God whatever Mr. de Rodon says to the contrary for the Romish doctors do take themselves to be as good grammarians and dialectiâ—…ks too as he is and therefore will not swerve from their Principles nor from the unanimous opinion of the holy fathers concerning the main point of this question for Mr. de Rodons bare word or interpretation unless he proves his conclusion better either by holy Scripture or fathers which it seems he cannot do or if he can wherefore doth he not produce them to make his cause good Rodon 22. Secondly I answer that the hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham and indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle heb 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedeck met Abraham and blessed him and a little after he saith that Melchisedeck blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought him bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedeck blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to noâ—…e but to God Answ. Certainly the Mounsieur would make a better dictionarist then Philosopher or divine for he is mighty
enough to pearce or annoy our Diana in any thing the leaâ—…t so likewise his Translators rayling and sâ—…olding at her can do her no more harm then a doggs barking can do to the Moon therefore he had better follow the good counsel of grave Gamaliel to the Jewes concerning how they should deal with the Apostles whose words be these And now therefore I say unto you depart from these men and let them alâ—…ne for if this counsel or work be of men it will be dissâ—…lved but if it be of God you are not able to dissâ—…lve them lest perhaps you be found to â—…esist God also Act 5. Even so in my poor judgement had the Translator best do to the Masse for with railing and scolding at it he will never be able to hurt it It hath stood from all ages since Christs time untill now and if it be of God it is not the Translator or I that shall be able to put it down alas both he and I shall be dead and rotten while noble Diana will be as brisk merry and fresh as she was the very first day she came into this world However I cannot but exâ—…use the good Translator because of his great zeal if his bitterness towards us proceeded onely from ignorance and not from malice or interestâ—… for S. Paul himself out of his ardent zeal to the Synagogue wherein he was born and bred was once a severe enemy and violent Persecutor of Gods Church But after he was illuminated by Christ and knew better things who ever after was more zealous for her honour and glory then he and yet he himself doth confess that God shewed him his great mercy quia ignorans feci because I did it quoth he ignorantly so I beg God heartily that this small book of mine by his blessing may illuminate the minds of those that are plunged â—…n the Abyss of heresy and Ignorance through the means of Mr de Rodon and such like Phanatick hereticks who by their false interpretations and applications of holy scripture set out and garnished with their sophistical arguments do deceive and mislead many thousands of poor ignorant souls to their utter ruine and everlasting damnation for leaving their true Mother the Church out of which there is no salvation for any And amongst the rest of the illuminated I wish the Translator were one To conclude this Appendix I exhort all the Catholicks of England and I earnestly beg and beseech them for the love of our sweet saviour Jesus Christ and the tender bowells of his infinite mercy towards them to stick closly and cleave constantly to their pretious Diana and for her sake to be always ready and prepared to undergoe all manner of persecutions tribulations and losses rather then forsake her for whatever damage or ill-entreatment they suffer upon her account they may be sure she will requite them a hundred-fold double for it with full interest Our saviour himself did â—…id us Not fear them that kill the body and after this have no more to do but I will shew you quoth he whom ye shall fear fear him who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell Luke 12. for your momentary sufferings in this life for his sake your crown and reward will be everlasting hereafter More then eye can see ear can hear or understanding can comprehend 1. Cor. 2. verity himself doth promise it and his promise he can and will perform Expect him but a little while with patience and in your patience ye shall possess your souls S. Luke 21. It is far better for you to suffer a little and short famine cold want misery imprisonment nay death it self for her sakes then to live plentifully and abundantly here for a moment and for ever after for denying her to be in everlasting famine imprisonment torment misery and want for unless we be Christs fellow sufferers in this life we shall not be his copartners in glory as the Apostle tells Timothy 2. If we shall sustain we shall also reign together In a word I conclude my book with the â—…ame prayer the Translator ends his preface with viz. I earnestly beseech my Lord and God he would make it prosperous and successfull for the good of souls and if any shall receive benefit by it I desire them to give him all the glory and I shall think my self infinitely recompensed for my pains in composing it yet if there be any thing in it that is not orthodox and sound I humbly submit my poor judgment to the censure of our holy mother the Church Errata PAge 13. line ult for it is not repugnant r. is not repugnant p. 37. for Iohn he that r. is mentioned in S. Iohn 6. he that p. 67. l. 19. for the wine was destroyed r. the water was destroyod p. 85. l. 25. for charity sake r. clarity sake p. 87. l. 21. for neither r. either p. 115. l 5. for place r. places p. 118. l. 8. for would r. could p. 130. l. 14. for between corporal things r. but between corporal things p. 168. l. 27. for that charity r. that clarity p. 171. l. 9. for therein r. their p. 175. l. 11. for consure r. censure p. 192. l. 21. for next under the holy writt r. next unto holy writt p. 204. l. 14. for in this glory r. in his glory In the Appendix p. 3. l. 27. for your r. our p. 24. l. 23. r. metal â—…iery p. 25. l. â—… r. corporis cordis FINIS AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS Contained in this Book Chap. I COâ—…cerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body p. 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Exposition of these woâ—…ds He that eateâ—…h my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Everlasting Life My Flesh is Meat indeed p. 36. Chap. III. Against Transubstantiation p. 64. Chap. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or Consecrated Wafer p. 96. Chap. V. Against the Adoration or Worshipping of the Host. p. 199. Chap. VI. Against taking away of the Cup. p. 242. Chap. VII Against the Mass. p 293. Chap. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors p. 345. The Preâ—…ace of Monsieur dâ—… Rodons Translator p. 461. An Answer to the Preface and an Appendix to the Book p. 1. An INDEX of the chief things contained in this Book CHrists word is Creative productive and effective pag. 4 Transubstantiation cannot be plainlier exprest than by these woâ—…ds This is my Body p. 6. Christs words are practical Signs and causes of what they signifie other mens words are but speculative signs only of things signiâ—…fied by them p. 12. An Image hath always an Essential relation to its Prototype p. 11. Transubstantiation both a Sacrament and the thing signified p. 13. It is not repugnant that the same thing should signifie its own self p. Ibid. The Bread and Wine were not made the Body and Blood of Christ by a bare Blessing or Thanksgiving p. 14. The words of