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
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
the proofs I have brought above the Church doth not think good to give it at this time which she may change it not being a matter of Faith or Command of God when she pleases But the word of God is necessary to those who hear because Faith comes by hearing and is alwayes supplyed to the deaf by outward signs and stronger inward inspirations from God Be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon who inveighes against the Roman Church for taking away the Cup to avoid scandals or inconveniences for one of the same allows in this 6. Chap. numb 13. to substitute rather the ordinary drink of a Country instead of Wine notwithstanding that Christ instituded it to be given in Wine SECTION III. The discovery of Mr. Rodon's disingenuous representation of the Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. THe taking away says Mr. Rodon of the Eucharistical Cup was established as an Article of Faith by the Roman Church representative assembled in the Council of Constance in the Year 1414. Sess 13. in a Canon Answer That 's a Calumny as shall appear in the discussion of his quotation It is indeed an Article of Faith to believe that under the species of Bread is both Christ's Body and his Blood because his Body is a living Body He dyes no more Rom. 6. v. 9. Wherefore the Council of Constance finding the Church to have been in a long custome of giving the Sacrament under one kind for good reasons to shew that the former Church had not erred in that custome thought good to order them to be punished as Hereticks who should presume to say that that custome was erroneous sacrilegious and unlawful But why punished as Hereticks Because they seem to doubt if the Blood be under the Form of Bread Yet she did not define to be believed as an Article of Faith and of divine right for Lay-people to take it only under one kind for it 's only of Church right for some particular reasons which were not at the time the Apostles gave it One of which is this same which moved the Council Another the Church being now extended to Countries where 't is hard to get so much Wine and many being found in the great body of the Church who have an antipathy to Wine since ther 's no necessity it s better in the way of taking to keep an uniformity in the sick to whom it could not be keept or conveniently carried nor was carried in primitive times and in those who are in health and so avoid scruples which might arise in weak heads not to speak of the danger of irreverence in spilling the Commons of Christians being not now so fervent as they were in the first age Yet we do not hold it unlawful jure divino by divine right for Lay-people to receive under both kinds more then 't is unlawful jure divino to eat Flesh on Frydays Since it is at present the practise of the Greek Church at Rome to give the Communion to the Lay-people once a Year under both kinds Now to shew the infidelity of Mr. Rodon's quotation of the Council's decree The Council sayes Praesens Concilium c. definit quod licè Christus instituerit dederit Sacramentum hoc post cocnam sub utraque specie Discipulis hoc non obstante approbata consuetudo ecclesiae servarit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post cocnam neque a fidelibus recipi non jejuuis Here the Council should have added neque sub utraque specie to make out what Mr. Rodon sayes which it hath not nisi in casu infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel Ecclesiae concesso That is The present Council defines c. That altho Christ instituted and gave this Sacrament AFTER SVPPER these Words Mr. Rodon leaves out under both kinds to his Disciples notwithstanding this the approved custome of the Church has observed and observes that this Sacrament ought not to be made AFTER SVPPER nor to be received by the Faithful who are not fasting these words again which alone relate to the Council's saying NON OBSTANTE he leaves out unless in case of Infirmity or other necessity c. allowed by the Law of the Church Where the Council does not speak at all of both kinds when it sayes This notwithstanding but only of the time of Communicating whither AFORE or AFTER SVPPER Viz. Altho our Saviour instituted it after Supper that does not hinder the Church's now ordaining it to be taken only by those who are fasting unless in case of necessity Note as the Council learned from the H. Ghost that Christ's giving it after Supper did not hinder to take it fasting in another circumstance of time so it also learned from the same that the Primitive Church's giving it under both kinds she giving it also sometimes under one as to the sick see Euseb lib. 6. cap. 44. Edit val in the Hist of Serapion also see Tertul de orat cap. 14. and to Infants see S. Cypr. sract de Laps did not hinder to make a Law at that time to give it to the laytie only under one or special reasons one of which is this Since this custome saith the Council in the same place hath been reasonably brought in by the Church and Holy Fathers it ought to stand for a Law which it is not lawful to disapprove or change at pleasure without the authority of the Church Neither does the Councill say not withstanding Christ's command but only not withstanding his Example Now Christ had a particular reason why he gave it after Supper viz. that the Typical Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb might go afore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which was figured by it Also to conform himself to the custome of those times which was to sacrifice after meat in thanksgiving and the Church an other particular reason to give it since to none but fasting because Christians falling from the primitive servour eate and drunk intemperatly of which S. Paul complains 1. Cor. 11. v. 22. and so rendered themselves unworthy not having that purity of Soul which our Lord gave to understand as a thing required by washing his Disciples Feet afore he gave them the Srcrament Christ then commanded the substance of the Sacrament to be given but left the manner of giving it to the Church changeable in a different circumstance of Times and Persons That particle then of the Council notwithstanding imports only that Christ's giving the Sacrament AFTER SUPPER does not hinder it to be given to those who are Fasting And indeed if that were a breach of his will do not Protestants break it as well as we do not they take their Communion before Supper and for the most part Fasting If the Example of Christ were to be followed in the Ceremony of giving it the Preist or Minister should afore wash the Feet of those to whom he gives it To what Mr. Rodon says at the beginning of this
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
we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lord's flesh in the Sacrament let him be Turk Atheist yea tho he should be the Divel himself incarnate I Answer That is to be understood if his unworthiness be unknown to the Priest or known only by Confession For of this he cannot make use to diffame him Did not Christ give the Communion to Judas Ob. 12. God makes no miracles without necessity but what necessity is there for the miracles we avow to be made in the Eucharist Then they are not made there and so Christ's Body is not there Answer I distingish the major without an absolute necessity I deny Without a certain consequential necessity supposing that he will make an extraordinary shew of his power or goodness I grant And this was the reason wherefore he made so many miracles which were not absolutely necessary in the bringing the Children of Israël out of Egipt to wit to give an extraordinary shew of his power And in the Eucharist he makes some where he would also give an extraordinary shew of his singular goodness and love to man fore-told by the Royal Prophet Psal 110. v. 4. He hath made a memory of his marvellous works to wit in giving his Body and Blood to be a spiritual Food to these who fear him Mr. Rodon asks here if it can be said that the Eucharist is for the Salvation of the Soul of him that eats it since the reprobate eates it too and the Faithful under the Old Testament and Infants in the New do not eat it Answer Yes it can be said because 't is the reprobate's fault that it does not save him Neither that the Faithfull of the Old Law and Infants in the New are not saved by an eating of it makes any thing against it because it was not instituted for them Mr. Rodon askes again if it can be said with Bellarmine and Perron that the Host being eaten serves as an incorruptable Food for a glorious resurrection since the Faithfull of the Old Testament and Infants in the New rise again gloriously without it Answer Yes it can be said because Christ sayes Io. 6. v. 54. Who eates my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day And the Council of Nice calles the Eucharist Symbolum resurrectionis a token of the Resurrection and S. Ignatius M. Epist 14. to the Ephes terms it Pharmacum immortalitatis a medicine of immortality Now if you ask the manner how it serves as an Incorruptible Food for a glorious Resurrection I Answer the species being altered by the heat of the stomach the Body of Christ ceases to be there but his Diety remaines after a special manner in the Soul as the virtue of Wheat remaines in the corrupted Grain to raise it again at Spring feeding it with grace and at set times affording it new infusions of actual Grace divine lights and heavenly affections And in the Resurrection raises again the Body and unites it to this Soul But this proposition being affirmative does not exclude from Glory those of the Old Testament and Infants of the New who have not for want of Capacity the Participation of this Sacrament Who sayes that a Ship serves to go from Leith to London does not say that a man cannot go without it viz. by Horse Neither is S. Paul against us but for us when he sayes Rom. 8. If the Spirit of him who raised up IESVS from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you viz. as the efficient and the immediate cause this Spirit being the seed and virtue left by the Eucharist the eating of which was a remote cause conveiging in a particular manner by way of disposition this Spirit to us Mr. Rodon's last Objection is The Heavens must contain Christ untill the time of restitution of all things Act. 3. v. 21. And he himself said I leave the World c. Io. 16. Therefore he is not in the Eucharist Answer We don't say he leaves Heaven to come to the Host or that he hath not left the World as to his visible presence but we say he is and will be with us even to the consumation of the World Math. 28. in an invisible way viz. in the Eucharist Mr. Ro. adds that Christ Math. 24. warnes us not to believe when false Prophets in the last day shall say he is in the Desert he is in the secret Chambers and remarks that the Greek for secret Chambers has en Tameiois that is in the Cup-boards which is to be understood of our Cabinets on our Altars according to Mr. Rodon's explication Answer I remark that where the Greek has Tameiois which signifies an Excheker which relates to secresie as well as Cup-board the Syriach has In Bed Chambers that is as A Lapide explaines a most inward room and that the vulgar Latin has In penetralibus to the meaning of Christ The Greek word is of no force more than the Latin or Syriack that Gospel having been written in Hebrew of which we have not the Authentick Copy Here I may say with S. Aug. Lib. 22. de Civit. Dei Cap. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas Behold with what arguments human infirmity possessed with vanity opposes the almighty power of God CHAPTER V. Against the Adoration and Worshiping of the Host SECTION I. That we ought to adore Christ in the H. Host is proven A Blind Servant thinks himself obliged to take off his hat when he is told his Lord is in the Room Then I am bound to adore Christ when my faith tells me that Christ is present in the Host I prove the Consequence I am as much bound to adore Christ present my Lord and my Redeemer as the blind servant is bound to the taking off his hat in the presence of his Lord and Master Mr. Rodon remarks that Moses Exod. 3. was commanded to approach with reverence and adoration the Bush that burned and was not consumed because God did manifest some what of his power and glory in that place I subsume but Christ doth manifest some what of his power and glory in the H. Host Therefore we ought not to approach it but with reverence and adoration I prove my subsumption Christ gives there to the purer Souls surprising delights and works admirable changes in them which is a manifestation of his power and a ray of his glory there this is known to the faithful which made the heavenly enlightened Author of the following of Christ lib. 4. cap. 1. say O admirahle and hidden grace of the Sacrament which the faithful only of Christ know If you say this is not sensible to the imperfiter Souls amongst Romanists I answer that does not make it not to be true God shewed much of his power and glory in the Manna to the perfit ones
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
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