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
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
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
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
famed through the whole world for sanctity learning and Prowess wheresore dost thou not consider what Religion made thee so glorious and renowned S. Austin the monk and his forty blessed companions were the first that brought the light of the Gospel from Rome to the Angles or english men from whom thou hast thy denomination this Austin and his fellow-Missioners were all Dianaists or Masse-Priests and received holy orders This much thy own Protestant Chronicles can tell thee To this Austin Bakeâ—… sayes king Eâ—…helbert gave his chief city of â—…anterbury and his own Royal Palace there made sincâ—… the Cathedral of that See withdrawing himself to Reculver in the I le of Thanet where he erected a Palace for himself and his successors He gave him also an old Temple standing without the Eastwall of the citty which he honoured with the name of S. Paâ—…cras And then added a Monastery to it and dedicated it to S. Peter and Paul appointing it to be the place of the Kentish kings sepulâ—…hres But in regard of S. Austin the procurer both Panâ—…ras Petâ—…r and Paul were soon forgotten and it was and is to this day called S. Austins which Abbey S. Austin enriched with divers Reliques which he brought with him from Rome which was a part of Christs seameless coat and of Aarons Rodd thus farr Baker Where you may plainly see out of one of your own Protestant Authors how Christian Religion was first brought into England and planted here by Mass-Priests Here you may see how those that brought it in did dedicate Churches unto them with this intention that the Saints should patronize and protect all those that should frequent their Churches with prayers Here you may also see how in those dayes sacred Reliques were held in esteem and veneration by the Propagators of Christian Religion Finally any body may clearly see by the very notions or names of the festiâ—…al tymes viz. of Christ-Masse Candle-Mass Lamb-Mass Miâ—…hael-Mass Martle-Mass that the Masse was used and held in great veneration by our devout Ancestors ever since England was converted to the Christian saith For it is certain these denominations of the holy times came first from Christians and not from Pagans It is also sure that sanctity and Christian learning could never have been attributed to our heathenish Ancestors Therefore if they were attributed to our primitive Christian forefathers why do we swerve from their pious wayes and Religion which is well known and granted by all Historiographers both Catholicks and Protestants to have been the self same which was and is now in communion with the Church of Rome and consequently that of the Masse Or with what Religion and conscience can the Reformists of our time censure all the Primitive Christians of England since Austin the Monks time to be guilty of the horrid crimes of superstition Phanaticisme and Idolatrie and yet by branding us with those crimes they do it for we hold but the same doctrine of the Masse which they practised taught us and delivered unto us so that by attaching us with those horrid crimes they involve them with us in them also But who could not rather think that any man of reason and understanding any man that hath any spark of belief of the love or feare of God in him or that hath any sense or feeling of the hour of his death of the immortallity of his soul of eternity aâ—…d of the terrible judgment of God Who I say would not think but he ought rather to ponder well and consider with himself how dangerous a thing it is and of what weight and concernment to his soul and eternal salvation not to shake of all antiquity and the old lyturgy which hath been used and practised by all the orthodox Christians of all ages since Christs time untill now and which is now also in use amongst the most universal Professors of Christianity a lyturgy so well grounded upon many clear and express texts of Scripture backt and seconded by the unanimous interpretations and definitions of all the General Councils and holy fathers of Gods Church in a word a liturgy so well cohering and agreeing with the infinit goodness charity and mercy of God to us whereby he demonstrated his love to us in the highest degree imaginable that could be in this life This mistical liturgy to reject abandon câ—…shiere and contemn upon the bare words of some self interessed calumnious opiniators who in comparison with the Roman Catholicks of all ages with the General Couneils and with the whole torrent of holy fathers are for fanctity of life for learning and for veneration of antiquity but like a handfull oâ—… wilde rude illiterate cow heards to compare with an innumerable multitude of grave Councellors or Judges What man I trow that has any belief or care of his soul if he were not starkmadd would clâ—…ave to such kinde of fellows and swerve from all the grand heroes of Gods Church what thing else is this but openly and manifestly to turn ones back to Christ and to contradict his express commandement where he bids us hear his Church or he will count us but for heathens and publicans Did not the Apostle forsooth prophecy unto Titus 2. Tit. 4. thus for there shall be a time when they will not hear sound doctrine but according to their own desires they will heap to themselves masters having itching ears and from the truth certes they will avert their hearing c. These words can in no wise be alluded to the Roman Catholick nor to their doctrin of the Mass which is of as old a standing as Popery is for our adversaries say that the Mass and Popery are convertible terms But all Ecclesiastical histories do attest that there have been Popes or Bishops of Rome ever since the Apostles time therefore if Popery and the Mass be convertible terms the Mass has been immediately from the Apostles time and consequently it cannot be that unsound doctrine the Apostle prophecied or spoke of to Titus Neither do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles or elsewhere that the Apostles ever opposed the Mass or Popery either which if it were a Phanatick superstitious or Idolatrous doctrine and liturgy as the good translator stiles it to be doubâ—…less they would have done tooth and nail and would never have suffered it to have â—…rept into Christs Church and so venemously to have infected her S. Pauls faith and the Romans was the same when he wrote these words unto them for I desire to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace to confirm you that is to say to be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both your faith and mine Rom. 1. did the Romans differ then in Religion and Lyturgy from their first Bishop or Pope no certainly therefore it is much to be seared nay in all reason and probability if it be not a theological demonstration that the opposers of the Mass be those peâ—…ple the
Apostle spoke of for it is a thing not only improbable but incredible also that S. Peter or if not he as our adversaries will have it or any else of the Apostles or all of them together if they had a hand in it should institute a Bishop of Rome which all the world for ever after called the Pope for his distinction from all other Bishops who introduced this Liturgy which is convertible with his name if the Lyturgy were at all dissonâ—…te from that of the Apostles themselves It is also both improbable and incredible but that S. Iohn who was both an Apostle and Evangelist and a most eminent divine withall and who outlived S. Peter and all the rest of the Apostles It is I say a strange thing that he should not take this first Roman Bishop or Pope in hand confute quash and trample down himself and his Lyturgy if it was not the selfsame with his own and the rest of the Apostles But we see not a word or syllable in S. Iohn or in any of the Apostles or Evangelâ—…s who were contemporaneans of of this first Bishop or Pope of Rome with whom the Mass is convertible against the Lyturgy of the Mass. From whence we cannot but conclude that the Mass is the selfsame Lyturgy that was practised and used by the Apostles themselves Therefore let all the opposers of the Masse take good â—…d they are not the people the Apostle Prophecied of to Titus his disciple and consequently let them take good heed that by oppugning the incruent sacrifice of the Masse they turn not their backs to God by rejecting and vilisiing the universal Lyturgy of his Church celebrated and practised by his Apostle Let them I say take good heed they hearken not too much to the unsound doctrines of their new masters their Ministers whose eares do itch after new opinions certes they will and do dayly avert their hearing from God and the truth And yet few of them agree in all points of their new opinions which is an evident signe their doctrine is false Not to apprehend the dreadful hour of death and the terrible and strict Judgment of God that follows it and not to fear the great power of the severe Judge who is able to cast both body and soul headlong into everlasting helfire to band against him and to contemn his Lyturgy his Sacraments and his Church after he told us that unless we hear her he will count us but as heathens and Publicans is thâ—… greatest sâ—…upidity and madness imaginable and yet the opposers and enemies of our ' Diana for swerving from Antiquity from all the General Councils and holy â—…thers whose authorities are so clear and manifest for her cannot but be at least highly suspected to be in the wrong They themselves for the most part say that we can be saved in our way and yet they perseâ—…te us more then they do the Turks Jewes and Pagans who are open enemies to Christ we hold they cannot be saved in their way because we would not have them be deluded for we believe none can be saved out of the Church and there is but only one Church of God why then do not they follow the surest way wherein both we and they agree a man may be saved and renounce that suspected way which we who are the far greater number and not inferiour to them for antiquity and learning do hold to be unsafe or can the way to heaven be too to sure Were it so secure an estate or great parcel of mony no-care and diligence would be wanting great heed would be taken that no slaw scruple or doubt should be â—…found in the Patent or Indenture wherefore is it not so also in this case or state of our souls safety which ought to be the dearest and of greatest conâ—…ernment to us of all things why I say do we not walk in the common and sure Catholick road approved of by both parties oh craftiness and guile of Sathan oh vanity of worldly Pompe oh sensuality of flesh and bloud But in plain and open truth our adversaries are clearly convicted concerning the sacrifice of the Mass and of the real presence of Christs body in it for how forsooth is it possible to convince any Christian maâ—… more then by plain and express texts of scripture backt and seconded by the clear authorities and testimonies of all General Councils by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers and by sound and irrefragable reasons deduced from clear Philosophical Principles by all these Mediums is the sacrifice of the Masse and the real presence of Christs body in the host proved in this Appendix and for to convince a Christian no other medium or argument can be more forcible or convincing Therefore whosoever yeelds and acquiesces not to these mediums has nothing to plead for himself but meer obstinacy and consequently he wilfully turns his back to God and his Church and runs directly to his own infallible daâ—…nation he misprises our saviours pretious bloud and Passion and vilifies him and all his heavenly treasure and riches with the promises Christ made unto him of them In a word he hath no more belief then a meer Athiest As for Mr. de Rodons sophistical and false treatise I suppose and perhaps I am not deceived that his wily arguments did so work upon his zealous translator and totally convince him with his apparent Philosophical reasons that he took every one of them to be a palpable demonstration and consequently in his own judgment thinking his cause to be very clear out of â—… pure zeal to Religion and taking ours to be but meer Idolatâ—…y that made him fall so bitterly upon our bones But now when he reads this treatise after he hath seen my full answer to his author and how I have followed him through his whole tract from point to point and refuted him manifestly every where paying him also in his one Philosophical coine after I say the translatot hath perused this book and examined the case better with himself pondering well upon the arguments of both sides pro and con I hope he will become milde and have a better opinion and esteem for our Diana and Religion then he had before I hope also that his understanding being clarified and enlightned by my solutions whereby all de Rodons fallacious sophisms are detected and made minifest to all men of any learning or judgment he finding him to be but an Impoâ—…tor and deluder of weak ignorant souls will soon disown both him and his damnable tract finally I hope that no worldly interest as alass it doth thoufands of our adverse party will so blinde and intoxicate him as to make him lose the interest of his soul and refuse to be an incorporate mistical member of Christ which without the help of our Diana as I have sufficiently proved already is impossible for him or any man else to be As de Rodons weak arguments were not of force