seeing that his own personal presence was necessary both in heaven and upon earth in heaven to glorify his Church triumphant on earth to assâ—…t his Church militant he ascended into heaven and â—…ays there in his natural glorious shape and yet at the same time he gives us his body under the form or species of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment Now supposing this saying of Christ Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world Math. 28. and this other saying of his This is my body Math. 26. and Luke 22. and comparing these two passages with that of the Prov. 8. viz. and my delight 's to be with the Children of men he said not his representation figure or signe but his real self it follows evidently that he is to be also really upon earth until the consâ—…mation of the world And since he cannot be in his natural glorious shape in both places at once it follows that he is in his natural shape in heaven and sacramentally with us here upon earth And whereas he saw our nature abhors to eat and drink raw flesh and bloud he found it necessary to attemperate and accommodate his body and bloud which he instituted for our spiritual food to our nature and therefore exhibiteth himself unto us in the likeness or shape of bread and wine which be our natural and ordinary food But to do this he saw t was necessary the substances of bread and wine should vanish and that the substance of his body should come in and supply their place he saw also 't was necessary that the accidents should remain undestroyed to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment And because Christs body is not in the Sacrament impanated that is in bread as Luther falsely asserts for Christ said not This bread is my body or This is my body and bread or This is my body in bread it was necessary the Accidents of bread and wine should be in the Sacrament without their connatural subjects therefore by vertue of his omnipotent word he gives the Sacramental species a substance-like existence in and by themselves without any subject and he props them miraculously with his own infinite power though still with this difference that the sacramental species retain their aptitudinal inherence which substances do not Moreover it was necessary seeing he is in his humane shape in heaven that he should be sacramentally on earth for to verify his above mentioned saying viz. that he would be with us unto the consummation of the world he then being sacramentally with us it follows that he may be in an equivocal place and consequently in a point as the soul is in the body And whereas this Sacrament was instituted to be our spiritual food and we are commanded to eat it we being in a thousand million of places together it was necessary that the Sacrament may be in so many places together also for us to be fed therewith It is also necessary it should be obvious to the good and wicked for to make the good better and to make the wicked people good and devout the which if it doth not alwaies it is no fault of Christ or of the Sacrament but our own fault As no more is an Apothecarys shop the worse for having all sorts of excellent medicines and druggs in it although some of them may chance to kill here and there some people that take them undisâ—…reetly In like manner although some Iudas-like people receive the B. Sacrament unworthily and to their own spiritual ruine and damnation yet it is necessary that it should be ministred to all sort of people to the wicked as well as to the faithfull being it was instituted for us all as also because the Priest who is the right minister of this Sacrament cannot discern the worthy from the unworthy for if Christ himself who knew Iudas his heart gave him his body to eat though he was sure he would receive it unworthily why may not Christs minister not knowing the unworthi ness of the receiver give it him in hopes it would make him better Christ gave his own body to Iudas though he knew it would work his damnation because though he knew Iudas to be wicked and unworthy yet his sins were not publick and known to the world but only secret sins viz. of avarice or theft even so doth our holy Mother the Church to whom the administration of this Sacrament is left she bars no body for his private sins from receiving it knowing that as Christ was tender of Iudas his fame and reputation though he was a vile sinner concealedly and therefore denied not him his body because he was to communicate publickly with the rest of the Apostles so she ought also to deal in this matter with her children But unto publick sinners or Excommunicated persons she flatly and openly denies this Sacrament before they become wholly reconciled and penitent at lest exteriorly to the sight of the world And although it be not necessary that a devil incarnate or a beast should eat it or that it should be stoln burnt or taken away by the devil yet because it is very necessary in it self for our spiritual nourishment and because we are not Gods but only his unworthy ministers to discern a devil incarnate from a meer man also because we know not what future accidents may chance by reason of fire water thieves or bruit beasts and especially because we believe and are sure no annoyance or harm can come to a glorified body from any of all those forementioned things we hold it necessary and not at all inconvenient to keep the B. Sacrament in decent Tabernacles deputed and consecrated meerly for that use and nothing else for to have it always ready at hand in time of need for the spiritual refreshment and nourishment of the faithfull especially of those who are very sick and like to take their leave of this world And as our Tabernacles are only for this purpose so are our Churches for no other use but prayer and offering this Sacrifice whatever use the Mounsieur and this confederate reformers put their Churches to as also those of ours which they wrongfully wrested out of our hands notwithstanding our quiet and peaceable enjoyment of them for many hundred years successively even since their erection by our Ancestours who built them and planted Christian Religion here in England Nay all this the very Protestant chroniclers themselves assert and cannot deny That the devil ever ventured immediately upon the Sacrament either to touch it or take it away I never read nor heard as yet and therefore believe not Mr. de Rodon as to that point But that Jews witches thieves or such like rabble may have carried it away and abused it and also of stupendious Miracles and exemplary punishments that often happned unto the malefactours in sundry ages and countries I have read in several grave and credible Authors Therefore all the
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
ignominy to Christs glorified body for Xaintes his meaning was this that if any man should with pretence of devotion and of being a Christian come to receive the B. Sacrament although he were in himself a Turk an Infidel an Atheist an Hypocrite or devil incarnate the Church will not bar him from taking the Sacrament and the reason is because the Church doth judge of exteriour things only and not of interiour But if a Christian and Catholick also were convinced of a publick and notorious crime or were known to be under an Ecclesiastical consure until he were reconsiled to the Church absolved from his sins and did satisfactory pennance for them he may be sure he shall not be admitted to this Sacrament what ignominy is this I pray to Gods glorified body That the Sacrament was stoln away at Paris and the theif executed for it was wickedly done by the theif and he was justly punished for it and the Priest that took the Sacrament out of his pocket did very well to go in his sacerdotal ornaments kneel and take it out reverently and in all this the Priest did but his duty But where is the ignominy done to Chrâ—…sts glorified body all this while or did it suffer any prejudice by the Theif or by the Priest and when the sacramental species were disasterously burnt with the kings Palace at Paris did that fire work upon Christs glorified body or can a glorified body be subject to fire water sword gun or any kind of sublunary body or element In this my thinks the Mounsieur shews what an excellent Divine and Philosopher he is That the host the God of the Mass hath been seen in the hands of one possest I do not believe the Mounsieur because no body may handle our Sacrament lawfully but a Priest or a deacon unless it were through extream necessity for saving it from fire or from the hands of infidels But that the Priest might lay the Sacrament upon a possest bodies head or hold it before him I questiâ—…ion not and yet if the Sacrament were put into the hands of a person possest I deny it would be in the Devils power therefore more then it was when Christ himself gave it to Iudas the traytour but will de Rodon say that Christ did a horrible and prodigious act for giving himself to Iudas That the Romish Priests do use exorcisms composed by the Church which are no charms as the Mounsieur slanderously term them to compel the devil to obedience and sometimes make use of the B. Sacrament too as of her most esâ—…icatious means in order to that effect is no ignominy at all to Christs glorified bodie but it rather shews manifestly that the Romish Priests are the true successors of the Apostles unto whom Christ gave power to tread upon the infernal serpents and scorpioâ—…s and upon all the power of the enemy Luke 10. 19. a thing which de Rodon nor any of his ever as yet did dare practise or when ever they did or do they never come off with better luck then the seven sons of Sceva the Jewish high Priest did Act. 19. 14. In short whereas our Saviour himself gave the Sacrament to Iudas who was not much better then a devil incarnate and since he gave it him while his body was as yet patible and consequently more subject to be hurt and annoyed then it is now being glorified and impatible sure it is that although those who receive his body unworthily will as Iudas did reap unto themselves ignominy harm and misery yet Christs glorified body by reason of its spiritual dowries is and will always remain glorious and hurtless in it self and so will our diana also for ought this arrow can do against her his twelfth arrow is miraculous that 's to say drawn from miracles thus Rodon 15. God doth no Miracles without necessity But what necessity is there that he should do so many miracles in this Sacrament viz. that accidents should be without a subject that the bread should be converted into Christs body which is already that Christs body should be in a point and in a hundred thousand places at once what necessity is there that it should be eaten by wicked men by beasts or by devils incarnate what necessity is there that it should be carried away by the devil that it should be stoln or burnt c. Can it be said that it is for the salvation of the soul of him that eateth it But Reprobates as our Adversaries confess eat it too and the faithful under the old Testament did not eat it nor do the little children of the believers under the new and yet they are saved for all that Can it be said with Bellarmin and Peron that the host being eaten serves as an incorruptible seed for a glorious Resurrection but the faithful of the old Law and the little children of the believers of the new will rise agâ—…in gloriously though they never participated of the Eucharist And S. Paul tels us Rom. 8. that this seed of the Resurrection of our bodies is not Christs flesh but his spirit in these words If the spirit of him that raised up Iesus from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you Answ. That God doth no miracles without necessity or some great cause I confess and to each Quaere of this interrogative argument I shall answer first presupposing this Gods own saying and my delight 's to be with the children of men Prov. 8. for this reason Christ ascending into heaven in his corporal shape and sitting at the right hand of his heavenly father to feed all the celestial spirits with the sight of his glory for their chief felitity consists in contemplating and beholding of it where he is to remain until the time of the restitution of all things yet he was also gratiously pleased to remain with us in his Church militant after an ineffable sacramental manner to feed our souls upon earth with his graces that flow from this Sacrament as also for to fortiâ—…e and strengthen us against our common Enemies viz. the devil the world and our own proper flesh with his divine presence lest otherwise they should prove too hard for his poor fighting Church Lastly he was pleased so to do that we should know and be encouraged thereby that we have a Mediatour to interpose himself betwixt his father and us which father when he sees the rememorative unbloudy sacrifice we offer him in remembrance of the bloudy Passion of his moâ—…t dearly beloved son in satisfaction for our hainous sins committed against his divine Majesty for the worthiness and purity of the oblation or sacrifice if we offer it him with due devotion and while we are in the â—…tate of Grace he is presently reconciled unto us for his sons sake and ready to bestow upon us more of his new favours and Graces Christ then who is the wisdom of his heavenly father
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
and a Metaphor for God being a spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of heaven and earth which he hath received from God his father as Earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again when it is said S. Math. 16. upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest thâ—…t these are figures and Metaphors as Bellarmine confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is chiefly by this Passage that they endeavour to prove the Popes authority Answ. If this be our weapon or objection I pray Mounsieur give us leave to handle and order it our selves and then the standers by or arbiters may judge whether we thrust or push home with it or no for as you handle it it is to blunt too pearce through Therefore instead of saying when the establishing of Articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments c. men speake plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively give us leave to say men ought as well as they can and as farr as the subject they treat of bears it to speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively and then perhaps our weapon may do some execution As for example at the Institution of this Sacrament Christ first took bread in his hand and said plainly without any figure this is my body and left it as a Testament with us so wee take it and believe it to be Afterwards he took wine in a cup saying This is the Chalice of my bloud Certainly if the consectated bread be his real body the consecrated wine must needs be his real bloud because as we suppose the words of consecration were uttered upon both in the same sense and meaning Notwithstanding the words spoken of the bread were spoken plainly and not figuratively but the words spoken of the wine were figurative why because he took not the wine immediatly in his hand as he took the bread but he took it in a cup or chalice and therefore to express the Testament of the bloud it was necessary he should speak figuratively and yet he exprest himself as plainly as could be But in the Testament of his body where there was no need of a Metonynâ—…e or figure he exprest himself plainly and down right from whence follows that Sacraments Testaments and covenants ought to be made as plainly clearly and in as proper terms as their subjects will permit them to be exprest Sometimes also a thing is better exprest when one speaks figuratively then by the proper literal Phrase for example when I say such a man is a Lyon a Tygar or a Nero. Such an expression is as plain and yet better and more energical to shew and express strength cruelty or tyrannie then if one should say such a man is mighty strong very cruel and tyrannical So was oâ—…r Saviours expression of S. Peter Math. 16. where he calls him a rock because the word rock is more significative and energical to shew the stability and firmness of Peter and his successours spiritual power then if he had exprest himself in plain terms thou art the head or chief Ruler of my Church And yet I eonfess that Rock there has but a figurative sense Therefore I say that when we have not a proper word to expresse a thing or when we cannot expresse it so well with its proper term as we can with a figure then it is lawful in Sacraments Testaments and covenants to use figurative expressions instead of plain and litteral ones But in our present question or dispute concerning the Eucharist especially concerning the consecration of the Bread there is no need of any figure either for to signify the thing consecrated or to express it with more energy Therefore being 't is left us for a Testament of the new Law we ought to take the words in their plain and litteral meaning without having recourse to any needless figurative glossation or sense Therefore although as Mr. de Rodon handles this weapon or objection it be false that Articles of faith Testaments and covenants are always exprest in proper terms in holy scripture which word Always he has in his answer though he puts it not in the objection yet as I handle it that is thus when the establishing of Articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments c. Men ought as well as they can and as farr as the subject they treat of â—…ears it and when there is no necessity to the contrary in making Testaments covenaâ—…ts or Articles of faith to speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively In this sense I deny our major Proposition to be always or ever â—…lse And being the minor is evident clear aâ—…d uncontroâ—… led by Mr. de Rodon with my good leave I let the consequence follow Rodon 4. Secondly I answer that the holy scripture commonly speaks of Sacraments in figurative terms Thus Circumcision is called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. in these words This is my Covenant every male shall be circumcised that is this is the signe of the Covenâ—…nt as appears by the following verse ye â—…hall circumcise the fleâ—… of your fore-skin and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you So the Paschal lamb is called the Lords Passover Exod. 12. because the bloud of this lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was given as a signe of the Angels favorable passing over the houses of the Israelites â—…s appears by vers 13. of the same chapter So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it is the Sacrament of it In a word the Eucharistical cup is called the New Testament because it is the signe seal and Sacrament of it Answ. Really Mounsieur these wily sophistical excuses or answers will not serve your turn for we grant that Circumcision the Passover and all the rest of the Sacraments of the old Law were but meer speculative signes and tokens of what they signified and that they had no practical or operative vertue in them of themselves to sanctify or give grace to those that received them and God gave grace to the receivers of the old Sacraments only by compact viz. he promised Grace to such as received those Sacraments or signes he then gave them for their distinguishment from the unsaithfull not that those signes or Sacraments contained actually or practically any grace in themselves or that they were immediate instrumental causes of Grace as the Sacraments of the new Law are for the former Sacraments were as divines call them but vasa vacua empty vessels and the new ones are vasa plaena full vessels dipt in his Passion and
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
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
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