as Heat is cal'd the propertie of Fire because the nature of Fire has a clame to Heat and an exigence or a natural appetite of it tho actual Heat not the exigence or natural apetite of it might be given to water so to be all in all and all in every part of an improper place is called the propertie of a spirit because the nature of a spirit has an exigence of it tho this way of existing not the exigence of it may by the almighty power of God be communicated to a body If then a glorious body has this property of a spirit to enter through a wall without making a breach why may not the whole body of Christ be in the whole and least part of the host So our way of eating him there is conform to his way of being there which is spiritual with the propertie of a spirit his whole Body being in the least particle of the host not carnal as if we divided his body with our teeth Spiritual again in as much as we believe That his real Bodie so receaved in that spiritual manner as he commands under the accidents of bread by the mouth of the Body feeds the soul or spirit by the grace it produces there And this eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood that way satisfies the hunger and thirst we had of his grace Another proof that Christ meant the real manducation of his true Body when he said Take eate c. For this is my Body is what he said to the Iews Io. 6. v. 51. The Bread which I will give you is viz. at present my Flesh Where I remark the word is the sacrament not being yet made could not import Signifies my flesh but because the Bread only as a sacrament could signifie his flesh imports an identitie or samety of that bread he spoke of with his flesh Hence the sacrament he made after and which we now receive under the form of Bread being that bread he promised to give it follows that it is his real Flesh and therefore our eating of it is a real and corporal manducation of his Body Add to all I have said that Christ's flesh is not meat really and indeed to him who believs only no more then the King's picture is to him that sees it the King indeed or truely the King For things that are said to be such indeed according to our common way of speaking are understood to be such properly and not figuratively SECTION III. Mr. Rodon's objections against our understanding of those words of Christ He that eates my Flesh c. of a corporal eating by the mouth of the Bodie and not only by Faith answered Ob. 1. Christ sayes Io 6. v. 35. He that comes to me to wit by faith shall never hunger and he that believes in me shall never thirst Then the eating of Christ's flesh is spiritual by Faith and not corporal I answer denying the consequence And say that who believes in Christ shall neither hunger nor thirst because to the believer Christ will give his Body and Blood to be eaten and drunken corporally which will satisfie the Believer's hunger and thirst of him and more over hinder in him the hunger and thirst of perishing things 'T is not then a bare believing which is only a beginning and disposition to the satisfying of the hunger and thirst of the soul but the worthy eating the body and blood of Christ which gives that satisfaction Who eates my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him Io. 6 v. 57. Belief alone does not do the turne Not everie one that sayes to me Lord Lord and consequentlie believes shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ma. 7. v. 21. Obj. 2. Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 55. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life But a reprobate according to the Romanist may eate the Body and drinke the blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body then it 's the eating and drinking by faith that gives eternal life Answer I deny the censequence and say that the reason why the reprobate receiving the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body has not eternal life is because he presumes to receive it being in mortal sin and so eates and drinks unworthily and consequently eates and drinks his damnation according to S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 27. And here I remark that according to protestants Christ's body cannot be eaten unworthily For according to Mr. Rodon in this chapter and other protestants Christ's bodie cannot be eaten but by faith viz. a saving faiâ—h for historical faith or the faith of miracles is not a manducation or eating of the Body of Christ but who eates the Body of Christ with a saving faith doth not eate it unworthilie for I cannot save and damn my self both at once by the same act but the eating with a saving faith saves me and the eating unworthily damnes me then if I Could eate the Bodie of Christ unworthily I could save and damn my self by the same act then a protestant cannot eate the Body of Christ unworthily which is flat a-against S. Paul and consequently heretical Obj 3. S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct ch cap. 16. speaks thus To eate the flesh of Christ is a figure c. Answer 1. S. Aug. does not say simply To eate the Flesh of Christ is a figure but bringing the words of Christ Io. 6. Unless you eate my flesh c. says Christ seems to command a wicked act or hainous offense Figuraest ergò it is then a figure I subsume but Christ does not seeme to Ro Catholicks who believe he spesaks in that place only of a sacramental manducation to command there a heinous offense then according to S. Austin we have no need to take his words figuratively But for Capharnaites to whom he seems to command a heinous offense they ought to take them figuratively that they may not censure him To understand then this passage in the apprehension of the Capharnaites you must reflect that as we are wont to kill those beasts whose flesh we eate afore we eate them So the Jews out of Christ's words had apprehended that they ought first to kill Christ and after to eate his flesh cut in pieces boiled or rested This without doubt was a wicked or heinous offense He means then saith S. Augustin a figure of his death not his true death and that they ought not to kill Christ truly but by taking the sacrament of the Eucharist represent his slaughter and by their manners express his death that they ought not to kill Christ but to mortifie themselves and do what S. Paul said he had done Colos 1. v. 24. I fulfill those things which are wanting of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church So Maldonat upon the 6 Chap. of S. Io. v. 53 Answer 2. We heartily acknowledge that the Eucharist and the Preist's eating of it is a
but Io. 3. He commanded Baptism saying Except a man be born of Water c. Then he commands the receiving of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood saying Except ye eat c. Obj. The command of receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was Math. 26. in these words Take eat this is my Body Drink ye all of it this is my Blood But there both kinds are particularly commanded therefore 't is not sufficient to receive under one kind Answer 1. I deny the major and say that those words were not a precept but an invitation only made to the Apostles alone as a Friend does to his Friends invited to Dine with him For when S. Mark Chap. 14. sayes They all drunk of it All those who drunk were all those or comprehended all those who were bid drink but all those who drunk were only the Apostles then all those who were bid drink were only the Apostles and consequently if you make it a command 't was a command only obliging the Apostles Answer 2. The washing of the Feet to one an other Io. 13. v. 14. was not a precept therefore far less these words Take eat for there he sayes positively Debetis alter alterius c. Ye ought to wash one another's Feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you Out of my answer to the Objection Remark that the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. from the v. 23 to 27. relates only what Christ did to the Apostles and what he commanded them viz. as they were Preists to wit to make this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death telling them that as often as they eat that Bread and drink that Cup they should announce his Death viz. by their separate taking of the species of Bread from that of Wine Then S. Paul of himself adds Whosoever shall eate this Bread or drink the Cup of our Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As if he had said altho you eate the Body of our Lord in a good estate if you drink the Cup after having conceaved in your heart afore the drinking a grievous sin you are guilty of both unworthily receaved Why but because under each kind both are contained And thus on the contrary we receave the essential good effect of both under one kind as we incurr the guilt of both profaning both by an unworthy receaving under one I know some Protestant Bibles have Whosoever shall eat this Bread And drink this Cup. c. 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. AND for OR but that is a corruption as you may see in the Greek Printed at London the year 1653. by Roger Daniel which has OR with the Latin version By this essential effect of the Sacrament we distinguish what belonges to the substance of the Sacrament from what belonges not to it For example because in Baptism by aspersion is had the same effect of the Sacrament as by a triple mersion we conclude the triple mersion is not of the Essence Say the same of one kind in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For I hope Protestants will not say that when Christ gave the Sacrement in the time of Supper Math. 26. v. 26. Under the forme of Bread the effect of the Sacrament was suspended till he gave the Cup after supper Luke 22. v. 20. If not then the giving of the Cup was not necessary for receaving the Grace of the Sacrament This Mr. Rodon seems to avow in his 12 number of this Chapter when he sayes Drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it I infer then they who cannot drink it may have the effect of the Sacrament without the Cup. And this the Calvenists must say in France when they give the Eucharist under the kind of Bread only to those who cannot tast wine as you may see in their 7 Art of the 12 Chap. of their discipline which is of our Lord's Supper And Mr. Jurieux a Minister in France confirmes this custome in his book entituled Le Preservatif c. Pag. 267. When speaking of the Person who has receaved only under one kind This says he N'est pas un veritable sacrement quant au signe mais c'est un veritable sacrement quant a la chose signifieé puisque le fidele recoit J. Christ signifie par le sacrement rccoit tout autant de graces que ceux qui communient au Sacrement meme que le Sacrement luy est presente tout entier de voeu de caeur That is This sayes he is not a true Sacrament as to the sign but 't is a true Sacrament as to the thing signified since the faithful receives J. Christ signified by the Sacrament and receives as much grace as those who receave the Srcrament it self and that the whole Sacrament is represented to him to his sight and heart Also since Protestants believe they receive not only the figure but also the proper substance of JESUS CHRIST at least by saith I ask when they have received the Bread of our Lord's Supper before the Cup have they received the whole substance of Christ or not If they have received the whole then they have received the whole Grace of the Sacrament and consequently the Cup is not necessary If not I ask again is the substance of Christ divided of which one part is receaved with the Bread the other with the Cup Note when S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. sayes Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. he does not give a command 'T was Christ only who gave the command of eating his Body and drinking his Blood as to the substance of the Sacrament but not as to the manner which certainly is not of the Essence of the Sacrament the Sacrament being a permanent thing for Christ having said This is my Body 't was now a Sacrament before the eating according to that of S. Aug. tract 80. in Io. Accedit verbum ad Elementum fit Sacramentum And the use of every permanent thing being posteriour to it and consequently not Essential SECTION II. Other objections answered Obj. 2. A Broken body by wonds is void of blood and has not blood by concomitance but Christ's Body was broken therefore it had not Blood by concomitance and so we ought to take the Blood a part Answer I distinguish the minor Christ's Body was broken on the Cross and there void of Blood be it so when he offered it up for us at the last Supper and after his Resurrection I deny And consequently when we receive it in the Sacrament it has Blood by coneomitance and therefore we need not receave the Blood a part It 's true also that Christ's Body at the last Supper or in the sacrifice is dayly broken as to the species but not in it self and therefore being a living Body it hath Blood by concomitance
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
Christ sayes Giving council to his Disciples to offer to God the first Fruits of his Creatures he took created Bread and gave thanks saying This is my Body and likewise the Cup c. he confessed to be his Blood and he taught a new OBLATION of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles Offers to God through the whole World 3. Tertullian lib. ad Scap. Cap. 2. We Sacrifice for the safety of the Emperour but to our God and his Item lib. de Ora. cap. 14. he makes mention of standing at the Altar and Sacrifice 4. Again What meant the Pagans objecting to Christians their murdering of a Child in their divine Worship and eating of its Flesh Dicimur sceleratissimi sayes Tertul. apolog advers Gen. cap. 7. de Sacramento infanticidii pabulo inde We are called most wicked for murdering a Child in our Sacrament and eating of its Flesh Would we have been called most wicked for eating a piece of Bread and drinking a Cup of Wine in Remembrance that Christ dyed for us Or was this a Mystery to be concealed from the Cathecumens In the third age 1. ORigines speaking of the Eucharist lib. 8. contra Celsum Sayes We set forth with thanksgiving for the benefits received Bread made the Body viz. of Christ And Hom. 23. in Num. he sayes It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the continual Sacrifice who hath dedicated himself to a continual and perpetual chastity 2. S. Cyprian Epist 66. ad Clerum Plebem Furnitanorum speaking of the Duty of Preists sayes all honoured with Divine Preist-hood ought only to serve the Altar and the Sacrifices and attend to Prayer And in Caena Domini post med speaking of the Eucharist sayes This Sacrifice is a perpetual and ever remaining Holocaust 3. St. Hippolitus Episcop Martyr in his speach of the end of the World and Antichrist sayes The Churches will grievously mourn viz. then because neither Oblation nor Incense will be offered and the Liturgy that is the Mass will be extinguished Note The Greek Fathers by the word Liturgy understand Sacrifice So St. Paul Hebr. 9. v. 21. speaking of the Vessels of the Mosaick Sacrifice calles them ta scevee tees leitourgias The Vessels of the Liturgy And Hebr. 10. v. 11. The Preist stood daily leitourgoon that is Ministring See S. Luk's Greek Evang. cap. 1. v. 8.9.23 Note Liturgy is composed of leeitos and ergon that is publick service In the fourth age 1. I begin the fourth age with the Testimony of the first general Council of Nice which Calvin himself lib. 4. Inst cap. 2. § 8. professes to embrace and reverence as Holy The Council can 4. edit lat but 18. of the Greek edition speaks thus Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo tradidit c. Neither rule nor custome has allowed that those who have not power to offer Sacrifice give the Body of Christ to those who offer 2. St. Basil in his 19. hom which is a speach upon St. Gordius Martyr beyond the middle inveighs against the profanations of his time thus The House of Prayer was cast down by the hands of profane Men the Altars were overthrown neither was there Oblation nor Incense 3. St. Cyrill of Hier. Cathec 4. Mystag nigh the beginning Knowing sayes he and having for certain that the Bread which is seen by us is not Bread altho the tast feels it to be Bread but to be the Body of Christ And that the Wine which is seen by us altho it appear to the sense of the tast to be Wine is not Wine but the Blood of Christ 4. St. Ambrose lib. 5. Epist 33. vel 13. ad Marcel sayes This morning fell out a disturbance in the Church I continued my Office I begun to say Mass 5. St. Optatus Mileu initio lib. 6. contra Parmes Donat sayes What is so Sacrilegious as to break and raze the Altars of GOD on which you your selves Sacrificed afore In the fifth age 1. ST Iohn Chrisost hom 83. in Math. beyond the middle sayes Let us therefore believe God every where nor mutter against him altho what he sayes seem absurd to our sense and thougt c. Since then he said This is my Body let us not doubt at all but believe And a litle after O how many say I would see his form and shap he answers behold you see him you touch him and eat him And in the begining of his Liturgie which is in his fifth tome he brings in the Preist praying thus O Lord c Strengthen me that inculpably assisting at thy Altar I may end the unbloody Sacrifice 2. S. Austin Conc. 3. in Psal 33. He Christ in s ituted of his Body and Blood a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech And in the 11. ch of his Manuall he prayes thus Most sweet JESU c. I pray that while though unworthy I assist at your Altars desiring to offer to you that admirable and Heavenly Sacrifiee worthy of all reverence and devotion c. S. Aug. con 1. in Psal 33. Nondum erat Sacrificium Corporis sangu nis Domini quod Fideles norunt qui Evangelium legerunt quod Sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe Terrarum The Sacrifi of the Body and Blood of our Lord which is known to the faithful and to those who have read the Scriptures was not yet which Sacrifice is now spread over the whole World 3. S. Cyril of Alexan. expounding those words of Malachie In every place is Sacrificed and offered to my name a pure offering Malach. 1. v. 8. sayes He viz. God fortelâ—s that his name shall be great and Illustrious among all mortalls through the World and that in every place and Nation a pure and unbloody Sacrifice shall be offered to his Name Now hear S. Augustin speaking of the Holy Fathers who were the cheif members of the Church of Christ in their time Tom. 7. contrr Jul. Pelag. l. 2. cap. ult What they found in the Church they held what they learned they taught what they received from their fathers this they delivered to their Children c. Nondum vobiscum certabamus sayes he eis pronunciantibus vicimus We did not as yet then debate with you but yet by what they said then we now win the cause Let a sober judgement remember that Calvin one of our greatest Enimies call's lib. 4. inst cap. 7. 22. Gregorie Pepe and S. Bernard Holy men I infer if they were Holy men in his judgement then their faith was Holy because without Faith viz. true Faith 't is impossible to please God yet they believed the Sacrifice of the Masse witness what S. Greg. sayes Hom. 8. on the Evang. Because we are to celebrate three Masses to day viz. on Christmasse day my discourse on the Ghospell will be short And S. Bernard in his second Sermon of all saints Now saith he I must end because High Masse which is not yet said calls us
to his Inheritors he promised Remission of Sins to his Apostles and many or to the Jews in the word vobis and to the Gentils in the word multis so called because they were truly many in respect of the litle number of the Jews and left them his Body and Blood to be offered for that end Thirdly he ordered some thing to be done by his Inheritors viz. That they should love one another As God in the Old Testament proposed by Moyses the Commands of the Law Fourthly He did it afore witnesses viz. the Representative Church or all the Apostle who knew he was making his Testament Fifthly Here he was in a living condition at the signing of his Testament not so at the Cross Hence avow that at our Lords Supper the New Testament was made and the figure of the Old fulfilled Quaeres Did he speak plain when he said Drink ye all of this Cup Answer Grant he did not that was not of the essence of the Sacrament Next a figurative speach so commonly used that it would be odd to understand it otherwise then in the sense of the speaker is aequivalent to a proper speach CUP hath two significations by the institution of men Taken alone it signifies a certain Vessel joyned to DRINK it signifies the thing contained Note Altho we say he spoke without figure in instituting this Sacrament as it is set down by St. Matthew who alone of all the Evangelists that relate to us the institution was present We do not say that he spoke always so Obj. The Apostles asked Christ the meaning of Parables why did not they ask the meaning of these words which carried such strange consequences as one Body to be in diverse places at once c. Answer He had cleared them sufficiently by what he said in the 6. Chap. of St. Iohn so that St. Iohn having spoken of it there does not so much as mention it afore his Passion nor any Disciple seemed to wonder hearing the words of the Institution altho many of the Disciples afore Io. 6. v. 61. had said This speach is hard and who can hear it They were wiser after they had heard what he said Io. 6. than to say with the Capharnaites How can he give us his Flesh to Eat Or with the Protestants How can he be at once in two places SECTION II. For the Real Presence Our second Proof WE say the Type ought not to be more excellent than the thing Typified since S. Paul Collos 2. v. 17. compares the Type to a shadow and the thing typified to a Body but if the Eurharist be a meer piece of Bread the Paschal Lamb being the Type of it the Type will be more excellent than the thing Typified then the Eucharist is not a piece of Bread Mr. Rodon To avoid this Argument sayes That the thing Typified by the Paschal Lamb is not the Eucharist but Christ as St. Paul shews clearly says he 1 Cor. 5. saying Christ our Passover was crucified for us Answer 1. Should I rely upon Mr. Rodon's sentiment against the Judgment of the Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. in Marcionem Cyprian lib. de unitate Eccles Hierom. in cap. 26. Math. Chrysos Homil. de Prodit Iudae August lib. 2. contra Literas Petiliani cap. 37. saying Aliud est sayes he there Pascha quod Iudaei de Ove celebrant aliud quod nos in Corpore Sanguine Domini accipimus I bring only the Passage of St. Aug. a Father of great Authority with Protestants for brevities sake The Passover that the Iews celebrated in a Lamb was different from that we take in the Body and Blood of our Lord. Here he calles the Body and Blood of our Lord the Passover And this Sentiment of his and the other Fathers hath its great ground out of the Ghospel Math. 26. and Luc. 22. Because our Lord for no other cause instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist after he had eaten the Paschal Lamb according to the Iudaick rite and Ceremony but that he might signifie as S. Leo serm 7. de Pas remarks That the Old observation or Figure was fulfilled and taken away by the New Testament When the Legal Festivity is changed sayes he 't is fulfilled Answer 2. The Paschal Lamb may be considered First as killed only and so it is a figure of Christ's Death Secondly as 1. Immolated 2. And eaten 3. The 14 day 4. In the evening 5. Within the House and so it s a Figure not of Christ's Death but of the Eucharist or his Body Sacrificed or given for us Luhe 22. And eaten the 14. day in the evening for he died the 15. day being the Full Moon and eaten only by those who are within the Church or the House of God Exod. 12. v. 46. Whereas the Passion of Christ extends to all men to those who are within and to those who are out of the Church that they may come in See S. Cypr. lib. de unit Eccles Note St. Paul does not say 1 Cor. 5. v. 7. Our Passover Christ was Crucified but Immolated Greek Ethutee that is Sacrificed He adds v. 9. Let us keep the Feast c. with the unleavened Bread of sincerity and Truth This relates to eating indeed we keep the solemn Feast of our Passover by eating the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was first instituted and made for us at our Lords Supper Object 1. The Types of the Old Testament were instituted that the Faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things Typisied and signified in the New but those of the Old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal Lamb then the Paschal Lamb was not a Type of it Answer They were not instituted only for that reason but also that we in the New Law might understand that we are one and the same Church with them they having had at least in Figure and consequently an obscure knowledge of what we have in reality And so the Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist altho the Iews came not by it to a knowledge of the Eucharist Ob. 2. The Passover was a Type and the Eucharist is also a Type of Christ Therefore if the Passover had been a Type of the Eucharist it had been a Type of a Type and not of a thing Typified Answer A bare Type may be the Type of that which is not a bare Type So the Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist which in one respect is the thing Typified and in an other the Type The thing Typified in respect of the Paschal Lamb and a Type in respect of Christ's Death which it represents So also the Paschal Lamb was in one respect a true Sacrifice and in an other it was the Type of the Sacrifice of Christ made in the Eucharist and on the Cross The nullity of Mr. Rodon's answer to St. Rigau's Proof which he looks upon as our third Proof may be seen in my Chapter 4. Sect. 1.
AN ANSWER To Monsieur DE RODON'S Funeral of the MASS IHS NOMEN DOMINI LAVDABILE By N. N. At DOUAY in Flanders 1681. To the Honourable SIR IOHN SETON OF GARLETON Son to Lord GEORGE Late Earl of WINTON SIR THE great Obligations I had to your Honour afore I parted from Scotland claim with much reason to some Fruit of my Labour Be pleased then to accept of a little work of mine from Flanders I am confident the Subject will please you because it is sutable to your Devotion and to the piety of your most Noble and ancient Family Our Saviour by the occasion of the Jews seeking him for Bread spoke to them of the Bread of Life and I by the occasion of three sheafs of Corn I find in your Scutchion or in the Honours of your House will speak to you in reference to the Subject of this little Book of the Bread termed by the Church the Bread of the strong I mean of the most Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Altar Ligor ne dispergar saycs your motto I am bound lest I scatter your glorious ancestors being united and tyed together in the Faith of this Sacrament were not scattered by the Enemies of their Souveraign when helped by the miraculous valour in a Child of the house of Duglas they galantly brought Queen Mary out of the Bondage of Lockleven and lodged Her safely the first night in my Lord SETON'S own House at Netheree in West Lothian They keeping still Faith to God and their Soveraigns after this action spread even under Persecution as Camamoile trodden down both to more Wealth and Honour 'T was for the Vertue of the SETON'S that Noble Motto invia virtuti via nulla no way hard or unpassible to Vertue was given them And where I pray in their perswasion then and still in yours is the seat of Vertue but in this Bread of the strong If the Prophet Elias refreshed with that Bread which was only a Figure of our Sacrament walked fourty days and as many nights wonder you that those great Men of whom you have the Honour to descend receiving it often were quickned to generosity and Christian Duty to King and Country Sir CHRISTOFER SETON by ROBERT A BRUCE sutnamed the Good merited for his Devotion to the Sacrifice of the Mass to have after his Death the daily Sacrifice offered for him and this was perform'd by the same King ROBERT whose Sister he had Married for he founded a Chapel near Dumfrice call'd Christel Chappel and a Preist to offer Sacrifice in it for the Soul of Good Sir Christofer as he out of a loving respect was pleased to call him This renowned Champion dyed at London as Honourably as Cruelly by the hands of the English whom he had often stoutly opposed and pestured in the service of his Country But why was Christofer the first his Predecessor call'd more Devout than Worly But because his Heart was powerully tho sweetly drawn to this Sacracrament as Iron to a Load-Stone Hoc specialiter sayes Thomas a Kempis l 4. de imit Ch. c. 1. Devotorum corda trahit this Sacrament draws by a special way the hearts of Devout People and thus from a special respect to this Sacracrament a Man worthily obtaines the tittle of Devout Lord George the third a Prudent Man and very Familiar with King James the third devided his Devotion to the Altar with his Lady Dame Jeane Hepburn called by the History a Noble and Wise Lady Daughter to the Earl of Bothuel O Lord said the Royal Prophet I have loved the beauty of thy House Psal 25. Were not those two great Souls inflam'd with the same Zeal when striving as it were who might do best they set themselves to decore the Colledg-Church of SETON The Lord paved and seiled the quire and the Lady â—aised an I le on the North-side and having taken down that on the the South side Built by the Devotion of Dame Catherine Sinclar rebuilded it again with proportion to make a perfit Cross and founded two Prebends to serve the Altars The Lord not to speak of other Ornaments gave it a compleat Sute of Cloth of Gold And the Lady compleat Sutes of all the Colours of the Church for Advent Lent Martyrs Confessors Virgins for all the solemn Feasts of the Year of Purple and Crimson Velvet richly flower'd with Gold white Damask c. Not forgetting a Sute of black Vestiments for the Dead with other fine Chasubels Also a great Silver Cross a Silver Eucharist Ciborium or Remonstrance for the B. Sacrament with a fair Chalice Silver and Gilt all for the Majesty and Decorement of the Altar Some may think I had done better in a Dedicatory to busie my Pen in describing the Courage of a Governour of Barwick of the House of SETON who in cold Blood chused rather to see his Son violently put to Death than to faile in his trust to King and Country and in such like signal actions admired by Men than in rehersing these liberalities made to the Altar which are but petty things in the Eyes of worlings But my ayme is not so much to shew the worly grandeur of your Family as the Devotion to this Mystery which makes the Subject of my Book of the great ones in it This their Devotion made them truly great Take from a Man the sense and respect he has for God and for what relates to him and what is he with all he has or may possess little a nothing an object of contempt As God dismaly at last slights them who slight him and what regards his Honour so he stupendiously glorifies them who have made it their work to seek his Glory 1 Samuel 2. v. 30. Live then for ever Souls nobly affected to contribute to the Majesty of this daily Sacrifice which is upon Earth God's greatest Glory O change of times and manners where is he or she in Scotland now a dayes who make it their study to imitate those forementioned Noble Persons What a loss is the want of such for the House of God! How many poor Families monasteries Churches and Altars mourned at the Death especially of that pious Lady If the monastery of Seins in Burromure nigh Edinburgh were standing it would tell you 't was hither she retired her self after the decease of her Lord to attend in solitude with more freedom to God I am now defac'd she is Dead who having chiefly founded me while she lived conserved me and decored me SIR can you forget or not respect the memory of so much piety To which they were powerfully moved by the belief they had of the adorable Sacrifice of the Altar As often as you see the three Crescents in your Arms remember that you must increase or grow as they did in a lively Faith of this Mystery which is the seed of Divine Love and Charity to your Neighbour I know you have hazarded something already for your Faith but if an other occasion be given you
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
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