or sense should join in opinion with Mr. de Rodon against the Mass which has the Tradition and practise of the whole Catholick Church from the Apostles time unto ours of its side and the Mounsieur not a tittle out of Scripture Council or holy father that makes for him but his silly negative no mention no footstep And as the Mounsieur is impudent and obstinate in opposing the universal Church so is he also shamless in believing of her for he says that her doctours require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass which is an arrant lye for although it be true that our holy Mother the Church commands all her children if they have no lawful impediment viz. of sickness or some other very urgent affayrs of consequence to the contrary to be personally present and assist at the oblation of this divine sacrifice on sundays and holy-days of obligation for to hear Mass on workingdays is only of counsel not of precept or command yet she never taught them that by only hearing Mass they should be saved But she rather teaches them the contrary viz. that if they hear never so many Masses while they are in mortal sin they shall reap no benefit by them in order as to any the least jott of merit or reward unless they believe as the Church believes go to confession and do penance for their sinns and firmly resolve to keep Gods commandments and the commandments of his Church for the future and finally do some satisfactory works for the transgressions of their ill life past And far from truth is it also what de Rodon saith viz. that if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist hath offered unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should be again sacrificed on the Cross farr I say is that from truth Because as all the sacrifices of the old Law were but types and derived all their force and vertue from Christs bloody sacrifice upon the Cross so also this incruent or unbloudy sacrifice hath its reference or relation to the said bloudy sacrifice and the difference between the old sacrifices and this our sacrifice of the new Law is this that they were but mediate types and meer shadows of the bloudy sacrifice But our sacrifice is not only an immediate type but also a true Idaea and dayly express real commemoration of it Nay as all the holy fathers do generally accord it is the very self same sacrifice as that of the Cross was though not offered in the same manner for that was bloudy and this is unbloudy and the reason is because Christ as I said before having a desire to be amongst the children of men and promising his Church to be with her alwaise unto the consummation of the world since he is to be in heaven in his humane and glorious shape until the time of the restitution of all things he found out in the infinite abyss of his wisdom this other admirable and ineffable way of being really and personally present with his Church militant in the most blessed Sacrament for to encourage seed strengthen her wirh the manifold graces that flow from his real presence in her into the souls of his elect servants To his farther addition out of S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. 1 Tim. being he inferrs all from negatives he can never conclude However since the Apostle makes mention unto Tymothy of Presbyters that is to say Priests and since betwixt Priest and sacrifice there is a correlation it follows that the Apostle at least virtually made mention of sacrificers Rodon 3. The second argument is drawn from the definition of a sacrifice as it is given us by our adversaries Card. Bellarmine in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 2. defines it thus sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mistical ceremony destroys something that is sensible permanent from those last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form 2. arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass. The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our adversaries say it is a sensible thing but the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing Sacrificed Answ. From these last words viz. that the lawful minister destroys something that is sensible drawn out of Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice Mr. de Rodon forms two arguments like two huge milstones that will crush and destroy the sacrifice of the Mass consequently poor Dianaâ—…s head too To his first crusher which begins thus In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses I grant its major and its minor which is this But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience I distinguish thus but the body and bloud of Christ c. do not fall under our senses in their connatural and proper shape I confess the minor do not fall under our senses in a sacramental shape or in the form and shape of bread and wine which by experience we know falls under our senses I deny the minor and consequence also for we never say that Christ is in the Sacrament in his proper humane shape but only sacramentally that 's to say in the shape of bread and wine and yet we hold that he is really and personally there because he himself said so in most express terms These sacramental species then being obvious to our senses and Christ being really in them they being destroyed although Christs body according to its natural and human shape be not destroyed for he is not reduplicatively so in the Sacrament but only specificatively his sacramental presence is also destroyed in them and consequently we say that by destroying the sacramental species which are palpably obvious to our senses a true and proper sacrifice though an unbloudy one is offered to God the father in remembrance of Christs once-bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross Rodon 4. Against this answer Mr. de Rodon hath these two replies The first is that Christs body is not visible by the species of bread because as his adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it and he says moreover that although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizible by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently he infers
of their livelyhood cast them into Prison or banish them c. against the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereas the thing in it self is not impossible to God nor the verity of this oath revealed by him to any of them But that which aggravates the sin the more is that in the thing wherein God most obliged and demonstrated his love to mankind in that very thing they disown and contradict his word Christ sayes by way of intermination or oath Amen Amen I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you And they swear point blank against him saying it is not his flesh and bloud but bread and wine or at the best nothing else but the signe of his flesh and bloud But how forsooth is it possible for us to eat and drink the flesh and bloud of the son of man in the Sacrament unless his flesh and bloud be in it what perjury is how grevious a sin how distructive to human society how infamous and how it may be committed and what penalties are due to open perjurers I need not set down here the laws of all Nations do sufficiently set it down But to be so ungrateful for a benefit of so high a nature as this is and to disown it flatly by confirmation of an oath against Christs express words and against so many clear testimonies of scripture and all the holy fathers must needs in my opinion astonish any Christian of common reason and sense yet from whom God withdraws his grace and the light of faith he will fall I must confess into these and such like inconveniencies and absurdities and greater too if they can be possibly for heresy is a bottomless gulf of darkness and ignorance that conveys those miserable reprobates that fall into it into the other bottomless pit or gulf of hell out of which there is no redemption and so is the Psalmists words verified in these two gulfs where he sayes that Abyssus Abysum invocat one pit leads or draws a man to another As to all the rest of the Translators raylings against Popery and its tenents against its practises in reference to Protestant Magistrates or civil government that as it is pernicious to their souls by its heretical doctrines and Idolatrous services so it is to their persons and estates and consequently that to introduce it into this kingdom would be an act as unpolitick as Antichristian as hath been demonstrated in that incomparable piece intituled The established Religion in opposition to Popery All this old fustian stuff is but to vent his bitterness whereof he is so full that unless he gave it some passage he must needs burst or crack for until he shewes this established Religion we will never own its demonstration where no two are of the same opinion concerning faith how can there be a Religion established therefore I refer all his scolding-stuff to the oyster-women of Billings-gate to be answered and I say that if our Religion be the only true Religion as we doubt not but she is for she has all the marks of it and there is but one Religion that is good certainly she cannot be pernicious to civil Government for Christs Religion commands us to honour our king and obey our superiour Powers but all the world knows that whe Popery is most in vigour and force and where it is in greatest â—…lourish it never intâ—…enches or encroaches upon their Monarchs temporal power nor upon any of their Magistrates It was never read or heard of yet that the Roman Cathoâ—…icks ever took up arms against their Catholick Princes or any Catholick Prince against another upon the score of Religion only when they are at civill or forreign wars it is never about Religion unless it be against the Turk the common enemy of Christendom But the lâ—…st civill warrs of England all men know was commenced upon the pretext of Religion and upon a pretended score of defending the Gospel a most virtuous king was innocently murdered by his own subjects in this quarrel the Roman Catholicks allthough he was of a different Profession had no hand in his innocent bloud they abhominated and detested so horrid a sacriledge from the bottom of their hearts they stuck to him defended him spent their lives and estates for him as long as they were able and there was any hopes of his safegard he was never betrayed by any of them in any charge they bore under him his welfare and safety was their chief aym and every one of them was ready to sacrifice himself his fortune and estate for his sake After they saw all was lost that he was taken from them and there was no resisting the divine fate as many of them as could followed their Liege soveraigne that now is whom God long preserve but then banished not by his Roman-Catholick subjects and in forraign countries they cleaved to him there they fought for him and many of them quitted their good employments and honourable places they had under forreign Princes whereupon their whole livelyhood and fortunes depended only for to follow and serve him and hazard their lives for his sake in hopes to reiâ—…throne him in his fathers of happy mememory royal throne Afterwards they accompanied and wayted on him home at his Restauration and ever sines served him as Loyally and faithfully all along as any subjects can their Prince and others of them that without evident danger of ruining themselves for ever could not follow and wayt upon him beyond Sea helpt him with their hest Intelligences and some of them under-hand with their means also All these are fresh demonstrations of their Loyalty and things that happened in our own age how can such people then be justly impeached with diâ—…loyalty or how can their practises be pernicious in reference to his sacred Majesty and to his Protestant Magistrates and people whereas they all live in Peace and tranquility with their fellow-subjects and never raised the least commotion or mutiny against the government though never so much provoked thereunto That England was so glorious and happy a kingdom in it self for many ages and was a terrour to its neighbours that invaded it and often conquered them and their kingdomes under Popish kings and their Papist subjects needs no proof for the very chronicles of England made by Protestant Authors themselves do suâ—…ciently shew that as also many memorable worthy things done by them and many of their happy governments we see also that all our neighbouring Popish kings and absolute Princes do live and govern peacably and quietly over their Papist subjects which demonstrats evidently that Popery is not incompatible or inconsistent with kâ—…ngship or civil government and consequently if it be the only true Religion as for matter of government or state it is neither unpolitick or Antichristian â—…o introduce it into any kingdome or country whatsoever But O England England in former times
the miracle he was about to do to his heavenly father But certain it is and all the faithfull believe that this Sacrament was first instituted by Christ at his last supper with his disciples and consequently more then a bare blessing and thanksgiving are requisite to make this Sacrament viz. these effective words of Christ This is my body and so the Mounseur is quite mistaken when he saies that it was rather by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it for there was blessing and thanksgiving of Christ upon the bread and fishes in the wilderness and yet they were no Sacrament Therefore since other mens words are not proper Images but meer speculative signes and since Christs effective words are both practical signes and causes of the things by them signified and since Transubstantiation is both the Sacrament and thing it self and as it is a Sacrament it presupposeth the some thing it signifies though taken in another manner Therefore things which Christ say to be such are not such before he saies or conceives them to be such because he makes them really such by saying they are such although other mens words can alter nothing by saying they are such from what they were before unless Christ elevates their words as he doth the words of his Priests when they consecrate and giveth unto them an Instrumental productive vertue Hence also followeth that that which Jesus Christ held and gave to his disciples expressed by the word this was bread and not his body before he said This is my body by verof which words he made it his real body And consequently that these words This is my body must not be expounded thus This bread is my body nor these words This bread is my body expounded thus This is the Sacrament of my body but rather thus This is my body must be understood of his real body although it consignifies also the Sacrament of his body for they are both together in the Mistery of Transubstantiation Mounsieur de Rodon prosecutes his argument and proves that these words This is my body must be thus expounded This bread is the Sacrament of my body Rodon 3. A proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question for example if a man pointing at the kings person should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings person because the kings person is meant But if a man comming into a Painters shop and pointing at the Kings Picture should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Picture because here his picture is meant Even so if Iesus Christ laying his hand â—…n his brest had said This is my body we must without doubt have understood the proposition concerning his real body and not concerning the sign or Sacrament of it because his very body had been then meant and not the sign or Sacrament of it But Iesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist and to that end having taken bread blessed itand given it to his disciples with these words take eat this is my body it is evident that they must be understood of the sacrament of his body the proposition must be expounded thus this is the Sacrament of my body because here the Sacrament of his body is meant And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in its sixth sess it is evident that this proposition This is my body being expounded by this This is the Sacrament of my body may be expounded thus this is the signe of my body Answ. I deny the Mounsieurs minor viz. that it is evident that Christs words must be understood only of the Sacrament of his body and that the Proposition must be expounded thus This is the Sacrament of my body for these words This is my body as spoken by Christ do according to the proper and immediate signification of the words signifie no more the Sacrament of his body then these words this is my cloak as uttered by me do signify the signe or Sacrament of my cloke therefore as when I say this is my cloake it is not evident that I mean the signe only of my cloake so when Christ said This is my body it is not evident that he meant only the Sacrament of his body nay the words according to their proper and immediate sense do rather signfy that it is his real body and yet we consess that they consignifie the Sacrament of his body also and tâ—…e Mounsieur has no more to shew for this 〈◊〉 but his bare word which we are not bound to take 〈◊〉 Christ laying his hand upon his breast had said This is my body then Mr. de Rodon sayes we ought to believe he meant his real body But let us suppose he had done so a blinde man being by who could not see him I ask the Mounsieur how this blind man must understand and expound his words all the beholders ought to understand them litterally if the blind man must understand them so too why may not we understand them so also or may the blind man understand them figuratively only and the beholders understand them litterally if so then the blind understands them not rightly or if he sayes that the blind man ought to understand them litterally because of the attestation of the standers by that saw our saviour hold his hand upon his breast while he uttered the words I say that the beholders being but men their testimony can produce but a meer humane faith in the blind man concerning the true meaning of Christs words or finally if some of the spectatours out of malice or to deceive the poor blind man should contradict the others and say that Christ held not his hand upon his breast while he pronounced the words although they knew well he did where I pray Mounsieur is the poor blind man then certainly according to your Rule he will be brought to his witts end before he understands the words rightly unless you give him leave to understand them litterally as we do Therefore it is not the laying of Christs hand or foot upon a thing that gives unto words their common usage nor makes them signify according to the nature of the thing in question but it is rather Christs effective word taken according to the common institution of men to signify things in their proper sense that createth or changeth one thing into another according to the real and litteral signification of the words by him spoken Therefore since all General Councils and all the holy fathers that ever treated of this question all Catholicks of all ages ever since the Institution of this Sacrament unanimously understood the words this is my body in a litteral sense and since Mr. dâ—… Rodon cannot produce one of them of his side nor
believe your bare word against the Apostles clear meaning for certainly the Apoâ—…le purposely mentioned the word Penetrated to let us know that Penetrability is a property that belongs to a glorified body heâ—…p on 〈◊〉 heap on more and more curses upon your own self for adulterating Gods clear word but I am sure no body of understanding reason or belief ought to believe you or pin his saith upon your glosses after so many blasphemyes and lyes by you exprest in this small treatise Therefore it is certain that as to be obscure corruptible impenetrable and lumpish or heavy is proper to every patible body so it is proper to every gloâ—…ious body as Chriâ—…s is most glorious to be luminous incorruptible penetrable active or fleet or if you deny penetrability to a glorified body you must deny it agility incorruptibility and clarity also and then you contradict your own self for in your 4th chap. numb 15. you own that the glory of Chriâ—…s body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light which is nothing else but the gift or dowry of clarity Rodon 15. All the Romish doctors agree with us that modal accidents which are nothing else but the manner of being of substances as Action Passion Relation figure c. cannot be without a subject no not by the power of God himself But all the Objections by which they endeavour to prove that the accidents of the bread and wine may exist without a subject that is without their substance do prove the same thing of modal accidents too so that I shall not stay now to repeat these objections with their answers which are set down at large in my dispute about the Eucharist Answ. Certainly Mr. de Rodon you are much mistaken in the general opinion of all the Romish doctors concerning accidents and I believe you never read them all nor the tenth part of them for although these Accidents which you recount if compared to the accidents of Quantity and Quality because of their small entities and being are but modal yet in themselves they are real and positive entities and not pure modes for each of them constitutes a peculiar Predicament or series of Accident as the common opinion of all the best Romish doctors hold with Aristotle commonly called the Prince of Philosophers But whatsoever they hold of these Accidents whether they be proper entities or only pure modes very sure it is that they hold that subsistence and existence themselves which are substantial modes and more intrinsecal and neer to their subjects or substances then modal accidents be may be separated from their substances as Antichrists subsistence and existence are now separated from his Essence for essences as Aristotle says are ab aeterno from all eternity but subsistences and existences are not But suppose these modal accidents for the smallness of their entities cannot be without a subject yet it follows not but that the Quantity and Quality of the Sacramental species which have a greater and more solid entity may be without their connatural subjects their connatural subject being supplyed by a better and stronger as we say the power of God which upholds the Sacrament is a far better and stronger prop of the Sacramental species then the bare entities of bread and wine were And suppose again that according to all the Romish doctours these modal Accidents cannot be even by the power of God himself without a subject yet it follows not that they cannot be without their connatural subject because God can supply their connatural subject with a better and so he does in the Mystery of the blessed Sacrament for he gives the Sacramental species a better and stronger subject then they had before while they were sustentated by their connatural subjects of bare bread and wine In a word it is sufficient for all Accidents to have an aptitudinal inherence to their natural subjects without having an actuall inherence in them Objection 5th Roman 16. The fifth objiction is drawn from Mal. 1. in these words from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the gentils and in every place shall they offer incense to my name and a new pure offering where by this new and pure offering nothing can be understood but the sacrifice of the Mass because by this offering we cannot understand prayers almes contrition of heart and other good works which are sometimes in Scripture called oblations and sacrifices for the Prophet Malachy promiseth a new offering But Prayers Alms and other good works were common amongst the Iews and besides they of the Reformed Religion do believe that all the actions of the faithfull are polluted and the Prophet speaks of a pure and clean offering Again by this offering which Malachy speaks of cannot be understood lambs Bulls and such like animals which were wont to be sacrificed in Solomons Temple because the Prophet promiseth that it shall be offered in every place amongst the heathens Lastly by this offering cannot be understood the bloudy sacrifice which Iesus Christ offered on the Cross because that bloudy sacrifice was offered but once upon Mount Calvary in Judea and the Prophet speaks of an oblation that shall be offered in every place Therefore by this offering must be understood the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine which is nothing else but the Mass. Rodon 17. To this I answer first that by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual worship and service which believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their persons and Religious actions and this is the reason why S. Paul Rom. 12. speaks thus I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And chap. 15. speaking of the grace that was given him of God he saith It is given him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentils ministring the Gospel of God and that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost whence it appears that by this oblation whereof Malachy speaks we must not under stand the offering of Christs body and bloud under the aecidents of bread and wine but the offering up of the persons and Religious actions of those that should be brought unto God by preaching of the Gospel and particularly the Gentiles Answ. I wonder where Mr. de Rodon did reade or learn all these witty commentations he has upon Scripture If they were revealed unto him by God then they carry as much authority with them as Scripture it self doth But if they be not revealed nor seconded by any of the holy fathers upon what foundation doth their verity rely but upon de Rodons own bare word All the
these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest instead of putting them without a Parenthesis And he was Priest so that we may say in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it Proferens bringing instead of Protulit brought or drew out Secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos for he was a Priest instead of translating it erat sacerdos and he was a Priest Thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei and he blessed him and so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedeck brought bread and wine and he was a Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedeck bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him Answ. When one tells a notorious and impudent lye indeed and provokes another too much with his lye sometimes he is answered no better then thus The devil take the Lyar. S. Ierom or you must needs be the lyar in this Translation for the Romish doctors do follow S. Ieroms Translation and we know no modern Romish doctors Translators of our Bible we all hold to S. Ieroms Translation which goes by the name of the vulgar Translation among us If he be your adversary then we have one champion of our side worth ten thousand de Rodons and all those of his party But I pray tell me Mr. de Rodon where were you your Bible and your Translators when S. Ierom translated his Bible which we all follow or did any of yours oppose or contradict his Translation for so many hundred years that past betwixt him and Luther Calvin and de Rodon Tell me again I pray whether you and yours translated your Bible by inspiration from God or whether you had your Original from us If you had yours by Gods inspiration then doubtless yours is the true and right one and we must acquiesce to it But how shall we know it or what warrant can you give us for it only your bare word pardon us good sir that suffices us not for we have no reason to believe your bare word against the testimonyes of ten thousand authors better then your self who tell us the contrary But if you had our Bible for your original as you your selves confess you had how can your coppies correct their original but by your adding or diminishing something to it by doing whereof you infallibly purchase to your selves a heavy curse Of. S. Ieroms soul to be in heaven I make no doubt and consequently out of the devils clutches and reach But as for Mr. de Rodon who strikes at S. Ierom through the Romish doctors sides who accuses him of corrupting and falsifiing the text and consequently who presumes to blaspheme against so glorious a saint and eminent doctor of Christs Church I dare not swear but the devil holds him very fast for an arrant Lyar and makes him sit next to himself who is the father of Lyes Therefore I do not think Mr. de Rodon that the Romish doctors or any man of reason and sense will easily leave Saint Ieroms vulgar translation approved of for so many ages by the whole Church to adhere to your simple bare word or to any of your parties whose dictator the devil was that filled both your Bible and brains with falshood and lyes But suppose Mr. de Rodon the right Translation were as you say and that of the words must be made 3 different propositions viz. thus Melchisedeck also brought bread and wine and he was a Priest he blessed him suppose I say the true Text runs so since holy writt makes no mention of any other kind of sacrifice that Melchisedeck ever offered unto God and since he was a Priest and since he blessed Abraham and finally since the holy fathers as I shall hereafter produce agree with us as to the principal and main point of this question viz. that the bread and wine which Melchisedeck brought or offered was a type of the Eucharist there is no reason why the words of the text whether made into three propositions without a Parenthesis as he translates it or made into one proposition with a Parenthesis as S. Ierom or the Romish doctors as he says translated it I say there is no reason why the whole text should not be understood in our meaning and sense for the word brought which he translates for the word bringing may be well understood brought to offer or to sacrifice And these words And he was a Priest which he translates instead of these for he was a priest do signify that Melchisedeck was a priest and we may well think that holy Scripture did not make mention of his Priesthood in this place but in order and reference to some sacrifice as Priest and sacrifice are always correlatives And finally these words and he Blessed him which the Mounsieur translates instead of ours Blessed him may be as well applyed unto Abraham as to God whatever Mr. de Rodon says to the contrary for the Romish doctors do take themselves to be as good grammarians and dialectiâ—…ks too as he is and therefore will not swerve from their Principles nor from the unanimous opinion of the holy fathers concerning the main point of this question for Mr. de Rodons bare word or interpretation unless he proves his conclusion better either by holy Scripture or fathers which it seems he cannot do or if he can wherefore doth he not produce them to make his cause good Rodon 22. Secondly I answer that the hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham and indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle heb 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedeck met Abraham and blessed him and a little after he saith that Melchisedeck blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought him bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedeck blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to noâ—…e but to God Answ. Certainly the Mounsieur would make a better dictionarist then Philosopher or divine for he is mighty
highest degree as we see Christ imparted himself to our humane nature in the highest degree by the mystery of his Incarnation suppositating our nature substantially and covering it under his divine Personality But it is a far higher degree of communication to impart himself to the rest of mankinde really and corporally for to make them his mystical members then to impart himself to them figuratively only or typically therefore this real communication in the Sacrament is more agreeable to Christs infinite goodness then a typical or figurative communication is and also his real body is of more vertue and efficacy to incorporate us mystically and make us his members then the type or signe of his body is The second reason is this God the father and God the son are of equal power and verity therefore when God the father and God the son do express themselves in the self-same manner of speaking their words ought to be understood in the same meaning and sense But when God the father in the second of S. Matthew said This is my son every one that heard him understood that Christ was his true and real son and to understand his words otherwise would be open blasphemy Therefore it is open blasphemy to deny when Christ said This is my body that it is not his true real body but the figure or signe of his body only The words were uttered alike the power and verity of the uâ—…terers were alike why then should not their words be understood alike I see no reason for it because I see no disparity in the case Many other reasons and plausible proofâ—… do our Catholick divines and Romish doctors produce for the verity of this conclusion deduced from holy scripture which are theological demonstrations But what need I repeat any of them in this place where the case is so clear out of sundry express texts of holy writ and backt by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers and General Councils all which to contradict is not only an intolerable impudence but a meer frantick maddness Therefore leaving such giddy-brain'd people to the mercy of God and to be more pittied or prayed for then farther refuted I conclude out of these irrefragable proofs and premises that the Mass whom our adversaries in derision call the great Diana is of the noblest highest and most eminent extraction imaginable This Diana whereof we here treat derives her immediate root and being from heaven her descent and pedegree from Christ and his twelve Apostles her father is the first person of the most blessed Trinity her mother a most pure and immaculate virgin her Majesty and glory none can paralel her face is so resplendant and bright that the very cherubins seraphins are dazled when they behold her In a word her brightness is so eminent that it is inaccessible and the greatest beatitude and felicity of Angel or man consists in contemplating upon her beauty and yet notwithstanding all this she endured many a harder shock from her adversaries then Mr de Rodon or his bitter translatour will ever be able to give her but yet she still comes off with glory and victory All the heathenish Philosophers and their mighty Emperours she vanquished the learned Rabbins could never shake her all the hereticks from Simon Magus to the Quaker she crusht and quasht therefore she need not fear the Mounsieurs translator as for matter of superstition Phanaticism or Idolatry happy are we in her and thrice happy too if we can but serve her as we ought but as she deserves we are not able in this frail life however all our felicity and rest of conscience we own unto her in this life also for without her we should become restless and distracted or desperate Having hinted a little at her extraction or pedegree which no Angel or tongue is able to express or come near for its loftiness and celsitude I must say something of her vertue and worth which because it is infinite and in exhaustible I confess I know not how to begin however this I am sure of that her father who is omnipotent bequeathed unto her all power and dominion over heaven and earth Math. 28. so that there is no creature whatsoever of what rank be it never so high but must acknowledge his being vertue and power to depend wholy on hers It is in her as the Apostle sayes Acts 17. vivimus movemur sumus we live we move we be whatever perfections are dispersedly in every creature are all united in her and all their perfections and vertues are but shaddows and a meer participation of her essential ones Christ by his Incarnation noblisied and raised our humane nature above all the quires of Angels by his bloudy sacrifice of the Cross he purchased our Redemption and by this unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass he unites us unto himself and makes us his Mystical members for he sayes Ioh. 6. qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo he that eats my flesh and drinks my bloud he sayes not the signes of his flesh and bloud abides in me and I in him that is to say we shall be knit and united together and sayes again with an oath ibid. Amen amen unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall have no life in you And again he that eateth me the same also shall live by me So that according to the clear expression of those texts our union with Christ consists in the Mass or which is the same thing in eating the sacramental bread which is offered in the Mass and our disunion or separation from Christ consists in our not eating it and by the third text we are taught that in it our life consists for he sayes presently after he that eâ—…teth this bread shall live for ever The Angelical doctor S. Thom. Aquinas to whose arbitration Mr de Rodon profers with his whole party to subscribe concerning the Eucharist in opusc 57. hath these words O pretiosum admirandum convivium salutiferum omni suavitate repletum quid enim hoc convivio pretiosius esse potest in quo non earnes vitulorum hircorum ut olim in lege sed nobis Christus sumendus proponitur verus deus quid hoc sacramento miralibius in ipso namque panis vinum in corpus sanguinem Christi substantialiter convertuntur O pretious wonderful and healthful banquet replenished with all sweetness for what can be more pretious then this banquet in which not calves or goats flesh as in former times but Christ the true God is set before us to be eaten what is more wonderful then this Sacrament for in it bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and bloud of Christ. S. Cyril in Ioan. admonishing the faithful people sayes sciant igitur baptizati homines divinae gratiae participes facti si rarius in Ecclesiam proficiscantur
world then must follow Mr. de Rodons bare word and leave the plain sense of the words of Gods Prophet although we are sure he was inspired by God The Prophet says expresly that in every place they shall offer Incense to Gods name Incense is the signe of a strict and rigorous sacrifice not of a sacrifice improperly taken for in all the proper sacrifices of the old Law the ceremony of Incensing the sacrifice was commonly used though not at the offering of improper sacrifices such as are Prayers Alms and other good works Therefore the Prophet meant hear a strict and proper sacrifice whereat Incense is used supposing then for certain that the Prophet spoke of a rigorous and proper sacrifice I see no reason to the contrary why Mr. de Rodon should not be held to Bellarmines definition of a strict sacrifice as well as he holds us to it until he gives us as good or a better of his own holding him then to the same words he held us to viz. and destroys something that is sensible and permanent whereas his answer is that by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual worship and service which believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their Persons and Religious actions I ask the Mounsicur when he or any of his brethren do offer their Persons or their Religious actions to God whether they deâ—…troy their own Persons and actions or not if they do then they destroy their own bodies and works if not how is it a strict and proper sacrifice they offer for such a sacâ—…fice cannot be offered witâ—…out destroying something that is sensible and permanent But we seldom see or hear that any of the Râ—…formed Church destroy themselves through an excessive zeal to Gods service but on the contrary we often see that they are very curious and careful both of their diet and apparel and do mortifie their bodies with faâ—…ting and other penal exercises for Gods sake but very little yet true it is that we hear sometimes of some Phanaticks or Quakers derived from the Reformed Church who now and then out of meer zeal do hang themselves or throw themselves out of windows or high places and so sacrifice their persons to the devil Neither doth these words of the Apostles Rom. 12. I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercys of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God which is your reasonable service favour you oâ—… hurt us for the Apostle speaketh there of a sacrifice taken not strictly but in its common acception for he bids us not destroy our bodies nor our actions and yet according to our definition of a proper and strict sacrifice some sensible and permanent thing must be destroyed And though he had meant a strict sacrifice yet it makes nothing against us for his Passage is very well understood in this sense viz. that we ought to be always ready and prepared in minde to offer up all we have to the honour and service of God nay to sacrifice and make victimes of our selves and our whole estates and lose all rather then to swaâ—…ve from God or deny our Religion this manner of Sacrificing unto God which is very acceptable unto him the poor Catholicks of England I am sure do practise a thousand times more then those of the Reformed Church do for they upon the only score of their Religion are hunted after from house to house their names taken up they are presented indighted convicted their estates taken away they are banished imprisoned and persecuted a thousand manner of wayes they are incapable of bearing any manner of office by sea or land and all ways for them to live in their own native Countrey to maintain their poor wives and families are obstructed a Turk a Jew a heathen nay any body so he be not a Roman Catholick has his freedome and may live as he please without lett or molestation And in the sense of an improper sacrifice must these words also of his 5th chap. be understood viz. that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable for otherwise if by offering up the Gentiles a proper and strict sacrifice were meant then it would be acceptable to God that the Apostle should kill or destroy those Gentiles he was to offer unto God and so according to Mr. de Rodons answer the Apostle was to go up and down the world amongst the Gentiles or heathens and after he had preached Christ unto them those of them that believed and were converted by him the Apostle was to take a knife or some other weapon to cut their throats or knock them on the head to make them proper victimes or sacrifices for Christ for without destruction of a sensible permanent thing according to the definition of a strict sacrifice and we will stand to this definition untill de Rodon shews us a better there can be no strict or proper sacrifice And this may be for ought we know Mr. de Rodon and his parties true sense or understanding of these words for they do as farr as they are able destroy not only the estates but also the Persons of the Romish doctors and all the Romish Catholicks too and who knows but they think they offer an acceptable sacrifice to God by doing it for if they think otherwise sure they offer these sort of sacrifices with a guilty conscience and consequently if they offer them so they cannot be at all acceptable to God but to the devil Rodon 18. Secondly I answer that in the whole Passage of Malachy above-cited the words New offering are not to be found but only clean offering And though a new offering had been there spoken of yet I say that things may be said to be new when being spoiled and corrupted they are restored and made sound again But the service of God which had been corrupted under the Law was reestablished by Iesus Christ and his Apostles under the Gospel so that all things were made new a new time viz. the time of the preaching of the Gospel a new people viz. the Christian people a new place viz. all parts of the world and not at Jerusalem only a new Prayer viz. the Lords Prayer new Sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords supper and new Preaching viz. the preaching of salvation by Iesus Christ. Answ. Mr. de Rodon we will not stand with you here about the difference of these two words New and clean for the one serves our turn as well as the other and whether you forged the New upon us instead of the word clean I know not for you cite no author for it of ours and I finde the words clean offering in our Bible also as you have But this imports nothing at all to our question therefore if you will not have it to be a New sacrifice at least shew us which is that