themselves and take notice of them when they hear them pronounced by others Courteous Reader if in my Proofs and Solution of Mr. Rodon's greater objections or in my remarks here and there and notes which are the seed of Answers fore-running and short Solutions of difficulties you your self see the Solution of many of his petty instances don't wonder that for brevities sake I pass them when I come to them as equivalently answered already An answer to Monsieur de Rhodon's FVNERAL of the MASSE The first Chapter Concerning the exposition of these words THIS IS MY BODIE WE say these words This is my Body prove clearly the real presence of Christs Body in the Host Because they ought to be taken in their proper sense in which they would prove it clearly by the grant of our adversaries who therfore say they are to be taken figuratively Now that they ought to be taken here in their proper sense I prove 1. positively SECTION I. Positive Proofs 1. WHen in a speach a word is indifferent of it self to be taken in the literal or figurative sense you must look to the words that follow in the same speach if they express the propertie of a figure the word is to be taken figuratively if the propertie of the real thing then the word is to be taken in the literal sense For example when one tells me I have seen the King I know not yet what he means whether his person or picture but when he adds set in a frame of Gold I know he means his picture because 't is the propertie of a picture to be set in a frame If he adds speaking with the Chancellor I know he means the King's person because 't is the propertie of a person to speake with another Just so when Christ sayes Luk. 22. v. 19. This is my Bodie I know not yet what he means whether his Real Body or only a figure of it But when he adds which is given for you I know he means of his true Body because 't is the propertie of a true Bodie to be sacrificed for us 2. I prove again that these words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken in the literal sense by the protestant principle which is this When two passages relate to or speak of the same matter in Scripture the obscurer passage is to be explaned by the clearer But these two passages relating to our Lord's Supper This is my Body and Do this in remembrance of me This latter is the obscurer and that former the clearer then this latter ought to be explaned by that former that is to say to the sense of that former viz. Christ having changed a piece of Bread into his Body by his almightie word sayes there to his disciples Do ye for the food of others souls what ye have seen me do for the food of yours Change ye lykewayes by pronouncing the words I have ordained for that end Bread into my Body but do it with such circumstances that people standing by may be mindful of my death and passion But the clear proposition ought not to be explaned by the obscure one thus This is my Body that is to say this is a figure only or a remembrance of my body because he said after do this in remembrance of me for the thing was now done and he had told them what it was in clear words afore he said Do this in remembrance of me He did not say this is a remembrance of me no but Do this in remembrance of me He did not speake of the substance of the thing but only of the manner of doing it By these words then in remembrance of me he only intimated that they should make at that same time a sensible expression of his passion to the people as is seen done in the sacrifice of the Masse If by This he understood a figure or remembrance then he had said do or make a remembrance of me in remembrance of me or remember me to remember me which is ridiculous Now let any indifferent and judicious man be judge if these words do this in remembrance of me be as clear to prove that in the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper is only a Figure of Christ's Bodie as these words This is my Bodie are clear to prove that the Eucharist is his true Body If you instance that as Christ said This is my Body so he said also I am a vine and consequently as the latter proposition must be taken figuratively so must also the former I answer it doth not follow there being a great disparity For we all protestants as well as Catholicks avow that propositions in the Holy Scripture cannot be taken in the literal sense if so taken they imply or intimate something contrarie to faith as this proposition I am a vine literallie taken would do For protestants as well as Catholicks believe that the Divine word hath assumed no nature but that of man then he hath not assumed that of a Vine and consequently 't is against faith to say in the literal sense Christ is a Vine But these words This is my Body taken in the literal sense imply nothing against faith no more then he who shewing you a knife sayes This is a knife for the terme This and the terme Knife suppose for the same thing and not for different natures so in Christ's proposition This is my Bodie This and Body suppose for the same thing not This for Bread but for The Body of Christ as well as the word Bodie supposes for it tho in a different way of signifieing This obscurely and Body clearly and distinctlie Here I humbly intreat the protestant reader to reflect that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding 2. Cor. 10. v. 5. that is to say suspend it from asserting what it might judge had it nothing to rely upon but the sole relation of our senses to obey Christ God will have as an homage due to him and his veracitie this proud faculty of man which is earnest to judge of all submit to his word The assent of my understanding by which I judge a thing to be because I see it with my eyes is an assent of science which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of faith In the mean time we Christians as Christians are called not philosophers the Reasoners but the faithfull fides est as we say credere quod non vides Faith is to believe that which thou doest not see This is the praise of faith sayeth St. Aug. tract 29. in Io. If that which is believed be not seen Blessed are they said Christ Io. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have beleived Faith is an argument or perswasion saith S. Paul of things not appearing If they appear and I assent that they are because I see them my faith ceases Science coming in with faith's destruction If you say I beleive that the Son of God became Man because
God hath revealed it and my senses do not controll it your faith is lame not able to stand alone and consequentlie is an unworthie sacrifice of your understanding to the word of God What would the King say to that Noble man who should distrust his relation made in presence of all his courtiers of a thing done by his Majestie upon his Royal word who should I say distrust it because he heard it controlled by a foot-boy or some such mean person of as little credit As humane faith requires I rely upon the sole testimony of a man so does divine faith require I rely upon the sole testimonie of God shall I trust the word of a man somtimes contrarie to sensible appearance as when I trust upon the word of a Doctor or a Surgeon that that which I feele hurts me will do me good and shall not I trust the word of God because my senses seem to control it But be not mistaken neither sense nor reason controles the real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist For sense after the consecration finds its whole object colour taste c. Just as before the consecration unchanged and meddles not to judge whether the Body of Christ or the substance of bread be under the accidents as a thing belonging to the understanding and not within the compass of its object And reason tels us that altho all the accidents of a substance be present nevertheless their substance is not there if the author of nature has revealed that he hinders its presence to them and therfore does not controle our saying that the substance of Bread is not in the Eucharist after the consecration because the author of Nature hath revealed the contrarie No more then it controles Protestants saying that those three who appeared to Abraham Genes 18 with all the accidents of men were not men but Angells because God has revealed it was so 3. Christ by his almightie power could change Bread into his flesh and he tells us Math. 26. in these words This is my Bodie that he hath done it why shall not I believe it O but it seemes strange to our apprehension must God then in that thing in which he will make to all men a memoriall of his wonders Psal 110. v. 4. do nothing but what is within the reach of meaner wits and falls under their senses this clame is too proud therefore in humilitie which gives light I answer which is a negative way of proving Monsieur de Rhodon's objections SECTION II. Negative Proofs Ob. 1. IF Christ had meant the real presence of his Bodie in the Host he had spoken to the contrary usage of the world Answer 1. What then altho he had done so when he was giving man a testimonie of his prodigious love and mercie to him If the action itselfe was an expression oâ—â—ove infinitely exceeding the common usage of the world why might there not be somthing extraordinary in the way of expression Answer 2. Speaking so he spoke not contrarie to the usage of the world in practical or factive propositions which make their objects Such as these are This is my Body Math 26. Let there be light Genes 1. Thy Son lives Io. 4. v. 50 This ring is yours The first turnes Bread into Flesh The second changes Darkness into light The third the noble-man's Son's sickness into health The fourth makes the Ring which was not yours yours to wit when I gift a person with a Ring in those words Reflect then well upon the difference between a purely Enunciative and a practicall proposition that presupposes the whole existence of its object this does not presuppose it but makes it Mr. Ro. Urges Wordes are Images of Conceptions and Conceptions the Images of Things Therefore things must be such before we can conceive them to be such or say they are such I answer dist the consequent Things must be alwayes actually a fore words and conceptions which are Images of them I deny for my idea of a thing which I invent supposes the thing never to have been and by this idea of it I am moved to try to make it and give it a being Things must be possible before we can conceive them I grant Also the thing which is made by words as the object of factive propositions can not be actually before the words because an effect can not be before its cause And consequently that which our Saviour gave his discipels saying This c. was not there before these words This is my Body were pronounced because it was made to be there by them Neot In a factive proposition a thing must not be such the whole time the proposition is pronuncing as it will be at the end of the proposition because the whole proposition maks it and gives it its being Mr. Ro. Urges farther A proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question but when Christ taking bread in his hand said This is my Body the thing in question was bread therefore the proposition ought to be expounded according to the nature of bread the nature of which is to be not the real bodie but only the figure of the Body of Christ Answer I deny the minor proposition that the thing in question was bread and say that the thing in question was that which Christ meant by This and that which he meant by this was that which he intended to make by his whole proposition which was his true body as we gather out of the following words Which is given for you It 's another thing when a man in a painters shop pointing at the Kings picture sayes this is the King the thing in question there or signyfied and meant by This is the picture because we know he cannot mean otherwise unless he were distracted his words not being of power to change the picture into the King's person as the almighty words of Christ were of power to change bread into his body Note the article This alone signifies nothing present because to signifie present past or to come is the property of Verbs So when I pointing to a book say This is you know not yet what I mean till I say English Good paper a wittie book Also when Christ said to his disciples Jo. 15. v. 11. This is my Commandement they knew not what he meant till he added That you love one another Wherefore This in Christs proposition before he added is my Body signifying nothing present did not signifie the Bread which was then in his hand but joyned to the rest of the proposition signified his true Body Obj. 2. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body then it is not his true Body I answer 1. dist the antecedent The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body Intransitively i. e without passing from the Sacrament to the Body of Christ as to a different thing or so that the Sacrament and Christ's Body be one and the same substance I grant
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
togither and not anie part of it taken alone causes the object I end this chapter with two reflections The first That Mr. Rodon and other protestants to impose upon men their word for the word of God use violence to the words of Christ when they explaine these his words This is my Body thus This Bread signifies my Body or thus This Bread is a sign of my Bodie especiallie since Christ prevented all such interpretations by his following words Which is given for you Luke 22. v. 19. This is my blood Which is shed for you Was Bread sacrificed for us or wine shed for us The second Since God speaking by the scripture is their only judge of Controversie why will not they understand his words in their proper signification How shall a judge do the dutie of a judge if he give his sentence darkly and enigmatically so that the two parties go still by the ears after they have heard his sentence neither they nor anie other who was present seing clearly in whose favour he hath given it The second Chapter Concerning the exposition of these words He that eates my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed Jo. 6. SECTION I. Some remarkes for the intelligence of the 6. Chap of S. Io. In order to the precept given there v. 52. of eating and drinking the body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally Remark 1. That Christ by the occasion of the Jewes seeking him for Bread called himselfe Bread and told them that they did not seek him for the miracles he had done by which viz. he intended to move them to beleive in him but for the loaves sake with which he had filled them Then he bad them work or earnestly seck not the meat which perishes but which dures untill life everlasting and told morover that this work was to believe in him Rem 2. That this meer spiritual eating of him or believing in him he then at that time exacted of them to wit That they should believe that he was the son of God and therefore he checked them for not believing in him saying v. 36. You have seen me viz. In the miracle of giving them miraculously bread and his crossing the water without a boat and you doe not believe to wit some of you Rem 3. After some believed that he was the son of God as S. Peter for himself and some other Apostles testified v. 69. And consequently were disposed to believe whatsoever he should propose to them then v. 51. he told them plainly that he would give them his flesh to eat saying The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the World at which proposition when he saw some stumble then he repeated it again in stronger termes with a threatening Amen Amen I say unto you Unlesse you eat the flesh of the sone of man and drink his Blood to wit when I will give it to ye You shall not have life in you 53. Rem 4. here That this eating is different from that meer spiritual eating of which he spoke in the beginning of the Chapter when he aimed onlie to make them first believe that he was the son of God That he required at that present time and therefore checked them then for not believing This he required only after he had given them his flesh to eat which he then promised and performed only a year after to wit when he instituted the Sacriment and after gave it to his Disciples for we cannot eate a thing afore we get it to eate and Christ did not say then v. 52. The bread which I give but which I will give is my flesh Which as I said he performed only at the nixt passover or Easter Hence gather that that eating was a Sacramental or sensible eating by the mouth of the Body and not a meer spiritual eating by the mouth of Faith Which he exacted v. 36. and which some had performed alreadie Rem 5. That 't was our Saviours custome to warn his Disciples afore hand of things he was to do or suffer after when he foresaw that they would be very surprising And this for two reasons First that they might not be scandalised when they fell out So he sayes Io. 16. v. 1. I have said those things that you be not scandalized viz. When for my sake you shall be your selves cast out of the Synagoges but rather that you have a ground of comfort and saith in me who fore-told you of it 2. That when they â—ell out they might not be starteled but to re confirme in the belief of them by reason they hâ—â— been fore-told by him So he said Io. 14. v. 29. And now I have told you afore that when it will be fulfilled you believe Thus he fore-told that persecution of his Disciples Io 16.11 His own ignominious death Math. 20. v. 18. That he wâ—uld be scourged c. He fore-told that he w uld institute Baptism and solved Nicodemas his difficulty Io 3. v. 5. He fore-told his sending of the H Gh st Io 14. v. 16. Now shall n t we also believe That he fore-told this great mystery of giving his Body and his Blood at the last supper to his disciples since they were not surprised when he said Take eate This is my Body which had it not been fore-told might have seemed very strange and a subject of asking him with submission what he meant by those words as they asked him the meaning of the parable of the tares of the field Math. 13. v. 36. But he fore-told this mysterie no where if not in this 6. Chap. of S. Io. then those words Unless you eate the flesh of the son of c. were meant of the sacramental eating by the mouth or the Body as the Disciples did eate it at the Last supper and not only by the mouth of Faith If Protestants to justifie their eating by faith only bring this passage of S. Austim tract 25. in Io. Quid paras denies ventrem crede manducastâ— Wherefore do you prepare your teeth and st mach believe and you have eaten I answer believe and you have eaten meer y spiritually of which Christ was speaking in the beginning of that 6. Chap. of S. Io I grant Sacramentallie of which we are speaking in our controversie with protestants and of which our Saviour spoke when he said Take eate This is my Body I deny For the sacramental eating must be a sensible eating by the mouth of the body That S. Austin did not mean there a sacramental manducation or eating is clear because he admitted Infant communion or the sacramental communion of Infants who could not receive the Body of Christ by faith or eate it by faith when they receaved it sacramentally See S. Aust lib. 1. De pec Meritis Remis Chap. 20 where to prove to the Pelagians That there is a necessity to baptise Children Dâ—minum sayes he audiamus non quidem hoc de
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
whole host and in every part of the host as our Soul is all in every part of the Body and only all in the whole Body Yet it hath not local extension in order to place which is a separable property of essential extension as actual heat is a separable property of fire as was seen by the almighty power of God in the furnace of Babilon where as he suspended the operation of that element to manifest his glory so he hinders the local extension of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the light of its glory to exercise our faith And this answer 's all Mr. Rodon's whimsical questions of the postures of Christ's Body in a whole or divided host since division as well as the posture of a Body depends of Local Extension For if God put all the parts of a Body after a spiritual manner as the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist in a point and a point cannot be devided in that case how will you devide that Body and without deviding it you cannot make it appear less how much so ever you devide the host In a word a visible Body of a man is a man's Body in its shape which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist for want of Local Extention and therefore is not visible there Obj. 8. Christ in the Host can act or not Answer He can act know and love altho he hath not there the disposition of Organs fit for those operations which require Local extention We gratefully to him avow that his Body in the H. Host is Modo mortuo after the fashion of one dead and this is the change the Preist makes of this victime in his oblation of it to the eternal Father in the dayly Sacrifice of the Mass And as Christ does not exercise there the operations which depend of situal Extension neither would the World reduced to a point or the parts of it the Sun and Moon c. act as they do now for want of situal disposition to such operations Neither do we say that Christ's Body is as big and as tall in the H. Host as on the Cross as Mr. Rodon inconsideratly alleadges for that bigness on the Cross comes from the situal extension he had there and wants in the H. Host Obj. 9. A Body can not cease to be in a place without being destroyed or going to some other place but the species being consumed Christs Body is neither distroyed nor goes to another place therefore it was not in the Eucharist Answer I deny the major universally speaking and ask when a mans Leg is cut off does the soul go to another place or is it destroyed yet it ceases to be there Reason the same way of the Body of Christ which is in the Eucharist with the property of a Spirit and as it came thither by the sole production of a new presence so it ceases to be there by the sole destruction of the same Obj. 10. The properties of one species or of one nature are incommunicable to every other species or nature but 't is the property of a spirit to be all in all and every part of a place therefore the Body of Christ can not be all in all and in every part of the Host Answer I grant the major and distinguish the minor 'T is the property of a spirit to be all in all c. by Exigence I grant by accident I deny For example water has heat by accident which Fire alone has by exigence and therefore the exigence of heat is the property of Fire and not the actual having of it which is communicable to water The clame and exigence of seing God as he is in himself is the property of God flowing from his Essence in communicable to a creature but the actual only seing of God as he is in himselfe will be favorably communicated by him to happy men in the other world 1. Io. 3.2 And therefore rigidly speaking is not his property So then what a spirit has by exigenbe the Body of Christ without confounding different species may have by accident in the Eucharist Quaeres wherefor to be actually all in all and all in every part of an improper place is cal'd the property of a spirit and not of a Body largely speaking Answer Beeause a spirit has a natural appetite of that way of existing which a Body has not also because a spirit is indivisible and has no partes Answer .. 2. I distinguish the major The propertie of a species that is the exigence of one species is incommunicable to an other I grant the act of the exigence is incommunicable I deny For example Heat is the act of the exigence of Fire and is communicated to water Hence I grant that naturally Bodies are in places circumscriptively that is the parts of the Body are in the parts of the place and not the whole Body in every part But not so if it please the author of nature to put them by his almighty power in places definitively or Sacramentally that is in an equivocal or improper place which in rigour is no place without local extension I said definitively or Sacramentally because the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not limitated according to a rigid definitive way of existing as the soul is in the Body bounded with a certain continued place but is without limitation in as many discontinued sacramental places as the Consecration is made in SECTION IV. The rest of Mr. Rodon's objections against the real presence answered Object 11 IF the Body of Christ were in the Eucharist 't would be subject to many ignominies to be eaten with mice burned stolen c. thererefore it is not there Answer I retort his argument thus If he whom we call Christ was God God was subject to many ignominies to be called a Seducer a Blasphemer a Drinker of Wine a Glutton to be scurged at a post like a rogue and hanged like a theef therefore he was not God Is this a good inferrence No. Neither the other Monsr Rodon speaking of the Eucharist sayes as it is a God that cannot keep himselfe from being stolen so neither can he keep himself from heing burned Answer 1. did not the Jews deride Christ the same way upon the Cross Save thy self If thou art the Son of God come down from the Cross Math. 27. v. 40. I Answer 2. then he could have come down from the Cross and can hinder also the Host from being prophaned But the first he suffered for the love of man the second he suffers for the exercise of our faith Note the Body of Christ ceases to be in the stomack when the species are altered there but did it joyn with the excrements they could not annoy or hurt him no more then a dung-hill defiles the beams of the Sun Nay the Body of Christ now impassible were not worse in Hell it self than at the right hand of his father To Claude de Xainte's saying
of the Sacrifice of the Mass If you say 't is also written I answer And so is the Sacrifice of the Mass in clearer terms for which I attest your own Conscience A strange thing says Mr. Rodon that the Mass which is the fundation of the Romish Church for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass Answer that 's false we require moreover they live a good life and if they fall in Sins they confess them c. cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ Answer If an Arian should say to him It 's a strange thing that the God-head of Christ who is the fundation of the Church cannot be found in all the Scriptures Mr. Rodon would answer you are deceived it is found there but your pride in wedding your self to your own judgement hinders you to see it So say I to him the sacrifice of the Mass is found in scripture to have been instituted and practised by Christ himself and his Apostles Luc. 22. This is my Body which is given for you That is offered to my eternal Father for you and commanded by Christ to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me which they did Act. 13. As they ministred to the Lord the Greek word leitourgountoon is turned by Erasmus himself Sacrificing Remark the Apostles ministred to our Lord when they Sacrificed and ministred to the People when they gave them the Sacrament And Heb. 13. v. 10. St. Paul sayes We have an Altar whereof they have no right to Eat who serve the Tabernacle Now an Altar relates to a Sacrifice as I said so since Christians had Altars in S. Pauls time they had also a Sacrifice no other but that of the Eucahrist then the oblation of it to the eternal Father is a true Sacrifice since a Sacrifice is a visible offering of a sensible thing to God by a Preist And to eat relates to the Fucharist not to the Sacrifice of the Cross All had right if they pleased to eate that is to believe and participate of Christ's death but Christians only have right to eat of the Altar of the Eucharist not the Jews Thus you see the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be found in scripture though Mr. Rodon merited for his vanishing away in his own thoughts refusing to submit them to the Church to have his heart obseured Rom. 1. v. 21. and to have this Mysterie which is revealed only to litle ones or the Humble hide from him Math. 11. v 25. From the Testimony of the H. Scripture the Council of Trent hath declared to all Christians that it is an arrticle of our faith Sess 22. de sacrif Miss can 1. 2. 3. We have also the unanimous consent of all the Holy Fathers Is then that to be called only an unwritten tradition which a General Council and all the Holy Fatthers and Scripture it self attests Object 1. St. Paul Eph. 4. mentioning the offices which Christ left his Church makes no mention of Sacrificers Answer When St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 11. sayes that Christ made some Apostles he mentioned Sacrificers sufficiently because to Sacrifice is one of the frunctions of an Apostle Neither doth he mention Baptisers in that place it being sufficiently understood by his making some Pastors of whom one duty is to Baptize Neither had the same Apostle writting to Timothee and Titus about the duty of a Bishop need to instruct them to Sacrifice since they had been newly instructed as to that when he made them Bishops and were now in a daily exercise of that function Moreover Non valet consequentia ab authoritate negata no good tonsequence is drawn from a negative or denyed authoritie Obj. 2. The thing Sacrificed must fall under our senses Answer I grant it and tell him That the thing Sacrificed is the Sacrament or Christ's Body with the Species of Bread and not Christ's Body alone Which Sacrament is not hid but is visible by its Species though a part of it viz. Christ's Body be not seen just as the Substance of Bread visible by its species is not seen Note then that though the Body of Christ is not cognizable afore the Consecration by this visible Species of Bread yet the Consecration being made the Sacrament is cognizable to the Faithful by it because this Species belongs now as much to the Sacrament being a part of it as afore it belonged and was a part of the visible Bread Hence it is clear that the destruction or change of the Species suffices for the verifying of this proposition The thing Sacrificed is changed or destroyed For if it were necessary to have the whole thing destroyed the Material part as well as the formal part of a thing there had never been a true Sacrifice Which to say is absurd It suffices that the whole or the totum which was before cease to be by the change which the Preist makes of it You 'l say the Council of Trent sayes the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same Answer As to the substance of the Victime I grant As to the manner of Sacrificing or Sacrification I deny The action by which Christ was offer'd on the Cross differs effentially from the action by which he is offer'd in the Sacrament since that was a real distruction of the union between the Body and the Soul this but a Sacramental one but a Sacrifice if you regard the thing signifying consists chiefly in the Immolating action Sacrificium exparte rei significantis ex actione immolativa maximè constat Then if this Immolating action be of a different kind in the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Altar the Sacrifices also will be of a different kind as to the sacrificing action though the same as to the thing offered and the last terme signifyed which is God as author of Life and Death Note in the adductive or productive action of Christ's Body and Blood is pointed out that two fold dominion of God of Death by the distruction of the Bread and Wine Of Life by the production of the Body and Blood of Christ Note 2. Though bloody or unbloody are accidents to the Body of Christ they are not accidents to a Bloody or Unbloody Sacrifice as altho Colour be an accident to the Wall 't is not an accident to a coloured Wall so that if you destroy colour in it you destroy the Essence of that whole which was before viz. a coloured Wall Hence it follows first that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of an Accident but of a whole Sacramental being rising out of Christ's Body and the Species of Bread and that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrifice is the same with that which was produced or made by the Consecration viz. the Sacrament of the Body of Christ under the species of Bread Secondly it does not follow that the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offer'd in the
Priest's stomach only for the putting of it on the Altar is the offering of it which is done by the Consecration by which also the chief part of the thing Sacrificed viz. Christ is Mysteriously deprived of Life while his Body and Blood if we regard the force of the words only are put separatly under the species of Bread and Wine which Mystical separation and putting of him there after a Dead manner is made sensible to us by our hearing the words or the Priest's adoration of the Host and his laying it on the Altar which is an offering of it Thus you have the offering and sensible change of the thing offered which are of the Essence of the Sacrifice afore the consumption of the Host in the Preist's stomach ac in the pacifick Sacrifices of the Old Law the Victime was offered and killed afore a part of it was consumed by the Preist and a part by the Person who offered But if you think the sensible change of the thing offered in the Eucharist is not sufficiently made afore the communion of the Preist then I say this change also is sufficiently made afore he parts from the Altar for 't is not required that the species be quite destroyed no more then in Libations or Sacrifices of Liquid things For example in the effusion of Wine on the ground the thing did not presently cease to be what it was but ceased to be capable of the use men make of it and so was looked upon as morally destroyed the same I say of the species of the H. Host SUBSECTION I. Mr. Rodon's passages out of S. Paul to the Heb. answered YOu 'l Object Hebr. 9. v. 22. almost all things are by the Law purged with Blood and without shedding of Blood there is no Remission Note He doth not say of Sins for the Remission which was made in the Old Law by the Blood of Beasts was only Remission of a Legal uncleanness and temporal Pain but not of Sin for 't is impossible sayes St. Paul for Sins to be taken away by the Blood of Bulls and Goats Hebr. 10. v. 4. It was therefore necessary that the Paterus viz. the Tabernacle or Old Testament and People and Preists living under them of things in the Heavens that is of the New Testament or the Church of Christ as is clear out of the 8. chap. v. 5. should be purified with these viz. Sacrifices of the Old Law but the Heavenly things themselves viz. the People of Christ with better Sacrifices viz. that of the Cross and that of the Mass for that on the Cross was only one then these Answer From this passage nothing is brought against the Mass altho the Sins of the Church of Christ figured by the Synagogue be said to be purged by Blood for the Sacrifice of the Mass affords not a total and compleat Remission but presupposes the merits of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross of which it is only an application and so it is true that without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission And thus Heavenly things viz. the Church of Christ is purified with more excellent or better Sacrifices viz. that of the Cross meriting the Remission of all the Sins of Men and that of the Mass applying this Ransome of Christ to Men. And this is the force of that word Sacrifices in the plural number And don't tell me that the Sacrifice of the Cross is called Sacrifices in the plural number as Baptism which is but one is called Baptisms in the plural number Hebr. 6. v. 2. For the Baptisms there mentioned are the three Baptisms viz. of Water of Blood and of the Holy Ghost of which the Catechumens were instructed in their Catechism or first Lessons of Christian Doctrine And these are different as to their manner and remote matter You Object Hebr. 10. v. 16. I will put my Laws into their Hearts and in their minds will I write them and their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more and where Remission of these is there is no more offering for sin and consequently there is no need of the Sacrifice of the Mass Answer I explane the words of St. Paul that is in the New Law I shall poure such abundant Graces into the Hearts of some that they shall so abhor their former Sins that I shall remember them no more as those of a Magdalen an Austin c. to punish them with eternal fire and that for the merits of my Son Now where Remission of those is there is no more offering for Sin That is as a new Ransom or an other Ransom than that Christ hath given its true As an application of that Ransom given I deny I ask doth not God still remember so farr the Sins of some Elect Protestants that he punishes them with a temporal Pain How often do they avow in their Preaching that they have sinned and that the Lord scourges them for their Sins And do not they offer up their fasts and Prayers to God on their dayes of Humiliation to pacific the Lord's Wrath against them And do not they think that they must believe and repent that the merits of Christ may be applyed to them Why then do they stumble at our Sacrifice or offering in the Mass not as a new price for our Sins but as an application of the price given Christ in his Passion not having actually applied it to all who after have by Faith and other conditions required by him applied it to themselves and some in a greater measure then others Unless they will not have it true that as a Star differs from a Star in Light Saints differ from Saints in Sanctity 1 Cor. 15. v. 14. and 42. From the passages of St. Paul Hebr. 9. v. 27. and Hebr. 10. v. 1. Mr. Rodon Forms these Arguments First the Sacrifice of Iesus Christ must not be reiterated for St. Paul sayes that Iesus Christ offereth not himself often Answer Iesus Christ offereth not himself often as the price of the Redemption of Mankind I grant As the application of that price to men I deny Therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is not the Sacrifice of the Cross reiterated formally as to the manner and end of it as such which was to be the Ransom for mankind I grant It is not the same materially as to the Host offered I deny Now the reiteration which St. Paul denies is only of the Sacrifice in a Bloody manner which God would have once si posuerit pro peccato animam suam Isa 53. v. 10. for the Redemption of man and no more because it was sufficient not only for the Redemption of the men of one age but all ages past and to come And in this the Sacrifice of Christ excells those of Aaron which being weak and unsufficient one was offered for one Sin and an other for an other neither could they altogether give a worthy satisfaction for one Sin so they were not a Remission but a
Transitively i. e. passing and so making them two divers substances I deny the antecedent The Eucharist then is the Sacrament of Christ's Body i. e the Sacrament which is Christ's Body or Christ's body under the outward form or accidents of Bread is a Sacrament or a sensible sign by the Species of Grace which it work 's in us Answer 2. The Eucharist taken inadequately or partially for the Species is a Sacrament or sign of Christ's Body the Consecration being made I grant Adequatelie and Totally taken for the whole Eucharist I deny For so it includes both Christ's body and the Species afore of Bread now of his Body Thus the Eucharist may be called a figure or representation viz. the Species of Bread and Wine separated from one another a representation of Christ's death The Species of Bread alone the consecration being made a figure of the Body contained under it Note An Image sign or Sacrament may have within it the substance or essence of the thing by it signified or represented in another manner God the son is the Image of his father and has his father's substance yea the father all within him by circumincession i. e a mutuall being of the divine persones in each other So Christ's flesh invisible and spirituall in the Eucharist is the sacrament or sign of the same flesh palpable and visible crucified In the Sacrament it represents it self as on the Cross not different in substance but in qualitie and manner As when God 1. Reg. 10. v. 9. is said to have given to Saul another heart viz. in qualitie not in substance So it 's said 1. Cor. 15. v. 50. Flesh and blood shall not possesse the Kingdom of Heaven and again it 's certain flesh and blood shall possess the Kingdom of Heaven viz. When it has put on Incorruption The same in substance in both propositions but not the same in qualitie Obj. 3. In these two propositions This is my Bodie This Cup is the new testament in my Blood The word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alyke having been pronunced on the same matter viz. the one upon the one part of the Sacrament and the other on the other part of it and because of like things we give alike iudgement But in this proposition This Cup is the new Testament the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being c Therfore in this proposition lykwayes This is my Bodie the word is is not taken for a reall and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramentall and significative being Answer If the two propositions be set down as S. Math. who was present and heard them out of the mouth of Christ relates them Chap. 14. v. 22. and v. 24 This is my Bodie This is my Blood granting the Major I deny the Minor proposition If the one as S Mathew sets it down and the other as S. Paul who was not present and sets only down the sense of Christ's words in a figurative way I let pass the Minor and deney the consequence because the two propositions so taken are not alike as to their expression and I say that the H. Ghost might have had a particular reason to move S. Paul to rehearse the sense of what had been related by S. Mathew This is my Blood in these words This is the new testament in my Blood to give us another sensible impression of the mysterie viz. This Cup is the new testament in my Blood as if he should say This cup is an authentick instrument or as it were paper in which my new testament and last will of giving you eternal life if you believe and obey me is written not with Ink but with my oun Blood which this Cup contains as the Paper the writing of the Testament So Alapide Now in this proposition the word is cannot be taken in the proper sense of the words as in the other This is my Body because there would follow an absurditie viz. a real Identity between the Cup or what is contained in it and the testament signifying or the outward expr sion of his will which is absurd and evidentlie false And in that sense above I let passe the Minor for if by Testament you understand the Testament signified not the Testament signifying the word is may be and is taken for a real and transubstantiated being because the Blood contained in the Cup is that which he left by his last will to the faithfull So that which is in the Cup is changed into a Testament being by the whole proposition as the cause transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ and consequently this proposition This Cup is the New Testament must not be expounded thus the wine that is in the Cup is the sing and Sacrament of of the new Testament but thus The consecrated wine that is in the Cup is the real Blood of Christ and new Testament That he made then his new Testament I shall prove in my 8 Chap. When I say that all that Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literallie and without a figure I mean as the institution of the Eucharist is related to us by S. Mathew who was present at it and heard the words out of the mouth of Christ in the verie institution it self Since Mr Rodon contends so much for the figurative sense of the words in the Consecration I avow that in the consec ation as related by S. Luke in these words Touto to potéèrâ—on heè kainéè diathèkee en to haimatÃ-mou to huper humon ekkunòmenon This Cup is the new testament in my Blood which is shed for you The word Cup is taken figurativelie for the thing contained in it because from it taken in the proper sense would follow an absurdity viz. That the Cup it self wood or mettal was shed for us because the Relative Which and the participle Shed is referred by S. Luke to Cup as he who understands Greek sees in the forementioned words not properly taken then Metaphorically or Figurativelie taken for the thing contained in the Cup or Blood of Christ which is said to be shed for us Obj. 4. When a man saith a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he employes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition then Christ according to Romanists made a false proposition when he said This is my Body because his Body was not under the forme of Bread the whole time he was pronouncing the proposition Answer I dist the antecedent If the proposition be purely Enunciative or speculative its true because such a proposition presupposes its object If it be a factive or practical proposition such as the proposition of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist was it 's false because a factive proposition makes it's object and consequently supposes it not to be afore the whole proposition is utered which whole proposition taken all
sacramento S. lavâ—eri dicentem sed de sacramento â—rensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit â—isi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. non habebitis vitam in vobis quid ad hoc responderi potest c. An veâ—â—ò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quòd ad parvulos haec senten iâ— non pertineat possintqùe sine participatione Corporis hujus sanguinis in se habere vitam i. e. Let us hear sayes he our Lord not indeed speaking of the sacrament of the holy layer Baptism but of the sacrament of his table to which no man comes lawfullie unless he be baptized Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c You shall not have life in you What can be answered to this c. Dare anâ—e say that this sentence does not belong to Children and that they may have life in them without the participation of this Bodie and Blood Rem o. That it is not likely that S. Io. whose desing in his Ghospell was to speak of the greatest mysteries of the life of Christ would have omitted that of the Eucharist or of his giving his Body and Blood to his Disciples at the last supper which the three other Evangelists so accurately set down as if one would not omit to confirm what the other said of this mysterie but if he did not mean of it when he relates what Christ in his 6. Chap. said of giving his body and his Blood threatening them if they did not eate it and drink it he has omited it SECTION II. We must eate the real flesh of Christ and drink his Blood sacramentallie i. e. sensibly by the mouth of the body and not by the mouth of faith onlie TO prove this Catholick truth we bring these two passages Unless you eate the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you shall have no life in you Io. 6. v. 54. and v. 56. For my Flesh is meat indeed c To prove that this eating and drinking is to be understood only of an eating and drinking by faith protestants according to the principle of comparing scripture with scripture the obscurer passage with the clearer to know the true sense of both bring two passages which follow relating to the same matter to be compared with ours viz. 'T is the spirit that quicknes the flesh profits nothing The words which I have spoken are spirit and truth v. 64. We say that these latter passages are the obscurer and do not prove so clearly that we must eate and drink the Body and Blood of Christ only by faith as ours prove that wee must eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body 1. Because these two passages do not speak of faith but only of spirit and life there are other acts of spirit and life than acts of faith the acts of love The zeal of thy house hath eaten me sayes David Psal 69. v. .9 in the protestant Bible in ours 68. v. 10. How prove you that Christ means here an act of faith 2. We know there is no other proper mouth in man but that of the body wherefore when Christ sayes unless you eate the f esh and drink the blood of the son of man c. We understand he means with the mouth of the body Again since to eate and drink are the proper acts of the mouth till you prove to us that we cannot receave the body of Christ spiritualised or having the property of a spirit into our mouths why shall not wee believe that Christ meant we should eate his flesh with the mouth of our Body since a terme sine addito if you add nothing is alwise taken for the thing for which it supposes properlie So Homo a man if you add nothing supposes for a true man and not a painted man wherefore Christ saying Unless you eate the body of the son of man without adding by faith that eateing he speaks of is to be understood by the mouth of the body this being that which we understand properly by the tearm eating Nor doth it s not nourishing the body hinder it to be eaten by the mouth of the body no more then poyson tho it nourish not hinders to believe that many have drunk poison Since then these two latter passages are the obscurer they ought to be explained to the sense of the former two passages brought by us or so that they do not contradict them which are clear Wherfore I explaine them thus 'T is the spirit that quickness c. i. e 'T is my divine spirit or my Divinity that quicknes the receaver of my Body to a supernatural life as the soul quicknes the body to actiones of a natural life and as the bodie could not be quickned to hear or see without the soul so could not the receaver of my Bodie or he who eates it sacramentallie be quickned to a supernatural life were it not united to my divinity Of which divine spirit quickning or giving life to wit supernatural the words I have spoken are to be understood 2. My words are spirit and life i. e. They are to be understood spiritually or that you are to eate my flesh being in the sacrament after a spiritual way with the propertie of a spirit for the nourishment of your soul not being there in a carnall way like a piece of dead flesh to be divided with your teeth for the nourishment of your body 3. My words are spirit and life i. e. My words intimated v. 54. Unless you eate the flesh of the son of man c Obeyed will give you my spirit and by it a supernatural life or grace which leads to eternall life Christ adds presently v. 65 There are some of you which do not believe as if he should say the reason wherefore you stumble at my promise of giving you my flesh to eate is because you do not believe really that I am the son of God and so able to do all things howsoever strange they may seem to be By what I have said in this section you see proven that these words of Christ He that eates my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternall life Io. 6. v. 55. and my flesh is meat indeed c. v. 56. are to be understood of a corporall eating by the mouth of the body and not of a meer spiritual eating and drinking by faith I say not a meer spiritual eating because we hold we must add an act of faith to our sensible eating of his Body nay this Corporall eating may be cald a spiritual eating in a good sense in as much as we believe That the Bodie of Christ in the sacrament as it is reallie there so it is spiritualiy I mean with the propertie of a spirit As S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. v. 44. sayes Our bodies shall rise spiritual i. e. spiritualized viz. in glory they shall have the properties of a spirit Note
water and the Holy Ghost Why was it not that he had not a mind to avow that Baptism has a force to justifie and that it is necessarie for the salvation also of Children as you may clearly see in these following passages of S. Paul and S. Peter You were given to lust drink covetous but yow are washed but you are sanctified to wit by that washing or Baptism but you are justified in the spirit of God 1 Cor. 6. v. 11. S. Cyprian lib. 2. ad Donat confesses what he was afore Baptism and what he presentlie became after Baptism and what Christianity gave to him calling Christianismus his Christning Mors criminum vita Virtutum The death of Crimes and life of Virtues And Peter 1 Cap. 3. v. 21. Quod nos nunc similis formae salvos facit Baptisma The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us as if he should say As the Waters of the deluge raising the Ark and with it Noë and his people did not only declare but saved them really from death so Baptism saves us makes us just and holy and does not only declare us to be such as Luther with other Hereticks would have it understood Also ad Ephes 5. v. 26. He loved his Church Purifying her with the Laver of water and in the word of life Wher you see the word of Life added to the matter viz. of waeter sanctifies and purifies the Church from sin Obj. 6. The flesh of which Christ speaks when he sayes My flesh is meat indeed is a spiritual food but the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a spiritual food but only his body on the Cross then he meant of his Body on the Cross and not his Body in the Eucharist when he said My flesh is meat indeed Answer I deny the minor proposition and say that the flesh or bodie of Christ in the Eucharist is a spiritual food called so without a figure because producing by a supernatural operation which force it hath from its union with the divine nature grace or sanctification in us it is realy food and meat indeed to the soul without a figure So that FOOD is Genus to corporal and spiritual food To strenghten or increase Life is Genus or the more universal term to strenghten by changing into the thing strenghtened and to strenghten not by changing but by Producing grace by which we are strenghtened are the two differences or the less universal terms The first makes Corperal food the second Spiritual The bare sign is no meat because not it but the act of Faith only btings forth Sanctification as Protestants hold in them Moreover I say that Christ's Flesh broken and his blood shed on the Crosse was not spiritual food indeed because they were never to coëxist actually with our spiritual feeding as Christ's flesh in the Eucharist does and therefore is meat indeed The food to be food indeed to one and the feeding must be joined together but when we now believe Christ's death it is not present but past and therefore is not food to the believer but when we believe and take by the mouth of our Body Christ's flesh it is there joyned with our spiritual eating producing Grace strenghtning and encreasing our spiritual life and therefore is meat indeed Obj. 7. That doctrine which opposes sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions is to be rejected if a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages which seem to prove it I Answer 1. What if the Sabellians not conceiving how the Paternity should not be communicated to God the Son as well as the Divine Essence since the Paternitie and the Divine Essence are one and the same thing should have said it's a more suitable and rational sense of passages which seeme in scripture to say there are three distinct persons in the Divine nature that there is only one persone having three different functions called Father as he creats Son as he redeems and Holy Ghost as he sanctifies Would this prettie doctrine please Mr. de Rodon No neither can his conceit in the matter of the Eucharist be applauded by Romanists Answer 2. Our doctrine in the Eucharist neither opposes sense nor reason as I have shewn Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Nor seems so much to imply contradiction as the Mystery of the B. Trinitie which will be seen better in the next chapter Nor is the way he and other Protestants have found out rational to explane the passages we bring for our Doctrine as I hope will appear to the impartial and serious considerer of our proofs in the first Chapter To end this Chapter remember again that Christ by the occasion of the Jews seeking him more for bread to eat then for his miracles Io. 6. v. 26. by which miracles he laboured to perswade them to believe in him or that he was the Son of God called himself bread that doth not perish and spoke first of spiritual eating by faith that he might advance his hearers by litle and litle to this mysterie of a Real eating of his Flesh teaching them first what they ought to do to merite this true and heavenly Bread saying Work or seek earnestly not the food that perishes but which remains to eternall life c. Adding This is the work of God that ye believe as if he should say This is the work of God That ye believe that I am come from Heaven and that I am the Son of God which if you once believe you will not stumble at what I shall say to you here-after concerning the real eating of my flesh and drinking of my Blood nor be at all amased as appeared in the Apostles when actually viz. at the last supper I shall give it you CHAPTER III. Of Transubstantiation SECTION I. Transubstantiation is proved IS it not prettie to hear Mr. Rodon with some other Protestants speak of one of the darkest mysteries of our faith as of a natural thing and when their weak reason looking only to nature cannot reach it conclude as it were with triumph in the Eucharist there 's no transubstantiation Would that man be thought a good Christan who because it thwarts his grosse understanding to conceive a father to beget a son by speaking should conclude that the divine word is not the son of the eternal Father or a good divine who because it 's true to say in the B. Trinity that the essence is communicated to the son and the peternitie is not communicated to the Son should conclude that the essence and the paternitie are not the same thing Here I remark in passing that Mr. Rodon's Philosophy unwarilie touches the mysterie of the most B. Trinity in his 4. chap. where numb 12. for an example of a plurality of things really different he assignes the three Divine persones and concludes from thence that a real difference of things does not infer Division But he should have taken notice that the
to doubt if such a man were my Father for no other reason but because many have thought him to be their Father who really was not To Mr. Rodon's saying That Heathens might have retorted the Catholick arguments made against them by S. Chrysos c. If the Church had then believed that Christ's Body was in the Eucharist As when S. Chrisos said they bring their gods into base Images of Wood and Stone and shut them up there as in Prison And Arnobius Lib. 6. Your Gods dwells in Plaister c. and they suffer themselves to be shut up and remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison Answer 1. No they might not because our mysteries were not known then to them as they are now to Protestants Nay they were keep secret from the very Catechumens Hence that famous saying in primitive times speaking of his Mystery norunt Fideles The Faithful know to wit what we believe there Quaeres Why was this Mystery concealed from the cathecumens or those who ware not yet Baptized Answer Because they had not yet the Eye of Faith by which they might see it Hence don't wonder if you find some Fathers to have wrot some what obscurely of this Mystery in the Birth of the Church Answer 2. No the Heathens might not equally retort c. because 1. Christ is in the H Host and was in his Mothers Womb so that his God-head is and was else where 2. We do not say That Christ leaves Heaven to come to the H. Host as the false Gods one place to come to another 3. Their Consecration was the meer word of Man ours the words of Christ commanding Do this and speaking by the mouth of the Preist This is my Body 4. They adored the Mettal after its dedication as God We do not adore so the species Answer 3. If the Church did then believe that Christ had remained hid and shut up in his Mothers Womb as in an obscure Prison might not the Heathens have retorted what Arnob. Lib. 6. said against their Gods detained in an obscure Prison And for their Retortion in this particular would Mr. Rodon have denyed that Christ remained nine months in his B. Mother's Womb I end this Chapter with this Quaere Wherefore do we adore Christ more particularly in the B. Sacrament then his God-head every where Answer Because God the Father will have God the Son specially honoured by men for his special Love to them in their Redemption of which we are particularly minded by the presence of his Body in the Eucharist 2. Because the humanity of Christ represented to us by the Eucharist is personally united to the Divinity And God the H. Ghost who guides the Church inspired her in her invocations of the three Divine Persons in the begining of the Mass to invoce the first and third Person under the common name of LORD Lord have mercy on us But God the Son under the Name of his Man-hood saying thrice Christ have Mercy on us so honoured will God have and dear to us this Man-hood of Christ the instrument of our Redemption CHAPTER VI. Against the taking away of the Cup or the Communion under one kind SECTION I. The lawfulness of Communicating under one kind is proven 1. THE precept of Communicating or of taking the Body and Blood of Christ is only Io. 6. v. 53. in these words Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you But with those words stands the lawfulness of Communicating under one kind Therefore 't is lawful to Communicate under one kind I prove the minor 1. Because there is only commanded the sumption or receiving of both Body and Blood as to the substance not the manner of receiving them under both kinds 2. If you think the manner is commanded also giving not granting you that we answer that the Particle And may be taken for Or as in many other places of Scripture for example when Salomon speaking to God sayes mendicitatem divitias ne dederis mihi Poverty and Riches give me not Prov. 30. v. 8. Where And is taken for Or he desiring of God neither to be Rich nor Poor And Act. 3. v. 8. Argentum Aurum non est mihi Silver 2. And Gold I have not for Silver Or Gold I have not If with the Hussits you will not relish this solution then we answer 3. That this command was given by Christ not to every particular man but to the community of Christians by which it is fulfilled some viz. Preists taking it under both kinds to represent announce to the People the death of Christ according to the command layed upon them Math. 26. In these words Do this in remembrance of me there also was the command to the Preists of making the Sacrament for the People So Exod. 12. v. 3. 't is commanded that The whole multitude of the Children of Israel shall Sacrifice viz. the Paschal Lamb. Did every one in particular sacrifice No but only the heads of families in their families Also Genes 9. v. 1. Increase and multiply Doth not oblige every particular man to marry Again when our Saviour said Math. 28. Teach all nations baptising them he laid that command on the Church not on every particular man to teach Now to make appear that this answer is not brought without ground from Scripture take notice that when Christ would signifie that every one or every individual person should be baptised he expressed himself in the singular number Io. 3. v. 5. Nisi quis c. Except a man be born of water nd of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Whereas Io. 6. v. 53. he sayes in the plural number Nisâ— manducaveritis Unless ye eat c. which is fulfilled by the community if some of them receive under both kinds altho all do not And a little after when he turnes his speach into the singular he speaks indifferently of both or one kind He that eates my Flesh and drink my Blood hath life everlasting v. 45. and v. 58. He that eates this Bread shall live for ever Which passages signifie that one kind suffices for if by an impossible supposition Christ could contradict himself yet our opinion would stand since in jure if what is said last contradict what was said afore Iura posteriora corrigunt priora The latter Law corrects the former That the precept of receiving this Sacrament was here Io. 6. v 53. I prove again The command of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or Baptism Sacramentally was Io. 3. v. 4. For in no other place is mentioned Water which Protestants acknowledge to be necessary in Baptism as well as Catholicks Therefore the command of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body Blood Sacramentally viz. in a sensible way by the mouth of the Body is here Io. 6. v. 53 I prove the consequence because a like expression to the same people caries a like command
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
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
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
Christ sayes Giving council to his Disciples to offer to God the first Fruits of his Creatures he took created Bread and gave thanks saying This is my Body and likewise the Cup c. he confessed to be his Blood and he taught a new OBLATION of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles Offers to God through the whole World 3. Tertullian lib. ad Scap. Cap. 2. We Sacrifice for the safety of the Emperour but to our God and his Item lib. de Ora. cap. 14. he makes mention of standing at the Altar and Sacrifice 4. Again What meant the Pagans objecting to Christians their murdering of a Child in their divine Worship and eating of its Flesh Dicimur sceleratissimi sayes Tertul. apolog advers Gen. cap. 7. de Sacramento infanticidii pabulo inde We are called most wicked for murdering a Child in our Sacrament and eating of its Flesh Would we have been called most wicked for eating a piece of Bread and drinking a Cup of Wine in Remembrance that Christ dyed for us Or was this a Mystery to be concealed from the Cathecumens In the third age 1. ORigines speaking of the Eucharist lib. 8. contra Celsum Sayes We set forth with thanksgiving for the benefits received Bread made the Body viz. of Christ And Hom. 23. in Num. he sayes It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the continual Sacrifice who hath dedicated himself to a continual and perpetual chastity 2. S. Cyprian Epist 66. ad Clerum Plebem Furnitanorum speaking of the Duty of Preists sayes all honoured with Divine Preist-hood ought only to serve the Altar and the Sacrifices and attend to Prayer And in Caena Domini post med speaking of the Eucharist sayes This Sacrifice is a perpetual and ever remaining Holocaust 3. St. Hippolitus Episcop Martyr in his speach of the end of the World and Antichrist sayes The Churches will grievously mourn viz. then because neither Oblation nor Incense will be offered and the Liturgy that is the Mass will be extinguished Note The Greek Fathers by the word Liturgy understand Sacrifice So St. Paul Hebr. 9. v. 21. speaking of the Vessels of the Mosaick Sacrifice calles them ta scevee tees leitourgias The Vessels of the Liturgy And Hebr. 10. v. 11. The Preist stood daily leitourgoon that is Ministring See S. Luk's Greek Evang. cap. 1. v. 8.9.23 Note Liturgy is composed of leeitos and ergon that is publick service In the fourth age 1. I begin the fourth age with the Testimony of the first general Council of Nice which Calvin himself lib. 4. Inst cap. 2. § 8. professes to embrace and reverence as Holy The Council can 4. edit lat but 18. of the Greek edition speaks thus Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo tradidit c. Neither rule nor custome has allowed that those who have not power to offer Sacrifice give the Body of Christ to those who offer 2. St. Basil in his 19. hom which is a speach upon St. Gordius Martyr beyond the middle inveighs against the profanations of his time thus The House of Prayer was cast down by the hands of profane Men the Altars were overthrown neither was there Oblation nor Incense 3. St. Cyrill of Hier. Cathec 4. Mystag nigh the beginning Knowing sayes he and having for certain that the Bread which is seen by us is not Bread altho the tast feels it to be Bread but to be the Body of Christ And that the Wine which is seen by us altho it appear to the sense of the tast to be Wine is not Wine but the Blood of Christ 4. St. Ambrose lib. 5. Epist 33. vel 13. ad Marcel sayes This morning fell out a disturbance in the Church I continued my Office I begun to say Mass 5. St. Optatus Mileu initio lib. 6. contra Parmes Donat sayes What is so Sacrilegious as to break and raze the Altars of GOD on which you your selves Sacrificed afore In the fifth age 1. ST Iohn Chrisost hom 83. in Math. beyond the middle sayes Let us therefore believe God every where nor mutter against him altho what he sayes seem absurd to our sense and thougt c. Since then he said This is my Body let us not doubt at all but believe And a litle after O how many say I would see his form and shap he answers behold you see him you touch him and eat him And in the begining of his Liturgie which is in his fifth tome he brings in the Preist praying thus O Lord c Strengthen me that inculpably assisting at thy Altar I may end the unbloody Sacrifice 2. S. Austin Conc. 3. in Psal 33. He Christ in s ituted of his Body and Blood a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech And in the 11. ch of his Manuall he prayes thus Most sweet JESU c. I pray that while though unworthy I assist at your Altars desiring to offer to you that admirable and Heavenly Sacrifiee worthy of all reverence and devotion c. S. Aug. con 1. in Psal 33. Nondum erat Sacrificium Corporis sangu nis Domini quod Fideles norunt qui Evangelium legerunt quod Sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe Terrarum The Sacrifi of the Body and Blood of our Lord which is known to the faithful and to those who have read the Scriptures was not yet which Sacrifice is now spread over the whole World 3. S. Cyril of Alexan. expounding those words of Malachie In every place is Sacrificed and offered to my name a pure offering Malach. 1. v. 8. sayes He viz. God fortelâ—s that his name shall be great and Illustrious among all mortalls through the World and that in every place and Nation a pure and unbloody Sacrifice shall be offered to his Name Now hear S. Augustin speaking of the Holy Fathers who were the cheif members of the Church of Christ in their time Tom. 7. contrr Jul. Pelag. l. 2. cap. ult What they found in the Church they held what they learned they taught what they received from their fathers this they delivered to their Children c. Nondum vobiscum certabamus sayes he eis pronunciantibus vicimus We did not as yet then debate with you but yet by what they said then we now win the cause Let a sober judgement remember that Calvin one of our greatest Enimies call's lib. 4. inst cap. 7. 22. Gregorie Pepe and S. Bernard Holy men I infer if they were Holy men in his judgement then their faith was Holy because without Faith viz. true Faith 't is impossible to please God yet they believed the Sacrifice of the Masse witness what S. Greg. sayes Hom. 8. on the Evang. Because we are to celebrate three Masses to day viz. on Christmasse day my discourse on the Ghospell will be short And S. Bernard in his second Sermon of all saints Now saith he I must end because High Masse which is not yet said calls us
his precious Death Do this in remembrance of me Item because we have it so in the Form of Consecration of that Sacrament instituted by our Saviour and conveyed by Apostolical tradition down to us So is shed and shall be shed are both true Our Saviour who conversed with and instructed his Apostles fourty dayes between his Resurrection and Ascention of things belonging to his Church could best tell them his mind An OBJECTION Omitted in the II Section of the 7. Chap. Object IF God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the destruction of Christ's Sacramental being only whereas afore it was not satisfied for sin without the Destruction of his natural being his Justice will not be alwayes the same Therefore the Justice of God is not now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being and consequently the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead Answer If God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being as a Ransom for sin I grant that his Justice will not be the same if he be satisfied with it not as with a Ransom but as an application of the Ransom for sin I deny that his Justice will not be alwayes the same And as Protestants think that God's Justice is alwayes the same altho they Judge that it is satisfied with their Faith and Repentance as an application of the Ransom given for them by the Death of Christ and that it would not be satisfied without them on their side for they don't hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross without any more a do suffices for the actual Remission of all the sins of the Elect but moreover they require Faith and Repentance in them so we think also that it is alwayes the same altho we Judge that it is satisfied with our Faith and Repentance and other good works and especially by the Sacrifice of the Mass as an application of the Ransom given for us on the Cross CHAPTER VIII A reply to Mr. Rodon's answers to some of our Proofs both for the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass SECTION I. For the Real Presence Our first Proof OUr Proof that these words This is my Body This is my Blood should be taken in their proper sense and not figuratively is this because men viz. wise men such as eminently Christ was making their Testament speak plain Mr. Rodon to usher in more smoothly his answer sayes first That Articles of Faith and Sacraments are not always expressed in proper terms and busies himself to answer that which is not so much as thought upon to be denied much less Objected Then he sayes I answer that in H. Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure for the Testament of Iacob Gen. 49. and Moyses Deut. 33. are nothing but a chain of Metaphors and other figures and Civilians will have that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator I reply What he brings for Testaments in those places are Prophecies of Iacob and Moyses not Testaments Nay after Iacob had fore-told all the text adds he blessed every one with their proper blessings of which in particular the Scripture is silent and ordered them to bury him in the Field of Ephon Secondly suppose they had been Testaments there was a special reason for speaking in covered terms first because they were at least also Prophecies which the Holy Ghost would not have yet clearly understood by every one but that they should have their recourse to the Preists for the understanding of them thus keeping the People in humility and the Governours of the Church in Authority Next there was no danger of any one's loosing his right by others mis-understanding of the words because Iacob and Moyses were infallibly sure of God's promise But in Christ's Testament there was a reason of making the words clear to encourage men to be earnest to get what he had left them As to the saying of Civilians That in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the Intention of the Testator I Answer the reason is because it falls out sometimes that Testaments conceaved in proper words are ambiguous for example suppose a man who hath two Nephews one the Son of a Poor man to whom he always testified Love above the other who was the Son of a Rich man should Test thus I leave 100. lib. to my Nephew Here the Intention of the Testator is to be attended and by this adjudged to the poor Nephew by reason of his singular affection to him altho the proper signification of the word pleads as much for the other If you ask me how in the best conceived Testaments there may be some thing ambiguous I answer with Aristotle because Res sunt innumerae pauca verba that is Things are without number but words are few and so by one word we must signifie many things He urges Christ did not then make the new Testament but only the sign of it for the Covenant was made with all mankind in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpent's Head and was after renewned in Abraham Answer First Whatsoever was made in the Old Law is not that which our Saviour in the Ghospel calles the New Testament for all that was Old when he spoke Nay the New Testament was not the same Covenant made in the Person of Adam for if the New Testament was made with Adam and renewed with Abraham I ask who was that afore Adam with whom the Old Testament was made Item different conditions make a different Covenant Now to believe in CHRIST COME and TO USE HIS SACRAMENTS are conditions which were not in the former Secondly I deny that he did not make at the last Supper his New Testament because as by God Exod. 24. the Old Testament was made or his will of giving to the Jews the Land of Canaan if they kept his commandments and ceremonies prescribed by him was made I say and signed with the Blood of Beasts Hic est sanguis faederis quod pepigit vohiscum Deus This is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you Said Moyses so Christ by the effusion of his Blood in a Sacrifice for Liquid things are offered by Effusion made and signed his New Testament of giving us spiritual things and a heavenly inheritance if we keep his Commandments and use the Sacraments instituted by him And now I prove that he made it here and no where else Because here and no where else he fulfilled the conditions required in a Testator making his Testament First he signified that he was making his Testament in these words This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. Secondly he promised and left some thing
Grecians who are lovers of Participles say hansomely by a Participle that which in Latin we say by a Verb St. Ierom then knowing the meaning of the H. Ghost in that Passage by the sentiment of the Church and all the H. Fathers did not stick to the words in his Latin Translation but gives us neatly the sense But Protestants in their Translation disturb the sense making the words and was a Preist relate to and he blessed him whereas they relate to the words going afore and therefore we turn this Particle Vau which signifies both For and and For. Now here is the reason why the words For or And he was a Preist relate to the former words viz. Brought forth Wine and Bread because in the Hebrew Text after these words For or And he was a Preist is put the accent which the Hebrews call Soph Pasuch which signifies that the period is ended there Note more over 1. It makes the same sense whether you say Bringing forth Bread he blessed him or He brought forth bread viz. to Sacrifice because he was a Preist and blessed him Note 2. The word proferens bringing or according to the Hebrew word hotsi that is brought tho of it self signifies nothing but bringing or brought yet oftentimes for the exigence of the place it is used to signify the bringing of the Host to be Sacrificed as Iud 6.18 And we take it so here for the reason I 'le bring by and by in the sixth note Note 3. Altho the Hebrew has Vau that is And he was a Preist that makes nothing because Vau is taken most frequently as Ballarmine remarks for the causal ki that is for or because as Psal 95.5 The Sea is his AND he made it St. Ierome turnes BECAUSE he made it And Isa 64. v. 5. Thou art angry AND we have sinned sayes the Hebrew and Greek and Latin tho the Protestant Bible translates For that is because we have sinned And Gen. 20. v. 3. Thou art but a dead Man for the Woman's sake which thou hast taken FOR she is a Man's Wife the Hebrew has Vau i. e. And she is married to a Husband And he blessed him viz. Melchisedech blessed Abraham not as a Preist but as a greater Person for Abraham was also a Preist and had often Sacrificed Item Salom. 3. Reg. 8. blessed the People altho he was not a Preist but because he was a greater person Hebr. 7. v. 7. The less is blessed of the better Preist then here relates to Sacrifice and not to Blessed Him You Object in these words Blessed Him the Relative Him relates to the Person to whom the Bread was offered but 't was Abraham he blessed then the Bread was offered only to Abraham not to God and consequently there was no Sacrifice Answer Him relates c. to whom the Bread was offered first or Sacrificed by crumbling a little of it on the fire I deny to whom the Bread was offered by a second action to make him participant of the Sacrifice I grant So Christ first offered his Body and Blood to his Father which after he offered or gave to his Disciples Note 4. When Bellarmin does not deny that Melchisedech brought Bread and Wine to refresh Abraham it 's not to be understood Corporally for they had no need of that being refreshed immediatly afore but Spiritually by making them participant of the Sacrifice ut de Sacrificio participarent sayes Bellarm. Understand the Jews of whom St. Jerome writes to Evagrius in the same sense and Joseph and Damascen when they say that Melchisedech brought Bread and Wine to refresh Abraham and his people vix spiritually as those words of Damascen intimate lib ' 4. de fide chap. 14. Mensa illa Melchisedech Mysticam hanc speaking of the Eucharist adumbrabat that is That Table of Melchisedech represented this viz. of the Eucharist mystical one Or if this does not please you remember that David was refreshed corporally with the Loaves of proposition which had been offered to God so Melchisedech might have refreshed them with the Bread and Wine after he had offered both to God 1. Samuel chap. 21. v. 6. Note 5. Howsoever St. Ciprian and St. August translate that passage And he was a Preist or For he was a Preist 't is clear they hold that Melchisedech offered there Bread and Wine in a Sacrifice St Ciprian lib. 2. Epist 3. ad Caecil after he had cited those words of the Psalm Thou art a Preist for ever after the order of Melchisedech he adds Qui ordo utique est de Sacrificio illo quod Melchisedech Sacerdos Dei summi fuit quod panem vinum obtulit quod Abraham benedixit Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus noster Jesus qui Sacrificium Deo Pairi obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat i. e. Panem Vinum suum viz. Corpus sanguinem i. e. Which order certainly was of that Sacrifice viz. that Melchisedech was Preist of God most high that he offered Bread and Wine c. And St. Aug. Epist 95. ad Innoc. Papam which he writes in his own Name and in the Name of other Bishops he sayes Melchisedech prolato Sacramento Mensae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus Sacerdotium figurare That is Melchisedech having brought forth the Sacrament of our Lords Table knew to represent his eternal Preist-hood And lib. 16. de Civit. Dei cap. 22. speaking of the Oblation of Melchesedech Ibi says he first appeared the Sacrifice which is now offered by Christians to God all the world over To return to the word hotsi Note 6. that there is a necessity to give the same signification to the word hotsi here that it hath Jud. 6. For this is the necessity because we have no other place in Scripture telling us what was the Sacrifice of Melchisedech as it is condistinguished from that of Aaron and therefore there was an obligation to translate the Hebrew particle Vau which signifies both And and FOR for and not AND bringing so the reason wherefore he brought Bread and Wine viz. to offer them to God afore he gave them to Abraham and his people to make them participant of the Sacrifice Note 7. 'T is not probable that St. Jerom's latin translation of this passage for he was a Preist is corupted because in his Hebrew questions and in his Epistle to Evagrius he translates and he was a Preist because he is to be judged to have wrote with more application and exactness his Translation of the Bible which if approved was for the whole Church and to be read till the end of the world than his answers to some particular questions or to a missive Letter And since Mr. Rhodon avows here Num. 25. that the Hebrew particle viz. Vau used by Moyses does sometimes signifie FOR and St. Jerome had two reasons obliging him to turn it so there 1. To shew what Melchisedech's Sacrifice was which we have no where