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
Preamble HERE Mr. Rodon brings a number of Philosophical arguments so often objected and so often answered by Philosophers in that question whether the same Body may be at the same time in divers places Afore I go farther I desire my Reader to be pleased to reflect that to prove the Catholick doctrine of Transubstantiation 't is not necessary to admit a Body to be in two places Because to be in a place properly or in an univocal place is to have situal or local extension which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist as a soul is not in a place but by reason of its Body which is in a place so Christ's Body in the Eucharist is only in a place by reason of the species which are in a place Again since to walke to meet to be distant to be wounded c. are affections of a Body which is circumscriptively in a place that is having its parts answering to the parts of the uppermost superficies of the Body that contains it all Mr. Rodon's arguments of that nature are of no force against the Body of Christ in the Sacrament it being thereafter the manner of a spirit Yet when they are looked upon with an unlearned eye Mr. de Rodon seems to triumph Just as if I speaking with a country cloun of the motion of the Sun should strive to perswade him that at the most it makes only twenty miles an hour while another should undertake to prove it makes twenty thousand My opinion would be received with more applause by the Cloun than that of the other but if both spoke tâ— an Astronomer he would laugh at my opinion in respect of the other's What makes so different a sentiment in these two Men The Cloun is led by sense and the Astronomer by reason This is my case with Mr. Rodon treating this Question If we speak to vulgar People or to those who have no Faith Mr. Rodon will be applauded If to Men of Faith and reason I 'le have the better of him Why because the vulgar especially if they want Faith will believe nothing that mounts above their senses But the wise Christian not measuring supernatural things by his Eye or as they appear in his weak Imagination but by Faith and seing by his reason there is no contradiction in all Mr. Rodon brings against this Mystery more than against that of the Incarnation or of the most B. Trinity hath no difficulty to submit the judgment of his senses often deceived in natural things to the word of God proposed to him by the Church This preamble being made I now prove our tenet Christ's Body has been circumscriptively that is locally in its shape in two places both at once then it may be in Heaven locally and in the Host or consecrated Wafer Sacramentally both at once I prove the antecedent Christ standing by Paul as S. Luke relates Act. 23. v. 11. in these words The Lord stood by him and said be of good cheer Paul was circumscriptively or locally in that place and at the same time he was in the Heavens which shall retain him till the general Resurrection Act. 3. v. 21. therefore he was circumscriptively or locally in two places both at once If yon say 't was an Angel standing by him that spoke to him from Christ as one spoke to the Iews from God on mount Sinai Then the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 15. v. 8. saying he viz. Christ was seen of me also Were of no force to prove Christ's Resurrection which he was proving there For to see an Angel was not to see Christ Yet he would perswade them that he was risen because he had seen him This is confirmed out of Io. 6. v. 9. and 13. Where 't is said our Saviour fed 5000 Men with five Loaves and two Fishes I suppose these Loaves were not bushel Loaves for the Boy who had them could not have carried them but ordinary Loaves Now I say that these five Loaves might feed 5000 Men the same piece of Bread must have been in divers mouths at once it being probable that Christ gave to each a competent piece for if he Created other Loaves he did not then feed them all with five Loaves which is against Scripture SECTION II. A part of Mr. Rodon's Objections against the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Host are answered Object 1. CHrist's Body cannot be produced in the Host 1. Bacause that cannot be produced which is produced already 2. Because terminus aquâ— and terminus ad quem are distinct or there must be a distinction between the term of departure and the term of arriving 3. In all substantial conversions a new substance must be produced Answer I deny the antecedent and as to its first probation I distinguish That which is produced already cannot be produced as to its Essential being I grant as to its manner of being or as to a Sacramental being I deny The second probation I grant and say that the term Aquo or of departure is the Body without the second presence or relation viz. to the species the term Ad quem or of arriving the Body with the second presence to the species in the Eucharist and these two terms are different For the third probation I denyed it in my answer to the 1. Ob. Section 2. Chap. 3. and gave there the reason of my denyal Mr. Rodon urges If a Man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris therefore Christ's Body which does not leave Heaven neither comes nor is brought to the Host Answer 1. In the opinion of those who explane the being of Christ's Body in the Host by adduction do not say that it 's brought or comes thither Circumscriptively by a proper Local motion because this motion supposes a Body to have it's parts answering to the parts of a place which Christ's Body has not in its adduction to the Host and consequently it does not leave Heaven because we do not leave the place in which we were to go to another but by a proper local and continued motion The equivocal and severed motion by which Christ's Body is adduced to all its Sacramental places is improperly called a motion Answer 2. I deny the antecedent because to put a Body in two places suffices the production of a second ubication for ubication is the formal reason making a thing to be in a place You 'l say supposing that the Body existing at Paris be put also at Rome now either this Roman ubication is produced in the Body existing at Paris or existing at Rome neither can be said not the first because the Roman ubication cannot be at Paris not the second because the Body would be at Rome before it had the Roman ubication therefore the Body which is at Paris cannot be at the same time at Rome Answer I deny the major and say that this Roman ubication is produced neither in the Body existing at Rome nor existing at Paris
debet in aliqua reali mutatione rei quae significatur that it ought to be founded in some real mutation of the thing which is Sacrificed To whom my answer is In other Sacrifices which have not the force to signify God Author of Life and Death without their own Destruction 't is true in the Eucharist I deny it for the reason I gave afore But if this my answer does not satisfy you know that the Sacrament is destroyed or ceases to be what it was by the Preist's consuming of it In which consumption you see a real change of the Victime which is not only Christ's Body and Blood but Christ's Body and Blood joyned to the species which whole is destroyed by the alteration of the species in the Stomach SUBSECTION III. The Mass proved by the Tradition of our Country WIll we condemn the Piety of our Ancestors marking the chief terms of the Year by a singular devotion above all other Nations to this Mystery with the name of Mass or Oblation Missah in Hebrew signifies Oblation or Offering as to mind us to offer up then a Mass of Thanksgiving either for special Spiritual favours bestowed upon mankind on those dayes or for Rents or Fruits of the Earth coming in at those times We have upon record that all the tennants that held Lands of the Cathedral Church of York which is dedicated to S. Peter ad vincula which is the first of August were bound by their Tenure to bring a Lamb alive into the Church at high Mass on that day hence they call'd and likely we from them the first of August Lammas-day Since we are speaking of Lambs I mind that in the written Law the Children of Israël were commanded Exod. 29. v. 38. to Sacrifice every day a Lamb in the morning and another at night Why supposing the general reasons of a Sacrifice but moreover to foresignify by the offering of a Lamb the daily offering of the Lamb of God in the Law of Grace which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass SUBSECTION IV. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Scripture PROOF I. THe Evangelical Prophet Isaiah c. 61. v. 6. Prophecied that there would be Preists in the New Law who would be called the Ministers of our GOD and consequently he Prophecied that there would be Sacrifices no other beside that of the Cross but the Sacrifice of the Mass therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true Sacrifice Quaeres Why are Protestant Church-men called Ministers and not Preists Answer Because they have no Sacrifice to which Preist-hood relates Every High Preist sayes S. Paul is ornained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices Hebrews 8 v. 3. Note the difference between the high Preist and low Preist is not in their offering of Sacrifice which is common to both for the low Preists in the Old Law offered Sacrifice as well as the High Preist but in this that the High Preist has a superiority over the Low Preists and a special assistance of the Holy Ghost to judge in matter of religion Sacerdotes sayes Guliel Whitaker contra Grego Martin ii verè propriè sunt qui Sacrificia faciunt qualis fuit Aaron Aaronis filii Melchisedech quem illi adumbrabant that is Preists truly and properly are they that offer Sacrifices such as was Aaron and the Sons of Aaron and Melchisedeck and Christ whom they prefigured .. So that Protestant Doctor PROOF II. The Mass was also fore-told by the Prophet Malachie c. 1. v. 11. where having reprehended the ancient Preists for their offering polluted Sacrifices God promises that a pure Sacrifice shall be offered among the Gentils in these words from the rising of the Sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentils and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering Which cannot be understood but of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which for the Sanctity of the Victime is called pure and for the universality of the offerers is said to be offered in all places from the rising to the going down of the Sun Again it s called pure sayes the Council of Trent Sess 22. cap. 1. because it cannot be defiled either by the malice or unworthiness of the Offerers Mr. Rodon's interpreting Malachie by what S. Paul sayes Rom. 12. v. 1. and 15. v. 16. is of no force since S. Paul's offering the repenting Gentils and they their repentance and the Romans the like or other acts of vertue by which their bodies became living Hosts breathing the service of God are only Metaphorical Sacrifices Whereas the Prophet foretells a true Sacrifice like to that of the Iews and such is that of the Eucharist of which S. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 10. v. 20. and 21. The things which the Gentils Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God And I would not that you should have Fellow-ship with them Viz. eating a part of what they Sacrifice and so becoming Participant of their Altar For Are not they who eat the Hosts partakers of the Altar v. 18. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table that is Altar and of the Table of Devils to wit eat the Body of Christ which we sacrifice on our Altar and a part of the beast which they sacrifice on theirs Don't wonder that S. Paul calls the Altar Table because on the Altar on which we Sacrifice is set down to the faithful the Bread of Life and the food of our Souls so the Prophet Malachie called also the Altar Table chap. 1. v. 12. having said before to the wicked Preists v. 7. Ye offer polluted Bread upon my Altar Be pleased to read this chapter from the 14 verse to the 22. where the Apostle dehorts and fears the Christians from eating of meats offered to Idols because who eates of the sacrifice offered to Idols is partaker of the Altar of Idols or a worshiper of Idols as who eates of the altar of Chrst and is partaker of the altar of Christians or a worshiper of Christ and as who eates of the altar of the Jews is partaker of the altar of the Jews or a follower of the Mosaik law And consequently since the Christians would not be nor be thought Idolaters they ought not to eat of meats offered to Idols But here take notice he mentions three tables or altars one upon which the Gentils sacrifice to Idols a second on which the Jews offered victims of beasts to God and a third on which Christians offer the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently this oblation of the Eucharist in S. Pauls opinion is a true sacrifice as that of the Jews and that of the Gentils But were offering of the Prayers and other such acts of vertue Sacrifices yet they are not the Sacrifice of which Malachy speaks because the y are not pure not in themseleves as Protestants avow nor pure because they are accepted as pure for say I their impuritie hinders