the Spirit of God as St. Paul Nay after he had received the Spirit of God he was feared to loose it again saying I chastise my Body and bring it under servitude lest after I have Preached to others I become a reprobate my self 1 Cor. 9. v. 27. How know you then that at this time you are guided by the Spirit of God especially if it be true that a man knows not whether he be worthy of Love or hatred Eccl. 9.1 S. Iohn if you would hear him would tell you a better way to try your Spirit to wit by the Church's approbation of it Io. 4. v. 6. We viz. Governours of the Church are of God he that knows God heares us viz. Governours of the Church he that is not of God heares us not in this we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Errour To wit those who are led by the Spirit of Truth submit themselves to the Church whereas those who let themselves be guided by the Spirit of Errour will not this submission but rest in their own Judgment and by this wedding themselves to their own Judgment they become Hereticks being condemned of themselves as S. Paul speaks Tit. 3. v. 11. Other great Sinners are cast out of the Church by the Governours of the same but the Heretick he retires or withdraws himself by his singular and self Judgment contrary to the Judgment and Sentiment of the Catholick Church If you ask me what gives a man so much security in addressing himself to the Church as we are advised by S. Iohn c. 4. v. 6 Answer 'T is that she shews her self by her marks to be the Oracle of God to Men and as it were his mouth by which he speaks sensibly to Men. 1 Thes 2.12 Her marks are these 1. Her perpetual visibility Math. 5. v. 14. 2. Her antiquity Ierem. 6. v. 16. 3. Her easie way to Heaven for the Ignorant as well as the Learned by following only Her Direction Isa 35.8 4. Her having converted all Nations which now acknowledge Christ from Paganism to the Christian Religion Isa c. 2. v. 2. and chap. 60. v. 1. 5. 11. 5. Her working of Miracles Mark 16. v. 17. Note 't is not necessary that every one to believe see Her Miracles 't is enough they be very credibly related to them Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed Io. 20. v. 29. and Mark 16. v. 14. Our Saviour blamed his Disciples for their not believing the relation of Mary Magdalen and others of his Resurrection 6. Her unity and having an efficacious means to conserve unity among Her Children by their submission to Her in matter of Faith and by Her Authority given Her by God to condemn all Hereticks Isa 54. v. 17. 7. Her being Holy in Her Doctrine which breads People up to Saintity 1 Petr. 2. v. 9. And who by their lives shew the force of the Grace of the Passion of Christ as is seen in many of our Religious Persons Ephes 5. v. 25. and 26. 8. Her being Catholick or universal spreading through all times and sending of Her Children to all places to Convert Souls Math. 28. v. 19. Note the Roman Church would not justly be called Catholick if she had not had in all ages from Christ to this present time a Body of Men believing all the same Articles of Faith which she believes now For if they had only believed some of Her Articles they had not been the same Church with Her And by this mark all other Congregations pretending to the name of Catholick are excluded from it 9. Her having a Succession of infallible Pastors lawfully descending from S. Peter to this present Pope Innocent the 11. Ephes 4. v. 11.12.13 10. Her having a true and proper Sacrifice foretold Malach. 1. v. 11. All which marks taken together you will find in no Church but the Roman and therefore she is the Church God will have us hear Math. 18. v. 17. For brevities sake I send you to other Controvertists for a larger explication of those marks I am of opinion that this sole Argument which proves that the Protestants cannot be infallibly sure that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion not to speak of what I have said beside to the same purpose in this 6. Subsection being well weighed in all its parts and set together in the consideration of a serious well meaning Man free from Passion and Interest may make in his understanding to use Mr. Rodon's expression the Funeral of the whole Protestant Religion SECTION II. The Solution of Objections Mr. Rodon's Objections against the Sacrifice of the Mass answered TO his first Argument saying that Christ in the institution of the Eucharist did not Sacrifice nor offer his Body and Blood to his Father and that in the three Evangelists and St. Paul there is not the least Foot-step to be seen of a Sacrifice or Oblation of Christ's Body and Blood Answer Christ was a Preist and in acknoledgment of his Father's Supream Dominion over Life and Death he put his Body under one Form viz. of Bread and his Blood under an other separate Form viz. of Wine upon the Altar having by Consecration destroyed the Substance of Bread and Wine and so offered them to his Father for them and others or the Remission of Sins if we may believe him saying to his Disciples Luke 22. This is my Body which is given Greek didomenon for you Which is broken kloomenon for you viz. quoad speciem Sacramenti This is my Blood which IS poured out Ekkunomenon for you Neither for you only but for many was not this an unbloody Sacrifice Is not there a Foot-step of a Sacrrifice Hebr. 13. where St. Paul speaks of an Altar which is a correlative of a Sacrifice He Objects that Bellar lib. 1. of the Masse chap. 27 confesses that the Oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament Bellar. hath Sacrifice but is not of its essence Answer And so do I too but telling you withall that the oblation which is made in the Consecration is of the essence of the Sacrifice Deo offertur viz. Christus sayes Bellar. That sacred thing viz. the Holy Host is offered to God when it is put on the Altar of God and this one suffices for that part of the essence lib. 1. de Missa c. 27. towards the end For Salmeron and Baronius his putting the Sacrifice of the Eucharist among unwritten traditions Answer They do not deny it to be written also Some things the Apostles have delivered to us by writ word and practise as the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Baptism adultorum of adults that is of those who are come to a full age others only by word and practise as the Baptism of Infants The belief of three persons in the H. Trinity is it only an unwritten tradition If so and you believe it why may not you as well believe the unwritten tradition
themselves and take notice of them when they hear them pronounced by others Courteous Reader if in my Proofs and Solution of Mr. Rodon's greater objections or in my remarks here and there and notes which are the seed of Answers fore-running and short Solutions of difficulties you your self see the Solution of many of his petty instances don't wonder that for brevities sake I pass them when I come to them as equivalently answered already An answer to Monsieur de Rhodon's FVNERAL of the MASSE The first Chapter Concerning the exposition of these words THIS IS MY BODIE WE say these words This is my Body prove clearly the real presence of Christs Body in the Host Because they ought to be taken in their proper sense in which they would prove it clearly by the grant of our adversaries who therfore say they are to be taken figuratively Now that they ought to be taken here in their proper sense I prove 1. positively SECTION I. Positive Proofs 1. WHen in a speach a word is indifferent of it self to be taken in the literal or figurative sense you must look to the words that follow in the same speach if they express the propertie of a figure the word is to be taken figuratively if the propertie of the real thing then the word is to be taken in the literal sense For example when one tells me I have seen the King I know not yet what he means whether his person or picture but when he adds set in a frame of Gold I know he means his picture because 't is the propertie of a picture to be set in a frame If he adds speaking with the Chancellor I know he means the King's person because 't is the propertie of a person to speake with another Just so when Christ sayes Luk. 22. v. 19. This is my Bodie I know not yet what he means whether his Real Body or only a figure of it But when he adds which is given for you I know he means of his true Body because 't is the propertie of a true Bodie to be sacrificed for us 2. I prove again that these words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken in the literal sense by the protestant principle which is this When two passages relate to or speak of the same matter in Scripture the obscurer passage is to be explaned by the clearer But these two passages relating to our Lord's Supper This is my Body and Do this in remembrance of me This latter is the obscurer and that former the clearer then this latter ought to be explaned by that former that is to say to the sense of that former viz. Christ having changed a piece of Bread into his Body by his almightie word sayes there to his disciples Do ye for the food of others souls what ye have seen me do for the food of yours Change ye lykewayes by pronouncing the words I have ordained for that end Bread into my Body but do it with such circumstances that people standing by may be mindful of my death and passion But the clear proposition ought not to be explaned by the obscure one thus This is my Body that is to say this is a figure only or a remembrance of my body because he said after do this in remembrance of me for the thing was now done and he had told them what it was in clear words afore he said Do this in remembrance of me He did not say this is a remembrance of me no but Do this in remembrance of me He did not speake of the substance of the thing but only of the manner of doing it By these words then in remembrance of me he only intimated that they should make at that same time a sensible expression of his passion to the people as is seen done in the sacrifice of the Masse If by This he understood a figure or remembrance then he had said do or make a remembrance of me in remembrance of me or remember me to remember me which is ridiculous Now let any indifferent and judicious man be judge if these words do this in remembrance of me be as clear to prove that in the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper is only a Figure of Christ's Bodie as these words This is my Bodie are clear to prove that the Eucharist is his true Body If you instance that as Christ said This is my Body so he said also I am a vine and consequently as the latter proposition must be taken figuratively so must also the former I answer it doth not follow there being a great disparity For we all protestants as well as Catholicks avow that propositions in the Holy Scripture cannot be taken in the literal sense if so taken they imply or intimate something contrarie to faith as this proposition I am a vine literallie taken would do For protestants as well as Catholicks believe that the Divine word hath assumed no nature but that of man then he hath not assumed that of a Vine and consequently 't is against faith to say in the literal sense Christ is a Vine But these words This is my Body taken in the literal sense imply nothing against faith no more then he who shewing you a knife sayes This is a knife for the terme This and the terme Knife suppose for the same thing and not for different natures so in Christ's proposition This is my Bodie This and Body suppose for the same thing not This for Bread but for The Body of Christ as well as the word Bodie supposes for it tho in a different way of signifieing This obscurely and Body clearly and distinctlie Here I humbly intreat the protestant reader to reflect that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding 2. Cor. 10. v. 5. that is to say suspend it from asserting what it might judge had it nothing to rely upon but the sole relation of our senses to obey Christ God will have as an homage due to him and his veracitie this proud faculty of man which is earnest to judge of all submit to his word The assent of my understanding by which I judge a thing to be because I see it with my eyes is an assent of science which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of faith In the mean time we Christians as Christians are called not philosophers the Reasoners but the faithfull fides est as we say credere quod non vides Faith is to believe that which thou doest not see This is the praise of faith sayeth St. Aug. tract 29. in Io. If that which is believed be not seen Blessed are they said Christ Io. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have beleived Faith is an argument or perswasion saith S. Paul of things not appearing If they appear and I assent that they are because I see them my faith ceases Science coming in with faith's destruction If you say I beleive that the Son of God became Man because
mindful of one of the Noble Motto's of your House hazard yet further in what is prudently acknowledged to be the Service of God there is no danger to be redouted or so much as apprehended Your very name SET-ON minds you of generosity in what you act for God or may undertake for the Service of his Vice-gerent upon Earth the King God and you know best what hope you have lay'd up in Heaven as the Apostle speaks to the Colos 1. v. 5 But much of Your Charitie the World has seen I am the Subject of a notable part of it and Witness of your sheltring poor Strangers considering distressed Tenents clothing the naked feeding orphelins visiting the imprisoned in Person the sick by almes entring some fore-lorne into the number of your domesticks and honestly burying the Dead that had no Friend or Relation able to do that Duty Such actions done in the Spirit of Christ make savour at present in the Eucharist the sweetness of the hidden Manna there and will Crown hereafter the Christian in the solemn day of the general Resurrection Infin Since the Treassures of your Arms being Flower Delucies as good as tell you you must flowrish strive to flowrish in the Faith of your ancestors Ambulo in fide sayes the Author of the Imitation of Christ l. 4 C. 11. exemplis confortatus Sanctorum I walk in the Faith of the Real Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist comfortably held in it by the example of the Saints this Faith gives Men a Victory over the World making them fear esteem and Love only this God of Love a Love surprising in this Mystery And being fully satisfied with the expected possession of him breath now after the Loveliness of his Eternity This flowrishing condition I cordially wish you as I am SIR Your most humble and obliged Servant N. N. THE PREFACE NO wonder our Ghostly Enemy is so earnest to perswade men that there is no true Sacrifice in the Mass He knows that it is the very Center of Christian Religion the Arcenall of armes against him the Store-house of all perfection and the great means the Church has to pacifie God in his Wrath and draw down from Heaven blessings upon her Children He knows it is the permanent succeeding Sacrifice to all the Sacrifices of the Old Law a most perfit holocaust in which JESUS is Sacramentally consumed in the fire of his Love in acknowledgment of the grandour of his Father An Eucharistical because in thanksgiving for the daily benefits we receive from above we can offer nothing more pleasing A Sacrifice of Satisfaction because the hatred which God carries to the sins of the World is not so great as the Love he bears to his Son whose merits far exceed the enormity of our offences A Sacrifice of Impetration because the Father cannot refuse any thing to a Son who in all his life and death upon Earth has so highly obliged him Wherefore the Preist tho in contemplation of his own sinful condition is always bound to say O Lord I am not worthy yet having at the Altar Christ in his hands he may also say with an humble confidence Respice in faciem Christi tui Eternal Father tho' I am not worthy to petition either for my self or others yet be pleased to grant us what we in humility demand for the Love of him who vouchsafed to dye for the Love of us since as our offering is the offering of Christ so our request is his and he ordained us to mind thus Your Majesty by this commemoration of his Death The Son of God finding his Father not content withall the oblations which pure men could offer him for their sins Sacrificium oblationem noluisti Hosts and oblations and holocausts and for Sin thou wouldst not neither did they please thee then said I the Son of God behold I come that I may do thy will Hebr. 10. v. 5 6 7. Out of his Love to men resolved to be both our Preist Victime a Body thou hast fited to me behold I come So sacrificing himself in a bloody way upon mount Calvarie he laid into the Treasury of the Church an inexhaustable ransom for all mankind having provided before by the Sacrifice he made at the last Supper commanding his Disciples to offer in like manner in remembrance of him for our daily necessity of a daily Sacrifice daily Sacrifice of a Lamb commanded Exo. 29.38 daily to acknowledge God's supream being to give him daily thanks for his daily benefits and to obtain new helps in our daily infirmities where he instituted his Body and Blood to be offered daily under the Forms of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedech commanding hoc facite do this Luc. 22. v. 10. his Apostles and their Successors in that function to make the Sacrament in it for the spiritual food of the Faithful To prove this truth efficaciously as I undertake by the help of God to do in this Book in which I answer Chapter for Chapter Monsieur Rodon's funeral of the Mass I prove first of all the Catholick tenet both for the Reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist with other Doctrines relating to it and that in our Liturgy or Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice every one in their proper place by proofs which either did not come into Monsieur Rodon's mind or if they did he thought good to take no notice of them Next I solve his objections some of which if the Catholick Reader find set out by me in a more convincing way then by Monsieur Rodon himself let him not censure me for that but remember that sometimes a Surgeon makes the wound the wider to cure it the better Moreover let the Protestant Reader be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon's arguments are drawn from our senses which are plausible to men of Flesh and Blood whereas many of our answers in this Mysterie of Faith are drawn from Faith or Reasons grounded upon Faith which are above the reach of Flesh and Blood and must mount to a higher story than that of our senses to be applauded Math. 16. v. 17. If he who has not been acquainted with Philosophy much less with Divinity think my expressions to be harsh not to say Barbarous when I repeat Monsieur de Rodon's terms A quo and Ad quem and use others of that nature common in the Schoole I answer for us both that we cannot discourse properly on Schoole matters but in Schoole terms as he who speaks pertinently of Herauldry uses terms which are no more understood than Hebrew by him who is ignorant of that Court and noble Knowledge Nevertheless here and there I render them in English or give an English explication of them For my Greek and Hebrew quotations I was advised to put them in Characters common to our Language so they who are ignorant of those Tongues may have the satisfaction to pronounce the words to
Transitively i. e. passing and so making them two divers substances I deny the antecedent The Eucharist then is the Sacrament of Christ's Body i. e the Sacrament which is Christ's Body or Christ's body under the outward form or accidents of Bread is a Sacrament or a sensible sign by the Species of Grace which it work 's in us Answer 2. The Eucharist taken inadequately or partially for the Species is a Sacrament or sign of Christ's Body the Consecration being made I grant Adequatelie and Totally taken for the whole Eucharist I deny For so it includes both Christ's body and the Species afore of Bread now of his Body Thus the Eucharist may be called a figure or representation viz. the Species of Bread and Wine separated from one another a representation of Christ's death The Species of Bread alone the consecration being made a figure of the Body contained under it Note An Image sign or Sacrament may have within it the substance or essence of the thing by it signified or represented in another manner God the son is the Image of his father and has his father's substance yea the father all within him by circumincession i. e a mutuall being of the divine persones in each other So Christ's flesh invisible and spirituall in the Eucharist is the sacrament or sign of the same flesh palpable and visible crucified In the Sacrament it represents it self as on the Cross not different in substance but in qualitie and manner As when God 1. Reg. 10. v. 9. is said to have given to Saul another heart viz. in qualitie not in substance So it 's said 1. Cor. 15. v. 50. Flesh and blood shall not possesse the Kingdom of Heaven and again it 's certain flesh and blood shall possess the Kingdom of Heaven viz. When it has put on Incorruption The same in substance in both propositions but not the same in qualitie Obj. 3. In these two propositions This is my Bodie This Cup is the new testament in my Blood The word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alyke having been pronunced on the same matter viz. the one upon the one part of the Sacrament and the other on the other part of it and because of like things we give alike iudgement But in this proposition This Cup is the new Testament the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being c Therfore in this proposition lykwayes This is my Bodie the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being Answer If the two propositions be set down as S. Math. who was present and heard them out of the mouth of Christ relates them Chap. 14. v. 22. and v. 24 This is my Bodie This is my Blood granting the Major I deny the Minor proposition If the one as S Mathew sets it down and the other as S. Paul who was not present and sets only down the sense of Christ's words in a figurative way I let pass the Minor and deney the consequence because the two propositions so taken are not alike as to their expression and I say that the H. Ghost might have had a particular reason to move S. Paul to rehearse the sense of what had been related by S. Mathew This is my Blood in these words This is the new testament in my Blood to give us another sensible impression of the mysterie viz. This Cup is the new testament in my Blood as if he should say This cup is an authentick instrument or as it were paper in which my new testament and last will of giving you eternal life if you believe and obey me is written not with Ink but with my oun Blood which this Cup contains as the Paper the writing of the Testament So Alapide Now in this proposition the word is cannot be taken in the proper sense of the words as in the other This is my Body because there would follow an absurditie viz. a real Identity between the Cup or what is contained in it and the testament signifying or the outward expr sion of his will which is absurd and evidentlie false And in that sense above I let passe the Minor for if by Testament you understand the Testament signified not the Testament signifying the word is may be and is taken for a real and transubstantiated being because the Blood contained in the Cup is that which he left by his last will to the faithfull So that which is in the Cup is changed into a Testament being by the whole proposition as the cause transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ and consequently this proposition This Cup is the New Testament must not be expounded thus the wine that is in the Cup is the sing and Sacrament of of the new Testament but thus The consecrated wine that is in the Cup is the real Blood of Christ and new Testament That he made then his new Testament I shall prove in my 8 Chap. When I say that all that Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literallie and without a figure I mean as the institution of the Eucharist is related to us by S. Mathew who was present at it and heard the words out of the mouth of Christ in the verie institution it self Since Mr Rodon contends so much for the figurative sense of the words in the Consecration I avow that in the consec ation as related by S. Luke in these words Touto to potéèrâ—on heè kainéè diathèkee en to haimatÃ-mou to huper humon ekkunòmenon This Cup is the new testament in my Blood which is shed for you The word Cup is taken figurativelie for the thing contained in it because from it taken in the proper sense would follow an absurdity viz. That the Cup it self wood or mettal was shed for us because the Relative Which and the participle Shed is referred by S. Luke to Cup as he who understands Greek sees in the forementioned words not properly taken then Metaphorically or Figurativelie taken for the thing contained in the Cup or Blood of Christ which is said to be shed for us Obj. 4. When a man saith a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he employes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition then Christ according to Romanists made a false proposition when he said This is my Body because his Body was not under the forme of Bread the whole time he was pronouncing the proposition Answer I dist the antecedent If the proposition be purely Enunciative or speculative its true because such a proposition presupposes its object If it be a factive or practical proposition such as the proposition of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist was it 's false because a factive proposition makes it's object and consequently supposes it not to be afore the whole proposition is utered which whole proposition taken all
figure or representative of the passion of Christ Teaching us continues S. Austin viz. preist's such as he was to partake of Christ's passion to wit when it represents it to them by their eating the Bodie under the form of Bread separate from the species of Wine and after drinking the Blood under the species of Wine which was consecrated separate from the species of Bread And to imprint adds S. Aug in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us For can it be but delightful to a man to think of his salvation purchased to him by the death of Christ if he pleases and profitable to encourage him to live a good life in order to make it sure Having answered this objection by which he would have S. Augustin seem to deny the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist Let me bring him a passage from the same S. Austin by which he clearly asserts it It is conc 1 in Psal 33. where he speaks thus Et ferebatur in manibus suis sayes he speaking of Christ hoc sayes he quomodo possii fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur manibus suis Manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David secundùm literam non invenimus in Christo autem invenimus ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum Corpus suum ait Hoc est Corpus meum ferebat enim illud Corpus in manibus suis And he viz. Christ was carried in his hands who can understand says he how this could be done if a Man A man may be carried in the hands of others in his own hands no man is carried We do not understand how this may be understood in David himself literallie or according to the letter but we find it in Christ For Christ was carried in his own hands when commending that same Bodie of his he said This is my Body for he did cary that Body in his own hands Calvin lib. 4. iust Chap. 17. Answers and explanes this passage thus Christ carried himself in his own hands but improperly and figuratively to wit because he carried the sacrament of his Body Answer I could also carrie a sign or picture of my self in my own hands and that is not hard to be understood but S. Austin says ' Tuas impossible to other men to carry their Bodies in their own hands as Christ did his S. Aug. again lib. 2 cap. 9. cont adver Legis proph sayes We receive with faithful heart and mouth the mediator of God and Man Man Christ Iesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk though it seem more horrible to eat mans flesh then to kill and to drink man's blood then to shed it And again Epist 162. Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam diabolum furem proditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod fideles norunt Pretium Nostrum Our Lord himself suffers Judas a Divel a thief and his betrayer he lets him receive among the innocent disciples that which is known to the faithful Our price i. e. ransom Be pleased now to reflect out of these passages 1. That Judas his eating our price to wit Christ was a Corporal eating by the mouth of the Body for he did not eat him by faith 2 That our receiving our mediator with faithful heart and mouth as S. Austin speaks cannot stand if we exclude our corporal eating Christ's Body in that spiritual manner I explained in the second section of this Chapter Obj. 4. Cardinal Cajetan in his Com on S. Iohn 6. sayeth To eate the flesh of Christ and drink his Blood is faith in Christ's death c. I answer that 't is faith in Christ's death that makes us eate the flesh and drink the blood of Christ so that if I cease to fulfil this his commandement of eating his flesh and drinking his blood I shew I have no faith in his death without which there is no life of the spirit Moreover when we eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ we ought not flightly to reflect but as we chew our meat and let down our drink by little and little ruminate and consider maturely the death of Christ represented to us in our communion Christ saeth not says the Cardinal he that eates worthily or drinks worthily hath to wit eternal life but he that eates and drinks Hence Mr. Rodon infers this eating and drinking is to be understood not of the sacrament but of an eating and drinking viz. by faith the death of Christ Answer Tho Christ did not say who eates or drinkes worthily he meant so as may be gathered from the following words hath eternal life for none I suppose will ascribe eternal life to an unworthy eating as to its cause and condition But how does Mr. Rodon from eates or drinks solitarily put without by the mouth of the body or by the mouth of faith gather that the Cardinal and Christ before him meant of an eating by saith or an eating of the death of Christ since when we hear mention of eating and drinking without any addition we presently understand by the mouth of the body as when we hear named a man we understand a rational sensible creature not a painted man or that which improperly is called a man Obj. 5. The action wherby Jesus Christ is applied to us for Righteousnes and sanctification is nothing else but faith therefore the spiritual eateing and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is the action whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ has purchased to us by his death Answer I deny the Antecedent and say we are justified also partially by good works Iac. 2. One of which is to obey Christ's command in taking by our corporal mouth his Body under the forme of Bread And so S Paul Rom. 5. is to be understood when he sayes we are justified by faith As the other passages Act. 15. and Io. 6. That God purifies our hearts by faith but not by faith only but also by good-works Was not St. Marie Magdalen justified when her sins were pardoned her because she loved much And is not her love here alleadged by Christ for the cause of her justification I do not deny but that she had faith also as a disposition to the same justification Does not S. Paul say 1 Cor. 13. v. 2. Had I faith to remove a mountain Si Charitatem autem non habeam Nihil sum And have no charity I am nothing I grant again that eating and drinking by saith as Protestants speak to wit Faith while we eat with our corporal mouth our Saviours real Body obtaines remission of sins c. but not if we condemn or neglect the eating of it by the mouth of the Body Take notice when Mr. Rodon quotes S. Iohn 3. v. 3. Except a man be born again he leavs out by
and for this reason we need not take the Blood a part Obj. 3. We go from the practise of the primitive Church Answer As to the essence of the Sacrament I deny as to the manner of administration of it upon some considerable circumstances be it so So the Protestants go from the practise of primitive times in Baptism by using now the sprinkling of water on the Child whereas a triple dipping was used in primitive times I said be it so because in primitive times they gave it also sometimes under one kind If you ask me why Christ gave it to his Apostles under both kinds I answer he both foresaw Hereticks as the Manicheans who would deny the thing in it self to be lawful which is an errour and different circumstances in which the Church should think good to give it under the species of Wine as to infants which action of his justified the Church in that and the like circumstances We avow then that the Sacrament was given some times under both kindes and in particular to discover the Manicheans in the time of S. Leo Pope But we deny that there was a command from Christ of giving it so Obj. 4. To take Christ's Blood in taking the Host is not to drink it Answer 'T is not to drink it cannally that is to be carnally refressed with it I grant Spiritually that is to be Spiritually refressed with it I deny So S. Cypr. sayes in the beginning of the Sermon of the Lords Supper manducaverunt biberunt de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem that is they eat and drunk of the same Bread according to the vibsile form Remark he sayes They drunk of the same Bread and makes no mention of Wine Also Tertul. lib. de Resur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur that is The Flesh feeds of the Body and Blood of Christ that the Soul may be full of God And S. Augustin lib. quaest in Levit. q. 57. speaking of this Sacrament sayes A cujus Sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum c. that is from the Blood of which Sacrifice to be taken for aliment c. Where you see the Blood is called food or aliment By which passages you may take notice that the Holy Fathers put the force of their words in the thing and not in the way of taking it because whither taken by way of food or of drink it has the same effect Ob. 5. He that eates Bread dipped in Wine altho he hath Wine in his mouth doth not drink Therefore he who receives only under the form of Bread doth not drink Answer 1. I distinguish the antecedent He who eates Bread dipped c. doth not drink it in the strict acception of drinking I grant In the less rigid acception of drinking I deny did you never hear say of him who drinks a heavy thick Wine he eates and drinks both at once Answer 2. He doth not drink as to the substance of drinking which is to take a liquid matter by the mouth I deny As to the whole corporal manner and effect of Drinking I grant So Pascasius lib. de Corp. Christ speaks thus Hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus Ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes that is It s he alone who breaks this Bread and by the hands of the Ministers distributes it to the faithful saying Take and drink all of this to wit Bread where he makes no mention of Wine But much less do Protestants drink Christ's Blood by an act of faith that Christ dyed for them in which the eating and drinking is one and the same Ob. 5. The sacramental words operate what they signify but they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood therefore they operate the separation of the Body from the Blood and consequently we ought to receave under both kinds to receave both Answer I distinguish the Major The Sacramental words operate what they signifie formally I grant what they signify occasionally I deny And say that these words This is my Body and these This is my Blood signifie formally and primarly the Body and Blood of Christ altho occasionally and secundarily they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood of Christ in as much as they are an occasion to me hearing them pronounced apart and knowing that the force of these words only attended the Body would be under one species and the Blood under the other tho by concomitance both are in each to represent to my self the death of Christ or his Body separated from his Blood Ob. 6. As much as is taken away of the Sacrament as much is diminished of the perswasion of the certainty of God's promise Answer As much as is taken away of that part of the Sacrament which causes Grace be it so Of that which does not cause grace but only compleats it in the being of a representation of the death of Christ I deny I said be it so because the Sacraments were cheifly instituted to signify and cause in us sanctifying grace which is both signified and caused by the Body and Blood of Christ under on kind as much as under both Yet the other kind is necessary in the Priest not to confirm more God's promise as Mr. Rodon would have it but to represent the death of Christ And since he thinks two Sacraments better then one why does not he take in the Sacrament of Pennance so signally set down Io. 20. as a sensible sign of sanctifying Grace brought forth in a penitent Soul by the absolution of the Preist signified by these words Whose sins ye remitt are remitted to them Since three Sacraments are as much better then two than two are better than one Or how proves he the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrament the Preists absolving a sorrowful penitent from his sin to be none Ob. 7. Christ fore-saw the inconvenences of taking under both kinds for Lay-people as well as we and yet he commanded it to them as S. Paul to the Corinthians after him Answer I deny that either Christ or S. Paul commanded the lay people to take the Eucharist under both kinds more then Christ commanded that the Ministers should wash the Communicants feet by his example of Washing them to those to whom he gave the Sacrament See the ground of this my denial in the 1. Sect. of the 6. chap. nay Christ signified aboundantly one kind to suffice when he said Who eates this Bread shall live for ever Ob. 8. God's word should not be taken from all because some are deaf therefore the Cup should not be taken from all lay people because some cannot drink Wine Answer The Cup is not taken from all lay people for that reason but because that and other reasons being on one side and on the other side it not being necessary to give it the lay people for
Chapter of the Churches forbidding Marriage and certain Meats After Mr. Rodon had unadvisedly said that we freely confess that the Decree of the Council of Constance is contrary to the institution and command of Christ which we are so far from confessing that we have proven the contrary He adds If we alleadg that S. Paul Timot. 4. saith That they who forbid to marry and command to â—ob slain from Meats do teach the Doctrines of Devils Romanists need only answer that altho S. Paul doth say so yet they must not believe it because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise Again if we alleadg sayes he that the same Apostle Ephesians 2. saith That we are saved by Grace through Faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of GOD not of works least any man should boast Romanists need only Answer that although this was written by the Apostle yet they must not believe it because the Romish CHVRCH hath determined that we are Saved by Works and Faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of our own free will Answer We know the general approved Councils being guided by the H. Ghost cannot determine against S. Paul We avow 't is a Doctrine of Devils to forbid absolutely to marry as if marriage were ill in it self and of Satan as the Ebionites taught see S. Irereus Lib. 1 Cap. 22. And to command to abstain from certain Meats believing they were of the Devil with the Manicheans See S. Aug. Haeres Manich. 46. But we do not hold it to be a Doctrine of Devils to forbid Preists to marry who cannot use their marriage without breaking their vow made to God If a man be bound to keep his promise of fidelity or conjugal chastity to a Wife is not he as much bound to keep his promise of perpetual Continency made to God The Church I say does not determine against S. Paul 1 Timot. 4. nor against what he sayes Ephes 2. But heartily believes with him that we are saved by Grace through Faith and that this Faith is not of our selves but it is the gift of God not of works done by the force of nature or of the Old Law of which the Jews boasting thought themselves more worthy of Salvation than the Gentils Yet she determines against Mr. Rodon that S. Paul here by Works doth not exclude Works that flow from Faith as acts of Hope Repentance and Charity for S. Mary Magdalen was justified because she loved much Obj. They do not celebrate the memory of Christ's Death as they ought who do not partake of the Cup whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christ's Blood therefore all ought to partake of the Cup. Answer I distinguish the antecedent they who do not partake of the Cup do not as they ought celebrate the Death of Christ Passively that is they have not an occasion of receiving and do not receive a representation or a memory of the Death of Christ I deny They do not celebrate the memory of the Death of Christ Actively I subdistinguish within themselves producing in their mind a thought of the Death of Christ I deny without themselves putting the Body of Christ under the species of Wine I grant but all are not bound to do so or celebrate a memory of his Death so but only the Preists to whom he gave that command saying Do this in remembrance of me and as often as you sball eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shall shew the Death of the your Lord untill he come And that Protestants understand this to be said to the Ministers only they shew when they say that this Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred without a Sermon of the Death of CHRIST I ask do the Lay-people Preach then CHAPTER VII The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Reason by the notion of a true Sacrifice By Scripture By the tradition of our Country By the Authority of the Holy Fathers and the Church SECTION I. Proofs SUBSECTION I. Proofs from Reason I. REASON WE must not refuse to Christians that which all other People have had by an instinct of nature viz. to offer a true Sacrifice to the Supream Being God in the 1. Chapter of Leviticus v. 2. does not say by way of command ye shall offer But supposing what they knew to be done by the light of Nature he only prescribes there the manner of Sacrificing S. Paul having cured with a word of his month a Lame man at Lystra the People thinking him for that to be God presently found themselves naturally moved to bring Oxen to Sacrifice to him Act. 14. Men Sacrificed in the Law of Nature in the written Law the Pagan infidel as well as the Faithful Soul all led by this innate light he is to be honoured in a singular manner who is above all The chief end of a Sacrifice is to acknowledge by it God's supream Dominion over us his Creatures as Author of Life and Death and shall Christians who have been by divine favour enlightened above other People be ignorant of this or less sensible than others of their duty to him from whom they have received more Grace No. Then Christians have a true Sacrifice but no other than that of the Mass then that of the Mass is a true Sacrifice I prove the minor proposition because beside the Sacrifice of the Mass Christians have now no Sacrifice but their offerings of Prayers or other Acts of vertue which are only Sacrifices improperly nay God himself distinguishes them from a true Sacrifice saying by the Prophet Samuel 1 Reg. 15. v. 22. Obedience is better then Sacrifice and Math. 9. v. 13. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice You 'l say we have the Sacrifice of the Cross Answer That is past People in succeeding Ages could not be present at that to do their due homage to God That was made and was sufficient to Redeem all men from their Sin 's past present and to come as much as was required of Christ or on his side as Redeemer but it was not made to Redeem them from their first Duty to God which is still and ever to acknowledge him as Supream Lord as well in all other times as in that at which the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered If that Sacrifice sufficed for all Duty 's what need have we now of Sacraments Faith repentance c. If we have moreover need of Faith for our selves why have we not need of a true Sacrifice as a testimony of our Faith in God to others The holy Patriarches had Faith in their Hearts but did not think themselves to do sufficiently by that their Duty to God without a Sacrifice as a publick profession to men of this their Faith in him You must distinguish the condigne or fully satisfying Sacrifice for Sin from other Sacrifices That the eternal Father required and accepted from his Son alone in Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices for Sin thou hast no pleasure then said I God the Son
lo I come c. Hebr. 10. to do thy Will O God a Body thou hast prepared to me v. 5. to wit in which he might Sacrifice himself Sacrifices for other ends God required and accepted from meer men shewing the pleasure he had in them as in that of Abel and Elias which he consumed with fire from Heaven 3 Reg. 18. in the Protestant Bible 1 Reg. 18. and that of Noë for which he promised not to drownd the Earth again Genes 8. v. 21. II. REASON REligion according to the common opinion of Divines is a vertue inclining man to give to God his due Honour And shall those men claim to have any Religion let Protestants be pleased to reflect who find in themselves no inclination to give to GOD a true and proper Sacrifice which is the Honour due to Him III. REASON A True Sacrifice is the Worship only due to God all other Worship may be given to men If Kings will not want the Worship due to them above their Subjects should we deprive GOD for whole Ages of the Worship due to him above his Creatures No. In the mean time all must acknowledge this to have been done and to be still done who do not acknowledge the Sacrifice of the Mass IV. REASON SAcrifice is the chief Act of Religion or Divine Worship and shall the Church of Christ come short of the Synagogue in this In the Synagogue they Sacrificed daily Exod. 29. v. 38. God having as S. Paul speaks Hebr. 11. v. 40. provided something better to the Spouse of Christ than to the hand made hath not he more loving to her furnished her with a more noble means to obtain it Yes And this is the Sacrifice of the Mass in which the Preist destroying in the Host the substance of Bread and offering to God what is now there by the force of his words both acknowledges him as Supream Master of Life and Death and offers him a Sacrifice worthy of himself The Synagogue was with us participant of the Sacrifice of the Cross as general to all but Christians alone have an application of it more powerful then by any other way in the Sacrifice of the Mass V. REASON IF the Preist-hood being translated it is necessary according to S. Paul Hebr. 7. v. 12. that the Law be translated Then the Preist-hood ceasing it is necessary that the Law cease which was under that Preist-hood Hence I infer since the Law of the New Testament doth not cease the Preist-hood of the New Testament doth not cease and under it there are still Sacrifices no other but those of the Mass therefore that of the Mass is a true Sacrifice Quoeres May not the Sacrifice of the Cross be call'd the Sacrifice of the New Testament in this sense that CHRIST made his Testament there Answer No. For I shall prove in the next Chapter that he made it at the unbloody Sacrifice he offered after the eating of the Paschal Lamb. SUBSECTION II. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by the notion of a true and proper Sacrifice A True and proper Sacrifice is an oblation of a sensible thing made to God by a Preist in acknowledgment of his Supream Dominion over all with some change of the Host or Victim But the Sacrifice of the Mass is such then 't is a true and proper Sacrifice 1. The Sactifice of the Mass is an oblation 2. Made to God viz. alone 3. Of a semble thing whether you consider the Bread the substitutive Host about which in imitation of the Old Law preparing the Victimes as by washing the Sheep in the probatick Pond afore they were Sacrificed c. insteed of the Body of Christ it not being there till the Consecration the Ceremonies of preparing the Host are made by laying the Preist's hands over it c. Exod. 29. v. 15. Or whether you consider the Body of Christ under the species or Forms of Bread and Wine the principal Host of this Sacrifice which also the Consecration being made is sensibly known by the species to be there 4 'T is made by a Preist viz. a man call'd by God or his Church lawfully ordained and annointed for that function Exod. 30. v. 30. And having his hands consecrated for that end Exod. 29. v. 9. Clothed with sacred and mysterious vestiments as Aron Exod. 18. significative and relating to the action he is going about 5. In acknowledgment of God's Supream Dominion over Life and Death with some change of the Host or Victime signifying that Dominion or making you mind it This is done by the destruction of the substance of the Bread and by Christ's being there mystically immolated or by his being there by the force of the Sacred words modo mortuo after a Dead manner If because we call the Sacrifice of the Mass a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ you will acknowledg no other Host in it but the principal Host to wit the Body and Blood of Christ which the Preist seems to insinuat when offering the Bread he sayes to the B. Trinity suscipe Sancte Pater receive Holy Father where Father is taken Essentially for the whole Trinity not for the first Person This immaculat Host and offerrimus c. We offer to thee O Lord the chalice of Salvation c. Those terms supposing properly for the Body of Christ and his Blood not for meer Bread and Wine if I say you will not have this Bread and Wine to be any ways the Host but only the Body and Blood of Christ in place of which this Bread and Wine are offered And then you begin to quible about the real change of the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice denying any real mutation of them to be made in it I answer then with Vasquez That there is no necessity of a real mutation in the thing which is offered in this Sacrifice Because the mutation in the thing offered is only necessary in as much as God is signified by it Author of Life and Death therefore if there be any oblation by which without the real immutation of the thing offered God may be denotated or signified Author of Life and Death 't will be a true Sacrifice Such is the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ then it is a true Sacrifice For the immutation is not the formal reason of a Sacrifice but only some thing required Ex parte signi in the Sign that it may be fit to signify the formal term of the Sacrifice to whom tends and in whom ends the Sacrifice which is God as Author of Life and Death Now in the consecration the Death of Christ is represented in this same that by the force of such an action the Body is made separate from the Blood and consequently ut sic as so or as such an action it signifies God Author of Life and Death I know Amicus sayes that this signification of the Almighty power of God over Life and Death fundari
of the Sacrifice of the Mass If you say 't is also written I answer And so is the Sacrifice of the Mass in clearer terms for which I attest your own Conscience A strange thing says Mr. Rodon that the Mass which is the fundation of the Romish Church for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass Answer that 's false we require moreover they live a good life and if they fall in Sins they confess them c. cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ Answer If an Arian should say to him It 's a strange thing that the God-head of Christ who is the fundation of the Church cannot be found in all the Scriptures Mr. Rodon would answer you are deceived it is found there but your pride in wedding your self to your own judgement hinders you to see it So say I to him the sacrifice of the Mass is found in scripture to have been instituted and practised by Christ himself and his Apostles Luc. 22. This is my Body which is given for you That is offered to my eternal Father for you and commanded by Christ to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me which they did Act. 13. As they ministred to the Lord the Greek word leitourgountoon is turned by Erasmus himself Sacrificing Remark the Apostles ministred to our Lord when they Sacrificed and ministred to the People when they gave them the Sacrament And Heb. 13. v. 10. St. Paul sayes We have an Altar whereof they have no right to Eat who serve the Tabernacle Now an Altar relates to a Sacrifice as I said so since Christians had Altars in S. Pauls time they had also a Sacrifice no other but that of the Eucahrist then the oblation of it to the eternal Father is a true Sacrifice since a Sacrifice is a visible offering of a sensible thing to God by a Preist And to eat relates to the Fucharist not to the Sacrifice of the Cross All had right if they pleased to eate that is to believe and participate of Christ's death but Christians only have right to eat of the Altar of the Eucharist not the Jews Thus you see the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be found in scripture though Mr. Rodon merited for his vanishing away in his own thoughts refusing to submit them to the Church to have his heart obseured Rom. 1. v. 21. and to have this Mysterie which is revealed only to litle ones or the Humble hide from him Math. 11. v 25. From the Testimony of the H. Scripture the Council of Trent hath declared to all Christians that it is an arrticle of our faith Sess 22. de sacrif Miss can 1. 2. 3. We have also the unanimous consent of all the Holy Fathers Is then that to be called only an unwritten tradition which a General Council and all the Holy Fatthers and Scripture it self attests Object 1. St. Paul Eph. 4. mentioning the offices which Christ left his Church makes no mention of Sacrificers Answer When St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 11. sayes that Christ made some Apostles he mentioned Sacrificers sufficiently because to Sacrifice is one of the frunctions of an Apostle Neither doth he mention Baptisers in that place it being sufficiently understood by his making some Pastors of whom one duty is to Baptize Neither had the same Apostle writting to Timothee and Titus about the duty of a Bishop need to instruct them to Sacrifice since they had been newly instructed as to that when he made them Bishops and were now in a daily exercise of that function Moreover Non valet consequentia ab authoritate negata no good tonsequence is drawn from a negative or denyed authoritie Obj. 2. The thing Sacrificed must fall under our senses Answer I grant it and tell him That the thing Sacrificed is the Sacrament or Christ's Body with the Species of Bread and not Christ's Body alone Which Sacrament is not hid but is visible by its Species though a part of it viz. Christ's Body be not seen just as the Substance of Bread visible by its species is not seen Note then that though the Body of Christ is not cognizable afore the Consecration by this visible Species of Bread yet the Consecration being made the Sacrament is cognizable to the Faithful by it because this Species belongs now as much to the Sacrament being a part of it as afore it belonged and was a part of the visible Bread Hence it is clear that the destruction or change of the Species suffices for the verifying of this proposition The thing Sacrificed is changed or destroyed For if it were necessary to have the whole thing destroyed the Material part as well as the formal part of a thing there had never been a true Sacrifice Which to say is absurd It suffices that the whole or the totum which was before cease to be by the change which the Preist makes of it You 'l say the Council of Trent sayes the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same Answer As to the substance of the Victime I grant As to the manner of Sacrificing or Sacrification I deny The action by which Christ was offer'd on the Cross differs effentially from the action by which he is offer'd in the Sacrament since that was a real distruction of the union between the Body and the Soul this but a Sacramental one but a Sacrifice if you regard the thing signifying consists chiefly in the Immolating action Sacrificium exparte rei significantis ex actione immolativa maximè constat Then if this Immolating action be of a different kind in the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Altar the Sacrifices also will be of a different kind as to the sacrificing action though the same as to the thing offered and the last terme signifyed which is God as author of Life and Death Note in the adductive or productive action of Christ's Body and Blood is pointed out that two fold dominion of God of Death by the distruction of the Bread and Wine Of Life by the production of the Body and Blood of Christ Note 2. Though bloody or unbloody are accidents to the Body of Christ they are not accidents to a Bloody or Unbloody Sacrifice as altho Colour be an accident to the Wall 't is not an accident to a coloured Wall so that if you destroy colour in it you destroy the Essence of that whole which was before viz. a coloured Wall Hence it follows first that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of an Accident but of a whole Sacramental being rising out of Christ's Body and the Species of Bread and that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrifice is the same with that which was produced or made by the Consecration viz. the Sacrament of the Body of Christ under the species of Bread Secondly it does not follow that the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offer'd in the
commemoration Hebr. 10. v. 3. that men might remember of their Sins and know that they were not remitted by the Sacrifices they had offered but that they ought to recurr to the Cross and Sacrifice of Christ by Faith and hope in him Secondly The Apostle adding else he viz. Christ should often have suffered from the Fundation of the World makes it appear that Christ cannot be offered without suffering Answer Cannot be offered in that manner that S. Paul means there viz. as the Price for the Redemption of mankind without suffering its true because the eternal Father would have that offering in a Bloody way Cannot be offered by way of application of that Redemption I deny Hence when the Apostle sayes that Iesus Christ offered not himself often understand as the Redemption for Sin otherwise he should often have suffered which is true because as I said afore God would have that offering in a Bloody way Thirdly These words From the Fundation of the World sayes Mr. Rodon are of great weight for 't is as much as if the Apostle had said if the only Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross be not sufficient to take away sins committed after neither was it sufficient for sins committed before and so Christ should have suffered From the Foundation of the World I answer That the Sacrifice of the Cross was all sufficient to take away all Sins past present and to come in as much as was required on Christ's side but not in as much as was and is required on our side as Protestants must grant because he required our application of those his merits to ourselves which Protestants make by Faith and Repentance We by Faith receiving the Sacraments Oblation of the Eucharist commanded by Christ Do this in remembrance of me and other good works S. Paul Colos 1. v. 24. sayes I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh c. He fill'd up what was wanting not of Ransom but of application of it SUBSECTION II. His other Instances answered TO his fourth Instance I answer the sense of the Apostle's comparison is not that he fains to himself that Christ having died on the Cross will be no more upon Earth till he come to Judge the Quick and the Dead but this As it is decreed in Heaven for the Sin of the first man that all man Dye and after Death come to Judgment so Christ having taken upon him the Sins of all men would once Dye offering himself as a Ransom for them and after come to Judgment but not with the burden of Sin or as an Host to be offered for them but as Judge to call them to an accompt of the Favour he had done them by dying for them to reward or punish And thus the Hebrews had no reason to be scandalized that their Messias dyed neither does the Mass infer that he will come in human shape afore the day of Judgment But what will Mr. Rodon say to what is said Act. 23. v. 11. The night following the Lord stood by him and said be of good cheer Paul Was not that in human shape upon Earth since the Ascension and afore the day of Judment And did not St. Paul by his appearing so to him prove his Resurrection To his fifth Instance I answer sacrifices that take away all sins by way of ransom for them ought not to be reiterated as that of the Cross I grant Sacrifices which only take away Sins by way of Application of ransom given for them in the Sacrifice of the Cross ought not to be reiterated as that of the Masse I deny And in this those two Sacrifices differ the one being by way of Ransom in a Bloody manner the other by way of commemoration for an application of what was purchased to us by the Sacrifices of the Cross as if a Child who to move the King to give him something promised for his fathers sake should show the King his Father's Corselet through which he was shot defending his Majesties person Hence gather that the fruit and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Crosse dures for ever affording us for ever the ransom of which more or lesse is applied to men by every Mass but the Sacrifice of the Cross alone without any thing done by men is not sufficient for our compleat and actual Sanctification as appears in the Elect who are not Sanctified at least afore they make an act of Faith So when St. Paul sayes Hebr. 10. v. 14. without one oblation he consumated for ever them that are sanctified is to be understood as much as was required of him as redeamour or on his side that is in actu primo in a readinesse for application to be made by us but not inactu secundo actually applying his merits which is done by Baptism the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist and in the Protestants mind by Faith To his last instance or 16 Numb Saying That Christ was constituted high Preist for ever I Answer 1. Where there is a High Preist there is also a Low Preist for High and Low are correlatives and a Low Preist must have his Sacrifice No other but that of the Mass then 't is a Sacrifice Answer 2. That Christ hath an unchangeable Preisthood that he is able to save c. and that Peter did not succeed to him as Eleazarus succeeded to Aaron viz. in an equal degree of dignitie of Preist-hood Nay St. Peter was not his successor yet he was his Vicar supplying his place upon earth as a Lieutenant does that of his Captain being absent which does not hinder Christ to be at the same time High-Preist and High Preist for ever To his reply to our distinctions and saying that the Sacrifice of the Mass differs essentially from the Sacrifice of the Cross because the natural death of Christ is of the essence of this Answer That if he takes the Sacrifice of the Mass reduplicatively as the Sacrifice of the Mass it differs essentially from the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross though Christ who is the dignifying part in both the Sacrifices be offered in both So Album as Album formally and reduplicatively taken differs essentially from the wall which is white because white enters necessarily into the conception of a white thing not into the conception of the wall So a Sacrifice offered only by way of application differs essentially from the same thing offered by way of ransom because Ransom enters the conception of the one and Application the conception of the other But the Council of Trent doth not take it so but that the same Christ is offered in both neither will the Council have it a meer representation of the Sacrifice of the Crosss as a picture represents the King for the same Christ is really offer'd in the Mass who was offered on the Cross though not in the same manner nor precisely for the same end neither is it a meer application for the same reason Does a
his precious Death Do this in remembrance of me Item because we have it so in the Form of Consecration of that Sacrament instituted by our Saviour and conveyed by Apostolical tradition down to us So is shed and shall be shed are both true Our Saviour who conversed with and instructed his Apostles fourty dayes between his Resurrection and Ascention of things belonging to his Church could best tell them his mind An OBJECTION Omitted in the II Section of the 7. Chap. Object IF God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the destruction of Christ's Sacramental being only whereas afore it was not satisfied for sin without the Destruction of his natural being his Justice will not be alwayes the same Therefore the Justice of God is not now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being and consequently the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead Answer If God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being as a Ransom for sin I grant that his Justice will not be the same if he be satisfied with it not as with a Ransom but as an application of the Ransom for sin I deny that his Justice will not be alwayes the same And as Protestants think that God's Justice is alwayes the same altho they Judge that it is satisfied with their Faith and Repentance as an application of the Ransom given for them by the Death of Christ and that it would not be satisfied without them on their side for they don't hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross without any more a do suffices for the actual Remission of all the sins of the Elect but moreover they require Faith and Repentance in them so we think also that it is alwayes the same altho we Judge that it is satisfied with our Faith and Repentance and other good works and especially by the Sacrifice of the Mass as an application of the Ransom given for us on the Cross CHAPTER VIII A reply to Mr. Rodon's answers to some of our Proofs both for the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass SECTION I. For the Real Presence Our first Proof OUr Proof that these words This is my Body This is my Blood should be taken in their proper sense and not figuratively is this because men viz. wise men such as eminently Christ was making their Testament speak plain Mr. Rodon to usher in more smoothly his answer sayes first That Articles of Faith and Sacraments are not always expressed in proper terms and busies himself to answer that which is not so much as thought upon to be denied much less Objected Then he sayes I answer that in H. Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure for the Testament of Iacob Gen. 49. and Moyses Deut. 33. are nothing but a chain of Metaphors and other figures and Civilians will have that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator I reply What he brings for Testaments in those places are Prophecies of Iacob and Moyses not Testaments Nay after Iacob had fore-told all the text adds he blessed every one with their proper blessings of which in particular the Scripture is silent and ordered them to bury him in the Field of Ephon Secondly suppose they had been Testaments there was a special reason for speaking in covered terms first because they were at least also Prophecies which the Holy Ghost would not have yet clearly understood by every one but that they should have their recourse to the Preists for the understanding of them thus keeping the People in humility and the Governours of the Church in Authority Next there was no danger of any one's loosing his right by others mis-understanding of the words because Iacob and Moyses were infallibly sure of God's promise But in Christ's Testament there was a reason of making the words clear to encourage men to be earnest to get what he had left them As to the saying of Civilians That in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the Intention of the Testator I Answer the reason is because it falls out sometimes that Testaments conceaved in proper words are ambiguous for example suppose a man who hath two Nephews one the Son of a Poor man to whom he always testified Love above the other who was the Son of a Rich man should Test thus I leave 100. lib. to my Nephew Here the Intention of the Testator is to be attended and by this adjudged to the poor Nephew by reason of his singular affection to him altho the proper signification of the word pleads as much for the other If you ask me how in the best conceived Testaments there may be some thing ambiguous I answer with Aristotle because Res sunt innumerae pauca verba that is Things are without number but words are few and so by one word we must signifie many things He urges Christ did not then make the new Testament but only the sign of it for the Covenant was made with all mankind in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpent's Head and was after renewned in Abraham Answer First Whatsoever was made in the Old Law is not that which our Saviour in the Ghospel calles the New Testament for all that was Old when he spoke Nay the New Testament was not the same Covenant made in the Person of Adam for if the New Testament was made with Adam and renewed with Abraham I ask who was that afore Adam with whom the Old Testament was made Item different conditions make a different Covenant Now to believe in CHRIST COME and TO USE HIS SACRAMENTS are conditions which were not in the former Secondly I deny that he did not make at the last Supper his New Testament because as by God Exod. 24. the Old Testament was made or his will of giving to the Jews the Land of Canaan if they kept his commandments and ceremonies prescribed by him was made I say and signed with the Blood of Beasts Hic est sanguis faederis quod pepigit vohiscum Deus This is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you Said Moyses so Christ by the effusion of his Blood in a Sacrifice for Liquid things are offered by Effusion made and signed his New Testament of giving us spiritual things and a heavenly inheritance if we keep his Commandments and use the Sacraments instituted by him And now I prove that he made it here and no where else Because here and no where else he fulfilled the conditions required in a Testator making his Testament First he signified that he was making his Testament in these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. Secondly he promised and left some thing