else 2. To shew that Christ was a Preist for ever according to that order viz. by his Sacrificing under the formes of Bread and wine till the end of the world how can he say that 't is a manifest falsification to me its a manifest falsification in him when he sayes in the same Num. that the greek septuagint translate it as Protestants do and he was a Preist for the London Edition of the Septuagint 1653. by Roger Daniel has eën de hiereus but or for he was a Preist not and he was a Preistj for the particle de signifies not only but but also gar that is for in good English as Henricus Stephanus tell us in his Greek Dictionary when he comes to that particle to tell the truth I have not by me the old Latin interpreter to see his expression and therefore I will not contradict Mr. Rodon in that If you say Christ is a Preist for ever because he remaines for ever I Answer That remaining for ever makes him capable to do the function of a Preist for ever be being a Preist but that alone does not make him a Preist for ever no more then it makes an Angel who will remain for ever a Preist for ever Neither can you say that he is a Preist for ever because the vertue of his Sacrifice on the Cross remaines for ever For the vertue of the Sacrifice of Noë which obtained that no more deluge should come upon the Earth for ever Genes 8. so remaines or dures for ever yet I hope you will not say that Noë is a Preist for ever Would you say at the death of a man whom the King makes Lord Chief Justice and deprives him of his office at the years end he living yet 19. years after he was Lord Cheif Justice 20. years No because he did the function of a Cheif Justice only one year No more could we say that Christ is a Preist for ever if he did not do the function of a Preist for ever And the function of a Preist according to St. Paul Hebr. 8. v. 3. is to offer every High Preist is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man viz. Christ have some what also to offer He speak's not here of intercession as if it were the proper partial function of a Preist by reason of which Mr. Rodon would have Christ called a Preist for ever If you say with Calvin lib. 4. Inst cap. 18. he offers himself in Heaven I ask is that oblation made in Heaven a proper Sacrifice If so then the Christian Religion is no more upon Earth but translated to Heaven because The Preist-hood being translated there is made of necessity says St. Paul Hebr. 7. v. 11. A translation also of the Law Note 8. Christ is not called a Preist for ever because he intercedes for ever for to intercede is common to a Preist and other men but because he Sacrifices for ever That is to the end of the World the Sacrifice of the Eucharist of which he is the chief offerer Note 9. Altho it was not necessary we should know how Melchisedeth executed his Kingly Office yet is was necessary we should know how he exercised his Preist-hood because he is not mentioned to have had aspecial Kingship but he is mentioned to have had a special Preist-hood And because no mention is made in the Scriptures of the end of his Preisthood more than of the end of his Life he is called in them a Preist for ever and in that a figure of Christ's Preisthood for ever but not that he was truely a Preist for ever as Christ So he is said to have been without a Father or Mother not that truely he was so but only without Parents mentioned in the Scripture Mr. Rodon in his last answer num 28. sayes its false that the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloody Sacrifices of Beasts and Melchisedech offered an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine Also he sayes its false that the likeness of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS doth consist in this viz. That as Melchisedech did Sacrifice Bread and Wine so JESUS did Sacrifice his Body and Blood under the Species of Bread and Wine And that these are human inventions neither founded on Scripture or Reason Answer They are not human inventions since they are grounded on Scripture as the Church and Fathers interpret it against whose Authority if Mr. Rodon thinks his bare assertion is of sufficient force I may say in French Mr. Rodon radote or deviats from the right tract As to that he sayes That the Apostle writing to the Hebrews places the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing then in that we alleadge this I deny and grant that he places the difference of the Person of Melchisedech from that of Aaron and some likeness of the Person of Melchisedech with that of CHRIST in quite an other thing but not the difference of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech from that of Aaron or the likeness of the Preist hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS in other things than those which are asserted by the Roman Church St. Paul is here silent of both as to their formal difference or likness for a reason which I shall bring by and by By this that Melchisedech receives tithes from Abraham and blesses him he is declared by the Apostle to be a greater Person then Abraham but by this is not signified the difference of his Preist-hood from that of Aaron and others who were yet in the Loines of Abraham by that also that he was a King and a King of Peace the greater likeness of his Person than that of Aarons to CHRIST is intimated but not the likeness of his Preist-hood If you ask me why the Apostle does not here assign formally and openly the difference between the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and that of Aaron And the resemblance of Melchisedech's with that of Christ in the Eucharist My answer is that the controversie between the incredulous Jews and St. Paul was not about that difference or resemblance and besides by reason of their incredulity weakness they were not capable of understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist but whither or no all the Sacrifices of Aaron and his order were sufficient for the general redemption and satisfaction for the Sins of all mankind and he answers no and sayes that they had need of a greater Sacrifice viz. that of the Cross and a greater Person to be Preist figured by Melchisedech who was eminently above Abraham and all the Order of Aaron and who was to be a Preist for ever viz. by the proper act of Preist-hood that is was to Sacrifice till the end of the World which is not done by a perpetual intercession unless it be joined to
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
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