the mouth is that action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification that I deny as also the supposition viz. that the soul can eat by faith as by her mouth faith beiâ—…g no mouth of the soul whether a mouth be taken litterally or figuratively which Mr. de Rodon never proved or will be able to prove in sound Philosophy Therefore his conclusion is blown and vanished like smoke and consequently seeing in S. Iohn 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is certain and evident that a corporal eating and drinking which hath a spiritual operation upon the soul when we receive the Sacrament being in the state of Grace and we believe it is a rememorative of Christs death is there spoken of and not an imaginary spiritual noteating by the notmouth of faith Rodon 5. From what hath been said it appears that when Iesus Christ saith My flesh is meat indeed c. the figure falls upon the word Meat which is taken not for corporal but spiritual meat The reason whereof is that corporall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the body as spirituall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the soul so that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make â—…t to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body otherwise poison medicine a bullet c. which a man swallows would be corporal food which is absurd to affirm But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because that food which is appointed for the nourishment of the body is changed into the substance of our bodies therefore the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food but his flesh broken and his bloud shed on the Cross is a spiritual food which nourisheth the souls of those who by a true and lively faith do embrace this flesh broken and this bloud shed that is who do wholly rest amd rely on the merits of his death and Passion for obtaining mercy from God And certainly seeing that the life which Iesus Christ gives us by his death is spiritual that the nourishment is spiritual that the eating his body and drinking his bloud is spiritual as hath been proved it follows that his flesh must be spiritual meat and his bloud spiritual drink And this flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truely meat indeed in regard of its effects then corporall food can be because it doth better and more perfectly nourish the souls of the believers then corporal food doth their bodies this being corruptible food which gives temporal life only but that spiritual and incorruptible food which gives life everlasting Answ. From what Mr. de Rodon hath been hitherto answered it appears that when Jesus Christ saith My flesh is meat indeed no figure falls upon the word meat but that it must be taken litterally for that flesh is meat indeed according to the common usage of speaking is understood more properly in a litteral then in a figurative sense as are also all other things which are said to be such things indeed And yet this corporal flesh of Christ being taken by the mouth of the body is ordained to feed and nourish the soul and not the body because it hath a supernatural operation by reason of its personal union with Christs divinity and most blessed soul which supernatural and spiritual operation the bare entities of bread and wine have not as also no other corporal food hath but is only appointed for the nourishment of the body by which dispurity between the operation of Christs flesh and the operation of all other corporal â—…oods the silly reason of the Mounsieurs argument is both enervated and precluded and all the consequences he draws from it are of no force or truth I say his reason is but silly because he says that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body for otherwise Poison medicine and a bullet taken in would be corporal food which to say is absurd Tell me I pray Mr. de Rodon where did you ever see or hear that poison phisick or a bullet were taken for corporal food by any man unless he were of less reason then your self or tell me if you eat bread though not with an intention to nourish you whether it will not nourish you or if you should chance to swallow down a bullet or chaw it if your teeth be so good with an intention it should nourish you would it nourish you because you took it for your nourishment This any body may see is but very silly stuff whence you in ferr But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because the body of Christ is not changed into the substance of our bodyes I confess it But what then Therefore you say the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food his flesh is not a corporal food that nourishes corporally I confess a corporal food that nourishes spiritually I deny and the rest of your consequences also inasmuch as they militate against eating the corporal real body of Christ though its operation we confess is but spiritual however we agree with you in this that the flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truly meat indeed in regard of its effects then any other corporal food can be for the reasons you alledge But yet we say that it is sufficient to take his flesh with the mouth of our body being in the state of Grace and believing the Sacrament to be a rememorative of his death to have it work its spiritual effects in our souls Rodon 6. I conclude this Chapter with this consideration when a doctrine is proposed which is pretended to be divine and that passages of holy Scripture are alledged for the proof of it if it opposeth or seems to oppose sense and reason and to include contradictions and that a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages so that all those inconveniencies and contradictions may be avoided there is nothing more just then that we should embrace that probable and rational sense and reject that doctrine which opposeth sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions But the doctrine of the real presence of the manbood of Christ in the host and the Transubstantiation of the bread into his body is repugnant to sense and reason and seems to include divers contradictions viz. that a human body is in a point without any local extension that a body may be in divers places at one and the
Therefore what the Mounsieur objects concerning eating Christs body corporally by reprobats is to no purpose for we confess that to eat him corporally only without faith and the rest of the Theological vertues brings rather eternal damnation then eternal life to the soul and yet we still deny that he is eaten spiritually by the mouth of faith alone or that there is any such thing as mouth of faith Rodon 3. His third argument he takes from S. Augustine and Cardinal Caietan who expound he saies the words of Iesus Christ as he doth S. Augustine in Book 3. of Christian doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Cardinal Caietan in his commentary on S. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you And having sufficiently proved this exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he faith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he faith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh whence it clearly appears that according to the letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Iesus Christ. Answ. This exposition of the holy Father we embrace for it makes nothing against us but rather for us for we say also that when we receive the substance of Christs body which is his flesh by our corporal mouth under the species of bread and wine we say we eat the Sacrament which is a figure or sign that makes us partake of Christs Passion and impriâ—…ts with delight and profit Christs Passion in our mindes for we hold with the great divine S. Thomas of Aquin that the figure or Sacrament which we eat is a signum rememorativum a rememorative sign of Christs death And our Saviour himself said when he instituted this Sacrament as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me which we understand thus as often as you eat this Sacrament which is an unbloudy sacrifice and a figure of my bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross remember my bitter Passion for by offering this unbloudy sacrifice unto my father he will be pleased with it and since your prayers fasting almesdeeds and all your other best works as they are precisely yours are not satisfactory to him for your offences against his divine Majesty and are not of themselves able to appease his just wrath against you according to the rigour of the attribute of his divine Justice which he cannot but uphold when he beholds this pure Sacrifice and sees that I am become your mediator and that it is offered him in remembrance of a rigorous satisfaction for your sins by my bloudy sacrificing my self unto him upon the altar of the cross it will incontinently pacify and reconcile him unto you it will encourage you and delight your souls for it will put you in hopes of your salvation whereof you would be otherwise for want of this inter-mediation in a deep dispaire This and many more vertues and graces doth this Sacrament operate in our souls unless we our selves by receiving and offering it in mortal sin do obstruct or hinder them which if we do the fault is ours not the Sacraments which retains alwaies this vertue in it self If any man can with reason and faith attribute such vertue to the bare entities of bread and wine I leave any prudent reader to judge As to the learned Cardinal however his exposition alledged against us upon S. Iohn 6. must be understood no body doubts but his opinion concerning the real presence was the same ours is and that he died in it therefore if he be of any authority with Mr. de Rodon he ought to understand him according to his meaning The words be these but if rightly understood and according to his meaning not at all against us To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you the accute Cardinals meaning was to expound the true meaning and sense of these words is saith in Christs death and also to instruct people how to receive this Sacrament with profit to their souls Therefore he sayes that the sense of those words is to use the death of the son of man as meat and drink if we intend to receive profitably and what else is it to use the death of the son of man as meat and drink but to ruminate and meditate upon his death so that the Cardinals meaning was that to receive the Sacrament profitably when we eat and drink the body and bloud of Christ we must do it in remembrance of his Passion which is the self same thing Christ commands us to do and which Catholicks practise dayly And his additionate words viz. to eat and drink the Sacrament is commonly as well c. do clear his meaning for he knowing that to eat Christs body corporally is a thing common as well to the reprobate as to the elect he tells us that to eat it profitably we must beleive it to be a rememorative of Christs death and that by so eating it we eat and ruminate upon his death Therefore although we confess that faith is necessary in him that receives the Sacrament to take it worthily and profitably yet we deny that faith is the mouth wherewith we eat it or that by faith alone we eat the death of Christ for we deny that faith is the mouth of mans soul or body and without a mouth there can be no eating As to the Cardinals last words viz. he saith not he that eateth worthily or drinketh worthily but he that eateth or drinketh I am sure he meant by eating and drinking to eat and drink it worthily for he could not mean to eat and drink it unworthily and betwixt eating and drinking worthily and unworthily there is no medium so that of necessity when he speaks of eating and drinking it spiritually or with profit as he meant here he must be understood by eating and drinking eating and drinking worthily from whence it doth not clearly appear that according to the letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Jesus Christ for these words eating and drinking may better in a litteral sense be alluded to the Sacrament
then to death the one having a positive being and the other consisting in a privation only But let us hear the Mounsier speak Rodon 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine we must consider wherein the life which Iesus Christ gives us doth consist for seeing the flesh of Iesus Christ is meat to us because it gives us life it is evident that if we know what life that is which Iesus Christ gives us we must know likewise hâ—…w Iesus Christ is meat to us and consequently how we eat him But to know what that life is which Iesus Christ gives us we must consider what that death is in which we are involved which is expressed by S. Paul Eph. 2. in these words When we were dead in sins and trespasses God hath quickned us together with Christ by grace ye are saved and consequently the death in which we were involved consists in two things first in the curse of the Law which imports the privation of felicity and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins secondly it consists in an habitual corruption whereby sin raigns in us and therefore it is said 1. Tim. 5. The widdow that lives in pleasure is dead while she liveth Also sins are called dead works Heb. 10. So that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in two things first in deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins as S. Paul tells us Colos. 2. God hath quickned you together with Chriâ—… having forgiven you all trespasses blotting out the 〈◊〉 that was against us which obligation â—…receded from the Law because it did oblige all thâ—… transgressors of it to a curse secondly it consists in regeneration or sanctification whereof Iâ—…sus Christ speaking in John 3. saith Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdome of God And S. Paul Heb. 12. without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Therefore seing that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in the pardon of our sins and in our regeneration and sanctification which ends in glorification and that Iesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life we must consider the me nâ—… whereby Iesus Christ hath purchased these things for us and seing it is certain that his death is the means by which he hath purchased Pardon of sins and regeneration we must conclude that Iesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death But that Iesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us that is Iustification which consists in the pardon of our sins and regeneration which consists in holiness of life appears by these passages of Scripture viz. We are justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God by his death Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud even the remission of sins c. Therefore seing Iesus Christ hath purchased life for us by death and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink because they purchased life everlasting for us on the Cross viz. the remission of our sins and sanctification ending in glorification it follows that the action whereby Iesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But this action is nothing else but faith as the Scripture tells us Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. God purifiâ—…s our hartâ—… by faith Act. 15 he that beleiveth hath eternal life Iohn 6. from what hath been said I form this Argument That action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in Glorification is the same whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification as we have proved But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is that action where by we obtain remission of sins and sanctification as we have also proved therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased us by his death and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth And consequently seing in S. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is evident that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of and not a corporal Answ. Now after clearly understanding Mr. de Rodons long sermon-like doctrine we confess the flesh of Christ is meat to us because it gives us spiritual life we confess also that the life it gives us consists in the forgiveness of our sins and in our sanctification which ends in Glorification Thirdly we confess that the death wherein we were involved consists in the privation of eternal felicity and in the suffering of eternal and temporal punishment for our sins in a word we grant our souls are quickned from the death of sin and all its effects and that she liveth spiritually by the merits of our Saviours death and passion and lastly we grant also that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applyed unto us for righteousness and sanctification ending in Glorification is the sâ—…me by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But that this action is nothing else but faith as Mr. de Rodon inferrs we â—…atly deny and maintain that besides the act of believing there must be also an act of corporal eating Therefore to his proofs out of Scripture we answer that the three forementioned passages speak not of faith alone nor of faith as the cause of our sanctification but of faith as a condition requisite to it as I have formerly proved And being action proceeds from a suppositum as Schoolmen call it or cause and is attributed to it and not to a bare condition as 't is to be evidently seen in the example of fire which is the cause of burning wood not the application which is only a condition requisit where the action of burning is attributed to fire the cause not to application the bare condition Even so is it in this case The Sacrament is the cause of our sanctification and to receive it with faith as a remembrance of Christs death and Passion is only a condition requisit for receiving it spiritually and with profit to our souls By this solution Mr. de Rodon's concluding argument upon the premises above-granted and passages of Scripture clearly expounded vanisheth into smoak his argument is this That action whereby â—…e obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in glorification is the same wâ—…ereby we have that life which Jesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life chiefly consists in the remission of sins and sanctification that I confess But quoth he the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by
light to all the world if it were reproduced in all parts of the world that a great army might be made of one man reproduced in a hundred thousand adjoyning places that all the debts in the world might be payed with one crown reproduced as many times as there be crowns due That all the people in the world might quench their thirst with one pottle of wine reproduced as many times as there be inhabitants in the world that all the men in the world might drink in one and the same glass reproduced as many times as there be men in the world whereupon a man might be so curious as to ask whether if this glass should be broken at Paris it would also be broken at Rome Constantinople and other places that one man reproduced in an hundred thousand places might at the same time marry an hundred thousand wives and lie with them whereupon a man might desire to know whether these women might not conceive and every one of them be delivered of a childe at the end of nine moneths and consequently it may be said that one man did in one night beget an hundred thousand children c. Answ. It is a common saying Stultorum plenus est mundus that the world is full of fools and I think our Mounsieur may serve for all for the little Microcosme of his aery giddy brain is so full of senseless frantick figaries that it is not in his power to rid himself of them so he proceeds from folly to folly or rather to use his own terms he produces one foolish arrow and reproduces it so often that from it and its sequels he falls into an horrid blasphemy for thus he shoots Jesus Christ as he is man cannot be in divers places at once if another man cannot be so too because Jesus Christ as he is man was made like unto us in all things sin only excepted But another man cannot be in divers places at once ergo c. This arrow certainly aims not only at Diana but also at Christ himself therefore rather then it should hit Christ let us leave her and run to save him But how Rodon because the Apostle says Christ is made like us in his humane nature and essence and in all the rest of our properties which flow from our essence though not conceived and born in sin as we were does it follow that we are equal and like to him in power also If so then the Mounsieur rose again the third day after his death at Geneva by his own proper might and vertue without the ministry or aid of any Angel and sits now check by joal to Christ at the right hand of God the father and will descend with him to judge the quick and the dead for none of these things be sins and we must be like Christ in all things sin only excepted Where be all those forsooth that the Mounsieur raised from death to life where be all the lame all the blind all the dumb deaf and sick people he cured Christ did many such things and yet they were no sins how can he then or any of us be like unto Christ in all things sin only excepted save only in our humane nature But to be in two places at once belongs to Christs power and not to his humane nature where is Mr. de Rodons comparative argument then now If this be no blasphemy I know not what to call blasphemy Therefore Peter Paul nor Mr. de Rodon himself are like to Christ in his power though they be like him in their humane nature sin only excepted and consequently although Peter cannot be killed at Rome and alive at Paris at the same time for otherwise if he means a mortal Peter he should be man and no man at once yet Christ can be in heaven naturally and Sacramentally at Rome the self same time because he is in the Sacrament not as in his proper place and his body in it is a glorified immortal and impatible body and consequently cannot be killed as Peter being but a mortal man can be at Rome To those additionate absurdities which I call his additionate impertinencies for none of them are pertinent to our question I answer as I often did before that no body can be in two places at once circumscriptively though it may be circumscriptively in one place and sacramentally in another And all his impertinencies militate only against one body circumscriptively at once in two places which we grant cannot be And so this arrow endeth in its venom and Blasphemy Now then to his seventh Rodon 8. If Christs body were in the host it would be seen there for being there in its glory as the Roman Doctors say it is it would be there more visibly then it was when he conversed amongst men here below because the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light Like to that which he had upon Mount Thabor â—…ut who dares affirm that such a glorious body is not visible wheresoever it is yet it is certain that Christs body is not to be seen in the host which is an evident signe that he is not there c. Answ. I distinguish the major thus If Christs body were in the host it would be seen there with the eye of our understanding holpen by faith I confess with our corporal eye I deny The Romish Doctors then do hold that it is enough this grand Mystery is intelligible and implies no contradiction to have it be believed for if there be no impossibility nor contradiction in the case as concerning the veracity of the thing in it self they rely upon Christs own effective and true word therefore since our intelligible faculty holpen by faith sheweth us that Christ can create which is a thing more difficult in it self then to transubstantiate one thing into another as also that he left us an evident pattern of his power in such a case by converting water into wine we considering his omnipotency and his goodness whose property is to impart his self to his rational creature in the highest degree our spiritual eye viz. our understanding illuminated by faith seeing this far more clearly then our corporal eyes can see any thing seing also that for Christ to communicate himself really and substantially unto us is a more perfect and high degree of communication then if he should give himself figuratively only we seeing the thing feaseble in it self and agreeable to Christs infinite goodness believe it upon his word which we know to be firmer then heaven and earth Mr de Rodon strives by his natural reason grounded upon humane Philosophy to demonstrate that it is not in Christs power to Transubstantiate bread into his own body this is the main point and substance of our dispute he opposing Christs power as to this thing and we propugning it and maintaining it to be agreeable to his infinite goodness that the thing
answer that as heat is proper to fire and rational essential to man so is also to suffer a property to a patible living body sacrificed and not to suffer a property to an impatible or glorious body such as Christs body is sacrificed in the Mass where is now then the Mounsieurs strong argument out of clear and apparent scripture Rodon Thirdly these words from the foundation of the world are of great weight for t is as much as if the Apostle had sayd if the only sacrifice of Christ on the Crâ—…ss be not sufficient to take away sins which shall be committed hereafter it follows that it was not sufficient to take away sins which have been committed heretofore from the creation of the world for it is very unsuitable that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross should have more vertue before it was offered then since but the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross had the vertue to take away sins before it was otherwise saith the Aposile he should often have suffered from the foundation of the world Therefore it hath also vertue to take away sins committed since it was And consequently there is no need that it should be reiterated in the Mass. Answ. Sure it is and we confess it thâ—… the foundation of the world or to speak more properly the world upon its foundation is a thing of very great poyse and weight in it self But alas the argument which the Mounsieur draws from it is of no weight at all it is as light as any fly or feather for we grant that the sacrifice of the Cross is sufficient to take away the sins committed not only before it from the creation of the world but also that shall be committed hereafter and that his bloudy sacrifice was offered for all people in general yet since as holy Primasius saith our sins do dayly increase and all ages grow more and more corrupt it is not only convenient but also necessary that this bloudy sacrifice typified by all the Sacraments of the old Law and virtually in its self sufficient to destroy all the sins of the world even from the foundation thereof until dooms-day should be reiterated rememorated and applyed by the Church for the dayly sins of the faithful not bloudily as it was upon the Cross for that would be a cruel â—…nd Jewish action but unbloudily as it is in the Mass for Christs body being now glorified can suffer no more Rodon Fourthly the Apostles comparison is câ—…nsiderable the sense whereof is this as men suffer death but once and after death appear nâ—… more till the dâ—…y of the Resurrection and day of Iudgmeâ—… sâ—… Christ hath offered himself to his father once for all on the Cross to take away sins and will be nâ—… more upon earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead This utterly destroyes the Mass in which Iesus Christ is said to be offered and sacrificed continually by the ministery of Priests Answ. Notwithstanding the Apostles considerable comparison this argument of the Mounsieurs is as inconsiderable as his last was light for we confess that as men suffer death but once and after death appear no more until the day of refurrection and judgement so Christ hath offered himself to his father once for all on the Cross to take away sins and will be no more in his humane shape upon earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead but we deny that he will not be really upon earth also in the Sacrament until the consumation of the world as he himself promised us he would be and to his illative exclamation or out-cry viz. This utterly destroys the Mass I answer as lowd as he that his consequence makes him an Ass for it follows not at all that because Christ will appear no more upon earth in his humane shape that he is not really in the Mass or that the Mass is utterly destroyed how does the Mounsieur infer this how does he prove it out of this Passage verily no better then an Ass would if he could speak Rodon Fifthly sacrifices that take away sins and sanctifie those that come thereunto ought not to be reiterated for the only reason which the Apostle alledgeth why the old sacrifices of the law were reiterated is because they could not take away sins nor sanctify the comers thereunto as appeare by the Text above cited But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross takes away sins and sanctifies those that come thereunto therefore the sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross onght not to be reiterated and consequently is not reiterated in the Mass. If Iesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and and purchase eternal redemption for us then it is evident that the fruit and efficacy of this sacrifice endures for ever and that we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross But Iesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us as appears by the Texts afforesaid Therefore the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross endures for ever and we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross. In a word either we must confes that the sacrifice of the cross hath no vertue to take away sins and to sanctify us for ever which is contrary to what the Apostle saith or else if it hath this vertue and sufficiency then Iesus Christ hath offered one only sacrifice once for all and consequently is not offered dayly in the Mass by the Ministery of Priests Answ. These two pittifull illations deduced out of your fifth argument are chopt off in two words for as to the first we consess again and again that Christs bloudy sacrifice which takes away sins and sanctifies people onght not be reiterated bloudily again unbloudily we deny and this we told the Mounsieur a hundred times over as to the second we also deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is any other sacrifice distinct from that of the Cross as we also told him as many times over and over which two principles of ours until he destroys which he nor any of his will ever be able to do his Illations will remain pittyful and never be worth a rush Rodon The Apostle almost throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebr. saith that Jesus Christ was constituted and consecrated by his father high Priest for ever and particularly Chap. 7. he saith that many were made Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death But Jesus Christ because he continueth for ever hath an unchangeable Priest-hood and that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them And consequently infers the wise Mounsieur he hath no need of vicars or companions in his Priesthood Answ. Why Mounsieur is
Mounsieur is utterly false as to all its parts and his bare word for it without any proof is no imaginary but real obstinate impudence for he contradicts all the General Councils holy fathers and universal Church of God yet he offers to prove it thus Rodon First because it is said Heb. 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Therefore in the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass there can be no remission of sins and consequently it cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Answ. To this silly consequence I answer again and again and say that what the holy fathers unanimously consented unto and practised dayly as concerning an unbloudy Propitiatory sacrifice is ten thousand times of more weight and a better warrant for our opinion then de Rodon and all his Phanatick rabbles bare word is to destroy or weaken it Therefore I confess with the Apostle Heb. the 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Because if there had been no primitive bloudy sacrifice this unbloudy sacrifice had not been instituted for it was instituted as a memorial or remembrance of the bloudy one from whence follows not at all that the same host which was once offered bloudily may not be offered again unbloudily for our sins and consequently that the sacrifice of the Mass cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Rodon Secondly because Iesus Christ cannot be offered without suffering for the Apostle saith Heb. 6. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ with suffering is a bloudy Sacrifice therefore there is no unbloudy Sâ—…crifice Answ. That Christ can be offered without suffering and that a rigorous Sacrifice may be without death bloud or suffering is sufficiently maintained before as also that these words of the apostle must be understood of a bloudy sacrifice which we confess is not to be reiterated but not of an unbloudy one we said before Therefore these consequences drawn out of the Apostle are but frivolous repetitions of his old shattred stuff Rodon Thirdly because the bloudy sacrifice of the Crosse being of an infinite value hath purchased an eternal redemption Heb. 9. and hath taken away all sins past present and to come whence it followeth that there is no other Sacrifice either bloudy or unbloudy that can purchase the pardon of our sins the Sacrifice of the Crosse having sufficiently done it Let the Mounsieur stir the râ—…bbish never so often and turn it over and over and let him turn and search the Apostle to the Hebrews and look narrowly into all his other works never so often I am sure he will never be able to pick one golden or silver consequence nay not one worth a straw to serve his turn against us for we grant that there is no other sacrifice bloudy or unbloudy essentially distinct from the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross that can purchase the pardon of our sins But we deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is essentially distinct from that of the Cross or that the sacrifice of the Mass being the self-same with that of the Cross cannot purchase the pardon of our sins and I pray Mounsieur what force hath your consequence out of the Apostle against this answer no more certainty as any man may see then a broken straw hath Rodon Fourthly Because the justice of God requires that sins shall be expiated by the punishment that is due to them and this is so true that the wrath of God could not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the Iustice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering Answ. I grant that Gods wrath for our sins was appeased by the bloudy and ignominious death of Christ upon the Cross and that the satisfaction was according to rigorous Justice But I deny that the nature of Gods Justice must have changed if sins can be expiated in the Masse without pain or suffering because the Masse as it is a sacrifice derives all its force vertue and vigour from the Primitive bloudy sacrifice of the Crosse and being both are of one essence and that there is no more need of a bloudy satisfaction for sin it followeth that the repetition or reiteration of the same sacrifice now offered unbloudily for there is no more need of a bloudy sacrifice has the same force and efficacy to expiate sin now as it had when it was offered upon the cross the person offered being the self-same and of the same value and worth And this is true that the Mounsieurs consequence is very false because Christ having satisfied once bloudily and his body being now glorious and impatible as it is not convenient he should suffer again having satisfied sufficiently already for all sins in general so is it convenient his bloudy passion should be rememorated unbloudily and applyed for the sins of the faithful in particular both because Christ left orders with his Church in express terms it should be done so when he said as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me as also for holy Primasius his reasons viz. because we sin dayly Now then to his third Reply Rodon 20. Thirdly to the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is dayly offered in the Mass I reply first that what the Council of Trent saith in sess 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine powred into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Iesus Chaist and his death according to his own command in these words do this in remembrance of me and according to what S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applyed to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a crue and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead which hath been already refuted at large Answ. That you have done indeed as Luther refuted king Henry the eighth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of devils c. But I think any impartial reader may easily see and judge that I have fully and pathetically answ ered all your refutations and shewed
that he hath reconciled men unto God made their peace with the Angels and hath particularly recommended Peace to them As for Aaron and other high Priests they were no kings much less are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck And they that have written the lives of the Popes have sufficiently declared what righteousness and Peace they have procured for the true and faithful servants of Iesus Christ as I shall shew at large elswhere Secondly the Apostle heb 7. represents Melchisedick to us as a man come from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life not that he was really such a one but because Moses hath wholy concealed from us his father mother descent birth and death that he might be the type of Christ who was without father as he is man without mother as God without descent both as God and man having neither beginning of dayes as God nor end of life as God or as man But the fathers descent birth and death of Aaron and other high Priests are exactly described by Moses And there were never any Popes Bishops or Priests whose Parents birth and death were not known consequently they cannot be after the order of Melchisedec Thirdly the Apostle adds that Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever because Moses makes no mention of his death nor of any one that succeedeth him in his Priestly office that so he might be the type of Iesus Christ who never less his Priestly office but will exercise it untill the end of the world always interceeding for those that are his by presenting his sacrifice to God the father continually As for Aaron and other Priests they are dead and have had successors and the Popes Bishops and Priests die dayly and have successors and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fourthly the Apostle saith likewise that Melchisedec took tithes of Abraham and adds that Melchisedec blessed him that had the Promises viz. Abraham and the less is blessed of the greater whence it appears that Melchisedec having taken tithes of Abraham and blessed him and Levi and all the Priests in his person was more evcellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold as to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithfull in whose seed all the Nations of the Earth are blessed and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fifthly the Apostle never spoke of the sacrifice of Melchisedec so far was he from comparing it with the sacrifice of Iesus Christ as being like it or with that of Aaron as being unlike it so that all that our Adversaries say is nothing else but meer humane invention Answ. This your last answer Mounsieur is indeed very false as to its two first points viz. that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron did not consist in this that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread â—…nd wine as also when you deny the likenesse of the Priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Jesus Christ doth consist in this that as Melehisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine This answer I say is not only false but also impious because it contradicts both scripture and the unanimous opinion of all the holy fathers It contradicts scripture because scripture says in plain and express termes that Christ took bread in his hand and said of it this is my body and took wine in a cup and said of it this is my bloud and yet you pertinaciously say it is not founded in scripture or reason It is I confess above our reason to comprehend how Christs body is in the host and yet it is not contrary to reason that it should be there and yet we have reason to believe it is there both because Christ said it and his word is truth and omnipotent as also because the words of the Royal prophet and of the Apostle concerning the everlasting Priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedec must needs be verified in Christ as I said before which since they cannot be verified by his bloudy sacrifice as is also proved and there is no other strict sacrifice imaginable whereby to verifie them but this of the Masse it stands both with scripture and reason that as Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine and consequently that the likeness of both their Priesthoods did chiefly consist in this manner of sacrificing To what you say that these are but human inventions I say they are liker divine inspirations since all the holy fathers concurr in them then your impudent denial without any proof but your own consident word is of any force or weight to weaken or hurt them You say further more that the Apostle writing to the hebrews doth place the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Aaron and its likenesse in quite another thing first because being called Melchisedeck which signifies King of Righteousnesse and being king of Salem which signifies Peace he was the type of Jesus Christ who is truly king of righteousness and king of peace But Aaron you say and other high priests were no kings and much lesse are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck But good Sir with your leave the Apostle by this disparity betwixt Melchisedeck and Aaron viz. that Melchisedeck was a king and Aaron not that th'ones name signified Righteousness and Peace and th' others not placeth no difference between their Priesthood but only between their persons viz. that Melchisedeck being both king and Priest is a more perfect type of Jesus Christ then Aaron was who was but only a Priest and no king and all this we grant But this shews no difference between their Priesthood as any body may see and yet the difference between their Priesthood and not their persons is the thing you are to prove out of the Apostle which you will never be able to do but by the difference of their sacrifices therefore though Aaron nor any of the Romish Priests were kings your consequence has a huge slaw in it The same slaw hath your second consequence because all what you say out of the Apostle Heb. 7. concerning Melchisedecs coming from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life all these I say do shew the difference between Melchesedec and Aarons persons and that Melchisedec was a more perfect type of Christ then Aaron was but it shews
enough to pearce or annoy our Diana in any thing the leaâ—…t so likewise his Translators rayling and sâ—…olding at her can do her no more harm then a doggs barking can do to the Moon therefore he had better follow the good counsel of grave Gamaliel to the Jewes concerning how they should deal with the Apostles whose words be these And now therefore I say unto you depart from these men and let them alâ—…ne for if this counsel or work be of men it will be dissâ—…lved but if it be of God you are not able to dissâ—…lve them lest perhaps you be found to â—…esist God also Act 5. Even so in my poor judgement had the Translator best do to the Masse for with railing and scolding at it he will never be able to hurt it It hath stood from all ages since Christs time untill now and if it be of God it is not the Translator or I that shall be able to put it down alas both he and I shall be dead and rotten while noble Diana will be as brisk merry and fresh as she was the very first day she came into this world However I cannot but exâ—…use the good Translator because of his great zeal if his bitterness towards us proceeded onely from ignorance and not from malice or interestâ—… for S. Paul himself out of his ardent zeal to the Synagogue wherein he was born and bred was once a severe enemy and violent Persecutor of Gods Church But after he was illuminated by Christ and knew better things who ever after was more zealous for her honour and glory then he and yet he himself doth confess that God shewed him his great mercy quia ignorans feci because I did it quoth he ignorantly so I beg God heartily that this small book of mine by his blessing may illuminate the minds of those that are plunged â—…n the Abyss of heresy and Ignorance through the means of Mr de Rodon and such like Phanatick hereticks who by their false interpretations and applications of holy scripture set out and garnished with their sophistical arguments do deceive and mislead many thousands of poor ignorant souls to their utter ruine and everlasting damnation for leaving their true Mother the Church out of which there is no salvation for any And amongst the rest of the illuminated I wish the Translator were one To conclude this Appendix I exhort all the Catholicks of England and I earnestly beg and beseech them for the love of our sweet saviour Jesus Christ and the tender bowells of his infinite mercy towards them to stick closly and cleave constantly to their pretious Diana and for her sake to be always ready and prepared to undergoe all manner of persecutions tribulations and losses rather then forsake her for whatever damage or ill-entreatment they suffer upon her account they may be sure she will requite them a hundred-fold double for it with full interest Our saviour himself did â—…id us Not fear them that kill the body and after this have no more to do but I will shew you quoth he whom ye shall fear fear him who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell Luke 12. for your momentary sufferings in this life for his sake your crown and reward will be everlasting hereafter More then eye can see ear can hear or understanding can comprehend 1. Cor. 2. verity himself doth promise it and his promise he can and will perform Expect him but a little while with patience and in your patience ye shall possess your souls S. Luke 21. It is far better for you to suffer a little and short famine cold want misery imprisonment nay death it self for her sakes then to live plentifully and abundantly here for a moment and for ever after for denying her to be in everlasting famine imprisonment torment misery and want for unless we be Christs fellow sufferers in this life we shall not be his copartners in glory as the Apostle tells Timothy 2. If we shall sustain we shall also reign together In a word I conclude my book with the â—…ame prayer the Translator ends his preface with viz. I earnestly beseech my Lord and God he would make it prosperous and successfull for the good of souls and if any shall receive benefit by it I desire them to give him all the glory and I shall think my self infinitely recompensed for my pains in composing it yet if there be any thing in it that is not orthodox and sound I humbly submit my poor judgment to the censure of our holy mother the Church Errata PAge 13. line ult for it is not repugnant r. is not repugnant p. 37. for Iohn he that r. is mentioned in S. Iohn 6. he that p. 67. l. 19. for the wine was destroyed r. the water was destroyod p. 85. l. 25. for charity sake r. clarity sake p. 87. l. 21. for neither r. either p. 115. l 5. for place r. places p. 118. l. 8. for would r. could p. 130. l. 14. for between corporal things r. but between corporal things p. 168. l. 27. for that charity r. that clarity p. 171. l. 9. for therein r. their p. 175. l. 11. for consure r. censure p. 192. l. 21. for next under the holy writt r. next unto holy writt p. 204. l. 14. for in this glory r. in his glory In the Appendix p. 3. l. 27. for your r. our p. 24. l. 23. r. metal â—…iery p. 25. l. â—… r. corporis cordis FINIS AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS Contained in this Book Chap. I COâ—…cerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body p. 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Exposition of these woâ—…ds He that eateâ—…h my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Everlasting Life My Flesh is Meat indeed p. 36. Chap. III. Against Transubstantiation p. 64. Chap. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or Consecrated Wafer p. 96. Chap. V. Against the Adoration or Worshipping of the Host. p. 199. Chap. VI. Against taking away of the Cup. p. 242. Chap. VII Against the Mass. p 293. Chap. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors p. 345. The Preâ—…ace of Monsieur dâ—… Rodons Translator p. 461. An Answer to the Preface and an Appendix to the Book p. 1. An INDEX of the chief things contained in this Book CHrists word is Creative productive and effective pag. 4 Transubstantiation cannot be plainlier exprest than by these woâ—…ds This is my Body p. 6. Christs words are practical Signs and causes of what they signifie other mens words are but speculative signs only of things signiâ—…fied by them p. 12. An Image hath always an Essential relation to its Prototype p. 11. Transubstantiation both a Sacrament and the thing signified p. 13. It is not repugnant that the same thing should signifie its own self p. Ibid. The Bread and Wine were not made the Body and Blood of Christ by a bare Blessing or Thanksgiving p. 14. The words of