in the secret chambers I answer that the Mounsieur and his party ought to take good heed they are not these Prophets themselves for it is most certain and evident that these words cannot concern us because popery has its being from the very beginning of the Evangelical Law as all Ecclesiastical histories can testifie Therefore if popery and the Mass be convertible terms as our adversaries say they are the Mass must be as ancient as popery is for all convertible terms according to dialecticks are simultanean or together But certain it is that the Evangelist meant by the last days the last days of the Evangelical Law and not of any other Law therefore sinâ—…e it is well known to all the Christian world that Popery and consequently the Mass for they are convertible terms began not in the last days of the Evangelical law but had been standing ever since the beginning of the primative Church it follows I say evidently that these words of the Evangelist concern not at all either Popery or the Mass. Moreover although we hold that some eminent great saints of the Popish Religion had the gift of Prophecy bestowed on them yet all Priests and Papists profess not themselves Prophets neither do they hold their Religion upon any other prophecies but such as are authentical by the old and new Testaments we ground our Religion next under the holy writ upon the antiquity of our Church because Christ himself said that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church and we endeavour to maintain prove out of Church-Annals and by the Testimonies of holy fathers that ours is the only Church or congregation of Christian believers that were seen and known through all ages since Christ spoke these words We ground our Religion also upon the uâ—…iversality of our Church that is that amongst all congregations of people who own Christ to be the son of God there is not one congregation so numerous and ample that has so spread and enlarged it self and Christs Gospel through all Natioâ—…s and Countries from all ages as ours hath from whence followeth that ours is the Catholick Church for Catholick and 〈◊〉 are synonims or the same thinâ—… whâ—…e note that S. Athanasius Creed whiâ—…h Protestants also hold warneth us that above all things it is necessary we hold the Catholick or universal faith the which faith the saâ—…e saint says in the last sentence of the said Creed unless every one doth faithfully and firmly believe questionless he must everlastingly perish But it is impossible there should be two universal or Catholick Churches at once for there is but one faith as the Apostle tells us and when we â—…ay our creed we say not I believe in the Catholick Churches but in the Catholick Church Therefore Mr. de Rodon and his party must either snew that their Congregation is and hath been more numerous and universal then ours is which I am sure they will never be able to perform or else they will be forced to lay down the â—…udgells and flatly deny S. Athanasius his creed which to the world they nevertheless seem to profess Thirdly we ground our Religion upon unity or consent for knowing that there is buâ—… one faith and that without that one faith it is impossible to please God as the Apostle saith Therefore concerning all points of faith viz. concerning Transubstantiation praying to saints praying for the dead relative worshiping of Images Purgatory Indulgences Justification c. we all from the highest to the lowest from the doctor to the peasant agree as to the main point and object of our belief submitting our selves wholy to the definitions of our Church because Christ said that those that hear not the Church ought to be esteemed as heathens and Publicans Lastly we ground our Religion upon the sainctity of our Church which we believe is not only holy by reason of her doctrine laws and pious exercises but also for the seaven sources of grace I mean the seven Sacraments dipt in our Saviours bloud which continually run in her and refreshes spiritually all her children of what age or condition soever for by these Sacraments Christ left to his spouse the Church militant a medium or mean to provide for us all By Baptism both great and little are regenerated and from being conceived and born in sin made members of Christ By confirmation we are strengthened and confirmed in the â—…aith we professed in our Baptism when we are come to the use of understanding and by vertue of that holy unction we are made champions to fight Gods battle against our common enemies the devil the world and our own flesh and bloud as also to endure persecutions and bear crosses couragiously for the love of Christ. By the Sacrament of Pennancâ—… we are cured and absolved from our spiritual wounds Christ promising unto us that he would ratify in heaven what his ministers do upon earth if the penitent puts no obstacle to the ministers sentence By the Eucharist our souls are spiritually fed and nourished By holy orders some of us are empowred and sanctified to administer Sacraments to themselves and to the rest of thâ—… faithfull By Matrimony a provision is left in the Church for the lawful propagation of mankind that one woman having but one man at the same time care should be the better taken for the education of the issue that comes from them to have it brought up in the love and fear of God Lastly by extream unction new vigour and grace is given to the faithful combatant while his body is weak and feeble and his soul fulâ—… of anâ—… and care to fight couragiously against his enemies the devils who then sets upon him more eagerly then ever in hopes to bring him to despair for now the devil thinks or never is the time to conquer this soul and therefore sets upon her with all power and fury imaginable and to resist this fierce shock or brunt Christ left unto his Church this soveraignâ—…â—…emedy for these reasons and chiefly for her Sacraments we believe our Church oâ—… congregation of faithful to be more holy then Mr. de Rodons or any other Church and congregation whatsoever that pretends to believe in Christ is Therefore the Mounsieur fasly belyes us and himself also by impeaching us to be those false propheâ—…s the Evangelist mentioned in his 24. câ—…ap for we never did or do pretend to be Prophets although some great saints of our Church had the gift of Prophecy also given them which is more then ever we or they themselves read or heard that any of their Church had yet unless they count Iames Nailor or some such like mad braind fellow who sprouted out of their Church to be one Why we keep the Eucharist in our pixes and decent Church-Tabernacles I gave reason before But why Mr. Rodon and his party keeps the leavings of their Communion bread and wine in cupboards baskets â—…laggons botles or cellars and eat and
Christian or else what is it good for and all Christians I know not what Mr. de Rodon believes holds it to be the Sacrament of regeneration that is the Sacrament that makes us from being conceived and born out of our mothers wombs in sin as the Royal psalmist tells us in his 50th psalm to become members of Christ and regenerated or born again to him as our Saviour himself told Nicodemus Amen I say to thee unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. That no body can tell whether himself or another is baptized with a phisical Metaphisical or Logical certainty which be the certainties the Mounsieur aims at here for of a moral certainty I shall speak hereafter is most certain for who knows unless God reveals it unto him whether he that offered to baptize him had any belief or intention to baptize moreover who knows but that he that offered to Baptize him which is the second part of the major was a devil incarnate and no man for the devil can naturally assume the shape of any humane body and delude our five senses with his prestigious black art if God permits it him who I ask the Mounsieur in such a case knows his child or any man else from a devil incarnate appearing to him in the perfect stature and shape of his child or of such a man when our Saviour cured the young man mentioned in the Gospel that was blind from his nativity although the scribs and Pharises saw and knew him every day before while he was blind yet when they saw him have his perfect sight they doubted whether he was the same man or no and thereupon sent for his father and mother to be informed by them of the truth As to the third part of the major I ask Mr. de Rodon how divine or humane Laws can be observed amongst us unless we certainly know we converse with men and yet according to his argument we can have no phisical certainty which is the certainty he requires for Baptism and ordination that our conversation is not with devils incarnate instead of men and much less have we certainty that we converse with Christians for we know not whether those we converse with were ever Baptized or no. But how not only inconsiderable and rediculous but also impious abominable and pernicious these sequels are which flow from the Mounsieurs very considerable argument in the cars of all good Christians I let the prudent Reader judge And before I answer his argument in form I will lay down this Christian platform of doctrine received by all to bear my answer up Therefore I presuppose with all other Christians that Jesus Christ who is true God and true man and the wisdom of his heavenly father being he was graciously pleased to descend from his heavenly Palace and converse with men for the space of about three and thirty years concerning the salvation of their souls and to that intent left them his life as a pattern to imitate for he is the way the veritie and the life and his Sacraments for their spiritual comfort I suppose I say that during all that time he planted his Church Militant here upon Earth and that he planted her so firmly too that he lest those of her Congregation a certain sure method how to serve him in her else where was his infinite wisdom I suppose also with all Christians that Baptism is the gate and entrance to Christianity for all men and the Sacrament of Regeneration for by it only we are enrolled in Christs book and called Christians or made mistical members of Christ. And whereas it is a Sacrameat of so great necessity that without it no body is a Christian doubtless Christ who in all other things concerning our corporal necessities is so careful provident and wise was not â—…ailing concerning the grand and chief thing of all which is our souls safety but lest means sure safe in his Church in order to the ayd and relief of mans soul to bring her safely to the happy port of eternal felicity which was the end wherefore she was created These means or mediums were chiefly his Sacraments which derive their vertue from his Passion and are as one may say dipt in his pretious bloud But especially the Sacrament of Baptism which is of greatest necessity being no body without it can have as much as the name of a Christian and consequently it is most certain that Christ hath a particular care and Providence concerning Baptism that it should be certainly administred unto the faithful But wherein that certainty consists whether it be a Phisical or moral one is the question a Phisical certitude as Philosopers say is when a man hath a palpable and evident knowledge either by his reason or senses of the thing he knoweth a Moral certitude they say is when one is sure of a thing not because he saw it with his eyes or toucht heard or tasted it but because all men say it is so for example when all the world says there is a famous City in England called London those that were at London and saw it have a phisical certitude thereof but those that never were in it nor saw it have but a moral certitude of it viz. by the relation of all people where note that a moral certainty may sometimes have as a much or more firmity in it then a Phisical one hath especially when it is grounded upon Gods providence and word This true doctrine presupposed I answer Mr. de Rodons argument thus granting his Major viz. that in lawful adoration it is requisite that he that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God And denying his minor viz. that the Romanists according to their own Principles can never be assured that the host which they worship is the true God to his second minor viz. But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now a days there hath been no fayling either in the essential form of Baptism or ordination or in the requisite intention I answer that all Christians may be assured thereof with a moral certitude because of Christs care and providence for his Church that for the generality of all Christians and especially of those whom he picked out of the rest to make them ministers of his Sacraments there is no such faylings as Mr. de Rodon mentioneth destructive to the Sacraments from the Apostles time untill the Bishops and Priests of our days for otherwise Christs care and providence for his Church Militant would not be sufficient which is impious and blasphemous even to think of And this moral certainty especially as it relyes upon Christ care and Providence for his Church is far firmer and better then any of our Phisical natural certitudes are And consequently Mr. de Rodon's very considerable additionate Proposition is not worth a rush Rodon
same time that the bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ which were before that accidents may be without a subject c. And the passages that are impertinently alledged to prove such a presence and such a change have a sense very commodious and very rational for the avoiding all these contradictions as appears in this and in the former chapter where I have rationally expounded those two passages which the Romish doctors impertinently make use of for this subject Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational sense which we have given them and to reject the doctrine of the real Presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the Host and the doctrine of Transubstantiation Answ. How much this grave consideration of the Mounsieur can work upon ignorant illiterate people upon heathens Jews or Turks or upon brute beasts of best sensation if they had intellectual or cogitative faculties agreeing with their sensation I know not But sure I am that no good Christian or man of learning or knowledg ought to regard or value it for all Christians and all rational and learned men do know that objects of divine faith such as this is ought not to be levelled or measured by our reason and senses for otherwise some beasts and birds whose sensitive faculties surpass mans must also surpass him in faith And if the best reason should carry away the cause then the best Philosophers would be the best believers and so Plato and Aristotle who were far more Eagle-sighted concerning objects of natural reason then many millions of poor Christians are would surpass all these Christians in divine faith a thing both impious and ridiculous to assert amongst Christians neither do seeming contradictions unless they be real ones validate or strengthen this his profound consideration for many things may seem impossible to us which are not so really to God This the Mounsieur I am sure must grant unless he maintains that man can comprehend Gods omnipotency which to say is open Blasphemy However for disputation sake we let pass the major but we deny the minor as to all its parts first we deny that the real Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is repugnant to reason and sense though it be above them so we say that the raising of a dead man to life and all miracles are only above reason and sense but not repugnant or against them for what is repugnant or contrary to reason and sense quite destroyes them as to be and not to be at the same time and after the same manner is impossible and destroyes reason and sense but we deny Transubstantiation to be of that kind Secondly we deny that it implyes or seems to imply a contradiction that a human body should be Sacramentally in a point without any local extension though we grant it cannot be circumscriptively in a point Thirdly we deny that Christ to be in his human shape in heaven and to be at the same time sacramentally upon earth or for him to be sacramentally in ten thousand places together upon earth is at all any contradiction because to be sacramentally in a place or places requires no local extension for as in true Divinity if Christ should assume and suppositate hypostatically three several humane natures altogether to his Divinity they would all in that case have but one person without any implicancy or contradiction so Christ may also without any contradiction be at once sacramentally in several places who is then able to penetrate and dive into the infinite power of God finally we grant that accidents cannot be naturally without their connaturall subjects but supernaturally they can as Christs humane nature is now without any other but the divine personality of Christ and yet naturally it should have a humane person which no body can say it hath without being an heretick for otherwise he must own that there are two persons in Christ a divine and a humane one and consequently say there is a quadrinity in the mystery of the blessed Trinity Even so I say that as Christ without contradiction supplyeth the human personality with his divine so can he also without contradiction supply the connatural subjects of bread and wine with his infinite power Therefore since this answer is well grounded in true divinity and Phylosophy and that all the holy fathers and General Councils that ever have been in Christs Church and treated of this matter were of the same belief concerning the real presence as we are of and since it is more consonant both to reason and faith that the substance of Christs body is more nourishing to the soul then the bare entities of bread and wine are Farthermore since the question here in agitation is above though not repugnant to reason and sense it being an object of divine faith which Christ revealed unto his Church and she ever practised from the Apostles time as all Ecclesiastical histories do testify Neither could our adversaries ever shew what year or in what place or country the Mass crept first into the Church nor who were the orthodox fathers or general Councils that ever opposed it untill many hundred years after it was in practise throughout the Christian world and finally since the first oppo ser of it was presently cried down by all the orthodox for a publick heretick For these and sundry other such reasons I say no rational or learned man ought to value the groundless and weak consideration of Mr. de Rodan which hath no other prop to uphold it but frail human reason wherewith he intends to inveagle and deceive the poor ignorant illiterate sort of people who ought rather submit their judgements and understanding humbly to the common belief of the Universal Church concerning matters of faith then rely upon either their own or the grave Mounsieurs deep reason and wit This ancient and universal doctrine of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist do the Romish Doctors must solidly and pertinently maintain and desend against all the enimies of Christs Church against Luther Calvin Rodon and all his impertinent sophisms nay and against all the devils of hell if they should come to assist him and furnish him with their arguments Neither hath he hitherto in this nor in his former chapter said any thing against it which I have not fully and sufficiently answered as I leave any indifferent impartiall Reader to judge CHAP. III. Against Transubstantiation BY destroying Trasubstantiation which is the life of the Mass the Mass must perish also Mr de Rodon considering this picks out of the storehouse of his Philosophy his keenest arrows wherewith having as he questions not in this Chapter hit the the mark home although he conceits he is the killer himself yet he is pleased to bestow the funeral exequyes as the Title of his book shews To bury the dead I confess is with us one of the seven works of corporal mercy but to bury one
should be so as he expresly said But although we believe he is glorious as he is in the Sacrament too yet we confess we see him not there with our corporal eyes shining in glory because he hides it from us there for he knows it is neither expedient nor requisite that he should manifest his glory unto us here upon earth that our merit should be the more by believing his plain and express word This was the reason why that during the time while he was conversant with men in his patible body although his soul was also then alwaies glorious by reason of the Hypostatical union yet this glory of hers never redounded to his body but once at Mount Thabor and then but transeunter for a short time only to animate Peter whom he designed to be his Vicar on earth as also Iames and Iohn who were his neer kinsmen and of the chief of his Apostles that these three being eye-witnesses of his glorious Transfiguration should be the more confirmed in their own and the better strengthen the rest of the Apostles and disciples in their belief concerning the death of their dear master and the grand Mistery of his Resurrection Therefore while we are members of the Church militant it is not expedient we should see the body of Christ shining in glory with our corporal eyes although we are bound to believe his glorified body is really in the Sacrament Neither is brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light more proper and principal to a glorified body then are impassibility subtility and agility which are likewise dowries of a glorious body and yet the Apostles saw none of these three other dowries of Christs body in the Mount though his body had them there so also although Christs body in the Sacrament has all the same dowries and properties after his Resurrection yet it is neither expedient or necessary that every one of us should see them with our corporal eyes theâ—…e but it is enough we believe it from whence follows not evidently as the Mounsieur says that they are not there for an argument from a corporal visible not seeing to an intelligible spiritual not being concludes but against ignorant people and misbelievers not against any learned or faithfull Rodon 9. But quoth Mounsieur helping us out it may be said that Christs body is under the accidents of bread and wine and that these accidents hide it from us To which answer he replies very Philosophically and acutely as he is wont thus But the substance of the bread and wine was not under the accidents and the accidents were not upon their substance for then the substance of the bread and its accidents had been in different places above and under being two several differences of place and that which is under is not above Therefore Christs body cannot be under the accidents of bread and consequently the accidents do not hide it from us O Philosophy Philosopher Answ. But who can but admire to hear such a silly reply from so famous a Professor as Mr. de Rodon is esteemed and cryed up to be amongst his admirers and applauders I pray tell me Mr. Rodon whether the substance of your own body be over or under its accidents or no if you say I then your body which consists of substance and accidents is at the same time in two places for according to you over and under are differences of several places and consequently according to your Philosophy one body may be naturally in two places at once for I suppose your body is but one and its situation is not a supernatural one now then if under and above be differences of divers places and your substance is under your accidents it follows manifestly that your body is naturally in two places at once which is more then we affirm of Christs body for we say it is in the Sacrament not naturally that is after a natural manner but supernaturally If your answer be no then I pray tell us where the substance of your body is is it in the accidents then why may not we also say that the substance of the bread before the consecration and the substance of Christs body after the consecration are in the Sacramental species which if so then they are all but in one place and consequently the substance being in the accidents for ought this reply can contradict the substance is absoonded in them and so are really all substances hidden from our corporal eyes for we never see the substance of any body but only its outermost superfice But in true Philosophy substances separated from their accidents have no over nor under and consequently possess no place but by reason of their accidents or quantity So that according to all good Philosophers Mr. de Rodon only excepted a thousand substances may be together in one point from whence followeth that the Mounsieur is either the only Philosopher himself or else that this reply is meerly nonsensical he speaking contrary to the usage of all Philosophers Neither is his second reply more pertinent then the former was though more ridiculous for he plays the fool with Philosophy in it These be his words Rodon 10. And seeing as our adversaries say Christs body is in every part and point of the host it must needs be in the supersice and consequently cannot be hid or covered by the accidents of the bread then he helps us out again here again it may be said that Christs body is glorious luminous and visible of it self but God hinders us from seeing it To this I answer that if God hinders it it is only because he is pleased so to do and consequently if he were pleased not to hinder he would not do it but would permit it to be seen in the same posture as it is in the host then he comes up with more of his witty merry interrogations again viz. in what posture it would be seen there whether sitting standing lying or in any other posture or whether it would be in any posture at all If it be in no posture it must be without any external form because posture or situation absolutely depends upon external form But how can a man be seen without an external form of a man and without being in any posture of a man and how can Christs body be without posture and without external form seeing as our adversaries say it is whole and entire in the whole host and occupies the whole space of a great host But if it be sitting or standing or in any other posture and with the external form of a man and if as they say it be whole and intire in a point of the host Then it will follow that a man may be seen sitting or standing in a point and seeing a man that is standing hath his head above and his feet below it will follow that Iesus Christ will be seen in a point of the host with his head above and his feet below
circumscriptively or definitively as water is in a vessel or the soul in the bedy for they wanting the light of faith knew not what a sacramental presence is But the Primitive Christians and we also believe Christ to be in the Sacrament Sacramentally only that is in every consecrated host as our souls are in our bodies tota in toto tota in qualibet parte all Christ in the whole host and all Christ in every part and particle of it And thus Mr. de Rodons three propositions with his very considerable additionate are fully and pathetically answered and an end put to this chapter CHAP. VI. Against the taking away of the cup. Rodon 1. THe taking away of the Eucharistical cup was established as an Article of faith by the Romish Church Representative assembled in the Council of Constance 1415. sess 13. in a canon the chief clauses whereof are these seeing that in divers parts of the world there be some who rashly presume to say that Christian people ought to partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species of the bread and wine and to give the Communion to Lay-people not only under the species of the bread but also under the species of the wine This present holy General Council of Constance lawfully assembled in the name of the holy Ghost being desirous to provide for the safety of the faithfull against this errour doth therefore declare decree and determine that although Jesus Christ did administer this venerable Sacrament to his disciples under both the species of bread and wine and although in the Primitive Church the faithful did receive this Sacrament under both species yet notwithstanding that for the avoiding of certain dangers and scandals this custome which was introduced with reason ought to be kept viz. that Priests that say Mass shall communicate under both the species of bread and wine but that Lay-persons shall communicate under the species of bread only and they that shall say the contrary ought to be expelled as Hereticks and grieveously punished by the Bishops and their officialls This canon was confirmed by the succeeding Romish Councils and particularly by the Council of Trent 2. Against so horrible a Canon and so strange a Law it is very difficult to oppose any thing for if you tell them that this Law iâ—… contrary to the Institution and command of Iesus Christ they freely confess it seeing that although Iesus Christ did institute and administer the Eucharist under both species yet they will not have it so practised If you tell them that this Law is contrary to the command of S. Paul and practise of the Primitive Church they ingeniously own it for they openly declare that the faithful in the Primitive Church did receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species yet they that practise it thus ovght to be expelled and punished as Hereticks This is the true way of ending all Controversies and of keeping us from disputing with them For example if we alledge that S. Paul Tim. 4. saith that they who forbid to marry and command to abâ—…ain from meats do teach the doctrines of Devils they need only answer that although S. Paul doth say so yet we must not believe it because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise Again if we alledg that the same Apostle Eph. the 2. saith that we are saved by grace through faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast they need only answer that although this was written by the Apostle yet we must not believe it because the Romish Church hath determined that we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of our own free-will c. And now I leave you to judge whom we ought to follow whether these lying doctours or Iesus Christ and his Apostles But that which I finde utterly unsupportable is this viz. that they accuse of rashness errour and heresy those that by obeying Iesus Christ and his Apostles and following the Practise of the Primitive Church do affirm that we ought to partake of the Cup as well as of the bread Again I finde it an insufferable piece of impudence that they boast so much of Antiquity and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church and yet can so openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of Doctrine Answ. That the Romish Church Representative ever made or established an article of faith we deny that she made Canons or statutes in her general Councils which were grounded upon former articles of faith which the Apostles left us and that what one precedent General Council decided and declared to belong unto an article of faith because what the Council declared was implycitly included in that article another subsequent general Council approved and confirmed it we freely confess for it makes more for us then for Mr. de Rodon though he is sure he got a great advantage over us thereby because the other General Councils and especially the Council of Trent approves and ratifies this Canon which he recited out of the Council of Constance which Canon he sayes contradicts Christ and his Apostle But I am sure that if the Council of Trent had contradicted that of Constance his advantage had been much more for neither the one or the other of these holy Councils doth contradict Christ or his Apostle Because then and not otherwise as I proved before is a proper contradiction when there is an affirmation and negation of the same thing at the same time and after the same formality or manner for if the thing time or formality be not the same then is there no contradiction for example there is no contradiction in this viz. that Peter should be virtuous and Paul wicked at the same time because Peter and Paul are not one and the same man Nor in this viz. that the same Peter should have a beard and not have a beard at different times as also neither in this viz. that the same Peter at the same time should be an Embassadour in France and be no Embassadour in England or in Spain This true doctrine which is commonly received by all Philosophers and learned men being presupposed I evidently demonstrate out of several Passages of Scripture if well considered knit and compared together that this Canon or statute of the Constantian Council doth not in the least manner contradict or gainsay the commands of Christ or of his Apostle The first Passage whereupon I build my proof is this Data est mihi omnis Potestas in Caelo in terra that to Christ is given all power in heaven and upon Earth S. Math. 20. The second is this sicut tu misisti me in mundum ego misi eos in mundum as thou didst send me into the world I also have sent them into the world S. Iohn 17. Let us now compare these two passages to
these other two Qui Ecclesiam non audit sit tibi tanqnam Ethnicus Publicanus He that hears not the Church let him be unto thee as a heathen and Publican S. Math. 18 and to this Qui vos audit mâ—… audit qui vos spernit me spernit he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me S. Luke 10. where note that in the first passage is said that all power in heaven and earth is given to Christ and in the second is said that Christ bequeathed the Power he received from his father unto his Church representative for what else do these words as you my father sent me so I send them into the world import but that they had I mean his Apostles and disciples who were his Church Representative the same spiritual power delegated unto them by him as he received from his heavenly father the difference being only this that his power from his father was absolute and Principal in him the Power he gave to his Church if compared to his power is but a subordinat or delegat power Now then if we consider that Christ having celâ—…ated and bequeathed his power on earth to his Church and commanded us to hear her if we will not be counted as heathens and publicans and tells us also that by despising her we despise himself what I pray good Mounsieur consequence follows or flows from these evident passages of Scripture and all uttered by Christs own sacred mouth but that we are to hear and obey the Church representative which were the Apostles and his disciples in their time and the general Councils ever since their time concerning her canons and statutes and her other direction and guiding of our souls So that until Mr. de Rodon can prove that the Council of Constance was â—…n unlawful or Acephal Council and no Church Representative which he undertakes not in this Tract he hath no reason to exclaim against her Canons and statutes nor to make them so horrible to the world neither have we any reason to be terrified at it because as I shall now shew you it is in effect nothing but a meer sâ—…are-crow For what Christian of any understanding or belief can judge or think that Christ who is verity it self and his heavenly fathers wisdom should contradict his own commandments and yet if the Canons and statutes made by his Church in her General Councils were opposit and contradictory to his commandments it would necessary follow that he contradicted himself Because he and his holy spirit is the self same thing and so by contradicting his spirit he must needs contradict himself But he promised his Church militant that he would be with her all days unto the Consumation of the world and in another place he tells her That his spirit which is in her and his words which he put in her mouth shall not recede from her mouth nor from the mouth of her seed nor of her seeds seed from that time and for ever which is as much as to say that his spirit should be alwaies her directour and guide in all her conciliary definitions and decrees Yet if notwithstanding this reason deduced out of clear Scripture Mr. de Rodon will still persist in his fearful exclamations and object against us that nothing can be more evident and clear then that this Constantian Canon or Law is contradictory to Christs institution and command concerning the Cup we deny that Law to have at all opposed Christs commandment because of the difference of time that interceded betwiâ—… the commandment and that Law Christ told his disciples or Church Representative that he had many things to say to them but they could not bear them at that time Iohn 16. whence follows that Christ by his holy spirit might have revealed some things to his Church which he would have observed by her children whereof he made no express mention to his disciples while he was conversant with them If the Constantian Canon or Law had been made just at the same time when Christ instituted this Sacrament and â—…ommanded it should be received under both species something might be said in the matter But who knows that Christ in future times would not have something altered concerning this Institution by his Church to whom he promised his holy spirit should be her directour and guide in all her statutes and ordinances unto the consummation of the world All divines hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity because without it no body can be saved then that of the Eucharist is And was it not one of the last commandments our Saviour left his Apostles that they should go preach the Gospel and Baptize in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Ghost Math. 28. however the Church of her own proper authority even in the very Apostles times changed this form for a time for some certain reasons and Baptized in the name of Jesu as may be seen in the Acts of the Apostles 19. chap. was not the keeping of the Sabbath-day commanded by God in the first table of his commandements written by his own holy finger But by whose authority was the day altered we have no scripture for it we have no other but the authority of the Church This was an express commandment of God no Christian nay no Jew will deny it all Christians know that the Church altered the day for certain grave reasons viz. that we shold not communicate with the Jews because our Savior rose again upon our Sabath because the Holy Ghost descended upon our B. Lady and the Apostles upon our sabath and for sundry others which the holy Ghost inspired her with wherefore then may not the Mounsieur exclaim and cry out against her as well for this as for her constantian Canon may not he say that she contradicted Gods expresse commandement of keeping the Jewish sabath when by her Canons or ordinations she commanded our sunday should be observed and their sabaoth slighted yes truly that he may and yet as we nay and the Protestants themselves I hope will deny any transgression to have been done by the Church against Gods commandement by her statutes or Canons for not keeping the Jewish Sabaoth so we also deny that by her Constantian Canon she contradicted Gods commandement concerning denying the cup to the Lay-people and the reason is because the commandements and the Canons were not made the same time and because the holy Ghost for sundry reasons inspired the Church to alter some things concerning the former commandement Christ left her but for a certain time as he himself told her before that he had many things to say to her but she could not bear them at that time which is not to contradict but rather to dispense with Christs former commandements To this I add the Apostles command concerning not eating bloud nor strangled meat which notwithstanding is not observed even by those of the Reformed
Church so that the Mounsieur hath reason to exclaim against them also and against the whole Christian world for they abstain from such meats no more then we do and neither they nor we have any warrant for eating such prohibited meats but only the authority and statutes of the Church and upon that score we do it and will do it notwithstanding Mr. de Rodons fulminations exclamations and out-cryes Now I leave the Prudent Reader to judge whom we ought to follow whether the true doctrine of the Church Representative guided by the holy Ghost or the groundless and frivolous opinion of pitiful Rodon But that which I find utterly unsupportable in this miserable wretch is his intollerable Pride in making himself censurer of the whole Christian world by contradicting not only so many General Councils but also the most holy spirit of God who promised to assist and direct his spouse the Church alwais And again I finde it an insufferable piece of impudence in him who hath nothing to shew for the antiquity of his pretended Church to contradict and revile at the old mother Church unto whom God gave power to alter things for the better as his holy spirit should inspire her in due times as is palpably demonstrated out of the passages of holy Scripture above-mentioned Away away then with Mr. de Rodons silly exclamations against Gods Church Representative which serve for nothing but to scare crows with and not to startle or daunt any man of knowledg or belief What matter is 't then if juggling Rodon alledg S Paul in his 1. Tim. 4. against us saying that they who forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats do teach the doctrines of devils for these words cannot concern Roman Catholicks who allow not only of marriage but also own it to be a Sacrament to which is more then Mr. de Rodon or his party doth or is it because we allow not that our Priests and Religious men should marry who of their own free accord made a voluntary contract with Allmighty God never to marry that by observing a single life they may the easier and with more freedom serve him or did our Church before they made their contract with God and her ever forbid them marriage or Lastly while a man is already married is it the doctrine of the devil that he should not marry again if not wherefore should it be his doctrine to prohibite Priests and Religious Persons to marry whereas they are already contracted and married to Christ and to his Church if a contract promise or vow made to a woman doth oblige and tye a man to her sure a contract or vow made unto God must oblige him as much according to the Royall Psalmists saying in his 49th Psalm Immolate to God the sacrifice of Praise and pay thy vows to the Highest The same thing we say again concerning meats our Church â—…orbideth not the eating of any sort of meats for we â—…at of all sorts of meats Mr. de Rodon and his party eats of though not at all times because in obedience to our mother the Church we abstain from several meats on certain days being Christ commanded fasting but left the determination of the time when we are to fast to his spouse the Church as is evidently collected out of S. Mark 2. where we read that when the disciples of S. Iohn and of the Phariseeâ—… came to our Saviour and askt him Why his Disciples did not fast as they did our Saviour answered them thus that so long as they have the Bridgroom with them they cannot fast But the days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them and then they shall fast in those days and for this reason the Church commands no strict fast from Easter-day to Assention But wherefore doth not the good Mounsieur shew and make it out by Scripture or any way else that our fasting is against the Apostle or according with the doctrine of devils a splenative man may say of others what he liâ—…t but any rational or well setled brain may rather think that Mr. de Rodon and his â—…arty who never use to fast from any kinde of meats they can come at do contradict Gods commandment concerning fasting and consequently by disobeying him and his Church do at least practise if not teach the doctrine of devils What matter is it also if honest de Rodon alledgeth against us these words of the said Apostles Eph. 2. We are saved by Grace through faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of God not of works least any man should boast for we humbly believe those words and our Church never determined any thing to the contrary Therefore de Rodon doth falsly belye us when he says that we hold we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of our free-will c. for we never held or do hold any such thing neither do we say that we can have faith from our selves because we hold faith is a supernatural vertue insused into us not acquired by our industry or diligence That which we say and maintain against all our adversaries is that our good works done while we are in the state of Grace are meritorious we say not that our works precisely as they are ours are of any merit but as they are supported by Gods Grace which grace we cannot have without faith and I pray did not our Saviour himself say whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name because you are Christs Amen I say to you he shall not lose his reward which sentence of his we understand thus viz. that if a man while he is in the state of Grace doth bestow or give any thing for the love of God be it never so little or doth any good work for the love of God be it never so inconsiderable that such a man shall be hereafter rewarded by God for it and being rewards are the correlatives of merits we conclude that a man for doing any good work while he is in the state of Grace doth merit yet we attribute not the merit chiefly to the work but to Grace which we hold to be the principal cause thereof And we say moreover that be any mans work never so good in it self if it be done while he is out of the state of Grace such a work is not at all meritorious to him and consequently we hold that a penny given for Gods sake by him that is in the state of Grace is more meritorious to him then if he or any body else should bestow a thousand pound also for Gods sake while they are out of it How then can this true doctrine of the Church disagree with the Apostles words or agree with de Rodons false and calumnious lye when he says that the Romish Church hath determined that we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of
our own free-will c. a thing which she never dreamt of and utterly detests as meer Pelagianism But it is a common saying that it is easier for a man to defend himself from a thief then from a Lyar. Therefore we may well say with the Royal Psalmist in his 42. Psalm from the unjust and deceitful tongue of Mr. de Rodon O Lord deliver us Now then M. de Rodons exclamations being proved frivolous and vain and he himself a calumnious Lyar the Romish doctors need not run for shelter to any place or thing for whether it was a command or no practised by the Primitive Church or no to minister the Sacraments under both kinds it imports not neither doth it contradict Christs commandment at all to receive it now but under one kinde only for that commandment was but for a time and until his holy spirit moved the Church for sundry grave reasons to alter it as he did in other things of as great and greater moment for the Salvation of mans soul viz. the altering of the form of Baptism by the Apostles for a while which Sacrament is of greater necessity for mans salvation then the Eucharist is as I have already sufficiently shewn Therefore being I fully answered the Mounsieurs argument a quite other way his replies against the Romish doctours answers which are very good need no farther answer by me here however this ought to be well considered that whereas Christ instituted this Sacrament for our spiritual nourishment and since his body which we receive in it is a glorified body consequently as the Romish doctours well say where his body is there is his bloud also by concomitance It followeth evidently that by receiving the Sacrament under one species we receive his body and bloud both together or dare de Rodon say that Christs body and bloud are now separated if he doth I dare say he is a most impious heretick But if they be not now separated then by receiving the one species we equivalently receive both which is all we are commanded to do according to the Institution of the Sacrament so that whether we eat the Sacrament and drink it formally or virtually is the same thing for it nourisheth our souls all alike and we observe Christs command as well by eating and drinking it virtually as we do by eating and drinking it formally there being no more vertue or substance in the one eating then in the other nor no more spiritual nourishment which is the cause why this Sacrament was instituted in the one more then in the other and all the Mystery and difference is only this that the Priests by reason they represent or act Christs person when he instituted this Sacrament are commanded by reason of their ministery and function to compleat the Sacrament by consecrating under both species as Christ himself did and therefore he commanded his Apostles whom he then made Priests saying unto them As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me to consecrat under both kinds And yet neither the Apostles did then nor do the Priests now receive more then the lay-man do when they receive but under one species only because of the concomitance of Christs glorified body and bloud as they are in the Sacrament To conclude this chapter I say that whether our Saviour laid his commands upon the Apostles and Priests only or upon all the believers of the Primitive Church both Priests and Lay-men together to receive the Sacrament under both kindes or species all that can be deduced from thence is that his commands were to be observed punctually as thereunto during the time his commandement was in vigour and force and no longer But after by his holy spirit whose assistance he promised to his Church for to guide and direct her in all her Canons and Laws this command was altered and changed otherwise we are firmly to believe and adhere to what she determineth concerning matters of saith and Sacraments and to hold that what is done by her orders is done by the orders and appointment of Christ and not at all contrary to his commands or Law because amongst others of his commands he commanded us to hear the Church and told us that by dispising her we should dispise him Therefore it is a far surer and safer ground for any man of prudence and understanding to rely upon the authority of the Church as to this high question we here treat of and as to all other questions which are built upon divine faith then upon Mr. de Rodons bare frevolous exclamations and outcryes for Christ promised his Church that she should be always guided by his holy spirit which is a surer warrant for her Canons and Laws then the hidious exclamations of the Mounsieur are to whom no promise as we know of was by Christ ever made concerning this question or any other To what is by me answered touching this point I also add Christs own practise to the contrary of what Mr. de Rodon exclaimeth against the Church Representative for Christ himself did not alwaies give the Cup with the consecrated host as may be seen when he gave the host to his two disciples whom he accompanied going to the Castle of Emaus and afterwards vanished immediatly out of their sight where the holy text makes no mention of his giving them the Cup. The like was also often done by the Apostles as any man may easily see in their Acts and so I think I have sufficiently answered Mr. de Rodons sixth chapter CHAP. VII Against the Mass. NOw Madam Diana look very well to your self for the Mounsieur is come up to your body if you can escape him this time sure you will live to the worlds end Rodon 1. The Mass according to the Romish doctors is a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sinns of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent sess 22. Against such a Mass we might alledge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass. But in this Chapter we shall only use such arguments as are directly against the Mass and so utterly destroy it Answ. The holy Councils definition of the Mass we acknowledge as also that the arguments which destroy Transubstantiation and the real presence do also destroy the Mass. And Mr. de Rodon doth very wisely we say for not reproducing his old shivered arrows or arguments which we have already brok and shattered into small splinters when they were shot against Transubstantiation and the real presence of Christs body in the host for to say the truth those Buts are so hard and steel-proof that the weak arme of the Mounsieurs understanding was not strong enough to bend his bow to
do them any harm nor his arrows able to transfix them But now I hope he will come better provided with his new ones against Diana Behold he comes Rodon 2. The first argument is drawn from this viz. that in the Institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Iesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle S. Paul in which there is not the least footstep to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap 27. in these words the oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not of its essence which I prove because neither our Iod nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Iesuit Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul makes a Catalogue of unritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy The worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the Tradition that Iesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and wine Card. Baronius in his Annalls on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Trâ—…dition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Iesus Christ. And the truth is if Iesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offored unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross. To this I add that S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. mentions the offices which Iesus Christ left in his Church when he ascended into heaven in these words he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1. Tim. nor in the Epictle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud Answ. But I pray good Mr. de Rodon wherefore do you not produce some Passage out of the three Evangelists or S. Paul to prove your assertion for according to all Philosophers and I believe you esteem not your self amongst the meanest of them arguments that only consist of negatives do never conclude or prove any thing you say it appears by what is mentioned by the three Evangelists and S. Paul that Christ at the Institution of the Eucharist did not sacrifice or offer his body and bloud to his father you tell us not in which of the Evangelists or wherein S. Paul and we finde no such thing in them But we finde these express words in S. Luke 22. Chap. and taking bread he gave thanks and broke and gave to them saying this is my body which is given for you If these last words viz. which is given for you signifie not to be offered or sacrificed for you I pray tell us what else do they signifie for the Evangelist said before that the bread was given them and immediatly after in the same sentence he adds which was given for you Sure if these last words signifie not which was offered or sacrificed for you they must needs be nonsensical and a vain Battalogical repetition of the same words for the sense would be this and gave to them his body which is given for them Therefore these words which is given for them is as much as to say which is offered or sacrificed for them And yet the Mounsieur is not ashamed to say that there is not the least foot-step of a sacrifice to be seen in what was mentioned by any of the three Evangelists But perhaps S. Luke was not of the three he meant whether he was or no it is certain that in this very Passage he left us a true and plain track of Christs unbloudy sacrifice But I cannot conceive nor understand how Mr. de Rodon or his Translatour too is able to save him from the infamous brand of heresy for obstinately denying what so many general Councils holy fathers do unanimously assert an Heretick as he is distingushed from a Turk Jew or Pagan is thus described viz one that professes to believe in Christ and yet dissents in opinion from the rest of the orthodox obstinately But now let us see how the Mounsieur agrees with the whole Church as to this point first with the great and most eminent doctor S. Aug who in his 20th Book de civit Dei speaking of Christ who saith thus per hoc sacerdos est ipse offerens oblatio cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae sacrificium cum ipsius corporis ipse caput ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri By this meaning the Eucharist he himself is both the Priest offering and the oblation the signe or Sacrament whereof he would have the dayly sacrifice of the Church to be for whereas he is the head of his Mystical body and she is the body of her Mystical head she was as well wont to be offered by him as he by her and again lib. 17. de civit c. 20. the table which the Priests of the new-Testament doth exhibit is of his body and bloud for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all those sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come for the which also we acknowledg that voice of the same Mediatour in the Psalm But a body thou hast fitted to me because instead of all these sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and is ministred to the partakers or receivers With S. Cyprian more ancient then the former and in learning inferiour to none who in his 2. Epistle to Pope Cornelius hath these words Sacerdotes qui quotidie Sacrificia dei celebramus hostias Deo victimas praeparemus We priests who dayly celebrate the sacrifices of God let us prepare hosts and victimes for him with S. Ambrose in cap. 10. hebreor Quid ergo nos c. What we then do not we offer every day we offer surely but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer allwaies the selfsame and not now one lamb to morrow another but alwaies the self-same thing therefore it is one Sacrifice otherwise by this reason because it is offered in many places there should be many Christs not so but it is one Christ in every place here whole and there
whole one body But this which we do is done for a commemoration of that which was done for we offer not another Sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but alwaies the self-same c. with S. Chrysostom hom 17. in Epist. ad Heb. and after him with Theophylact. Oecumenius with Haymo Paschasuis Remigius and others who object to themselves thus Do not we also offer every day we offer surely But this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer alwaies the self-same and not now one lamb and to morrow another but the self-same therefore this is one sacrifice otherwise because it is offered in many places there would be many Christs and a little after Not another sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but the self-same we do alwaies offer rather working a remembrance or commemoration of the sacrifice With Primasuis S. Augustines Scholar who preoccupates the Mounsieurs oblections thus What shall we say then do not our Priests daily offer sacrifice they offer surely becaus we sin daily daily have need to be cleansed and because he cannot die he hath given us the Sacrament of his body and bloud that as his Passion was the redemption and absolution of all the world so also this oblation may be a redemption and cleansing to all that offer it in truth and verity in which sense also venerable Bede calleth the Mass Redemtionem corporis animaesempiternam the everlasting redemption of body and soul lib. 4. c. 22. histor To these above mentioned holy doctors who not only unanimously agree that the Sacrament of the Altar is an host and sacrifice but also that it is the self â—…ame sacrifice which was offered upon the Altar of the Cross for our Salvation I add these ensuing General Councils and holy fathers of the primitive Church whereof some were the Apostles contemporaneans and Disciples The first holy Council of Nice chap. 14. in fine tonc ex graeco the Council of Ephesus Anathematis 11. the Chalcedon Council art 3. pag. 112. the Ancyran Council chap. 1. 5. the Neacaesarean Council Can. 13. Laodic can 19. Carthaginian 2. c. 8. Carthag 3. cha 24. and Carthag 4. chap 33. 41. S. Denyse cha 3. Eccles. hierarch S. Andrew in hist. Passionis S. Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrn S. Martialis Epist ad Burdegal S. Iustine dial cum Tryphone S. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 23 24. Tertullian de eultâ—… feeminarum corona militum Origen hom 13. in Levit. S. Cypr epist. ad Cecilium num 2. de coena Domini num 13. and Euseb. demonstrat Evangel lib. 1. c. 10. Let us now compare all these holy Councils Fathers and Doctors unanimous authorities with M. de Rodons bare word without any text of Scripture contradicting them let us I say compare all their affirmative votes to his no mention no foot step and judge which of these two parties deserves to be counted hereticks for they cannot be both counted orthodox because they contradict one another in point of faith what man then unlesse he were willfully prodigall of his salvation would adhere to de Rodons crack-brain'd obstinate self-opinion and forsake for him the whole torrent of General Councils Fathers and Doctors of Christs Church Neither are S. Gregory and Bellarmine for him too but rather point-blank against him as to the main point of this question which is that at the first Institution of this Sacrament Christ offered and sacrificed his body and bloud to his father for Bellarmine in the place alledged by the Mounsieur viz. out of his first book of the Mass chap. 27. speaks only thus that this sacrifice consists not precisely in the consummation of the host nor in any other part of the Mass but only in the words of consecration because S. Gregory said that the Apostles used no other ceremonies at the Mass when they first practised it but only the Lords prayer and immediatly after they consumed the consecrated host But neither he nor S. Gregory ever said that Christ and his Apostles never offered sacrifice to God the father in the Mass for Bellermine says positively in that very chapter that Christ offered sacrifice to his heavenly father and that the Apostles and their successors do the like dayly But he holds that the sacrifice consists precisely in the words of Consecration and not in the oblations before or after nor in the consumption of the host all which makes nothing for Mr. de Rodon who is not ashamed confidently to say that S. Gregory and Bellarmine are of his side whereas there is no such thing to be seen in them but the quite contrary as may be evidently seen in the alledged chapter of Bellarmines said book As for learned Salmeron the Jesuits commentary and Cardinal Baronius his free confession concerning an unwritten Tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist any man of reason or belief would sconer believe the Traditions of the whole Church then admire or stand in doubt of them and much less would they harken against them to Mr. de Rodons bare word or to his srivolous no mention no footstep for Gods Church had no other rule to follow from Adams time until Moses who was the first that ever writ of the old Testament concerning what she was to believe but Tradition And from the time of our Saviours Assension untill some of the Apostles and the Evangelists set their penns to paper what else had the faithful to trust unto but only unwritten Tradition what Scripture have we for changing the Sabaoth day or for the twelve articles of our Creed made by the twelve Apostles which be the Principles and foundation of our faith without which none can be saved only Tradition finally doth not the Apostle in his 2. Epist. to the Thessal 2. chap. command us to hold the Traditions which we have learned whether it be by his word or by his Epistle wherefore then should it be a strange thing that the Mass which is the dayly practise and sacrifice of the whole Church from the Apostles time until ours suppose there were nothing left written concerning it wherefore I say ought it not be held and believed as well as the changing of the Sabaoth day or as the twelve articles of the Apostles creed Moreover being the Mass as we hold and is evidently proved by the testimonies of the General Councils and holy fathers above-mentioned doth chiefly and essentially consist in the words of consecration and that Christ himself was the first that ever consecrated we consequently hold that he was the first and chief Priest that ever said Mass And whereas we find that after he consecrated he commanded his Apostles that as often as they did this that 's to say consecrated they should do it in remembrance of him we find I say that the Mass was instituted and commanded expresly by Christ himself Therefore in my opinion it is a thing far more wonderful and strange that any man of common reason
or sense should join in opinion with Mr. de Rodon against the Mass which has the Tradition and practise of the whole Catholick Church from the Apostles time unto ours of its side and the Mounsieur not a tittle out of Scripture Council or holy father that makes for him but his silly negative no mention no footstep And as the Mounsieur is impudent and obstinate in opposing the universal Church so is he also shamless in believing of her for he says that her doctours require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass which is an arrant lye for although it be true that our holy Mother the Church commands all her children if they have no lawful impediment viz. of sickness or some other very urgent affayrs of consequence to the contrary to be personally present and assist at the oblation of this divine sacrifice on sundays and holy-days of obligation for to hear Mass on workingdays is only of counsel not of precept or command yet she never taught them that by only hearing Mass they should be saved But she rather teaches them the contrary viz. that if they hear never so many Masses while they are in mortal sin they shall reap no benefit by them in order as to any the least jott of merit or reward unless they believe as the Church believes go to confession and do penance for their sinns and firmly resolve to keep Gods commandments and the commandments of his Church for the future and finally do some satisfactory works for the transgressions of their ill life past And far from truth is it also what de Rodon saith viz. that if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist hath offered unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should be again sacrificed on the Cross farr I say is that from truth Because as all the sacrifices of the old Law were but types and derived all their force and vertue from Christs bloody sacrifice upon the Cross so also this incruent or unbloudy sacrifice hath its reference or relation to the said bloudy sacrifice and the difference between the old sacrifices and this our sacrifice of the new Law is this that they were but mediate types and meer shadows of the bloudy sacrifice But our sacrifice is not only an immediate type but also a true Idaea and dayly express real commemoration of it Nay as all the holy fathers do generally accord it is the very self same sacrifice as that of the Cross was though not offered in the same manner for that was bloudy and this is unbloudy and the reason is because Christ as I said before having a desire to be amongst the children of men and promising his Church to be with her alwaise unto the consummation of the world since he is to be in heaven in his humane and glorious shape until the time of the restitution of all things he found out in the infinite abyss of his wisdom this other admirable and ineffable way of being really and personally present with his Church militant in the most blessed Sacrament for to encourage seed strengthen her wirh the manifold graces that flow from his real presence in her into the souls of his elect servants To his farther addition out of S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. 1 Tim. being he inferrs all from negatives he can never conclude However since the Apostle makes mention unto Tymothy of Presbyters that is to say Priests and since betwixt Priest and sacrifice there is a correlation it follows that the Apostle at least virtually made mention of sacrificers Rodon 3. The second argument is drawn from the definition of a sacrifice as it is given us by our adversaries Card. Bellarmine in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 2. defines it thus sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mistical ceremony destroys something that is sensible permanent from those last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form 2. arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass. The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our adversaries say it is a sensible thing but the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing Sacrificed Answ. From these last words viz. that the lawful minister destroys something that is sensible drawn out of Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice Mr. de Rodon forms two arguments like two huge milstones that will crush and destroy the sacrifice of the Mass consequently poor Dianaâ—…s head too To his first crusher which begins thus In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses I grant its major and its minor which is this But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience I distinguish thus but the body and bloud of Christ c. do not fall under our senses in their connatural and proper shape I confess the minor do not fall under our senses in a sacramental shape or in the form and shape of bread and wine which by experience we know falls under our senses I deny the minor and consequence also for we never say that Christ is in the Sacrament in his proper humane shape but only sacramentally that 's to say in the shape of bread and wine and yet we hold that he is really and personally there because he himself said so in most express terms These sacramental species then being obvious to our senses and Christ being really in them they being destroyed although Christs body according to its natural and human shape be not destroyed for he is not reduplicatively so in the Sacrament but only specificatively his sacramental presence is also destroyed in them and consequently we say that by destroying the sacramental species which are palpably obvious to our senses a true and proper sacrifice though an unbloudy one is offered to God the father in remembrance of Christs once-bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross Rodon 4. Against this answer Mr. de Rodon hath these two replies The first is that Christs body is not visible by the species of bread because as his adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it and he says moreover that although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizible by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently he infers
appear thus Rodon In every true sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was before as Bellarmine saith in express terms in the place above-cited But in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass Christs body and bloud are not destroyed for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass the body and bloud of Christ are not the thing sacrificed Answ. In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was bofore If by ceasing to be what it was before he intends ceasing to be in the manner as it was before I confess the major If by ceasing to be c. he intends ceasing to be the entitie or same thing it was before I deny the major And Bellarmins words in the place alledged do express no more for these be his words in the same place And destroies something that is sensible and permanent for by the word something a mode or manner may be as well understood as an entitie or nature and so we say it is in the Sacrament we say that the sensible accidents of bread and wine with the substantial sacramental Presence of Christs body and bloud which is the only thing produced by the words of consecration are destroyed But we say not that the entitie of Christs body and bloud which is rather adduced then produced in the Sacrament or that his body and bloud in their proper shape are destroyed in the Sacrament because the words of consecration doth not put them so into it And so both Mr. de Rodons huge Milstones with all their following absurdities are quite shattered and split Now then to his third Principal Argument drawn from the Apostles words Hebr. 9 which is this Rodon Hebr. 9. the Apostle saies Allmost all things are by the law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission it was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these from which words I form this argument There is no propitiation or remission of sinns without shedding of bloud as the Apostle saith But in the Mass there is no shedding of bloud for it is called an unbloudy sacrifice Therefore in the Mass there is no propitiation or remission of sins and consequently no propitiatory sacrifice This argument may be thus confirmed under the old Testament there was no propitiation or purification without shedding of bloud and the types of heavenly things were so purified as the Apostle saith Heb. 9. Therefore under the new Testament also there can be no propitiation or purification without shedding hf bloud and heavenly things being represented by the legal Types must be purified by a more excellent sacrifice viz. by the shedding of Christs bloud And although the Apostle useth the word sacrifices in the plural number yet we must understand the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross because when one thing is opposed to many it is often expressed in the plural number as whem Baptism which is but one is called Baptismes Heb. 6. 2. But the only sacrifice of the Cross of Christ in the text above-cited Heb. 9. 23. is opposed to the old sacrifices which were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Cross. Answ. I grant that unless Christ had shed his bloud for us there had been no propitation or remission of sins and consequently that there was no expiation or remission of sinns in any types or sacrifices of the old law but only in relation and reference to Christs bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross which is all the Apostle meant in the forementioned Passage But all this concerns not the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass at all which is not a bare type or shadow of Christs bloudy sacrifice as all the sacrifices of the old Law were and no more for the sacrifice of the Mass is not only an immediate type of that of the Cross but also a proper Idea memorial nay as the holy fathers say the self-same sacrifice of the Cross reiterated after another manner viz. unbloudily because it is not convenient that Christs body being now glorious and impassible should suffer again and by reason it is a perpetual memorial or repetition of the bloudy sacrifice it hath a reference or relation to it from whence followeth evidently that because it is the self-same sacrifice essentially with that of the Cross and it hath an immediate relation to it and remembrance of it It followeth I say evidently that it is propitiatory for the living and the dead as that of the Cross is for if it be the same body and bloud that is now offered and was offered upon the Cross as Christ himself says t is his body and the fathers of the Church say it is the same sacrifice with that of the Cross it imports not at all as to the essence of the sacrifice whether it be offered bloudily or unbloudily because to be bloudy or unbloudy is not essential to a sacrifice there being some sacrifices offered in the old Law whereof some were bloudy and other strict sacrifices also offered which had no bloud in them Therefore to make the Mass a proper and strict sacrifice it is sufficient that in the Mass there be sensible symbols viz. the accidents of bread and wine containing Christs body and bloud really personally and â—…bstantially present and that at the destruction of these symbols or signes Christs body ceaseth to be substantially and personally present there any more though he ceaseth not because of the destruction of the species to be absolutely and in his humane shape in heaven Finally I say that God the father knows and accepts of the sacrifice of his sons body offered unto him by us for our sinns as our Mediatour whether the said body be offered to him bloudily or uubloudily Rodon The Apostle Heb. 10. 16. saith this is the Covenant which I will make with them after these days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their harts and in their minds will I write them and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin whence I form this argument where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle faith But in the Christian Church by vertue of the new Testament or new Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ there is remission of sins Heb. 10. 16. 17. Therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an obligation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Answ. Mr. de Rodon the better to draw his argument out of Scripture salsifies the text in two places for where the text says This is
the Testament c. he has This is the Covenant c. the reason I believe why he puts Covenant instead of Testament is because he denies the Eucharist to be a Testament of the new Law saying that it is only a figure or sign of it and therefore being he could not handsomely translate the text thus this is the sign of the Testament which I will make with them after those days seeing the word Testament was more against him then for him he changed it into Covenant whether this corrupting the text be his own or the translatours of his Bible it matters not so long as the corruption is evidently to be seen In the second place by him falsisied where the true text runs thus and their sins and iniquities I will now remember no more but where there is remission of these now there is not an oblation for sins instead of But where there is a remission of these c. the Mounsieur has Now where remission of these is c. and this changing of But into Now was that he may the easier inferr that now after the once bloudy sacrifice of the Cross there is no more sacrifice offered for he forms his argument thus where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or a propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle saith But in the Christian Church by vertue of the new Testament or new Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ there is remission of sins Heb. 10. 16. 17. therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an oblation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Whatever his or the Translators reason was to change But into Now I will not stickle with them about it Therefore I answer his argument granting the major and distinguishing the minor thus in the Christian Church by vertue of the bloudy sacrifice of Christs body upon the Cross there is remission of sins without any repetition of the same bloudy sacrifice again and without any other oblation or sacrifice essentially different from this bloudy Sacrifice I consess the minor In the Christian Church by vertue of the bloudy sacrifice of Christs body upon the Cross there is remission of sins without any repetition of the same unbloudy sacrifice or of a sacrifice only accidentally different from his bloudy sacrifice upon the cross I deny the minor the reason is this because Christ suffered and sacrificed himself bloudily for all men and for the sins of all the world in general Behold the lamb of God behold him that takes away the sins of the world S. Iohn 1. for if Christ had not suffered for all mankind in general but only for the elect besides that it would sound something of a personal acception which is not at all in God the reprobates may justly alledge that the chief cause of their damnation was because Christ did not suffer nor satisfy for their sins But if Christ suffered for the sinns of all mankind as certainly he did else how could he be called the Redeemer of the world then according to the Mounsieurs argument and Principles by reason of this general satsfaction and bloudy sacrifice all the sins of the world are remitted and so by reason of this bloudy sacrifice once offered in general for all men without exception all will be saved be they Jews Turks heathens believers or unbelievers virtuous or vitious why for there is no need of offering sacrifice or oblation to God any more and the bloudy sacrifice is still in force if we believe the Mounsieur sure this is the shortest openest and easiest way to heaven that ever was heard of and yet Christ himself says Regnum Caelorum vim patitur that the kingdom of heaven doth suffer violence S. Matt. 11. Or can the Mounsieur say that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not fatisfactory in rigour for all the sins of the world if he doth I tell him another man for saying so would be counted an arrant lyar and a most impious blasphemous heretick Therefore we say that although Christs Passion and bloudy sacrifice was in it self of force vertue sufficient to take away all the sins of the world and although he suffered for all mankinde in general without excepting one yet we say that unless his Passion be applyed to every one in particular I mean to all those that fell into relapse of sin after Baptisme it will not avail them at all and his application we say is made by reiterating the same sacrifice unbloudily as Christ himself expresly commanded when he said unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you Iohn 6. That Christs body was given him to be sacrificed not only upon the Cross but upon the Altar also S. Aug affirms in his 17th book de civit Dei 20. chap. The table quoth he which the Priest of the new Testament doth exhibit is of his body and bloud for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all the sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come for the which also we acknowledge that voice of the same mediatour in the Psalm But a body thou hast fitted to me because in stead of all these sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and is ministred to the partakers and receivers And again lib. 4. de Trinit c. 14. Who so just and holy a Priest as the son of God what might be so conveniently offered for men of men as mans flesh and what so fit for this immolation or offering as mortal flesh who so clean for cleansing the vices of mortal men as the flesh born of the virgins wombe and what can be offered and received so gratefully as the flesh of our sacrifice made by the body of our Priest Could the holy Doctor or any man breathing have spoken more clearly and manifestly in the behalf of Transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the Mass than this first he calls it the table of the body and bloud of Christ then he says it is offered by men for men the holy Doctor meant not by men the Jews that killed our Saviour but the Priests that sacrifice him unbloudily for men or for the sins of men for all the world knows that the Jews killed our Saviour out of meer hatred and spleen and not with intention to sacrifice or offer him to God the Father to satisfie for the sins of mankinde Lastly he says nothing can be offered and received so gratefully as the flesh of our sacrifice made by the body of our Priest where calling it our sacrifice he says it is a sacrifice and not the bloudy one which was rather for us then ours and by saying made by the body of our Priest he expresly owneth Transubstantiation that is to say he expresly owneth that very thing we understand by the word Transubstantiation or he owneth expresly the self-same thing we hold
of your selues for as Christ covers not your impurities nor imputes his righteousness unto you but rather esteems you for no better then heathens and publicans because you hear not his Church so the holy Ghost has nothing to do with you for Christs holy spirit never contradicts Christ. True it is what you say that that which God hath decreed Jesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun that that is reputed by God perfect and compleat But this only concerns orthodox people and not you for them be these the Apostle speaks of 1 Tym. 2. 8. in these words you aledge I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Iesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Very farr alass are you from such people for you pray but very little or nothing in comparison of others who pray both day and night and you pray not every where for if you were compared with the rest of the world who profess Christ you are but a handful of people in little corners or Islands and there too but for a very short time in comparison of former ages how holy your hands are set aside your own private conceits of your selves the rest of the world can easily judge how void of wrath especially against us we very well know how undoubting you are in points of Religion no body breathing can tell for no two of you could ever as yet fully agree as to that point and every one of you is always seeking but never finding what can quiet and content his conscience in that matter you run from the luke-warm Protestant to the precise Puritan or Presbyterian who hates and rayles at the Protestant Bishops and Clergy as much as they do at us others of you from being Presbyterians turn Independents and viceversa from Independents and Presbyterians you turn Anabaptists from Anabaptists you become Quakers from Quakers Fanaticks and from Phanaticks at last you become Atheists your union consists only in this that to preserve your worldly Interest you retain the common notion or name of Protestant and band all against the Roman Catholick whereas on the contrary the Roman Catholick or Papist holds still to his old Lady Dinna to his Invocation of saints to his praying for the souls departed to the Indulgences which are as he believes bequeathed by Christ unto his Church to Pur gatory all which they say are included in these two articles of our belief viz. I believe in the holy Catholick Church and in the communion of saints In a word all the Roman Catholicks do unanimously agree in all the tenents and points of their whole Religion and are perfectly satisfied and contented in their consciences as to all matters of faith without running here and there from one sect to another to search and seek after new opinions as the Protestants do How then can you be the Church the Congregation of the faithful whom the Apostle sayes Ephes. 5. Christ loved and gave himself for how can you be a glorious Church a Church without spot or wrinckle or any such thing a holy one and without blemish Objection 6th Roman 20. The sixth objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedeck king of salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him and from Ps. 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck from which words they argue thus Iesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck the difference between Aaron and Melchisedeck consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of beasts which they sacrificed to God as a signe and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings he offered to God bread and wine And seeing this bread and wine offered to God by Melchisedeck were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Iesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the Institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer to the shaddows and types Secondly that although Melchisedeck had brought all his bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Armyâ—… that returned from the slaughter of the kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine and the reason of this is because the scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils amongst which there was bread and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and of his people Also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedeck met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly they say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was a Priest of the most high God which show the reason why Melchisedeck brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the scripture would have said that he brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was a Priest fourthly they say that Jesus Christ is a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Iesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Masse viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of broad and wine of Melchisedeck Answer Rodon 21. To this I answer first that the hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. But our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put
griped him by the whole body of his funesteous and false treatise and so shook dis-jointed and dismembred his whole body that there is now no more hopes left of his recovery or reviviscence but flat he must lie upon his back in his stinking grave of heresie which he prepared for our excellent and most vertuous Lady Diana when he made her funeral while she remains still alive as fresh brisk and vigorous as ever she was and so will be inaugre de Rodon and all his parties funesteous machinations funerals and wicked contrivements against her unto the worlds end But now I think it high time gentle Reader to let you know who and what she is know then sir that this Diana about whom Mr. de Rodon and I have so long contested is the Mass by his translatour in derision call'd our great Diana and in his opinion his author hath shewed himself so gallant and stout a corypheus against her that with his keen Philosophical arguments and darts he transfixt her heart through and through so that to their thinking she is quite destroyed and slain down-right without any hopes of recovery and with her they say is fallen Popery too whereupon in a triumphing way they intituled their treatise The funeral of the Masse yet I think I have sufficiently vindicated and cleared her from their false calumnies and black aspersions and fully answered Mr de Rodoâ—…s sophistical and funestuous treatise from point to point paying him in his own Philosophical coin and retorting his calumnies upon â—…is own head But as neither they noâ—… I ought to be judges in our own cause so we ought to leave the decision of the matter to our impartial Readers the which for my part I willingly assent unto The motive of my Appendix is this because as I hope I have defended and secured this unparalel'd venerable Lady from the cruel bloudy-minded authors fury and force so by informing my countrey-men for most of them know â—…ot who or what sâ—…e is of her noble extraction vertues and worth I should likewise wipe away the â—…oathsome and nâ—…ufeous spots or bluâ—…s of superstition Phanaticism and Idolatry wherewith his bitter Translator in the false scolding Preface of his translation most injuriously bespatters her for I doubt not if they knew her as well as their pious Ancestors did for many ages since England was converted to the Christian faith until the dismal reign of king Henry the Eighth who was the first that 〈◊〉 schism and subverted Catholick Religion here in England I doubt not I say but they would be enâ—…moured of her and give her her due veneration and respect Know theâ—… again gentle Reader that the Masse as we take it to be â—…s nothing else but the lyturgy which hath beâ—…n used by all Christians since Christ and his Apostles times in the Church as to its essential parts which consists in the words of 〈◊〉 it is the self-same Chrst himself and his Apostles used being commanded by him to do as he did viz. to consecâ—…ate bread and wine into his body and bloud by vertue of which words he made them also Priests and Bishops and gave them power to conseâ—…rate other Bishops and Priests who should sâ—…cceed them as Paul did Tymothy Titus and many others and all the other Apoâ—…tles did the like so that all Priestly power is derived from them As to the ceremonial parts of this Lyturgy they were not all instituted at once but grew by succession of time according as the Church grew to be more and more in splendour and especially since Constantine the Greats time who was the first Christian Monarch that enlarged â—…nd propagated the Christian faith yeâ—… some words and ceremonies that are this day in the Masse were used by the orthodox ministers of this Sacrament before his time also as ancient autâ—…entick and venerable authors do testifie But whatever the ceremonies be the essential parts of the Mass is always the self-same viz. the words of consecration so that the Masse consists essentially only in this viâ—… thâ—…t in it the body and bloud of Christ are offered and sacrificed unbloudily to God the father in remembrance of the once bloudy sacrifice of the Cross which is nothing elâ—…e but the same Christ offered now unbloudily because he can suffer no more again his body being glorified and being t is the same Christ it is still the same sacrifice though not 〈◊〉 after the same maâ—…ner being it is offerâ—…d under the species of bread and wine with command to reiterate it in remembrance of his bloudy sacrifice we firmly believe that it is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedec who as the holy fathers unanimously assert sacrificed bread and wine unto God That Christs body and bloud is really in the Eucharist and consequently in the Masse is so clearly and plainly exprest in diverse places of the new Testament and especially in S. Iohn 6. that it is wonder any man that bears the name of a Christian should be so bold and impudent as to deny it after Christ himself said in most plain and manifest terms it is so for when Christ said of the bread he took in his hand this is my body either it was his real body or it was not for betwixt it is and it is not when spoken of the same thing in the present tense and demonstrated with the Pronoun this and it relates to the absolute being of the thing whereof â—…t is said and not to its manner of being there can be no medium but a meeâ—… contradiction if it was his real body then it was as we say and it could not be the signe only or representation of his body for the meer signe of any thing is alwaies different from the thing signified at least in representando in its significative being if it was not his real body as our adversaries hold it was not but only its signe how can Christs words be verified since it is and it is not in the sense I just now spoke of be contradictions and all divines and Philosophers do unanimously concurr in this viz. that contradictories cannot be at once true or verified also by the power of God what is it then to say after Christ said this is my body it is but the signe of his body but to contradict Christs word which is as much as to give him the lye in his teeth Suppose then theâ—…e were no other passage in scripture to prove the real presence of Christs body in the host as there can be no clearer this alone would convince any Christian breath ing unless he would wilfully fight against common sense and reason for all those that maintain that two contradictory propositions can be verified at once do manifeâ—…tly oppose and destroy reason Alâ—… when Christ said Panis quem ego dabo 〈◊〉 est pro mundi vita the bread which I will give is my slesh for the life of the world he said expreâ—…ly that this bread
famed through the whole world for sanctity learning and Prowess wheresore dost thou not consider what Religion made thee so glorious and renowned S. Austin the monk and his forty blessed companions were the first that brought the light of the Gospel from Rome to the Angles or english men from whom thou hast thy denomination this Austin and his fellow-Missioners were all Dianaists or Masse-Priests and received holy orders This much thy own Protestant Chronicles can tell thee To this Austin Bakeâ—… sayes king Eâ—…helbert gave his chief city of â—…anterbury and his own Royal Palace there made sincâ—… the Cathedral of that See withdrawing himself to Reculver in the I le of Thanet where he erected a Palace for himself and his successors He gave him also an old Temple standing without the Eastwall of the citty which he honoured with the name of S. Paâ—…cras And then added a Monastery to it and dedicated it to S. Peter and Paul appointing it to be the place of the Kentish kings sepulâ—…hres But in regard of S. Austin the procurer both Panâ—…ras Petâ—…r and Paul were soon forgotten and it was and is to this day called S. Austins which Abbey S. Austin enriched with divers Reliques which he brought with him from Rome which was a part of Christs seameless coat and of Aarons Rodd thus farr Baker Where you may plainly see out of one of your own Protestant Authors how Christian Religion was first brought into England and planted here by Mass-Priests Here you may see how those that brought it in did dedicate Churches unto them with this intention that the Saints should patronize and protect all those that should frequent their Churches with prayers Here you may also see how in those dayes sacred Reliques were held in esteem and veneration by the Propagators of Christian Religion Finally any body may clearly see by the very notions or names of the festiâ—…al tymes viz. of Christ-Masse Candle-Mass Lamb-Mass Miâ—…hael-Mass Martle-Mass that the Masse was used and held in great veneration by our devout Ancestors ever since England was converted to the Christian saith For it is certain these denominations of the holy times came first from Christians and not from Pagans It is also sure that sanctity and Christian learning could never have been attributed to our heathenish Ancestors Therefore if they were attributed to our primitive Christian forefathers why do we swerve from their pious wayes and Religion which is well known and granted by all Historiographers both Catholicks and Protestants to have been the self same which was and is now in communion with the Church of Rome and consequently that of the Masse Or with what Religion and conscience can the Reformists of our time censure all the Primitive Christians of England since Austin the Monks time to be guilty of the horrid crimes of superstition Phanaticisme and Idolatrie and yet by branding us with those crimes they do it for we hold but the same doctrine of the Masse which they practised taught us and delivered unto us so that by attaching us with those horrid crimes they involve them with us in them also But who could not rather think that any man of reason and understanding any man that hath any spark of belief of the love or feare of God in him or that hath any sense or feeling of the hour of his death of the immortallity of his soul of eternity aâ—…d of the terrible judgment of God Who I say would not think but he ought rather to ponder well and consider with himself how dangerous a thing it is and of what weight and concernment to his soul and eternal salvation not to shake of all antiquity and the old lyturgy which hath been used and practised by all the orthodox Christians of all ages since Christs time untill now and which is now also in use amongst the most universal Professors of Christianity a lyturgy so well grounded upon many clear and express texts of Scripture backt and seconded by the unanimous interpretations and definitions of all the General Councils and holy fathers of Gods Church in a word a liturgy so well cohering and agreeing with the infinit goodness charity and mercy of God to us whereby he demonstrated his love to us in the highest degree imaginable that could be in this life This mistical liturgy to reject abandon câ—…shiere and contemn upon the bare words of some self interessed calumnious opiniators who in comparison with the Roman Catholicks of all ages with the General Couneils and with the whole torrent of holy fathers are for fanctity of life for learning and for veneration of antiquity but like a handfull oâ—… wilde rude illiterate cow heards to compare with an innumerable multitude of grave Councellors or Judges What man I trow that has any belief or care of his soul if he were not starkmadd would clâ—…ave to such kinde of fellows and swerve from all the grand heroes of Gods Church what thing else is this but openly and manifestly to turn ones back to Christ and to contradict his express commandement where he bids us hear his Church or he will count us but for heathens and publicans Did not the Apostle forsooth prophecy unto Titus 2. Tit. 4. thus for there shall be a time when they will not hear sound doctrine but according to their own desires they will heap to themselves masters having itching ears and from the truth certes they will avert their hearing c. These words can in no wise be alluded to the Roman Catholick nor to their doctrin of the Mass which is of as old a standing as Popery is for our adversaries say that the Mass and Popery are convertible terms But all Ecclesiastical histories do attest that there have been Popes or Bishops of Rome ever since the Apostles time therefore if Popery and the Mass be convertible terms the Mass has been immediately from the Apostles time and consequently it cannot be that unsound doctrine the Apostle prophecied or spoke of to Titus Neither do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles or elsewhere that the Apostles ever opposed the Mass or Popery either which if it were a Phanatick superstitious or Idolatrous doctrine and liturgy as the good translator stiles it to be doubâ—…less they would have done tooth and nail and would never have suffered it to have â—…rept into Christs Church and so venemously to have infected her S. Pauls faith and the Romans was the same when he wrote these words unto them for I desire to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace to confirm you that is to say to be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both your faith and mine Rom. 1. did the Romans differ then in Religion and Lyturgy from their first Bishop or Pope no certainly therefore it is much to be seared nay in all reason and probability if it be not a theological demonstration that the opposers of the Mass be those peâ—…ple the
Apostle spoke of for it is a thing not only improbable but incredible also that S. Peter or if not he as our adversaries will have it or any else of the Apostles or all of them together if they had a hand in it should institute a Bishop of Rome which all the world for ever after called the Pope for his distinction from all other Bishops who introduced this Liturgy which is convertible with his name if the Lyturgy were at all dissonâ—…te from that of the Apostles themselves It is also both improbable and incredible but that S. Iohn who was both an Apostle and Evangelist and a most eminent divine withall and who outlived S. Peter and all the rest of the Apostles It is I say a strange thing that he should not take this first Roman Bishop or Pope in hand confute quash and trample down himself and his Lyturgy if it was not the selfsame with his own and the rest of the Apostles But we see not a word or syllable in S. Iohn or in any of the Apostles or Evangelâ—…s who were contemporaneans of of this first Bishop or Pope of Rome with whom the Mass is convertible against the Lyturgy of the Mass. From whence we cannot but conclude that the Mass is the selfsame Lyturgy that was practised and used by the Apostles themselves Therefore let all the opposers of the Masse take good â—…d they are not the people the Apostle Prophecied of to Titus his disciple and consequently let them take good heed that by oppugning the incruent sacrifice of the Masse they turn not their backs to God by rejecting and vilisiing the universal Lyturgy of his Church celebrated and practised by his Apostle Let them I say take good heed they hearken not too much to the unsound doctrines of their new masters their Ministers whose eares do itch after new opinions certes they will and do dayly avert their hearing from God and the truth And yet few of them agree in all points of their new opinions which is an evident signe their doctrine is false Not to apprehend the dreadful hour of death and the terrible and strict Judgment of God that follows it and not to fear the great power of the severe Judge who is able to cast both body and soul headlong into everlasting helfire to band against him and to contemn his Lyturgy his Sacraments and his Church after he told us that unless we hear her he will count us but as heathens and Publicans is thâ—… greatest sâ—…upidity and madness imaginable and yet the opposers and enemies of our ' Diana for swerving from Antiquity from all the General Councils and holy â—…thers whose authorities are so clear and manifest for her cannot but be at least highly suspected to be in the wrong They themselves for the most part say that we can be saved in our way and yet they perseâ—…te us more then they do the Turks Jewes and Pagans who are open enemies to Christ we hold they cannot be saved in their way because we would not have them be deluded for we believe none can be saved out of the Church and there is but only one Church of God why then do not they follow the surest way wherein both we and they agree a man may be saved and renounce that suspected way which we who are the far greater number and not inferiour to them for antiquity and learning do hold to be unsafe or can the way to heaven be too to sure Were it so secure an estate or great parcel of mony no-care and diligence would be wanting great heed would be taken that no slaw scruple or doubt should be â—…found in the Patent or Indenture wherefore is it not so also in this case or state of our souls safety which ought to be the dearest and of greatest conâ—…ernment to us of all things why I say do we not walk in the common and sure Catholick road approved of by both parties oh craftiness and guile of Sathan oh vanity of worldly Pompe oh sensuality of flesh and bloud But in plain and open truth our adversaries are clearly convicted concerning the sacrifice of the Mass and of the real presence of Christs body in it for how forsooth is it possible to convince any Christian maâ—… more then by plain and express texts of scripture backt and seconded by the clear authorities and testimonies of all General Councils by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers and by sound and irrefragable reasons deduced from clear Philosophical Principles by all these Mediums is the sacrifice of the Masse and the real presence of Christs body in the host proved in this Appendix and for to convince a Christian no other medium or argument can be more forcible or convincing Therefore whosoever yeelds and acquiesces not to these mediums has nothing to plead for himself but meer obstinacy and consequently he wilfully turns his back to God and his Church and runs directly to his own infallible daâ—…nation he misprises our saviours pretious bloud and Passion and vilifies him and all his heavenly treasure and riches with the promises Christ made unto him of them In a word he hath no more belief then a meer Athiest As for Mr. de Rodons sophistical and false treatise I suppose and perhaps I am not deceived that his wily arguments did so work upon his zealous translator and totally convince him with his apparent Philosophical reasons that he took every one of them to be a palpable demonstration and consequently in his own judgment thinking his cause to be very clear out of â—… pure zeal to Religion and taking ours to be but meer Idolatâ—…y that made him fall so bitterly upon our bones But now when he reads this treatise after he hath seen my full answer to his author and how I have followed him through his whole tract from point to point and refuted him manifestly every where paying him also in his one Philosophical coine after I say the translatot hath perused this book and examined the case better with himself pondering well upon the arguments of both sides pro and con I hope he will become milde and have a better opinion and esteem for our Diana and Religion then he had before I hope also that his understanding being clarified and enlightned by my solutions whereby all de Rodons fallacious sophisms are detected and made minifest to all men of any learning or judgment he finding him to be but an Impoâ—…tor and deluder of weak ignorant souls will soon disown both him and his damnable tract finally I hope that no worldly interest as alass it doth thoufands of our adverse party will so blinde and intoxicate him as to make him lose the interest of his soul and refuse to be an incorporate mistical member of Christ which without the help of our Diana as I have sufficiently proved already is impossible for him or any man else to be As de Rodons weak arguments were not of force
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