else 2. To shew that Christ was a Preist for ever according to that order viz. by his Sacrificing under the formes of Bread and wine till the end of the world how can he say that 't is a manifest falsification to me its a manifest falsification in him when he sayes in the same Num. that the greek septuagint translate it as Protestants do and he was a Preist for the London Edition of the Septuagint 1653. by Roger Daniel has eën de hiereus but or for he was a Preist not and he was a Preistj for the particle de signifies not only but but also gar that is for in good English as Henricus Stephanus tell us in his Greek Dictionary when he comes to that particle to tell the truth I have not by me the old Latin interpreter to see his expression and therefore I will not contradict Mr. Rodon in that If you say Christ is a Preist for ever because he remaines for ever I Answer That remaining for ever makes him capable to do the function of a Preist for ever be being a Preist but that alone does not make him a Preist for ever no more then it makes an Angel who will remain for ever a Preist for ever Neither can you say that he is a Preist for ever because the vertue of his Sacrifice on the Cross remaines for ever For the vertue of the Sacrifice of Noë which obtained that no more deluge should come upon the Earth for ever Genes 8. so remaines or dures for ever yet I hope you will not say that Noë is a Preist for ever Would you say at the death of a man whom the King makes Lord Chief Justice and deprives him of his office at the years end he living yet 19. years after he was Lord Cheif Justice 20. years No because he did the function of a Cheif Justice only one year No more could we say that Christ is a Preist for ever if he did not do the function of a Preist for ever And the function of a Preist according to St. Paul Hebr. 8. v. 3. is to offer every High Preist is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man viz. Christ have some what also to offer He speak's not here of intercession as if it were the proper partial function of a Preist by reason of which Mr. Rodon would have Christ called a Preist for ever If you say with Calvin lib. 4. Inst cap. 18. he offers himself in Heaven I ask is that oblation made in Heaven a proper Sacrifice If so then the Christian Religion is no more upon Earth but translated to Heaven because The Preist-hood being translated there is made of necessity says St. Paul Hebr. 7. v. 11. A translation also of the Law Note 8. Christ is not called a Preist for ever because he intercedes for ever for to intercede is common to a Preist and other men but because he Sacrifices for ever That is to the end of the World the Sacrifice of the Eucharist of which he is the chief offerer Note 9. Altho it was not necessary we should know how Melchisedeth executed his Kingly Office yet is was necessary we should know how he exercised his Preist-hood because he is not mentioned to have had aspecial Kingship but he is mentioned to have had a special Preist-hood And because no mention is made in the Scriptures of the end of his Preisthood more than of the end of his Life he is called in them a Preist for ever and in that a figure of Christ's Preisthood for ever but not that he was truely a Preist for ever as Christ So he is said to have been without a Father or Mother not that truely he was so but only without Parents mentioned in the Scripture Mr. Rodon in his last answer num 28. sayes its false that the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloody Sacrifices of Beasts and Melchisedech offered an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine Also he sayes its false that the likeness of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS doth consist in this viz. That as Melchisedech did Sacrifice Bread and Wine so JESUS did Sacrifice his Body and Blood under the Species of Bread and Wine And that these are human inventions neither founded on Scripture or Reason Answer They are not human inventions since they are grounded on Scripture as the Church and Fathers interpret it against whose Authority if Mr. Rodon thinks his bare assertion is of sufficient force I may say in French Mr. Rodon radote or deviats from the right tract As to that he sayes That the Apostle writing to the Hebrews places the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing then in that we alleadge this I deny and grant that he places the difference of the Person of Melchisedech from that of Aaron and some likeness of the Person of Melchisedech with that of CHRIST in quite an other thing but not the difference of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech from that of Aaron or the likeness of the Preist hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS in other things than those which are asserted by the Roman Church St. Paul is here silent of both as to their formal difference or likness for a reason which I shall bring by and by By this that Melchisedech receives tithes from Abraham and blesses him he is declared by the Apostle to be a greater Person then Abraham but by this is not signified the difference of his Preist-hood from that of Aaron and others who were yet in the Loines of Abraham by that also that he was a King and a King of Peace the greater likeness of his Person than that of Aarons to CHRIST is intimated but not the likeness of his Preist-hood If you ask me why the Apostle does not here assign formally and openly the difference between the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and that of Aaron And the resemblance of Melchisedech's with that of Christ in the Eucharist My answer is that the controversie between the incredulous Jews and St. Paul was not about that difference or resemblance and besides by reason of their incredulity weakness they were not capable of understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist but whither or no all the Sacrifices of Aaron and his order were sufficient for the general redemption and satisfaction for the Sins of all mankind and he answers no and sayes that they had need of a greater Sacrifice viz. that of the Cross and a greater Person to be Preist figured by Melchisedech who was eminently above Abraham and all the Order of Aaron and who was to be a Preist for ever viz. by the proper act of Preist-hood that is was to Sacrifice till the end of the World which is not done by a perpetual intercession unless it be joined to
SECTION III. For the Real Presence Our fourth Proof GOD can put two Bodies in one place then he may put one Body in two places or at once in Heaven and in the Host The antecedent is proven by Christ's entring into the Canacle of the Apostles the doors being shut Io. 20. v. 19. Mr. Rodon's answer is to explane those words thus The doors having been shut which explication suffers the opening of them again to let Christ in But that which annull's all his frivolous explications of those words is that the Greek Original text has thuroon kekleisménoon in the Genetive absolute the doors being shut and the English Protestant Translation has when the doors were shut came Iesus Both which import a simultaneus entry of Iesus with the door 's being shut or that Iesus entred while the doors were shut and consequently two Bodies were penetratively in the same place 2. Christ came out of his Blessed Mother's womb without opening it but Mr. Rodon for certain assures the contrary because Luke 2. he was presented to the Lord as is written in the Law every male that opens the womb Luke 2. v. 23. But let me ask Because Christ submitted himself to the Law was he subject ro the Law Because he took upon him Circumcision the mark of a Sinner was he a Sinner No more had he opened his Mother's Womb altho he was presented to the Lord. Must we degrade the Mother of God of the title of a Virgin or go from the common notion of a Virgin to ply to Mr. Rodon's Faithless imagination 3. Was not Christ risen afore St. Mary Magdalen said who will roll away the Stone Mark 16 And consequently in rising penetrating it was in the same place with the Stone 3. St. Paul sayes Hebr. 4. That Iesus Christ penetrated the Heavens and consequently the Heavens and his Body were in one and the same place Mr. Rodon answers That is to be understood improperly that is that the Heavens gave way to his Body as the Air to an Arrow But I reply The Holy Scripture is to be taken in the litteral sense when so taken as here it implies no contradiction nor any thing against Faith or good manners Moreover St. Paul spoke so to let us know that Penetrability or subtility is one of the Gifts or Endowments of a Glorious Body Mr. Rodon is not of that Authority to make his bare word be taken against the sentiment of all the Orthodox Divines Mr. Rodon objects Numb 15. That a modal accident in the opinion of those Romish Doctors who hold them cannot be without a subject therefore the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist cannot be without a Subject Answer I deny the consequence because the Modal Accident in the opinion of those who hold them is jultima rei determinatio it ultimatly determines its Subect and consequently when it exists it is with its Subject But other Accidents as the Species of Bread or Wine as Colour Savour c. do not ultimately or actually determine a Subject but only have naturally an appetite to be in a Subject so Fire naturally has an appetite to burn yet by Divine power its actual burning was hindered in the Furnace of Babilon SECTION IV. For the Sacrifice of the Mass Our first Proof TO Mr. Rhodon's answer to our first Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass out of the Prophet Malachy I reply in my 7 Chap. Subs 4. where I deduce that proof at length What he says about the word New offering is out of purpose for we have not that word in our Bible but only Oblatio munda a pure offering Only let his Defender take notice that Sacrifices are not acceptable to God by Jesus Christ unless the Offerers be living stones or living members of his Church by Grace 1. Pet. cap. 2. v. 5. And not that every abominable sinner who breaks the Commandments of God tho he believe in Christ may think his Sacrifice will be accepted so he offer it by Jesus Christ No God hates the impious Prov. 15. So far he is from accepting their offering And Christ says Not every one that says to me Lord Lord this I repeat often to imprint it well in Protestants mind such believe in him otherways they would not call him Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven but who does the will of my Father Math. 7.2 Christ is not a coverer of iniquity that still remaines in the heart of the sinner SECTION V. For the Sacrifice of the Mass Our second Proof WHich Mr. Rodon answers is taken from these words Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine for he was a Breist of God the most High blessed him Gen. 14.18 From these words according to the unanimous consent of Greek and Latin Fathers whose passages you may read in Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa chap. 6. We say 1. That Melchisedech Sacrificed there 2. That the cheif difference between the Sacrifice of Aaron and that of Melchisedech made there was in this that Aaron's was Bloody and Melchisedech's Unbloody or in Bread and Wine and therefore since Christ according to David Psal 109. and St. Paul Hebr. 7. is called a Preist after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron as St. Paul v. 11. expressely intimates it behoved him to Sacrifice under the formes of Bread and Wine as he did at the last Supper when having changed a peece of Bread into his Body he said This is my Body which is given that is offered for you and This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood which is poured out that is Sacrificed for you Luke 22. And consequently the oblation which is made in the Mass it being the same with that which Christ made at the last Supper is a true Sacrifice An other difference taken from the Person Sacrificrificing is that Melchisedech neither succeeded to any in his Presstly dignity being without Father and Mother in order to his Preist-hood which he had not carnally by right of Inheritance but was the first of that order neither had he a Successor as Aaron had Eleazer and in this he was a Type of Christ a Preist for ever Mr. Rhodon to weaken this our Argument for the Sacrifice of the Mass from these words Genes 14. Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine for he was a Preist of God the most High blessed him Says we falsifie the Text in three places putting the Participle Bringing for brought the causal For for And. and leaving out another And. Answer I freely avow our Translation does not follow the Hebrew Text word for word Is a Translator bound to more than the true and full sense of what he Translates May not he change an active Verb into a Passive a Verb into a Participle c. If I should translate the French Jay froid thus I have cold would not I be rediculous to an English man who says I am cold Do not the
a Sacrifice and so makes one thing with it for a pure Intercession is not the proper act of a Preist And this was fore-told by David Psal 109. Thou art a Preist for ever after the Order of Melchisedech Yet he intimated the difference of Melchisedechs Sacrifice from that of Aaron sufficiently to the Faithful Sapientia pauca a word suffices to those who know the thing already when he spoke of his Preist-hood condistinguished from that of Aaron because a special Preist-hood cannot be conceived without the special Sacrifice to which it has a reference Note 1. 'T is indifferent to Preist-hood to have been a King or not to have one's Birth mentioned or not also 't is not the proper act of Preist-hood to bless but only because Preist-hood is a dignity above all human dignity therefore 't is given to the Preist to Bless his proper act being to Sacrifice Note 2. From these words of St. Paul If then consummation was by the Levitical Preist-hood for under it the People received the Law that the People of God were made a Lawful Community under God by the Preist-hood by meanes of which they adored God as he desired so that the Preist-hood altering the Law altered they being annexed or tyed together Note 3. The Old Preist-hood and its Sacrifices were not translated into the Preist-hood and Sacrifice of the Cross as the only Preist-hood and Sacrifice of the New Law because at this Sacrifice all People could not be present to acknowledge God's supream Dominion all the time of the New Law as People were present at the Levitical Sacrifices during the Old Law so then the Levitical Prist-hood of which St. Paul Hebr. 7. v. 12. was translated into the Preist-hood after the Order of Melchisedech and the Levitical Sacrifices into the Sacrifices of the Christian Church made in the Eecharist as the Mosaick Law was translated into the Christian Law Did not the Prophet Isaiah foretell Cap. 61. v. 6. That there should be Preists in the New Law and can Preists be without proper Sacrifices And are there any proper Sacrifices in the Christian Church if that of the Mass be not a true Sacrifice Mr. Rodon concludes his Book with this Argument Iesus Christ hath offered no Sacrifice but after the Order whereof he was established a Preist Hence he concludes that according to us he has offered no Sacrifice but that of the Mass Answer Iesus Christ hath offered no Sacrifice for ever but that of the Mass I grant no other Sacrifice for once I deny Again He was only established a Preist according to the Order of Melchisedech for ever I grant for once I deny and say that this Order for once was a special one for the sole Sacrifice of Redemption Yet the Sacrifice of the Cross may be also call'd according to the Order of Melchisedech in a good sense because he who made it was a Preist after the Order of Melchisedech As a French Sermon made by an English man may be call'd an English piece viz. a piece proceeding from an English man The EPILOGVE NOw to end this little work I wish Protestants may weigh the force of our Proofs in Order to believe and Catholicks meditate the same in Order to be fervent in the daily practise of what they believe St. Bonaventure in his traitise of the preparation to Mass will have the Preist come to the Altar not only all a fire but also wholly crucified totus ignitus sayes he totus crucifixus All burning with the Love of this Lovely Lord possessed with a strong apprehension of his Death and an equal feeling of his pain Such pain in the Preist and all the assisting offerers may be well joyned with an excessive Joy to see themselves have a hand in giving God at that moment the greatest honour all his grandour can receive If it was a great honour to Charles the fifth Emperour landing at the Town of Naples to have had all the way layd with Cloath of Gold from the Ship to the Palace What an honour is given to God when in this Mystery not Gold and Silver is troden underfoot but a Divine Person equal to himself is Sacrificed to honour him May the offerers look for little from the Person who is honoured with such a Gift We know the more holy was the sacrificer among the ancient Patriarches and the more Noble was his Victime the more favourably was both looked upon by God respexit Dominus ad Abel numera ejus sayes Moyses Gen. 4. v. 4. God who frowned upon Cain had a complacence both for the Person of Abel and his Gifts Now what was the sanctity of Abel to that of Iesus and Abels offering to his What may then they who with a lively faith are present at this Sacrifice expect from Heaven since Christ makes over to them all with which his father for this Sacrifice might liberally acknowledge him see Conc. Trid. Sess 22. can 2. a great measure of grace in order to a full repentance and a great remission of pain due to Sin great lights to discover the more perfect way to Salvation great strength to walk and persever therein But mind always that Justus ex fide vivit as all our spiritual Life springs first from faith so it grows not to perfection without the same Let us then endeavour never to come to this fountain of all good without a lively one To the greater glory of our Saviour in this Mystery of his Love to Men. FINIS ERRORS in the Printing P. stands for the Page l. for the line of the page R. for read Pag. 1. lin last xpress R. express P. 7. l. 3. neot R. note P. 10. l. 28. sing R. sign P. 11. l. 3. to R. too P. 11. l. 4. humon R. humoon P. 16. l. 19. truth R. life P. 19. l. 29 after but make P. 19. l. 20. after flesh P. 25. l. 17. neces R. neces P. 25. l. 38. wac R. wa P. 26. l. 4. after food put P. 28. l. 15. peternitie R. paternity P. 32. l. 26. this R. this P. 41. l. 29. neigher R. nigher P. 43. l. 38. pla R. place P. 84. l. 35. exigenbe R. exigence P. 58. l. 29. dwells R. dwell P. 58. l. 36. his R. this P. 59. l. 36. invoce R. invoke P. 61. l. 12. after Silver 1. blot out 2. P. 61. l. 13. nd R. and P. 62. l. 15 blot out again P. 65. l. 12. ermanent r. permanent P. 66. l. 23. cannally R. carnally P. 66. l. 24. refressed R. refreshed P. 85. l. 3. adumbrabant add Christils P. 86. l. 18. and is blot out and P. 88. l. 22. stronly R. strongly P. 88. l 23. leitâ—urgim R. leitourgountoon P. 97. l 4. after cursed add Gal. 1. v. 8. P. 97. l. 18. after Scripture add 1. Io. 4. v. 1. P. 98. l. 14. R. 1. Io. c. 4. v. 1. P. 98. l. 27. R. 1. Io. 4. v. 6. P. 99. l. 6. R. 1. Io. c. 4. v. 6. P. 101. l. 10. them R. his Disciples P. 103. l. 9. hide R. hid P. 103. l. 15. Fat thers R. Fathers P. 105. l. 31. ac R. as P. 111. l. 14. without R. with