alive we count to be an inhuman tyranny and most horrid and execrable act We then believing our Mass is alive and will be untill the worlds end cannot but censure and accuse Mounsieur de Rodon of inhuman tiranny unless he demonstrats that he killed the Mass before he made the funeral that he is sure to do by destroying Transubstantiation and therefore ayms at it with his first arrow thus Rodon 1. In every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwaies newly produced for example when seed is converted into an animal that animal is newly produced when Iesus Christ turned the water into wine the wine was newly produced c. But the body and bloud of Iesus Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The second proposition viz. that the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced I prove thus that which is newly produced receives a new being because to produce a thing and give it a being is the same thing but the body and bloud of Christ cannot receive a new being which I prove thus A man cannot receive that which he hath while he hath it and therefore cannot receive a being while he hath a being for as it is imposible to take away a being from that which hath no being so is it imposible to give a being to that which hath a being already and as you cannot kill a dead man so you cannot give life to one that is living But the body and bloud of Christ have and will allwaies have a being therefore they cannot receive one and consequently cannot be reproduced in the Eucharist Answ. To this argument I first answer that in every substantial conversion there must be some thing newly produced or adduced and so we say bread and wine are converted substantially into Christs body and bloud by an adductive action because by vertue of the words of consecration Christs body which is in its humane shape in heaven is brought into the Sacramental Species and remains in them in a Sacramental manner without any new production of his body which was produced already Secondly I answer to the said major thus In every substantial conversion that thing c. is alwaies newly produced entitatively or modally I confess entitatively only I deny And to his minor thus but the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist entitatively and in his humane shape I confess modally or Sacramentally I deny the minor and the consequence also and all Mr. de Rodon's ensuing proofs militate against an entitative production only which we grant him but not at all against a modal or Sacramental production Therefore we say that Christs body being already produced as to its entity and natural being the same entity is not newly reproduced in the Sacrament in order as to give his body a new essential being because he hath that already in heaven But we say that the entity of his body is newly produced or rather adduced into the Sacrament in order to a sacramental or modal being against which modal being Mr. de Rodon's proofs are of no value or force and so his first arrow has miss't the mark Rodon 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed for example when the water was turned into wine the wine was destroyed But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine are not destroyed by the consecration which I prove thus In the celebration of the Eucharist there is breaking giving eating drinking after the consecration as appears by the very practise of our adversaries who after consecration break the Host and divide it into three parts give nothing to the communicants but consecrated Hosts and eat and drink nothing but what was consecrated But the Scripture saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist bread is broken and bread and wine are given and that bread is eaten and wine drunk as appears by these following passages S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. saith the bread which we break is it not the communion of Christs body and 1. Cor. 11. S. Math. 26. S. Mark 14. and S. Luke 22. it is said that Jesus Christ took bread brake it and gave it and S. Mark 14. and S. Math. 26. Iesus Christ after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine and 1. Cor. 11. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. Answ. To this argument I answer granting the major and distinguishing the minor thus But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the accidents of the bread and wine are not destroyed I confess the substance of the bread and wine are not destroyed I deny To what he farther urgeth viz. that there is breaking giving eating and drinking after the consecration as concerning their accidents I grant as concerning their substances I deny for their substances are converted into Christs real body and bloud by vertue of the words of consecration though their accidents remain un destroyed and are sustentated supernaturally by the power of God for we hold of no transaccidentation in the Sacrament but only of Transubstantiation As concerning the passages by him alledged out of Scripture to prove that â—…t is bread that 's broken that it is bread and wine that are given I answer that in every of these passages the words bread and wine must be taken Analogically not litterally because Christ in other places calls them expresly his flesh his bloud and his body and all orthodox Christians from the first institution of this Sacrament for many ages did without controulment hold as we do that after the words of consecration the bread and wine are converted into the real body and bloud of Christ. Therefore although because of the symbolls or accidents of bread and wine which still remain in the Host after consecration they retain the denomination of bread wine yet they are not really but Analogically only bread and wine and really the true body and bloud of Christ and they are analogically called bread and wine because of the Analogy or likeness real bread and wine have with this Sacrament the one nourishing the body the other the soul but now to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 3. When Iesus Christ said to his disciples drink ye all of this Math. 26. that is drink ye all of this cup either he commanded to drink of a cup of wine or of a cup of bloud if he commanded them to drink of a cup of wine then it follows that they drank nothing but wine because it is certain that they obeyed Iesus Christ for it is said Mark 14. that they all drank it or if he commanded them to drink a cup of bloud then it follows that the wine was already changed into his bloud because it
and because the existence of the sacramental species retains its inclination to its proper subjects and has anaptitudinal inherence in it it follows evidently that Transubstantiation which is the causer of all this neither destroys the nature of Accidents nor of Sacraments neither Let this then suffice for his sixth arrow and its first reply Now to his second reply Rodon 8. Secondly the Council of Trent in sess 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latria which according to our adversaries is the sovereigne worship due to God only but the Accidents of the bread and wine ought not to be adored because they are creatures and that God alone must be adored Therefore the accidents of bread and wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Answ. To this second reply we answer and obey the holy Councils commands and we adore the most blessed Sacrament with the adoration of Latria which is the highest soveraigne worship due to God only And to what he inferrs viz. that the accidents of bread and wine because they are creatures ought not to be adored so I answer and distinguish that proposition thus with an absolute Adoration I confess with a relative adoration I deny for we give a relative adoration of Latria not only unto the Sacramental species but unto the holy cross also and yet we deny it to be Idolatry because the Adoration redounds wholy upon God but if we should give unto the Cross or any other creature an absolute adoration of Latria that is if we should adore them absolutely as they are in themselves without any relation or reference unto God then indeed I confess it would be Idolatry But far is that from our intention when we adore them or any other pictures or Reliques however our adversaries are pleased to interpret and force our intentions Nay more then that we give but a relative Adoration of Latria even unto the body bloud and soul of Christ inasmuch as they are but creatures and yet we hold them to be more and better then the accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament nevertheless we afford both them and the Sacramental species too an absolute Adoration of Latria inasmuch as they are united hypostatically to the Divinity and yet deny it is Idolatry to do it But since the Mounsieur and his Translator do impeach us with Idolatry concerning the Adoration of Latria we give to our Sacrament as also concerning our worshiping of Images wherefore may we not also pose them and those of their party concerning their communion bread and wine wherefore I say may not we ask them whether they afford any spiritual worship adoration or reverence to their communion bread and wine after they are consecrated by them or no If they answer no then what respect have they for their Sacrament or communion more then they have for the other ordinary bread and wine which they dayly eat and drink aud why may not they carouse with their communion wine and drink to one another with it as they do ordinarily with the other wine when they drink together in a Tavern or why may not they throw a bit of their communion bread to a dog as they use to do when they are at their common meales for if they have no more spiritual reverence or worship for the one more then they have for the other there is no reason why they may not use them both alike If this be their principle and tenet concerning their Sacrament or communion and if they have no more adoration or worship for it then they have for their other ordinary bread which they often throw to dogs I would have them consider to what a pass they have brought one of the two Sacraments they only own of the seven which the Church doth hold Christ himself did institute and which he called that of his last supper among other of his divine words he said Nolite sanctum dare canibus give not that which is holy to the dogs But if they have no more worship or respect for their communion bread then they have for their ordinary other bread whereof they give some to their dogs I know not what their consecration signifies if it hallows the bread then the bread must be holy and to any holy thing a reverence veneration or worship is due if it doth not hallow the bread then the bread is as it was before and consequently it may be given to dogs as other bread is often thrown to them and what would else forsooth follow from this doctrine but that their communion-bread may lawfully be given to dogs it follows also that if bread can be consecrated and hallowed that water may be consecrated also and then they will be forced to acknowledg some vertue or force in our holy water But if their answer be affirmative and they give a spiritual worship and adoration to their Sacrament or communion this adoration or worship can be no less then a Relative Latria for they worship their communion-bread because it is a sign or Sacrament of Christs broken body and spilt bloud upon the Cross and consequently they adore it in relation to Christ or if they adore and worship it not in order to Christ but as it is in it self then they give it an absolute worship which is a far grosser kind of Idolatry then that they attach us with for they believe their Sacrament to be nothing else but bare bread and wine and consequently nothing else but meer creatures but we believe our Sacrament to be the real body and bloud of Christ with his divinity and therefore we adore our Sacrament upon far better grounds then they do theirs Moreover if they give a Relative adoration of Latria to their Sacrament and may lawfully do it because it is a sign or it signifies Christ why may not we also give a relative adoration to our crucifixes and Images because they are signes of Christ and of his Saints whom they represent or if they call us Idolaters for for doing this why may not we call them Idolaters for adoring their communion-communion-bread In a word they must either give it no adoration worship or reverence at all no more then they give to their unconsecrated bread and consequently they may as well give it to their dogs as they do their other bread or if they give it any adoration worship or Reverence it must be some kinde of a Latriacal adoration either Relative or absolute for they must adore it because it signifies Christs passion or they must adore it as it is in it self without any Relation to Christ which if they do they fall into a grosser Idolatry then we do Rodon 9. Thirdly a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in sess 6. and 13. But in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not visible therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not
Hierom also an old father and one of the chief doctors of Christs Church inferiour to none in sanctity and learning is unanimous with the rest in this point Nec Moyses saith he dedit vobis panem verum sed Dominus Iesus ipse conviva convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur Neither did Moses give you the true bread but our Lord Jesus he is the Inviter and the feast ne the eater and the eaten S. Ambrose must not be forgotten who in all persections is equal to any of the rest he says lib. de Sacramentis quod erat panis ante consecrationem jam corpus Christi est post consecrationem What was but bread before the consecration after consecration is the body of Christ. To these I add great S. Gregory commonly called the fourth universal doctor of the Church he in hom Pascha has these words Quotidiè ipse Christus comeditur bibitur in veritate sed integer vivus immaculatus manet Christ himself is dayly eaten and drunk in verity or reality but he remains entire alive and unspotted If the authorities of the above-mentioned holy doctors and fathers susfice not the curious Reader let him read S. Chrysost. dial 3. de dignit sacerd cap 4. Theophilact in comment sup Iob S. Anselm and all the rest who treat upon this subject which would be too tedious for me to reckon up he shal find them all unanimous amongst themselves and in most plain and express terms agreeing with us Neither is it likely or credible at all that after Christ himself promised his Church that the gates of hell should never prevail against her this Idolatry should creep into her bosome infect all her noblest members enlarge it self through all countries and nations where the name of Christ was ever known and last for innumerable ages without controulment or opposition for none of dianas adversaries could hitherto ever tell when she begun to shew her face in Christs Church or who for many ages opposed her entrance All heresies that ever crept or were introduced into the Church were presently taken notice of opposed and condemned with their chief authors and ringleaders only our Diana the Idol in the Mounsieurâ—… opinion maugre Christs promise to the contrary had the good luck to stand it out all along from Christs time untill now and made all the Christian world adore her But sure it is that if heresy cannot prevail against Christs Church Idolatry also cannot and consequently since our Diana or Mass hath held it out so long doeth still and is like to do untill the worlds end she is no Idol as Mr de Rodon takes her to be but that truo incruent or unbloudy pure sacrifice of Christs body which his spouse the Church offers dayly to his heavenly father for a reconcilation and attonment with him for her childrens sinns from whence followeth that she ever did doth and will exhibite unto the host the adoration of Latria which is the highest adoration solely due unto God Of what value or force Mr. de Rodons bare confident I mean impudent assertion is against the whole torrent of the chief doctors and holy fathers of Christs Church I let any reasonable man judge and deny that if the Primitive Christians had believed and adored the Sacrament as we do they had furnished the heathens with specious pretences to excuse the Idolatry of their Image-worship and that they could have retorted upon the Christians these very arguments which they made use of against them for first the ancient Christians believed but in one God never owning but one deity in the three divine persons whereas the Heathens believed in many dieties or Gods Secondly the primitive Christians believed there is no other substance in the Sacrament or host but only the substance of Jesus Christ and consequently they owned no composition in Christ or in the host as that Christ or the host are composed of Christs body and of the sacramental species because Christ is in the host substantially as he is composed of his body soul and divinity or which is the same thing the host is nothing else but Christ in his substance and the sacramental species or accidents of the bread and winâ—… which remain in the sacrament after Transubstantiation by vertue of the words of consecrâ—…on enter not at all into the composition of Christ or of the host but they only serve for significations sake viz. to signify our spiritual nourishment But the heathens believed that the very metals or materials whereof their Idols were composed after they were consecrated and dedicated to their Gods were a substantial part of them They believed and adored their materials and statues after their consecration and dedication as Gods The ancient Christians nor the modern Catholicks also ever believed that the bare accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament are Jesus Christ or his body and bloud though they believe they signifie his body and bloud and that his body bloud soul and divinity also are personally present by reason of the pronoun demonstrative This which is uttered in the consecration where the sacramental species are and consequently they do very well and piously in adoring the host with the adoration of Latria But if those of the Primitive Church or we either should hold with the Apostle of the Protestants Luther that Christ is in the Sacrament impanated that is in bread then the heathens may indeed have someâ—…ing to say against us for then there would be a kind of composition of Christs body 〈◊〉 of the bread in the Sacrament as the heaâ—…hens made a composition of their materials or Images and of their false deities which they pretended were in them But no such heretical thought ever entred into the hearts of any orthodox Christian of the Primitive or modern Church That as the heathenish Idols were madâ—… by consecration dedication and adoration so our Sacrament is also made by consecration and after consecration offered and dedicated by us unto God the father and that we adore it we cannot deny But the ground upon which our consecration is built and the ground upon which the heathenish was are quite different our consecration is built upon the effective words of the son of God who is omnipotent and gave us power to consecrate as he did himself when he said to his Apostles whose successors we surely believe our Priests are as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me But the heathenish consecration had no other ground but their own bare ayery words and consequently there is no parity betwixt both consecrations Lastly that as the heathens were upbraided jeared and reproached by the holy fathers because of their great and little Images or Idols so may the primitive Christians be by the heathens for believing that Christ could be in a little or great host or in the least part of it is false for the heathens believed their Gods were in their Idols
shew us any evident proof to the contrary but his own bare word which we do not at all value it clearly follows that these words This is my body must not be expounded of the Sacrament of his body only and because a Sacrament is not here only ment it followeth that although a Sacrament as the holy Council of Irent saith is a visible signe of an invisible grace that this proposition This is my body must not be expounded this is the Sacrament or this is the signe only of my body although I confess that by vertue of the said words the Sacrament is also consignified with his real presence in the consecrated Host. The Mounsieur confirmes his precedent Argument thus Rod. 4. In these two propositions This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my bloud the word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alike having been pronounced upon the same matter viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament and the other upon the other part of it and because of like things we must give alike Iudgment But in this proposition This cup is the new Testament the word iâ—… is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a Sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which iâ—… in the cup is changed into a Testament neither is it really and properly a Testament but the Sacrament of the New Testament Therefore in this proposition likewise This is my body the word is is not taken for a real and Transubstantiated being but for a Sacramental and significative being and consequently as this proposition This cup is the new Testament must be expounded thus the wine that is in the cup is the signe and Sacrament of the New Testament so this proposition This is my body must be expounded thus this bread is the signe and Sacrament of my body Whence it follows that in one single proposition of Iesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist viz. This cup is the New Testament are two figures one in the word cup being taken for that which is in the cup this is a figure called a Metonimy whereby the thing containing is taken for the thing contained The other figure is that the cup is called the New Testament this is also a figure called a metonimy whereby the signe is called by the name of the thing signified And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that all that Iesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken litterally and without a figure But withall we must not imagine that Iesus Christ spake obscurely because he spake figuratively these figures and manners of speech being commonly and familiarly used by all the world Answ. To this Argument I answer granting the major and denying the minor and to its probation I confess that the bare cup is neither a proper testament or transubstantiated But that the consecrated wine in the cup is not the new Testament transubstantiated into Christs bloud I flatly deny because Christ himself in express words said hoc est novum Testamentum in meo sanguine This is the new Testament in my bloud he said not it was the signe or Testament of his bloud but in his bloud that is to say that the Testament did consist in his bloud or which is the same thing that the new Testament is his bloud Thus all the holy Fathers and General Councils ever understood these words of Christ yet the Mounsieur without any farther proof but his own bare word saies that the wine in the cup after consecration is but a sign or Sacrament of the new Testament But of what weight his bare word ought to be against Christs clear expression and the common explication of the whole Church I leave the reader to consider Therefore the Mounsieur muâ—…t give me leave to conclude thus contrary to what he holds and say that in this proposition This is my body the word is ought to be taken for a real and transubstantiated being and not for a Sacramental and significative being only And consequently that this proposition This cup is the new Testament must be expounded thus The consecrated wine that is in the cup is the real bloud of Christ and new Testament of his law And although we confess with Mr. de Rodon that in these words viz. this cup is the new Testament there are two figures or Metonimies to be taken one in the word cup and the other because the Sacramental species do signifie Christs bloody Passion yet we deny but that Transubstantiation is there chiefly by vertue of Christs effective word and the Sacrament consignified only because as I said before we hold the consecrated Host to be both Sacramentum rem 〈◊〉 the Sacrament and the thing it self together And therefore we deny that the Romish doctours are mistaken when they tell us tha what Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken litterally and not figuratively only neither have we any reason to imagine that he spake obscurly for his real Presence could not be with plainer words exprest but let us now hear the Mounsieur speak Rodon 5. But when we say that these words This is my body this is my blood must be expounded thus this bread is the sign and Sacrament of my body this wine is the sign and Sacrament of my bloud we do not mean that the bread and wine are barely and simply signes of Christs body and bloud but we believe that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are signes that do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to believers for when they do by the mouth of the body receive the bread and wine of â—…he Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by faith receive the body of Christ broken and his bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter Answ. I must confess if we hold to the common usage of words and to their proper signification according to the institution of all authors Mr. de Rodons exposition is unto me both very obscure and repugnant to the expression of all solid divines and Philosophers for first he saies that bread and wine in the Eucharist are not barely and simply signes of Christs body and bloud and he saies presently again that they are signes which do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to believers here me thinks the Mounsieur doth plainly contradict himself for either the bread and wine do exhibite the body and bloud of Christ to the believeâ—… precisely and reduplicatively by reason of their signification or by reason of their natural entitie if by reason of their signification or as they are signes precisely what are they then else but bare and simple signes If by reason of their entity then according to Mr. de Rodons opinion Christs broken body and his spilt bloud are
omnipotent effective word of the infinite Agent who hath an absolute power over all sorts of entities as well material as formal Therefore the material entities of bread and wine being as subject to Christs effective word in order to a substantial conversion as their formal entities are and Transubstantiation being a total conversion of both the material and formal entities of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as the words of consecration do plainly import it follows evidently that although in every simple formal substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substantial form to another yet in Transubstantiation which is not a simple conversion of one substantial form into another but a totall conversion as well of the material entityes of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ as of their formal entityes I say in this extraordinary supernatural and total substantial conversion there need be no subject to pass from one substance or substantial form to another because here the subject it self is as well changed as its substantial form And yet this miraculous conversion cannot be tearmed a creation because it is not productio rei ex nihilo a thing produced of nothing or a sole action that doth not presuppose a subject as the Mounsieur saies right creation is However though the Sacramental species because they are accidents and no accidents can properly be called subjects be not the proper subjects of this conversion yet they are somewhat subject-like for they pass through the whole conversion and exist supernaturally without any subject to prop or sustentate them God miraculously supplying the place of their connatural subjects as he supplies the natural subsistence or personality due to Christs humane nature which if Mr. de Rodon will not believe because he cannot see it with his corporal eyes nor apprehend it with any of his other senses he will be forced besides the three Persons of the B. Trinity to allow also of a humane person in Christ to personate his humane nature which is plain and manifest heresy Now to the Mounsieur again Rodon 5. That doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but substances destroys the nature and essence of Accidents because it is impossible that an accident can be a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but that they are substances which I prove thus That doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not inherent but that they subsist by themselves doth assert that Accidents are not Accidents but that they are substances because inherence is the essential difference of a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not inherent but that they subsist which I prove thus That Doctrine which asserts that Accidents may be without a subject doth assert that Accidents are not inherent in a subject but that they subsist by themselves But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents may be without a subject viz. the Accidents of bread and wine without any substance and without any subject to sustain them For by Transubstantiation the substance of the bread and wine is gone and their Accidents remain Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not inherent but do subsist by themselves and consequently asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but substances and so destroyes the nature and essence of Accidents But here it may be said that actual inherence doth not constitute an Accident but Aptitudinal only Against which I form this Argument Whatsoever doth exist actually either it exists in some thing else actually so that it cannot be without it which Philosophers call actuall inherence as walking or else it exists by it self actually so that it may be alone by it self which Philosophers term actual existence the former of these constitutes an Accident and the later constitutes a substance But the Accidents of the bread and wine after consecration do exist actually therefore they must exist either in something else actually or in themselves actually But they do not exist in and by themselves actually for then they would subsist by themselves and bâ—… real substances which iâ—… impossible therefore they exist in something else actually viz. in the substance of the bread and wine and consequently the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration and so there can be no Transubstantiation Answ. As to this fifth arrow of the Mounsieurs we deny that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Accidents yet we grant it is impossible that an Accident can be a substance we also deny that the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that Accidents are not Accidents but substances And to his Probation viz. that doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not inherent are not Accidents I answer and distinguish this proposition thus That doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not inherent actually nor aptitudinally asserts I consess that Accidents are not Accidents that doctrine that asserts because Accidents are not alwaies actually inherent asserts they are not Accidents I deny And consequently I deny that because the accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist do not inhere actually in their connatural subjects viz. in the entities of bread and wine that therefore they are no accidents And the reason is because it is not actual but Aptitudinal inherence that is essential to accidents which aptitudinal inherence to their natural subjects viz. to the substances of bread and wine we say the Sacramental species have still also after the words of consecration for an aptitudinal inherence consists in a natural sympathy inclination or dependence which the Accident hath to its own natural substance or subject insomuch that iâ—… its subject were reproduced and restored to its former being again the Accident would naturally cleave adhere and result unto his proper subject if God did not supernaturally supply the subjects place as he doth in this misterious converâ—…on just as I said before he supplies Christs humane subsistence or personality in the Mystery of his Incarnation Therefore though the actual inherence of the Sacramental species be hindred and supplied yet they still retain their natural sympathy inclination and propensity to their proper subjects in case they were reproduced in which inclination and propensity the â—…ature of Accidents doth consist and not in their actual inherence And consequently since Transubstantiation destroys not the Aptitudinal inherence of Accidents but only their actual it follows evidently that it leaves them in their essential being which consists in an Aptitudinal inherence only As to his reply concerning aptitudinal inherence viz. that it mâ—…st exist in somthing else actually or else in or by it self I deny that accidents naturally do properly exist but rather coexist with their subjects for existence pertains properly to substances and is called by all Philosophers modus substantialis a substantial mode and takes its seat in the indirect line of the series or Predicament of
substance and it is properly excluded from all the Predicamental Accidents however we own that the Sacramental species do supernaturally exist in and by themselves without any subject at all and yet we deny they are substances therefore because although they exist supernaturally in and by themselves as subjects do exist naturally in and by themselves yet their existences are for unlike for their existence hath a natural inclination and propensity to their proper subjects if they were restored to their being again But substantial existences have no such inclination or propension to any subject so that the Sacramental species although they exist in and by themselves supernaturally and miraculously by the power of God like substances yet they are still essentially Accidents â—…or they retain their aptitudinal inherence and inclination to their proper subjects which aptitudinal inherence substances have not Rodon 7. Every Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in sess â—… and every sign reâ—…ates to the thing signified so that we must speak of signes and Saâ—…raments as of things relating to something else But all Relative things have as it were a double being viz. an absolute being which is the natural being of the thing and a relative being whereby it relates to something else for example in a man that hath begotten a child we consider his absolute and natural being as he is a man as others are and his relative being whereby he is a father and is distinguished from other men that have no children and so are not fathers So in the Sacrament of Bapâ—…ism the signe viz. the water 〈◊〉 an absolute and natural being viz. it s cold and moist substance whereby it is water as other waters are and a relative Sacramental and significative being whereby it is the signe and Sacrament of Christs bloud Even so is the Sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine which are the signes have their natural and â—…blute being viz. their substance whereby they are bread and wine as other bread and wine which we commonly use and their relative Sâ—…cramental and significative being whereby they are the Sacrament and signes of the body and bloud of Christ and differ from all other bread and wine that is not thus imployed To this I add tâ—…at it is impossible a relative being should be without an absolute because a relative cannot be withouâ—… its foundation for example it is impossible to be a father without being a man to be equal without quantitie c. and this being granted I form my Argument thus That which takes away the natural being from signes and Sacraments destroys their naturâ—… and essence because the relative and Sacramental being cannot be without the absolute and natural as hath been proved Bâ—… the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the natural being of the bread and wine which are signes and Sacraments of Christs body and bloud for by Transubstantiation the whole substance of the bread and wine is destroyed Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the nature and essence of Sacraments Answ. All this doctrine viz. as concerning the definition of a Sacrament That it is a relative and that all relatives have a double being and that it is impossible that a relative being should be without an absolute we grant we grant also that the substantial entities of bread and wine which be the subject and foundation whereupon the sacramental species before the words of consecration relied are by the same words of consecration destroyed or rather changed into the body and bloud of Christ and yet we deny that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments And the reason is this because signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament is not destroyed and this signification relies upon the quantitative and qualitative accidents of the former bread and wine which accidents are absolute entities and remain still undestroyed in the Sacramental species miraculously without their natural and proper subjects so that though the absolute accidents of bread and wine viz. their quantitie and quality which are no relatives exist supernaturally and miraculously without any subject yet signification which is the â—…ormal part of the Sacrament and a relative term has something subject-like to rely upon viz. the quantity and quality of the consecrated host which being supplied and maintained by Gods infinite power are stronger props then the bare entities of bread and wine were Neither do we grant unto Mr. de Rodon that to keep up the Analogy signification and likeness betwixt the Sacrament and the thing by it signified corporal nourishment is requisite in the Sacramental species for this Analogy is evidently saved and seen in the meer Accidents of bread and wine for it is they that signify spiritual nourishment and not their substances so that whether they nourish the body or no is impertinent to their signification for which they were instituted By this answer the Mounsieurs first reply is also precluded yet for charities sake I answer his argument in form thus That which takes the natural being from signes and Sacraments destroys their nature and essence I distinguish this Major if it takes away their formal being and supplies not their material and fundamental with another as good or better I confess the major if it takes away their material being only and leaves the formal supplying it with another as it were materal being as good or better I deny the Major and in the same sense I distinguish the Minor and deny the consequence This may be exemplified in a house or any other such like thing for who can say that a house is destroyed while it keeps its form and shape is it because forsooth its first foundation which was but a mudd-wall was destroyed if another better of brick or free-â—…tâ—…ne be set under it to supply the muddwalls place no man I am sure will say so Even so â—…is in our case here for the entities of bread and wine which did sustentate the significative part of nourishment before the words of consecration by vertue of the said words those entities are destroyed But after the words of consecration instead of those substantial entities God with his infinite power supplies their place makes the Sacramental species exist in and by themselves and serve instead of subjects to prop and sustentate signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament Now these spocies upheld and supplied by Gods power and word are firmer props then the entities of bread and wine were and as I said before because their existence hath alwaies a natural inclination and sympathy to their proper subjects it retains alwaies its aptitudinal inherence and consequently is no substance and so because the sacramental species which be the absolute accidents of the bread and wine do sustentate signification which is the formal and relative part of the Sacrament it remains still verified that a relative being is not without an absolute being
with all other Elementary and mixt bodies As to the second all Philosophers agree in this that a thing may be in a place two manner of ways viz. circumscriptively and definitively corporal things circumscriptively and spiritual things as an Angel or mans soul definitively that is to say they are not in every place as God is but in some finite or limited place wherein they operate and yet they are not circumscribed by the place wherein they are because they are no bodies nor have any superfice nor also depend of their places in order to their conservation as corporal things do Besides these two manner of ways of being in a place which all Philosophers own the divines hold of a third way viz. to be Sacramentally in a place from whence we have from both divines Philosophers that a thing may be in a place 3 manner of ways viz. circumscriptively definitively sacramentally what is in a place circumscriptively is properly in its place because the superfice of the place touches surrounds the superfice of the body which it contains so the hollow superfice of the vessel touches and surrounds the water which is within the vessel What is in a place definitively or Sacramentally is not properly in any place because the superfice of the place and of the thing contained touch not one another immediatly as all proper places ought to touch immediatly all the things properly contained in them for an Angel and a soul have no superfices wherewith to touch the superfices of the place wherein they are contained for they are pure spirits and only corporal things have superfices however they are said to be in a place improperly because they are contained within some limits of bounds where they operate or else they would be in all places as God is like unto corporal things which are contained strictly within the immediat limits of their proper places yet with this distinction still that spiritual things never touch the superfice of their proper places and consequently are not circumscribed by them as corporal things touch and are circumscribed by their proper places All proper places are called by divines and Philosophers univocal or circumscriptive Places and all improper places they call Equivocal places such as are definitive and sacramental oneâ—… for properly and in rigour they are no places at all because the definition of a proper place agree not with them for want of a superficial manner of containing the things that are said to be within them This received doctrine of all divines and Philosophers presupposed I answer the Mounsieurs major with this distinction the body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the host circumscriptively as into its proper and univocal place I confess the major sacramentally as into its equivocal place I deny the major Therefore I say that Christs body is really in the host but not as in any proper place for to be in an equivocal place is as much in a manner as to say in no place at all and certain it is that an equivocal place is no more a proper place then an equivocal or painted man is a proper and reall man so that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the body and bloud of Christ without any circumscriptive motion or bringing it circumscriptively from one proper place to another as our circumscriptive bodies move from one place to another but by vertue of the effective words of consecration and omnipotent power of God his substance succeeds the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated host without any proper local motion for he is there by reason of his substance and substances are incapable of any proper motion and although his quantity be where his substance is by concomitance yet it is not there with its quantitative dimensions for these are hindred in the Sacrament as I sayd before the heat of the Babilonian fire or surnace was hindred supernaturally and being Christs body is in the host as we say by reason of its substance it is in it in one respect like as our souls are in our bodies that is to say totus in toto totus in qualibet parte all Christ in the whole host and all Christ in every point and particle of the host as all Philosophers say the whole soul is in the whole body and the whole soul in every part and point of the body yet the manner of Christs body being in the host differs from the manner of the souls being in the body in this viz. that the soul is in the body but as in one definitive or limited improper place but Christs body is in the Sacrament as in its improper place not definitively or limited to one host as the soul is to one body but Sacramentally that is to say in all places where the words of consecration are uttered upon the bread and wine and this Sacramental existence Christs body hath by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity which is in all places and yet the Sacramental ubication or existence differs from the the divine general ubication in this that the Sacramental ubication is but where the words of consecration are uttered and the general divine ubication is in all places for without it the creatures would desist to be But here the Mounsieur may object that there is a great difference betwixt Christs body and an Angel or mans soul for an Angel and a soul are pure spirits and therefore be not capable of an univocal place but only of an equivocal one But Christs body is a true real body and therefore it can have but an univocal circumscriptive place To this I answer and confess that Christs body is a true real body no spirit yet I deny but that it may have an equivocal place in the host because it is now a glorified body and as it were spiritualized with spiritual qualities which redound into it from his glorified soul which spiritual qualities the Divines call dotes corporis gloriosi the dowries of a glorified body as are subtility impassibilitie Agility and clarity By reason of the all manner of subjection a glorified body hath to its soul in so far that it neither cloggs nor burthens her as our lumpish bodies do our souls here the body may move in an instant by the instantanean motion of its soul or of her minde and by reason of the Hypostatical union betwixt the divinity and soul of Christ and of his glorified body it may accompany them into ten million of equivocal places at once according to the Apostles saying 1. Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body it shall rise a spiritual body that is to say a real body endowed with spiritual qualities such as those of the soul are not with a spiritual entity or substance because the substance of a spirit and the substance of a body are two different entities essentially differing the one from the other so that if Christs body
which are of themselves adorable do not oblige us to exteriour worship in the water of Baptism why should the Manhood of Iesus Christ which is not of it self adorable oblige us to external adoration though it were in the host it being there only as they say invisibly In a word they must shew the disparitie and tell us the reason why we are not obliged to adore Iesus Christ with external worship in the water of Baptism though he be really there present in respect of all that which is adorable in him viz. in respect of his Godhead his divine Person and his divine Attributes and yet we are obliged to worship Iesus Christ in the host with an external worship though nothing renders him more adorable there then in the water of Baptism Answ. Mr. de Rodon you are so far from having proved what you said in your first Proposition that I have produced in answer to your weak proofs there not only solid reasons but also many evident texts of scripture to the contrary which undermines the whole structure or foundation you build upon And in my answer to your second Proposition I likewise by shewing the disparity of Christs being in the Sacrament and in the water of Baptism viz. that he is in the water of Baptism only with a common general presence as he is in all creatures but he is in the Sacrament with a particular and proper personal presence I have I say broken your second ground so that this third argument or Proposition of yours is built only upon Quicksands therefore I leâ—… any rational man iudge how firmly it can stand But you say that his Manhood which is pretended to be there invisibly is not there sensibly present What then doth your consequence therefore follow I deny that for it is sufficient we believe it is there the eye of our understanding supported by divine saith being a surer ground and foundation to rely on then the fickle weak testimony of our carnal eye though holpen also by one of Mr. de Rodons rayes or beams which may prove diabolical Illusions especially concerning an object of so high a nature as this is of Therefore though the learned Jesuit S. Rigants answers to your arguments and replies be in themselves true sound and orthodox yet we want them not here for you lost your self quite in choosing your ground which is no better as I tould you then quicksand as any body of understanding may easily see and for that cause leaving your frivolous and impertinent replyes against the Jesuits answers I come to your additionate Proposition which in your own opinion is very considerable but in mine not worth a rush as I hope here to demonstrate But first we must hear it out Rodon 4. To the three fore-going Propositions I add this Argument which is very considerable In lawful adoration it is requisite that â—…e that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God else he may be justly reproched as Iesus Christ reproched the woman of Samaria Ye worship ye know not what But the Romanists can never be assured according to their own maximes that the host which they worship is the true God and they have alwayes cause to suspect that they worship a morsel of bread instead of the Redeemer of the world because according to their own doctrine the real presence of Christs body in the host depends on lawful consecration and lawful consecration depends on the quality of the Priest and on the pronouncing of the words of consecration and on his intention in pronouncing them for there is no consecration they say when either he that celebrates Mass is no Priest or doth not pronounce the words that are essentially requisite to consecration viz. this is my body or doth not pronounce them with intention to conscerate And consequently in these cases the host remains meer bread But it is impossible certainly to know these three things for as for the quality of the Priest he must have been Baptized and he that baptised him must have observed the essential form of Baptism and have had intention to baptise him Again he must have received ordination from a true Bishop and the Bishop must have observed the true form of Ordination and have had intention to make him a Priest and to make this Bishop a true Bishop he must have been baptised in due form and with the requisit intention and must have received Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other Bishops and they again for the making them true Bishops must have received also Baptism and ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other true Bishops and these from others and so back to the Apostles But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now adays there hath been no fayling either in the essential form of Baptism or Ordination or in the requisite intention As for the pronouncing the words requisit to consecration none but the Priest can know whether he pronounceth them or not because in the celebration of the Mass those words are pronounced so softly that no person present can hear them And as for the intention it is evident that no man but himself can know it Besides it is known that some Priests are Magicians as Lewis Gossredi and some other wicked Priests who do neither consecrate in due form nor with the requisite intention especially such as believe nothing of what they profess yea diverse Monks and Priests that have been converted to our Religion have assured us that for a long time before their conversion they did abhor the Idolatry that was practised in the adoration of the host Iudge then if such persons as those had any intention to consecrate in the celebration of the Mass. Answ. In Mr. de Rodons opinion and I believe in his translators too this is a very considerable argument But in my opinion and I think in the opinion of any learned or understanding Christian Reader it will prove to be not only inconsiderable and of no value but also pernicious to all mankind for it everts all laws both divine and humane and destroys Christian society which I prove thus If this argument were of any force or worth no Christian could know himself to be a Christian no man could know any other man to be a man the father should not know his son nor the mother her child and we should be in as bad a condition after the Evangelical law as the heathens Turks and Jews are But all this is absurd and destructive not only to Christian society but also to human kind and to the divine law The major as to its first part viz. that no body could know himself or any body else to be a Christian is evident and clear for no body according to the Mounsieurs assertion can tell whether he be Baptized or no and Baptism is the only thing that makes a man a
do them any harm nor his arrows able to transfix them But now I hope he will come better provided with his new ones against Diana Behold he comes Rodon 2. The first argument is drawn from this viz. that in the Institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Iesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle S. Paul in which there is not the least footstep to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap 27. in these words the oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not of its essence which I prove because neither our Iod nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Iesuit Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul makes a Catalogue of unritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy The worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the Tradition that Iesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and wine Card. Baronius in his Annalls on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Trâ—…dition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Iesus Christ. And the truth is if Iesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offored unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross. To this I add that S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. mentions the offices which Iesus Christ left in his Church when he ascended into heaven in these words he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1. Tim. nor in the Epictle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud Answ. But I pray good Mr. de Rodon wherefore do you not produce some Passage out of the three Evangelists or S. Paul to prove your assertion for according to all Philosophers and I believe you esteem not your self amongst the meanest of them arguments that only consist of negatives do never conclude or prove any thing you say it appears by what is mentioned by the three Evangelists and S. Paul that Christ at the Institution of the Eucharist did not sacrifice or offer his body and bloud to his father you tell us not in which of the Evangelists or wherein S. Paul and we finde no such thing in them But we finde these express words in S. Luke 22. Chap. and taking bread he gave thanks and broke and gave to them saying this is my body which is given for you If these last words viz. which is given for you signifie not to be offered or sacrificed for you I pray tell us what else do they signifie for the Evangelist said before that the bread was given them and immediatly after in the same sentence he adds which was given for you Sure if these last words signifie not which was offered or sacrificed for you they must needs be nonsensical and a vain Battalogical repetition of the same words for the sense would be this and gave to them his body which is given for them Therefore these words which is given for them is as much as to say which is offered or sacrificed for them And yet the Mounsieur is not ashamed to say that there is not the least foot-step of a sacrifice to be seen in what was mentioned by any of the three Evangelists But perhaps S. Luke was not of the three he meant whether he was or no it is certain that in this very Passage he left us a true and plain track of Christs unbloudy sacrifice But I cannot conceive nor understand how Mr. de Rodon or his Translatour too is able to save him from the infamous brand of heresy for obstinately denying what so many general Councils holy fathers do unanimously assert an Heretick as he is distingushed from a Turk Jew or Pagan is thus described viz one that professes to believe in Christ and yet dissents in opinion from the rest of the orthodox obstinately But now let us see how the Mounsieur agrees with the whole Church as to this point first with the great and most eminent doctor S. Aug who in his 20th Book de civit Dei speaking of Christ who saith thus per hoc sacerdos est ipse offerens oblatio cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae sacrificium cum ipsius corporis ipse caput ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri By this meaning the Eucharist he himself is both the Priest offering and the oblation the signe or Sacrament whereof he would have the dayly sacrifice of the Church to be for whereas he is the head of his Mystical body and she is the body of her Mystical head she was as well wont to be offered by him as he by her and again lib. 17. de civit c. 20. the table which the Priests of the new-Testament doth exhibit is of his body and bloud for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all those sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come for the which also we acknowledg that voice of the same Mediatour in the Psalm But a body thou hast fitted to me because instead of all these sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and is ministred to the partakers or receivers With S. Cyprian more ancient then the former and in learning inferiour to none who in his 2. Epistle to Pope Cornelius hath these words Sacerdotes qui quotidie Sacrificia dei celebramus hostias Deo victimas praeparemus We priests who dayly celebrate the sacrifices of God let us prepare hosts and victimes for him with S. Ambrose in cap. 10. hebreor Quid ergo nos c. What we then do not we offer every day we offer surely but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer allwaies the selfsame and not now one lamb to morrow another but alwaies the self-same thing therefore it is one Sacrifice otherwise by this reason because it is offered in many places there should be many Christs not so but it is one Christ in every place here whole and there
Iesus Christ may be said to be visible by his own accidents but not by the accidents of bread which are just alike both in the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts And 't is a ridiculous shift to say that Christs body is visible under the species of the bread because that species is visible for as we cannot see wine that is in a hogshead because we see the hogshead and we cannot see money that is in a Purse closed because we see the purse so neither can we see the body under the species of bread because we see the species â—…for as our adversaries say that species hinders us from seeing 〈◊〉 5. Secondly he says that by the sacramental being is understood only an accidental being of Iesus Christ for example his presence in the Sacrament or else besides that is understood his substantial being too If his substantial being be also understood seeing the substantial being of a thing is nothing else but its substance and nature then it will follow that if Iesus Christ be destroyed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in respect of his substantial being he must also be destroyed in respect of his natural being which is contrary to what the Apostle saith Rom. 6. Jesus Christ dyeth no more If an accidental being of Iesus Christ be only understood for example his presence in the Sacrament then these absurâ—…ityes will follow viz. First that the sacrifice of the Mass will be the sacrifice of an accident only and not of Iesus Christ because the Presence of Iesus Christ is not Iesus Christ himself but an accident of him Secondly it will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross will not be the same sacrifice in reference to the thing sacrificed because Iesus Christ and his presence are not the same thing Iesus Christ being a substance and his presence an accident which is contrary to the decision of the Council of Trent which hath determined that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same in reference to the thing sacrificed Thirdly it will follow that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrament is not the same with that which was produced there because there is only an accident destroyed whereas a substance was produced by Transubstantiation which is a substantial conversion as hath been sufficiently proved Fourthly it will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered in the Priests stomach only because this presence is not destroyed till the Priest hath eaten the host and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered after the Mass for this presence is only destroyed by the destruction of the accidents and commonly these accidents are not destroyed till after Mass is said Fifthly it will follow that the Iustice of God will cease to be the same for whereas heretofore it could not be satisfied but by the death of Christ and by the destruction of his natural being now God is appeased our sinns expiated and Gods Iustice satisfied by the destruction of his Sacramental being only for they will have it that the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead Answ. It is far more ridiculous and nonsensical good Mounsieur to measure objects of divine faith with our corporal senses whereas it is impossible that any such object can fall under them Therefore it is enough that a man hath a certain and sure knowledg by belief grounded upon Christs attestation of his personal presence in the Eucharist and a visible sensible certainty of the Sacramental species wherein he is contained this is I say enough to offer it as a true sacrifice for this intelligible and credible certainty relying upon Christs true and effective word is a far more firm and sure knowledge then any visible or sensible knowledge is and where this intelligible and true credible sight is the visible and sensible knowledge is quite unnecessary If Christ should reveal unto the Mounsieur the wine that is in the hogshead or the money that is in the closed purse would he not believe him and be certain of their being there unless he saw the wine and the money with his eyes he may choose but I am sure I would believe him and so ought every other Christian to do as well as if he saw these things with his eyes So Christ said to bread this is my body wherefore then should I not believe and be as certain it is so as if I had seen him in his humane shape with my eyes Now then being I certainly believe the thing is as he said it is and having a visible knowledge of the Sacramental species wherein he says he is really present wherefore by reason of this visible sight of the accidents or species and of the intelligible or credible certainty of the object or thing which I believe is in the species wherefore I say may not this be called and offered up to God as a true and rigorous sacrifice being there is nothing in the definition of a rigorous sacrifice which is not found here That a substance cannot be visible or known to be in a place but by its own accidents I grant is true naturally speaking But it implies not that a substance may be known to be in a place supernaturally by the accidents of another substance and so 't is in our case for Christ with his omnipotent effective word supplies the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament and makes them exist in and by themselves without their connatural subjects or any subject at all and so the accidents of the bread and wine which remain supernaturally undestroyed in the Sacrament signify and give us a certain knowledg of Christs real and personal presence there without signifiing after the words of consecration the entities of the bread and wine Thus we answer his first reply To his second reply I answer that the Sacramental being of Christ is no accidental but a substantial being for though his Sacramental ubication be a predicable accident yet it is no Predicamental accident and consequently belongs not to any of the nine series or categories of the Accidental Predicaments And the reason is because his body is not circumscriptively there in its univocal place and all Predicamental ubications or presences do result from an univocal place and not from a Sacramental one that Christs ubication or presence in the Sacrament is a Predicable accident hinders not its being a substantial mode or manner of presence for subsistence and existence are predicable accidents also and but accidentally predicated or said of their first substances or essences and yet there is no good Philosopher breathing will say that subsistence or existence are essentially accidents or do belong to any of the nine Cathegories of Accidents but they all hold that they are substantial modes and they all place them in the indirect line of the Predicament of substance Therefore I answer his second reply in
appear thus Rodon In every true sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was before as Bellarmine saith in express terms in the place above-cited But in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass Christs body and bloud are not destroyed for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass the body and bloud of Christ are not the thing sacrificed Answ. In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was bofore If by ceasing to be what it was before he intends ceasing to be in the manner as it was before I confess the major If by ceasing to be c. he intends ceasing to be the entitie or same thing it was before I deny the major And Bellarmins words in the place alledged do express no more for these be his words in the same place And destroies something that is sensible and permanent for by the word something a mode or manner may be as well understood as an entitie or nature and so we say it is in the Sacrament we say that the sensible accidents of bread and wine with the substantial sacramental Presence of Christs body and bloud which is the only thing produced by the words of consecration are destroyed But we say not that the entitie of Christs body and bloud which is rather adduced then produced in the Sacrament or that his body and bloud in their proper shape are destroyed in the Sacrament because the words of consecration doth not put them so into it And so both Mr. de Rodons huge Milstones with all their following absurdities are quite shattered and split Now then to his third Principal Argument drawn from the Apostles words Hebr. 9 which is this Rodon Hebr. 9. the Apostle saies Allmost all things are by the law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission it was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these from which words I form this argument There is no propitiation or remission of sinns without shedding of bloud as the Apostle saith But in the Mass there is no shedding of bloud for it is called an unbloudy sacrifice Therefore in the Mass there is no propitiation or remission of sins and consequently no propitiatory sacrifice This argument may be thus confirmed under the old Testament there was no propitiation or purification without shedding of bloud and the types of heavenly things were so purified as the Apostle saith Heb. 9. Therefore under the new Testament also there can be no propitiation or purification without shedding hf bloud and heavenly things being represented by the legal Types must be purified by a more excellent sacrifice viz. by the shedding of Christs bloud And although the Apostle useth the word sacrifices in the plural number yet we must understand the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross because when one thing is opposed to many it is often expressed in the plural number as whem Baptism which is but one is called Baptismes Heb. 6. 2. But the only sacrifice of the Cross of Christ in the text above-cited Heb. 9. 23. is opposed to the old sacrifices which were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Cross. Answ. I grant that unless Christ had shed his bloud for us there had been no propitation or remission of sins and consequently that there was no expiation or remission of sinns in any types or sacrifices of the old law but only in relation and reference to Christs bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross which is all the Apostle meant in the forementioned Passage But all this concerns not the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass at all which is not a bare type or shadow of Christs bloudy sacrifice as all the sacrifices of the old Law were and no more for the sacrifice of the Mass is not only an immediate type of that of the Cross but also a proper Idea memorial nay as the holy fathers say the self-same sacrifice of the Cross reiterated after another manner viz. unbloudily because it is not convenient that Christs body being now glorious and impassible should suffer again and by reason it is a perpetual memorial or repetition of the bloudy sacrifice it hath a reference or relation to it from whence followeth evidently that because it is the self-same sacrifice essentially with that of the Cross and it hath an immediate relation to it and remembrance of it It followeth I say evidently that it is propitiatory for the living and the dead as that of the Cross is for if it be the same body and bloud that is now offered and was offered upon the Cross as Christ himself says t is his body and the fathers of the Church say it is the same sacrifice with that of the Cross it imports not at all as to the essence of the sacrifice whether it be offered bloudily or unbloudily because to be bloudy or unbloudy is not essential to a sacrifice there being some sacrifices offered in the old Law whereof some were bloudy and other strict sacrifices also offered which had no bloud in them Therefore to make the Mass a proper and strict sacrifice it is sufficient that in the Mass there be sensible symbols viz. the accidents of bread and wine containing Christs body and bloud really personally and â—…bstantially present and that at the destruction of these symbols or signes Christs body ceaseth to be substantially and personally present there any more though he ceaseth not because of the destruction of the species to be absolutely and in his humane shape in heaven Finally I say that God the father knows and accepts of the sacrifice of his sons body offered unto him by us for our sinns as our Mediatour whether the said body be offered to him bloudily or uubloudily Rodon The Apostle Heb. 10. 16. saith this is the Covenant which I will make with them after these days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their harts and in their minds will I write them and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin whence I form this argument where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle faith But in the Christian Church by vertue of the new Testament or new Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ there is remission of sins Heb. 10. 16. 17. Therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an obligation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Answ. Mr. de Rodon the better to draw his argument out of Scripture salsifies the text in two places for where the text says This is
and a Metaphor for God being a spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of heaven and earth which he hath received from God his father as Earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again when it is said S. Math. 16. upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest thâ—…t these are figures and Metaphors as Bellarmine confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is chiefly by this Passage that they endeavour to prove the Popes authority Answ. If this be our weapon or objection I pray Mounsieur give us leave to handle and order it our selves and then the standers by or arbiters may judge whether we thrust or push home with it or no for as you handle it it is to blunt too pearce through Therefore instead of saying when the establishing of Articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments c. men speake plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively give us leave to say men ought as well as they can and as farr as the subject they treat of bears it to speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively and then perhaps our weapon may do some execution As for example at the Institution of this Sacrament Christ first took bread in his hand and said plainly without any figure this is my body and left it as a Testament with us so wee take it and believe it to be Afterwards he took wine in a cup saying This is the Chalice of my bloud Certainly if the consectated bread be his real body the consecrated wine must needs be his real bloud because as we suppose the words of consecration were uttered upon both in the same sense and meaning Notwithstanding the words spoken of the bread were spoken plainly and not figuratively but the words spoken of the wine were figurative why because he took not the wine immediatly in his hand as he took the bread but he took it in a cup or chalice and therefore to express the Testament of the bloud it was necessary he should speak figuratively and yet he exprest himself as plainly as could be But in the Testament of his body where there was no need of a Metonynâ—…e or figure he exprest himself plainly and down right from whence follows that Sacraments Testaments and covenants ought to be made as plainly clearly and in as proper terms as their subjects will permit them to be exprest Sometimes also a thing is better exprest when one speaks figuratively then by the proper literal Phrase for example when I say such a man is a Lyon a Tygar or a Nero. Such an expression is as plain and yet better and more energical to shew and express strength cruelty or tyrannie then if one should say such a man is mighty strong very cruel and tyrannical So was oâ—…r Saviours expression of S. Peter Math. 16. where he calls him a rock because the word rock is more significative and energical to shew the stability and firmness of Peter and his successours spiritual power then if he had exprest himself in plain terms thou art the head or chief Ruler of my Church And yet I eonfess that Rock there has but a figurative sense Therefore I say that when we have not a proper word to expresse a thing or when we cannot expresse it so well with its proper term as we can with a figure then it is lawful in Sacraments Testaments and covenants to use figurative expressions instead of plain and litteral ones But in our present question or dispute concerning the Eucharist especially concerning the consecration of the Bread there is no need of any figure either for to signify the thing consecrated or to express it with more energy Therefore being 't is left us for a Testament of the new Law we ought to take the words in their plain and litteral meaning without having recourse to any needless figurative glossation or sense Therefore although as Mr. de Rodon handles this weapon or objection it be false that Articles of faith Testaments and covenants are always exprest in proper terms in holy scripture which word Always he has in his answer though he puts it not in the objection yet as I handle it that is thus when the establishing of Articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments c. Men ought as well as they can and as farr as the subject they treat of â—…ears it and when there is no necessity to the contrary in making Testaments covenaâ—…ts or Articles of faith to speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuratively In this sense I deny our major Proposition to be always or ever â—…lse And being the minor is evident clear aâ—…d uncontroâ—… led by Mr. de Rodon with my good leave I let the consequence follow Rodon 4. Secondly I answer that the holy scripture commonly speaks of Sacraments in figurative terms Thus Circumcision is called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. in these words This is my Covenant every male shall be circumcised that is this is the signe of the Covenâ—…nt as appears by the following verse ye â—…hall circumcise the fleâ—… of your fore-skin and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you So the Paschal lamb is called the Lords Passover Exod. 12. because the bloud of this lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was given as a signe of the Angels favorable passing over the houses of the Israelites â—…s appears by vers 13. of the same chapter So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it is the Sacrament of it In a word the Eucharistical cup is called the New Testament because it is the signe seal and Sacrament of it Answ. Really Mounsieur these wily sophistical excuses or answers will not serve your turn for we grant that Circumcision the Passover and all the rest of the Sacraments of the old Law were but meer speculative signes and tokens of what they signified and that they had no practical or operative vertue in them of themselves to sanctify or give grace to those that received them and God gave grace to the receivers of the old Sacraments only by compact viz. he promised Grace to such as received those Sacraments or signes he then gave them for their distinguishment from the unsaithfull not that those signes or Sacraments contained actually or practically any grace in themselves or that they were immediate instrumental causes of Grace as the Sacraments of the new Law are for the former Sacraments were as divines call them but vasa vacua empty vessels and the new ones are vasa plaena full vessels dipt in his Passion and
deny Mounsieur but that a man may sometimes better and more significantly express his minde with figurative words then with plain and clear words and therefore I say that figures may be used in Testaments and Covenants when there is need of them to express a thing with more energy or when one hath not proper words to serve his turn however figurative words are never as plain and clear as proper words are for a figurative expression although it may be more significative then a natural expression is yet in comparison to the natural and proper one it is essentially obscure because obscurity is essentiall to every figure Trope and therefore where there is no need especially in Testaments and Sacraments as there is no need of any figure or figurative sense in these words this is my body they ought not be used That Christ spoke to his disciples in Parables and figures in the passages mentioned by Mr. de Rodon what 's that to our purpose at the uttering of these Parables was he instituting Sacraments or making of Testaments our objection speaks of the establishing of articles of faith of the institution of Sacraments makâ—…ng of Testaments and covenants and not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…ords sermons speeches and Parables to his disciples and to the vulgar people for we deny not but that our Lord spoke very often figuratively and parabolically to the people But we deny that when he instituted any of his Sacraments and especially the Eucharist he spoke figuratively or parabolically the matters and forms of all the Sacraments of the new Law have no figures in them the water of Baptism is no figure of water but natural water and these words I Baptize or wash thee in the name of the father son and holy Ghost amen are no figurative words No more is the oyl of confirmation a figurative but a real oyl and the form or words spoken by a Bishop viz. I signe thee with the signe of the cross and confirm thee with the crisme of salvation in the name of the father c. are no figurative or typical words no more are the man and woman that marry figurative but real persons nor their words of contract figurative but plain and proper words viz. I take thee to my wiâ—…e I take thee to my husband And so forth of all the rest of Christs Sacraments Even so I say of the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the bread and wine whereof 't is made are no figures or signes of bread and wine and the words of consecration which are the formal part of this Sacrament are not figurative but plain words so that although every Sacrament of the new Law doth signifie something that is Mystical yet the essence of the Sacramants doth not only consist in the meer signification of the Mystery it signifies but in its own plain matter and form also which form always consignifies something mystical and consequently the stile used in the Sacraments of the new Law is not figurative but rather proper and plain To what he adds I answer that it is pitty the Mounsieur was not with the Apostles when they askâ—… Jesus Christ the meaning of Parables and other things which they did not understand I say 't is pitty he was not with them to help them out concerning this question for when the Jewes askt him Quomodo potest hic carnem suam dare ad manducandum how can this man give his flesh to he eaten and they received no other Answer but this Amen I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you the Apostles who heard this answer replyed no more but humbly submitted and believed Christs words But if Mr. de Rodon had been by this answer belike would not have satisfied him he would argue the case with Jesus Christ more profoundly according to his Principles of Philosophy he would pose him and pose him again even until he sackt him if he could to fetch out how he could Transubstantiate bread and wine into his body and bloud or else he would not believe him So may he also misbelieve that Christ revived Lazarus until he shewes him the manner how he did it for it seems the Mounsieur allowes of no supernatural power in Christ for if he did he would never so often repeat these frivolous questions viz. how a human body can be in a point and in divers places at once how the head of Jesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth c. Rodon 7. Lastly since Iesus Christ said drink ye all of this Cup all Priests whether Iesuits Monks or other Romish doctors would of necessity be constrained really properly and without a figure to drink of the Cup whether melted or not and really to swallow it untill they should confess that there are figures in the words of Iesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist Answ. No such constraint good Sir for the Romish doctors do allow that there is a figure in the word Cup but they allow not of any figure in the consecrated wine which is in the Cup Neither do they hold that the Cup is the Testament but the consecrated wine which is in the Cup. Therefore I pray give them leave to drink the consecrated wine which is their Testament and has no figure in it and since you are so great a lover of figures drink you the Cup molten or unmoulten if you can Objection 2. Romanists 8. The second objection is this The Sacrament of the Eucharist is more excellent then that of the Passeover because the Sacrament of the Passeover is a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the thing typified is always more excellent then the type But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not realy contain the body and bloud of Christ but was only the signe of it then it would follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not be more excellent then that of the Passeover nay the Sacrament of the Passeover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist because a lamb and its bloud is more excellent then Bread and wine and the death of a lamb and the shedding of his bloud doth much better represent the death of Christ and the shedding of his bloud on the Cross then bread broken and wine powred into a cup can do Answer Rodon 9. To this I answer first that the thing typified by the Paschat lamb is Iesus Christ and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as S. Paul shews clearly 1. Cor. 5. when he calls Iesus Christ our Passeover in these words Christ our Passeover was crucified for us The truth is a whole lamb without spot or blemish killed and burnt towards the Evening and its bloud shed doth very well represent Iesus Christ perfect without sin put to death and his bloud shed toward the end of the world and in the fulness of time but such a lamb
knowledge of things to come and we are more toucht with the memory of things past when some symbol brings them to our thoughts then when we consider things to come through clowds and shaddows To this I add that the bread and wine of the Eucharist have a greater Analogie with Iesus Christ then the Paschal lamb had in one respect viz. in regard of the spiritual nourishment which we receive by Christs death for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment But this nourishment is much better represented by bread and wine which are the ordinary nourishment of our bodies then by a lamb Answ. All that Mr. de Rodon says in this second answer strengthens and confirms our major above but it strikes at our minor viz. But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not really contain the body and bloud of Christ but was only the signe of it then it would follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not be more excellent then that of the Passeover nay that of the Passeover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist c. That the excellence of one Sacrament a bove another must be drawn from its form and efficacy and not from its matter because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form as Sacraments are this doctrine I confess is very good and true and that the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist dependeth on the Institution of Christs words is also very certain and true But by what words forsooth did Christ institute this Sacrament doubtlesse by no other but these viz. this is my body this is my bloud and immediately after consecrating he said as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me Now if you take away the first and immediate signification of the words of consecration which is that it is his body and bloud I ask Mr. de Rodon how bread and wine can signifie the body and bloud of Christ after the words of consecration more then they did before or if Christs body be not really there how can bread and wine be the signes of his body and bloud because they were consecrated more then if they were not consecrated at all and to use the Mounsieurs one phrase we cannot see or discern with our eyes any greater signs of Christs body and bloud in the consecrated bread and wine more then we do see in the unconsecrated I confess indeed that these words as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me do signifie Christs bloudy Passion But what that this is unlesse it be Christs body for he said immediately before this is my body I cannot understand for if by the word this Christ had meant the remembrance or signe of his body and not his real body then the sense of his words would be this as often as you do the remembrance of my body do it in remembrance of me which as any body may see is a perfect Batalogy or senselesse repetition of the self-same thing But sure it is and according to Mr. de Rodons own concession that the Paschal lamb has a nobler natural entity because of its life then bread and wine have and that his bloud has a greater Analogy with Christ and his bloud shed on the Crosse then they have Therefore not only according to the material entity which is the matter but also according to the representative or significative entity which is the formal part of the Sacrament if Christs body be not there really present the Passeover is a more excellent signe or Sacrament of Christs bloudy Passion then the Eucharist is which is a great absurdity if not rather Blasphemy we say to assert To this I add that whereas according to M. de Rodons own saying it is an impertinency to make a Type of a Type it follows that the Paschal lamb signifies the thing typified viz. Christs bloudy sacrifice better then the Eucharist doth if you take away the body of Christ from the Sacrament or cut off the immediate signification of these words This is my body upon which words the signification of the Eucharist do wholy depend Rodon Lastly I answer that it is far lesâ—… inconvenient to give some prerogative to the Passeover above the Eucharist viz. to give it a more excellent matter and Anology then to assert the corporal Presence of Christ in the host by an unheard of Transubstantiation which destroys the nature of Sacraments gives our Lord a monstrous body includes notorious absurdities and contradictions and gives the lye to sense Reason and holy Scripture as hath been proved Answ. This last answer of de Rodon is not only absurd but also impious and Blasphemous for it makes the Sacraments of the old Law to be better and more perfect then those of the new which is a great derogation to Christs infinite wisdom that he should institute Sacraments for all the Sacraments of the new Law are instituted by him of lesser worth and likenesse then those were which were used before his Incarnation It puts the Law of Grace beneath the Law of Moses It makes Christs words Institutions and Instruments of our Redemption which be his Sacraments imperfect and vain if the Sacraments of the old Law be worthier and more significative then his are and consequently it lessens the price of our redemption which is Symbolized perfectly in his Sacraments finally according to this rate we had better fall to circumcising our selves become Jews and forsake Baptism and consequently our Christianity for if the Passeover may without offence excell the Eucharist in matter and Analogy or signification why may not circumcision also excell Baptism away away then with this blasphemous lyar who vainly and falsly boasts of his non-sensical proofs that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments gives our Lord a monstrous new body includs notorious absurdities and contradictions c. for all his silly proofs are already destroied shattered quasht by me in their due places This is Reader that malepart Civilian I told you of a little before who so well deserved his fee and I doubt not but he received it by this time Objection 3. Romanists 11. The third Objection was proposed at Nismes Anno 1657. by the Iesuitâ—… S. Rigaut thus God doth communicate or can communicate to the creature in a finite degree that which he possesseth in an infinite degree for example God hath an infinite power whereby â—…e can do all things at once as appears in a man for he can see hear talk and walk at the same time God hath also an infinite wisedom and knowledge whereby he knows all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite knowledge whereby it may know diverse things at once And even so God hath a virtual infinite extent which is called Immensity whereby he sills all things and all places at once
service for you contradict his word his plain express word is that Bread and wine after the words of consecration are converted into his real body and bloud for his express words upon the bread and wine he took in his hand be these this is my body this is my bloud And you say no it is not his body but the signe or Sacrament of his body only and you have no more reason to misbelieve this then you have to misbelieve the Mysteries of his Incarnation and of the Blessed Trinity because his word or Testimony for this is as clear if not clearer then for any of the other two grand Mysteries of our Belief and Gods word or Testimony is the only ground and motive of our faith and as you misbelieve his word in this point so you misbelieve his Church in many things more notwithstanding his express word commands you the contrary as in S. Math. 18. he bids you hear the Church And in S. Luke the 10th speaking to his Church representative he sayes he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me a lesson which every good Christian ought to heed very well It is also one of the Articles of our Creed to believe in the Catholick Church In a word because you believe not him nor obey his Church your preaching the Gospel and your unchristian Religion whereof you so much boast and wherein as in your selves be many failings and absurdities are very far from being pure and clean and consequently the sacrifices you here mention though as they are offered by the orthodox people while they are in the state of grace be pure and acceptable to God yet your schismatical or rather heretical sacrifices are neither pure nor pleasing to him for you like rotten or withered branches are excommunicated and quite cut off from his Church and so will still remain until you be reconciled unto her according to Christs command That your doctrine and preaching and consequently your sacrifice and service to God are not clean and pure but rather putrid and stinking appears manifestly by these your own words which be these And although the faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed with many infirmities and that their Religious actions be accompanied with divers failings yet their persons and works may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy before God for it is these S. Peter speaks of in Ep. 1. c. 2. who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And so you say your sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Jesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holyness so that the defects of them are not imputed to you This I say is very impure and stinking doctrine for it contradicts Gods word who Proverb 15. sayes the victims of the impious are abominable to our Lord. God is no acceptor of persons if a drunkard a whoremaster a murderer or a thief offer him never so many sacrifices while he is out of the state of Grace although he offers them in Christs name they are not pleasing or acceptable to God but rather odious and abhominable and much less are the sacrifices of disobedient and stubborn heretical spirits pleasing unto him for Obedience is with him better then victims and consequently to be obedient to his Church is more acceptable unto him then any victims or sacrifices we can offer him in whose name soever Therefore until Mr. de Rodon can prove that his is the only universal Church of Ood which he will never be able to accomplish he ought not to brag or boast of his sacrifices for all the sacrifices that are offered to God out of his Church as the Jewes offer him sacrifices too are odious and abhominable unto him Certain then it is Mr. de Rodon that you nor any of your party are those persons the Apostle meant in the fore-alledged passage and certain also it is that Christ never covers or hides your or any bodies else his nasty sins and abominable sacrifices which be always more loathsom to him then any cloose-stool or carrion is to us and much less whatever you presume your selves to be are you his members being now as dead branches lopt of from a tree cut off from his Mistical body the Church for no soul can be a living member of Christ before she be renst and washt by vertue of his pretious bloud which boiles in his Sacraments that are the spiritual salves which must be applied unto her to wash and take away all the filth of her sins Then when she is throughly cleansed and purged from sin Christ enters and inhabits her afterwards he beautifies and adorns her with a bright ray of inherent Justice and finally after well seasoning and sweetning her with the fragrant odour of divine Grace he incorporates her unto himself and makes her his mystical member Therefore Mr. de Rodon you grosly wrong Christ by saying that he covers or hids your filthiness and sins because you are his members for Christ hath no commerce with dirt he is no patron protectour or coverer of iniquity or sin he hates it from his very heart and there is nothing that causes a separation or divorcement between him and his creatures but only sin therefore if he does but only cover the sins of his mystical members and not quite wash them and take them away it follows that the dirt of their sins will stick to them also when they are in heaven for Mr. de Rodon says their sins are but covered by Christ and consequently that their sins will follow them into heaven although holy writt says that no dofiled thing shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven by this discourse the Reader may well see how stinking and impure this doctrine of the Mounsieur is as also that neither he nor his party with their confessed failings are those the Apostle spoke of and much less that they are members of Christ and consequently that their sacrifices are not acceptable to God Therefore the Apostle meant only the orthodox Catholicks that offer sacrifice unto God while they are in the state of Grace and yet the sacrifice the Apostle speaks of here is not a strict and proper sacrifice but an improper one for otherwise something must have been destroyed To what you farther answer viz. that besides the perfect purity which you have by the imputation of Christs rightiousness you have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost of which S. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost I answer that you are far deceived in this your proud fancy
griped him by the whole body of his funesteous and false treatise and so shook dis-jointed and dismembred his whole body that there is now no more hopes left of his recovery or reviviscence but flat he must lie upon his back in his stinking grave of heresie which he prepared for our excellent and most vertuous Lady Diana when he made her funeral while she remains still alive as fresh brisk and vigorous as ever she was and so will be inaugre de Rodon and all his parties funesteous machinations funerals and wicked contrivements against her unto the worlds end But now I think it high time gentle Reader to let you know who and what she is know then sir that this Diana about whom Mr. de Rodon and I have so long contested is the Mass by his translatour in derision call'd our great Diana and in his opinion his author hath shewed himself so gallant and stout a corypheus against her that with his keen Philosophical arguments and darts he transfixt her heart through and through so that to their thinking she is quite destroyed and slain down-right without any hopes of recovery and with her they say is fallen Popery too whereupon in a triumphing way they intituled their treatise The funeral of the Masse yet I think I have sufficiently vindicated and cleared her from their false calumnies and black aspersions and fully answered Mr de Rodoâ—…s sophistical and funestuous treatise from point to point paying him in his own Philosophical coin and retorting his calumnies upon â—…is own head But as neither they noâ—… I ought to be judges in our own cause so we ought to leave the decision of the matter to our impartial Readers the which for my part I willingly assent unto The motive of my Appendix is this because as I hope I have defended and secured this unparalel'd venerable Lady from the cruel bloudy-minded authors fury and force so by informing my countrey-men for most of them know â—…ot who or what sâ—…e is of her noble extraction vertues and worth I should likewise wipe away the â—…oathsome and nâ—…ufeous spots or bluâ—…s of superstition Phanaticism and Idolatry wherewith his bitter Translator in the false scolding Preface of his translation most injuriously bespatters her for I doubt not if they knew her as well as their pious Ancestors did for many ages since England was converted to the Christian faith until the dismal reign of king Henry the Eighth who was the first that 〈◊〉 schism and subverted Catholick Religion here in England I doubt not I say but they would be enâ—…moured of her and give her her due veneration and respect Know theâ—… again gentle Reader that the Masse as we take it to be â—…s nothing else but the lyturgy which hath beâ—…n used by all Christians since Christ and his Apostles times in the Church as to its essential parts which consists in the words of 〈◊〉 it is the self-same Chrst himself and his Apostles used being commanded by him to do as he did viz. to consecâ—…ate bread and wine into his body and bloud by vertue of which words he made them also Priests and Bishops and gave them power to conseâ—…rate other Bishops and Priests who should sâ—…cceed them as Paul did Tymothy Titus and many others and all the other Apoâ—…tles did the like so that all Priestly power is derived from them As to the ceremonial parts of this Lyturgy they were not all instituted at once but grew by succession of time according as the Church grew to be more and more in splendour and especially since Constantine the Greats time who was the first Christian Monarch that enlarged â—…nd propagated the Christian faith yeâ—… some words and ceremonies that are this day in the Masse were used by the orthodox ministers of this Sacrament before his time also as ancient autâ—…entick and venerable authors do testifie But whatever the ceremonies be the essential parts of the Mass is always the self-same viz. the words of consecration so that the Masse consists essentially only in this viâ—… thâ—…t in it the body and bloud of Christ are offered and sacrificed unbloudily to God the father in remembrance of the once bloudy sacrifice of the Cross which is nothing elâ—…e but the same Christ offered now unbloudily because he can suffer no more again his body being glorified and being t is the same Christ it is still the same sacrifice though not 〈◊〉 after the same maâ—…ner being it is offerâ—…d under the species of bread and wine with command to reiterate it in remembrance of his bloudy sacrifice we firmly believe that it is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedec who as the holy fathers unanimously assert sacrificed bread and wine unto God That Christs body and bloud is really in the Eucharist and consequently in the Masse is so clearly and plainly exprest in diverse places of the new Testament and especially in S. Iohn 6. that it is wonder any man that bears the name of a Christian should be so bold and impudent as to deny it after Christ himself said in most plain and manifest terms it is so for when Christ said of the bread he took in his hand this is my body either it was his real body or it was not for betwixt it is and it is not when spoken of the same thing in the present tense and demonstrated with the Pronoun this and it relates to the absolute being of the thing whereof â—…t is said and not to its manner of being there can be no medium but a meeâ—… contradiction if it was his real body then it was as we say and it could not be the signe only or representation of his body for the meer signe of any thing is alwaies different from the thing signified at least in representando in its significative being if it was not his real body as our adversaries hold it was not but only its signe how can Christs words be verified since it is and it is not in the sense I just now spoke of be contradictions and all divines and Philosophers do unanimously concurr in this viz. that contradictories cannot be at once true or verified also by the power of God what is it then to say after Christ said this is my body it is but the signe of his body but to contradict Christs word which is as much as to give him the lye in his teeth Suppose then theâ—…e were no other passage in scripture to prove the real presence of Christs body in the host as there can be no clearer this alone would convince any Christian breath ing unless he would wilfully fight against common sense and reason for all those that maintain that two contradictory propositions can be verified at once do manifeâ—…tly oppose and destroy reason Alâ—… when Christ said Panis quem ego dabo 〈◊〉 est pro mundi vita the bread which I will give is my slesh for the life of the world he said expreâ—…ly that this bread
light and glory that now you see it is Ninthly I give and bequeath to all broaken Aldermen defunct Committees and accused Members of the House of Commons my nâ—…w Creed and by them to be disposed of to their Creditors and all others as they shall see cause that they may renew their faith and againe become credible men by which meanes the publique faith may againe revive and the City looke up and whereas my Predecessor knowne by the name of Doctors Commons of famous memory did decease about sixe yeares since having first made a will which was made publique in print and for as much as the said Doctors Commons is againe revived to my great and unspeakeable terrour I doe hereby bequeath unto my said Predecessor all jurisdiction priviledges profits and emoluments whatsoever so unjustly usurped and detained by me and the rest of my precious Brats Tenthly All my zeale for the Cause I give and bequeath to the dissenting Souldiers that have deserted the Army that they may stand up mightily in the gap and stop the plaguy devouring Army of Sir Thomas Fairfax Eleventhly I give and bequeath all my new invented Oathes and Covenants all my Schismaticall Sermons all my Perjuries Forgeries Plots Treacheries Rebellions Equivocations and mentall reservations to my deare children the Scots provided that they shall make use of them in their owne Countrey and not else where Twelfthly I give and bequeath unto Dr. Cyballs 10. l. of lawfuâ—…l money of England in consideration of my Funerall Sermon besides two Canenicall Coats which he may turne as he sees fitting and I desire him to make his prayer shorter then the ordinary use hath been for I my selfe must confesse the blasphemies treasons heresies incongruities tautologies absurdities of my children in their measure of Prayer from time to time observed by the people hath beene a great cause of my untimely disease And also I desire that his Sermon may be printed and published and that Wal-ey'd Bartlet at Austins-gate and Bellamy at the Old Exchange have the Printing thereof and that an Ordinance may bee desired that none dare to reprint the same Lastly I do intrust all that out of a conscientious duty to me shall suddenly after my discease leave and abandon the House of Commons Provided they exceed not the number of threescore to be my Executors that they see this my last Wil and Testament performed without any fraud according to the true sense and meaning thereof and the severall legacies to be paid to the persons aforesaid within five moneths after my death And this my Will to remaine in full force revoking all former Wills Bonds Bills Gifts whatsoever Witnesse my hand and Seale Adoniram Byfield Scribe Sealed and delivered Iuly 1647. Iohn Presbyter Simon Synod Cornelius Burges Postscript REjoyce O heavens sing aloud O earth clap thy hands for joy O England post nubula soles thou shall now have a time of quietnesse of peace of content for Presbyter Iohn is dead and will never vex thee more nor imprison thy free Denizens nor eate up thy fat things nor devour thy good things nor eate the bread out of thy childrens mouthes Therefore farewell persecution for conscience farewell Ordinance for Tythes farewell Ecclesiasticall Supremacy farewell Pontificiall Revenue farewell Dissembly of Divines dissembled at Westminster you shall constult together no more farewell Sir Simon Synod and his sonne Presbyter Iack Gens antiqua ruit multos dominata per Annos And therefore O England Interpone tuis interdum gaudia curis His EPITAPH HEre lies Jack Presbyter void of all pity Who ruin'd the Countrey and fooled the City He turned preaching to prating and telling of lies Caus'd jarres and dissentions in all Families He invented new Oathes Rebellion to raise Deceiving the Commons whilst on them he preyes He made a New Creed despised the Old King State and Religion by him bought and sold. He foure yeares consulted and yet could not tell The Parliament the way Christ went into Hell Resolved therein he never could be Therefore in great haste he 's gone thither to see FINIS gratiously to hear the humble Prayers of his hidden Petitioner and MADAM Your Majestie 's most Loyal Devoted Beadsman W. C. Chapter I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my body MOnsieur de Rodon against ths exposition of the Roman Catholicks who by this passage of Scripture This is my body understands the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament of the Altar frames his argument thus Rodon 1. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscurely but if Iesus Christ by these words This is my body had meant the real presence of his body in the host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial Conversion of the bread into his body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of aâ—… the world and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I prove thus Theâ—… was never any author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my body to signifie the real presence of a thing immediatly after the pronouncing of them and not before on the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was to be For example when God the Father speaking of Iesus Christ said this is my beloved Son it is certain that Iesus Christ was the son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example we do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Iesus Christ this is my body to signifie thâ—… substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before seeing then that Iesus Christ when he said this is my body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all â—…hâ—… world and dâ—…d not takâ—… the wordâ—… otherwise â—…hen all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Iesus Christ when he said this is my body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body nor the real presence of Christs body in the host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in Scripture Answ.
To this argument I answer confessing the major viz. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world c. and denying the minor viz. But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my body had meant the real presence c. he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the world And to the probation of his minor viz. There was never any author either facred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my body to signifie c. that I grant and deny the consequence viz. therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ this is my body to signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before And the reason is this because of the disparity that is betwixt Christs words and the words of all authors sacred and prophane for Christs words as uttered by him have a creative productive and effective vertue and force It was with his word he changed water into wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee It was with his wotd he cured and cleansed the Leprous man in the Gospel It is with his word he wrought all his stupendious wonders and Miracles and if Mr de Rodon believes he is God he ought to believe that it was with his word he created heaven and earth or dare the Monsieur say that when God spoke these words fiat caelum fiat terra be the heavens made be the earth made that heaven and earth were in being before God uttered his creative word or thinks he that Christ had no hand in that creation if he doth then I dare say and can assure him he has no more belief then a meer heathen But as for the words of a meer man whether he be an author sacred or prophane sure it is that they are not of a creative productive or effective vertue and force as Christs are and so it is no wonder if according to the common usage of all mens meaning their authors words do presuppose that the things whereof they treat or speak have their being before and not by vertue of their bare significative words But as it is proper to a meer mans word be he never so good an author sacred or prophane not to give a being to the thing he speaks of so it is proper to Chriâ—…s effective word to effect or cause what it signifies and consequently all authors I mean all Christian authors whether sacred or prophane may very well and ought according to the common usage of all faithfull and Christian people understand these words This is my body as spoken by Christ whose words are of a creative productive and effective force and power in a common usual litteral sense as when I or another man should say this is my horse this is my house meaning a real horse and a real house and not the sign or figure of a horse or of a house But if the Mounsieur will not understand words in the same sense as all other Christians do and ought to do and will give no more vertue and power to Christs creative word then Jews Turks and heathens do I see no reason why he and all those that take his part ought to be eâ—…med as to matters of belief better then any of these But let us suppose with the greatest part of all Christians that ever were and now are that Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body that it implyes no contradiction and that at the institution of this Sacrament he intended really so to do I ask Mr. de Rodon how Christ could have exprest his real meaning unto us with clearer words and more to the common usage of all Authors and men then by saying This is my body When a man sayes this is my hand this is my cloke doth he speak contrary to the common usage of all authors aâ—…d men or do they understand by his words the figure or signe of his hand and cloke only when he intends they are his reall hand and cloke Even so supposing Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body really and that when he instituted the Sacrament he meant really so to do would it be contrary to the common usage of all Authors and men to undâ—…rstand his words in a literal sense or how can a conception be more clearly exprest then by the termes and words which were instituted for its proper and immediate signification Dialecticks and Philosophers instead of carrying the things they treate of to School with them do carry only conceptions and words thither and the words serve only to express their conceptions and the properer the word is the better it eâ—…presseth the concept But in this passage This is my body the words are instituted to signifie properly and immediately aâ—…reall corporal thing and not its signe or figure Therefore according to the Rules of Dialectick a reall body cannot be plainlyer exprest then by saying This is my body Doubtless those that said how can this man give us his flesh to eat understood him literally as we do and if our saviour himself had meant it otherwise could he not easily have answered and satisfied them by saying you are mistaken sirs you understand me not right I mean not that it is my reall substantial body but only the representation or Sacrament of it His answer was not so but this Amen I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you Here also he calls it his flesh and bloud therefore he understood it litterally as we do not figuratively only as M. R. doth To this I add that a figurative expression is obscurer then a litteral one why then did not Christ to avoid obscurity foreknowing that in future times should be grâ—…at alterations and hot debates in his Church concerning Transubstantiation wherefore I say did he not say this is only the figure and sacrament of my body inâ—…tead of saying absolutely This is my body for by saying so he would take away all ambiguity concerning Transubstantiation and his Church would be in perfect union concerning this grand Mystery As to Mr. de Rodons first Instance concerning these words of God the father This is my beloved son I confess Christ was his son before he spok them words But these words were spoken by God the father to let the world know that Christ was his true natural son he intended not then to create him his son or to transubstantiate any creature into his sons substance But if God the father had taken bread in his hand and said this is my son no sacred or prophane author considering his omnipotency ought to doubt but that that bread was his real son because of
the force of his creative word unless they can prove that it is beyond Gods power to transubstantiate one thing into another which no body can demonstrate because it is an â—…asier thing in its self to Transubstantiate then to create What we say of God the fathers word the same we say of Christs because of their equality in power Hence followeth evidently that Mr. de Rodons second Instance viz. This is a Table is to no purpose because of the disparity between Christs word and the words of all Authors sacred and prophane Therefore Mr. de Rodon must give us leave to conclude thus contrary to him viz. that since Jesus Christ exprest his minde by saying This is my body and since his power is so great that he is able to do what he sayes and since his word is verity and truth it followeth evidently that he did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the world and that he did not take the words but in their proper and litteral meaning as all other men do when they say this is my hand this is my cloak he being able to effect what he said which no other Author sacred or prophane are able to do It followeth also that the Romisâ—… doctours need not seek and cannot have a clearer passage out of scriprure to prove the real presence then this This is my body whence also followeth that this conversion and presence have an excellent foundation in holy scripture But let us now examine his grounded reason concerning the common usage of words thus he argues Rodon 2. Things must be before there be any Image Picture or representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images but words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Christ held and gave to his disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said this is my body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words tâ—…is is my body that that which Iesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it followeth that these words This is my body must be expounded thus This bread is my body and these words This bread is my body must be expounded thus This bread is the Sacrament of my body Answ. To this Argument I answer granting the Antecedent with its sequel But that which he inferrs viz. that words are the Images of conceptions I distinguish thus words are the improper Images of conceptions I confess words are the proper Images of conceptions I deny for although words be signes of conceptions yet they are not their proper Images because as Dialecticks commonly say though every Image is a signe yet every signe is not an Image and the reason is because an Image hath alwayes an essential relation or likeness to its prototype which a signe hath not alwayes to the thing it signifies nâ—…y the very signum naturale natural signe it â—…elf hath not that similitude for otheâ—…wise smoak which is a natural signe of fire and the voice of a man which is the natural signe of a man the one would be like fire and the other like a man sure it is and to every mans eye that the kings head set up before a Tavâ—…rn signifies that wine is to be sold there and yet the kings head is no Image of wine because it is not like wine so that an Image and a signe are two different things But suppose a signe is an improper Image because as an Image is like to its Prototype so a signe represents the thing it signifies I distinguish his minor thus but words are the Images of conceptions and consequently must come after the things they signify humane words are signes and must come after c. I confess divine words such as Christs are are signes and must come after c. I deny for humane words are nothing else but meer empty and speculative signes or shadows of the things they signifie but Christs words are practical signes and causes of what they signifie and so they precede and must not come after the thing by them signifyed And so Transubstantiation which was the concept of Christs words when he said This is my body followed and was made by his effective word This solution is grounded on the omnipotent vâ—…e of Christs words which are not only signes but also do cause by creation or production what things he pleaseth and how he pleaseth to conceive they shall be for we never heard as yet of any other way God either creatâ—…d or produced any thing but by hâ—…s bâ—…re word therefore although every creatures word comes after the thing it signieth yet Christs word which is both a practical signe and cause of things must precede what he intends to create produce or change Secondly I answer the said minor that whereas the Romish Doctors hold Transubstantiation to be not only the real presence of Christs body bâ—…t also the signe and Sacrament thereof For they say 't is both Sacramentum res the Sacrament and the thing it self As it is a Sacrament or signe we say it pre-supposeth the thing it represents viz. Christs patible body upon the Cross for although it be still the self same body yet it is not still in the self same manner it is now glorified and it was then patible it was then in its human shape it is now in the Sacrament but veiled under the Sacramental species of bread and wine Neither is there any repugnance or inconvenience that the same thing should signifie or represent its own self when the manner of the thing is changed for example it is neither repugnant or inconvenient that a man upon a theatre should represent and signifie what he did himself when he was in an army or to represent his own youthfull actions in his old age it is not repugnant to any man and yet the self-same man is the representer and represented even so is it in our case concerning Christs glorified body in the Sacrament and the self same when it was patible upon the Cross. And whereas Mr. Rodon saies that it was rather by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it I ask him this question if a bare blessing or thanksgiving can make this Sacrament why were not the loaves and fishes our Saviour multiplied for those that followed him into the wilderness made this Sacrament also for Christ blest them and gave the glory and praise of
the miracle he was about to do to his heavenly father But certain it is and all the faithfull believe that this Sacrament was first instituted by Christ at his last supper with his disciples and consequently more then a bare blessing and thanksgiving are requisite to make this Sacrament viz. these effective words of Christ This is my body and so the Mounseur is quite mistaken when he saies that it was rather by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it for there was blessing and thanksgiving of Christ upon the bread and fishes in the wilderness and yet they were no Sacrament Therefore since other mens words are not proper Images but meer speculative signes and since Christs effective words are both practical signes and causes of the things by them signified and since Transubstantiation is both the Sacrament and thing it self and as it is a Sacrament it presupposeth the some thing it signifies though taken in another manner Therefore things which Christ say to be such are not such before he saies or conceives them to be such because he makes them really such by saying they are such although other mens words can alter nothing by saying they are such from what they were before unless Christ elevates their words as he doth the words of his Priests when they consecrate and giveth unto them an Instrumental productive vertue Hence also followeth that that which Jesus Christ held and gave to his disciples expressed by the word this was bread and not his body before he said This is my body by verof which words he made it his real body And consequently that these words This is my body must not be expounded thus This bread is my body nor these words This bread is my body expounded thus This is the Sacrament of my body but rather thus This is my body must be understood of his real body although it consignifies also the Sacrament of his body for they are both together in the Mistery of Transubstantiation Mounsieur de Rodon prosecutes his argument and proves that these words This is my body must be thus expounded This bread is the Sacrament of my body Rodon 3. A proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question for example if a man pointing at the kings person should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings person because the kings person is meant But if a man comming into a Painters shop and pointing at the Kings Picture should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Picture because here his picture is meant Even so if Iesus Christ laying his hand â—…n his brest had said This is my body we must without doubt have understood the proposition concerning his real body and not concerning the sign or Sacrament of it because his very body had been then meant and not the sign or Sacrament of it But Iesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist and to that end having taken bread blessed itand given it to his disciples with these words take eat this is my body it is evident that they must be understood of the sacrament of his body the proposition must be expounded thus this is the Sacrament of my body because here the Sacrament of his body is meant And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in its sixth sess it is evident that this proposition This is my body being expounded by this This is the Sacrament of my body may be expounded thus this is the signe of my body Answ. I deny the Mounsieurs minor viz. that it is evident that Christs words must be understood only of the Sacrament of his body and that the Proposition must be expounded thus This is the Sacrament of my body for these words This is my body as spoken by Christ do according to the proper and immediate signification of the words signifie no more the Sacrament of his body then these words this is my cloak as uttered by me do signify the signe or Sacrament of my cloke therefore as when I say this is my cloake it is not evident that I mean the signe only of my cloake so when Christ said This is my body it is not evident that he meant only the Sacrament of his body nay the words according to their proper and immediate sense do rather signfy that it is his real body and yet we consess that they consignifie the Sacrament of his body also and tâ—…e Mounsieur has no more to shew for this 〈◊〉 but his bare word which we are not bound to take 〈◊〉 Christ laying his hand upon his breast had said This is my body then Mr. de Rodon sayes we ought to believe he meant his real body But let us suppose he had done so a blinde man being by who could not see him I ask the Mounsieur how this blind man must understand and expound his words all the beholders ought to understand them litterally if the blind man must understand them so too why may not we understand them so also or may the blind man understand them figuratively only and the beholders understand them litterally if so then the blind understands them not rightly or if he sayes that the blind man ought to understand them litterally because of the attestation of the standers by that saw our saviour hold his hand upon his breast while he uttered the words I say that the beholders being but men their testimony can produce but a meer humane faith in the blind man concerning the true meaning of Christs words or finally if some of the spectatours out of malice or to deceive the poor blind man should contradict the others and say that Christ held not his hand upon his breast while he pronounced the words although they knew well he did where I pray Mounsieur is the poor blind man then certainly according to your Rule he will be brought to his witts end before he understands the words rightly unless you give him leave to understand them litterally as we do Therefore it is not the laying of Christs hand or foot upon a thing that gives unto words their common usage nor makes them signify according to the nature of the thing in question but it is rather Christs effective word taken according to the common institution of men to signify things in their proper sense that createth or changeth one thing into another according to the real and litteral signification of the words by him spoken Therefore since all General Councils and all the holy fathers that ever treated of this question all Catholicks of all ages ever since the Institution of this Sacrament unanimously understood the words this is my body in a litteral sense and since Mr. dâ—… Rodon cannot produce one of them of his side nor
carried or exhibited to the believers upon or by a bare bitt of bread or in a cup of bare wine But how nonsensical this exposition is and how ill grounded in true divinity and Philosoâ—…hy I will presently prove But first I would have the Reader take notice that these words Sacrament or signe have if not a predicamental at least a transendental Relation to the things they signify what is formal in Relation according all Philosophers is not at all operative or exhibitive but only meer resultative in order to the thing it relates unto as for example a father is a Relative word because he relates to his son the formality of this word father consists in his fatherhood and the entity or substract whereupon fatherhood relies is in his human nature for he was a man before he could be a father It is not the fatherhood which is the formal part of the Relative that operates or exhibites a being to the son which is his correlative word but his humane nature or rather his act of Generation and the fatherhood only results from his act of Generation and looks upon the filiation or as one may say sonhood which was operated or exhibited by a foregoing generative act so that although the father and his act of Generation are elder then the son because they are his effective or exhibitive cause yet the fatherhood is not elder then the sonhood because the fatherhood which is but a meer Relation did not effect or exhibit the sonhood but only relates or looks upon it whence followeth clearly that although the father is before his son in his enâ—…itative being yet he is not a father before he has a son or child in his fatherhood or relative being Even so I say of the word Sacrament or signe which are also relative words that what is formal in them is not at all operative or exhibitive but only resultative because they only behold and look upon the things they signify and effect or exhibit them not from whence followeth evidently that signification which is the formality of a signe or Sacrament cannot exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to the believers and therefore if any thing in the Sacrament exhibits them it must be the entity or substract whereupon signification is founded But according to Mr de Rodon the entities whereupon signification in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is founded are but bare bread and wine which entities are not exhibitive of Christs body and bloud to the believers I demonstrate thus If the bare entities of bread and wine could exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to the believers as often as they are received by the mouth of the body it would necessary follow that as often as a man eates or drinks bread and wine they convey Christs body and blood into his soul and so every fellow that drinks his belly full of wine although he drinks himself drunk especially if he eats but a bit of bread with it his soul will be full of Christ. But it is both impious and absurd to say that Christ should be conveyed into a drunkardâ—… soul after this manner Therefore the doctrine that teacheth this is absurd and impious The major I prove thus all the entities of bread and wine do agree if not specifically at least univocally that is to say as a man a horse and a cow are true and real animals and this word animal agrees properly to every of them so the words bread and wine are said truely and properly of all sorts of bread and wine and they all agree in name But according to all divines and Philosophers univocal causes do produce effects alike all men other men all horses other horses and so â—…orth therefore if the entities of bread and wine agree univocally as certainly they do it follows that their effects must be all alike and consequently if the bare entities of Mr. de Rodons communion bread and wine for their signification as I have already proved cannot do it can exhibit convey or carry Christs body and bloud to believers the entities of all other breads and wine can do so also for they agree all univocaly all univocal causes do produce effects a like Therefore the Mounsieur must either contradict all Philosophers and be the only Philosopher himself or else grant that as often as he eats and drinks bread and wine which was perhaps too much and too often in a day he received the Sacrament and consequently if as often as he took bread and wine he did not examine himself and discerne the body of our Lord according to the Apostles saying judicium sibi mandâ—…cavit â—…ibit he did eat it as Iudas did to his own damnation what impious nonsensical and Blasphemous doctrine this is let any rational man consider But according to the doctrine of the Romanists the Eucharist is quite another thing they say that bare bread and wine are not the substract or foundation whereupon signification relyes in the Sacrament but that the Sacramental species are the foundation whereupon signification is grounded which Sacramental species being received worthily by the mouth of the body because they contain the body and bloud of Christ they say that at the same time they feed the soul also because they have a spiritual exhibitive faculty to convey Christ into the soul and work upon her by uniting her to Christ and making her one os his mistical members and thus the soul by feeding upon his body now glorified and impatible if she receives him worthily he changes her affections wholy into himself and as it were incorporates her for all the delight of a devout soul is to be wholy united and absorpt in Christ and yet his body being now impatible and glorified receives no damage or harm thereby more then the sun doth by casting his beames upon a dunghill And although faith be necessary in him that eateth this bread we say that hope and charity must also accompany this morsel unless a man eats it to his damnatian for faith alone is not enough to give it a relish in the soul. The Royal prophet calls it the bread of Angels for it feeds their spirits also which if it were but the meer entity of bread it could not do for they never eat wafer nor bakers bread nor drink of the entity of our corporal wine neither do they eat the Sacrament it self by the mouth of faith as Mr. de Rodon would have our soules to eat it here for if we believe the Apostle there is neither faith nor hope in heaven where the Angells are but only charity And since we are come to the mouth of the soul faith for so the Mounsieur calls it saying by the mouth of the soul viz. by faith I wish he would shew us either by the common usage of speaking or in true Philosophy that faith is the mouth of the soul. If he takes the word mouth litterally the soul being a pure
spirit has no mouth as it hath no hands nor leggs If he takes it figuratively or metaphorically he will never be able to make it out in true philosophy that faith is the mouth of the soul which I prove thus a mouth must be an intrinsecal part of that thing whose mouth it is whether the word mouth be taken litterally or figuratively for a corporal mouth is an intrinsecal part of the body that eateth or speaketh and when God or an Angel doth speak methaporically they express themselves by their understandings and wills which are intrinsecal unto them But faith is not intrinsecal to a mans soul for otherwise every soul would have faith besides faith according to all divines is one of the Theological or supernatural vertues but no supernatural thing can be intrinsecal to a meer natural thing such as a soul is Therefore unless he means to make a Monster of mans soul faith which is extrinsecal to her can not be her mouth litterally nor figuratively In short the whole debate betwixt Mr. de Rodon and his party and the Romanists and their party consists in this that Mr. Rodon holdeth Christ is conveyed into our soules and feedeth them spiritually with the meer entities of bread and wine for signification which is the formal part of the Sacrament hath no exhibitive but only resultative power And the Romanists hold that our souls are fed spiritually with the real entity of Christs glorified body which being taken by the mouth of the body we say he is exhibited into our souls Now whether it stands more with reason and faith and whether it be more consonant with sound divinity and Philosophy that the entity of Christs real body can better feed the soul then the bare entityes of bread and wine can we leave the prudent and impartiall Reader to Judge But if our adversaries say that by eating Christs real body we damnify it or do it any irreverence That we deny because we eat his body as it is now glorified and a glorified body we say is uncapable of suffering any harm or wrong Neither can any irreverence be done to it but when it is taken unworthily that is to say while one is in mortal sin and then the receiver takes it to his own damnation but Christs glorified body is never the worse or in the least annoyed thereby for his body is now impatible and as it cannot die again so can it not suffer But now we are come to the Mounsieurs additional argument which is thus Rodon 6. When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imployes in saying it is such he makes a false proposition for example when a man saith that a wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false proposition But according to the Romish Doctours when Iesus Christ said This is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying This is my body for they say it was his body afterward only therefore according to the Romish doctors Iesus Christ uttered a false proposition which being blasphemy to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Iesus Christ gave to his disciples when he said This is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Iesus Christ This is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words This is my body we must take the present-tense for the next future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish doctors will have us take these words This is my body in the rigour of the litteral sense and then the proposition is evidently false I know that the present-Tense may be taken for the next future as when Iesus Christ said I go to my father and to your father I go to my God to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this proposition of Iesus Christ This is my body is either false or figurative and seing that it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonimy whereby the signe takes the name of the thing signifyed as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time Answ. To this additional argument I say that to verify any proposition it is enough that the thing is such as the proposition sayes it to be after the proposition is uttered although it be not such while the proposition is in uttering if by a ptoposition Mr. dâ—… Rodon understands a perfect and significative proposition as he ought to do as this proposition this is my body is But if we should grant that while a meer man uttereth a proposition the thing meant by the proposition ought to be such before he spoke and during the time he is speaking it to have his proposition not to be false yet it follows not that while Jesus Christ who is both God and man doth utter a proposition the thing he speaks of should be such before and while he speaketh to make his proposition be true for as I said often before that as Christs word is an effective word so his proposition is an effective proposition because his word and proposition do make what they signify Therefore the Romish doctors say very well that the bread was made his body only after he pronounced the words and not before and yet we deny that Christ then uttered a false proposition Nay we hold de Rodons layed foundation to be blasphemous because it gives not an effective vertue to Christs words above the words of ordinary men 〈◊〉 we take not only the words but also 〈◊〉 Tense or time while they were spoken in as rigorous a sense as he does viz. in their real litteral meaning and the word is in the present Tense without a recourse either to a Metonimy or Enallage of time and yet we deny the proposition as uttered by Christ to be at all false because his was an effective proposition though other mens are not We deny also that our adversary hath any advantage of belief over us for beleving it was Christs body before while and after
is not probable that Iesus Christ said to them drink ye all of this cup of bloud and yet that it was not a cup of bloud but a cup of wine But when Iesus Christ said drink ye all of this he did not speak to them of a cup of bloud for the wine was not then converted into Christs bloud because according to our Adversaries it was not changed until Iesus Christ had made an end of uttering these following words for this is my bloud But he uttered these words drink ye all of this before he uttered those for this is my bloud because a man must utter a proposition before he can give the reason of it Answ. To this I answer that when Christ said drink ye all this he meant of his bloud for although by reason of the sacramental species he gave it the donomination of wine and although it was not his bloud immediatly after he said drink ye all this untill he added these other words for this is my bloud yet by so saying he made it his bloud and consequently he meant that they should drink of his bloud for I suppose and to think otherwise is not at all propable his disciples were not so rude illbred and irreverent to their Lord and Master as to snatch the cup out of his hand and drink it before he made an end of his speech to them the last part whereof viz. for this is my bloud made it his bloud and so is this arrow of Mr. de Rodons blunted in bread and wine and cannot pierce Transubstantiation Therefore he outâ—… with his third arrow Rodon 4. When a thing is converted into another we cannot see the effects and properties of the thing converted but only of that into which it is converted for example when the seed is changed into an animal we can see no more the effects and properties of the seed but of the animal only and when Iesus Christ turned water into wine the effects properties and accidents of the water were no more seen but of the wine only c. But in the Eucharist we cannot after the consecration perceive the effects properties accidents or parts of the body and bloud of Christ but we see there all the effects properties and accidents of bread and wine Therefore in the Eucharist the bread and wine are not converted into the body and bloud of Christ. And the truth is if that which appears to be bread and hath all the effects accidents and properties of bread be no bread but Christs body clothed with the accidents of bread then it may likewise be said that they that appear to be men and have all the effects properties and accidents of men are not men but horses clothed with the accidents of men Answ. I distinguish the major proposition thus When a thing is converted c. we cannot see the effects and properties c. with our corporal eyes I confess with the spiritual eye of our soul viz. with our understanding supported by divine faith I deny the major with its minor also in the same sense which being both shattered the consequence must needs vanish away The reason why the effects and properties of the Sacrament are not seen with our corporal eyes is because they are objects of faith which objects are beyond the sphere and capacity of our corporal eyes and other senses for the object of our corporal sight is coloratum quid some coloured thing and the objects of our other senses are meer corporeal things but objects of divine faith are never seen nor known by their colours nor by smelling touching or tasting from whence a man may see how sharp keen and witty this arrow of Mr. de Rodon's is against Transubstantiation which is a high object and mystery of divine faith As to both his examples of seed into an animal and water turned into wine without any of their effects seen either in the animal or in the wine I confess all that to be true and the reason is because those are but meer simple conversions and no sacraments But Transubstantiation is not only a conversion of one substance into another but it constitutes a Sacrament also and because it is a Sacrament it is necessary that although the entityes of bread and wine are destroyed their accidents should remain to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment and are therefore called Analogically bread and wine though they are not really but meer accidents of bread and wine and the natural entityes of bread and wine wherewith they were formerly sustentated are really changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This then being so the truth is that although the Sacramental species appear to our corporal eyes to be but bread and wine and according to our senses seem to have but the effects accidents and propertyes of bread and wine yet to the eye of our soul viz. to the understanding supported by divine faith they are not really such but the true body and bloud of Christ because he himself said so and his word could make them so And it is also plain truth that if Mr. de Rodon had ever received the Sacrament worthily but alas he never did it would have wrought its spiritual effects and properties upon his poor soul as it doth upon all other devout ones and fils them with interior joy devotion and tranquility of mind and conscience But since he never did or believed in Christs words as his Church understands them but was alwaies led by the track of his senses only to the sight of this supernatural object certain I say it is and the very plain truth that he had no more faith in him then a horse hath that followeth the sent of oats But let us hear him farther Rodon 5. In every substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substance to another for else it would be a creation which is the sole action that doth not presuppose a subject But in the Sacrament of the Eueharist after the consecration there is no subject because according to our adversaries there remains no subject for at they assert the accidents of bread and wine remain without any subject at all Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is no substantial conversion Answ. To this argument I answer denying the major for this proposition is verified only in formal substantial conversions that is to say when one substantial form is changed or converted into another as when the form of seed is changed into the form of an animal and the form of water was changed into the form of wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee which are but simple substantial conversions in which the matter or subject passes from one form to another But Transubstantiation is a quite other sort of substantial conversion for not only the forms of bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ but also their matters or subjects by vertue of the
signes Answ. To his third I answer and acknowledg the holy Councils definition of a Sacrament but I deny that the body and bloud of our saviour are not visible by the eye of our understanding holpen and supported by the supernatural light of faith although we cannot see them with our corporal eyes as no more can we see the entities or substances of bread and wine with our corporal eyes if they were not destroyed but their accidents only and those accidents we see in the Sacrament also which is sufficient for to constitute a Sacrament being we firmly believe his body and bloud are in the species But the Mounsieurs faith is so nice and delicate that unless he sees and smells the object he will not believe it certainly this divine man saw and smelt the Mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of Christs Incarnation or if he did not why does he believe them O curious eye O delicate nose Rodon 10. Lastly I say that in every Sacrament the signe relates to the thing signified and Relation is alwaies between two different things because nothing relates to it self and consequently nothing can be both the signe and the thing signified But the body and bloud of Christ are the things signified therfore the body and bloud of Chrst are not the signes And it is to no purpose to say that Iesus Christ in the Mass is the signe and figure of himself on the Cross for Iesus Christ wheresoever he is is one and the same yesterday to day and for ever and therefore Iesus Christ not being different from himself cannot be relative to himself nor the signe of himself Answ. To his last reply I answered sufficiently already where I shewed that it is neither inconvenient nor contradictory that the self same thing may represent and signifie its own self for example that an old man may represent his own self in his youthfull actions or represent upon a Theater what feats of armes he did in the feild where the representer and the represented is the self same man which thing is so clear that every old woman and little child can easily apprehend and understand it what hard matter is 't then to understand that Christ can represent himself in the Sacrament as he was upon the Cross although he be still the same Christ It is a great wonder and admiration to me that such a famous Philosophy-professour as the Mounsieurs Translator takes the Mounsieur to be especially he having so curious an eye and dainty a nose as can reach up to objects of divine faith that he should be so sensless and dull as not to apprehend that which is obvious to all old women and childrens understanding Mr. de Rodons Quiver being quite exhausted his arrows vainly spent Transubstantiation untoucht and consequently the Mass alive as yet Let us now see what great feats he will perform in his next chapter for he vowed our Diana's death resolves here to give her her healing-stroak and to that intent he in his next chapter more then double fills his Quiver for whereas in this chapter he had but six in the next he has thirteen keen arrows Therefore let us for shame accompany our old Mistriss and forsake her not while she has any life in her and we any hope to save her from her Tragical end CHAP. IV. Against the real presence of Christs body in the Host or consecrated wafer LOok now very well to your self Madam Diana for Mr. de Rodon hath bent his bow and aims thus at you Rodon 1. The Romish doctors affirm That immediatly after the Priest in the celebration of the Mass hath pronounced these words this is my body the â—…ody of Christ is really present in the host and that it is whole and entire in every part and point of the host which doctrine I destroy by these following arguments Answ. The Romish Doctors have an excellent ground and reason for saying so because the Priest received power from Christ to do as he did himself when he took bread and changed it into his body saying this is my body for Christ commanded his Apostles whose successors the Priests are to do as he did himself and gave them power to do it by vertue of these words as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me for he commanded them to do this that 's to say the same thing he did himself when he uttered these words this is my body But they could not make it his body unless they had power from him to do it therefore since they did as he commanded them to do 〈◊〉 follows evidently that if he made it his body and bloud they did so also for most certain it is that he commanded them not to â—…o a thing impossible and consequently that 〈◊〉 gave them power to consecrate bread and wine into his body and bloud as he did himself Or dare the Mounsieur say that Christ could not Transubstantiate bread and wine into his own body and bloud and after Christ said in express terms this is my body dare he say it is not his body what thing else I pray is this but to contradict Christs words and give him the lie in his teeth for what else are It is and it is not but contradictories when they are said of the self same thing at the same time and after the same manner so that as any man may clearly see this good Mounsieur opposes here not only the Priests but also Christs power concerning the real presence of his body in the consecrated host and he gives no more vertue to Christs effective and creative word then he gives to the words of other ordinary men But let us hear this Lucifer like Goliah speak that dares oppose Christs plain words aâ—… they are generally understood by his whole Church If he can by true Philosophy I mean by a Philosophical conclusion deduced out of any Philosophical principle generally allowed of by all Christian Philosophers demonstrate against the Romish Doctors that Transubstantiation is a thing impossible and beyond Christs power then I confess he carries away the victory and prize for all men of understanding agree in this that implicancies and contradictions are impossible even to God himself because they quite destroy reason and sense and God is reason it self But if he be not able to perform this task and demonstrate that it is not in Gods power and might to Transubstantiate a thing which he nor any else will be ever able to do then how can he appear to the world and especially to all Christians but as a Lucifer-like heretick for opposing Christs omnipotent power and word I am no Romish doctor but one of their meanest disciples and yet I dare take up the â—…udgells in this just quarrel against great and famous de Rodon next unto holy writ as his Translator esteems him one of the smartest and best of his party that ever wrote yet and is extant against
host but every man knows by experience that the hosts are eaten and consumed and that Christs body cannot be there after the consumpsion of the accidents of the bread Therefore it never was in the host Answ. To this argument I answer thus that as a body is produced or brought into a place so it can leave or cease to be in that place Therefore since as I said in answer to Mr de Rodons first argument of his third Chapter Christs body is not newly produced in the Sacrament in order to its entitative being which was produced already but only produced or rather adduced in order to a Sacramental modal being which is as much as to say that the self same eutity of Christs body which is already produced and now in heaven in its natural shape by vertue of the words of consecration hath a sacramental existence and equivocal place in the host since also there is no proper coming going or bringing of a body but to or from a proper and univocal place And lastly since a thing cannot perish unless its entitie be destroyed although it may cease from being in a place or leave its place after the same manner as it came into it without going away after another manner Therefore I say Christ not coming into the Sacrament as into his univocal place by way of a proper local going and being not reproduded in it in order to a new entity or essence having his entity in heaven before but only in order to a new sacramental existence and for that he is uncapable of perishing because his body is now glorious It follows that as he came into the Sacramental species without any proper or local motion or reproduction that he can also leave or cease to be in them after the consumption of the accidents without any local recession or perishing either whence it follows also that after the species are taken and consumed Christs body remains there no more and finally it follows that although as experience shews the host be consumable nevertheless the Mounsieur concludes falsly by inferring inconsequently that Christs body was never there whereas for my reasons to the contrary no such lawful consequence can follow and so his ninth arrow is also blown have at us now with his tenth but before he lets it fly he wisely layes this platform of doctrine that he may shoot with the better aym Rodon 13. The properties of a species are incommunicable to every other species For example the Properties of a man are incommunicable te a beast for seeing the properties flow from the essence or are the very essence it self it is evident that if the essence of a species be incommunicable to another species then the properties of a species are also incommunicable to another But the body and the spirit are the two species of substance therefore the properties of the spirit cannot be communicated to the body as the properties of the body cannot be communicated to the spirit But there are two principal properties which distinguish bodies from spirits The first is that spirits are substances that are penetrable amongst themselves that is may be together in one and the same place but bodies are impenetrable substances amongst themselves that is they cannot be together in one and the same place The second is that bodies are in a place circumscriptively that is all the body is in all the place but all the body is not in every part of the place but the parts of the body are in the parts of the place But spirits are in a place definitively that is all the spirit is in all thâ—… place and all the spirit is in every part of the place because a spirit having no parts must necessarily be all wheresoever it is whence I form my argument thus That doctrine which gives to a body the properties of a spirit changes the body into a spirit and consequently destroys the nature of a body seeing properties cannot be communicated without the essence but the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host gives to a body the properties of a spirit because it affirms that the quantitie of Christs body penetrats the quantity of the bread and is in the same place with it that all the parts of Christs body are penetrated amongst themselves and are all in one and the same place and that Christs body is all in all the host and all in every part of the host Therefore the doctrine of the Romish Church touching the pretended presence of Christs body in the host destroys the nature of Christs body Answ. Mr. de Rodon endeavouring to save Christs body harmless hits his Apostle directly with this arrow and gives him the lie in his teeth for the Apostle in his 1. Cor. 15. hath these express words It is sown a natural body it will rise a spiritual body Now I ask the Mounsieur whether according to the Apostles words the body shall rise a spirit or a body spiritualized if he says it will rise a spirit then it will not rise a real body for he himself here in his platform doctrine doth confess that a body and a spirit are two different species of substance If he says it will rise spiritualized that is with the properties and qualities of a spirit that is the contradictory of his own argument for he says that the properties of a spirit are incommunicable to a body and the properties of a body are likewise incommunicable to a spirit But to save Christs body our Diana and the Apostle harmless from this keen arrow I answer that as it is the property of a natural or patible body to be corruptible lumpish and obscure to be impenetrable with another body to be circumscribed and commensurated by another body and to have all its parts corresponding with the parts of its proper place so it is the property of a glorified body to be subtil impassible quick and luminous or clear for as the state of the soul is â—…ltered though not her essence so will the state of her body be altered its essence remaining the same The Mounsieur himself says that the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light like to that which it had upon Mount Thabor which is nothing else but the dowry or gift of clarity and yet it is certain that charity or brightness is not the property of a natural or patible body which is rather properly obscure and dark wherefore then may not penetrabilitie be communicable to a glorified body by reason of the dowry of subtillity as brightness is communicable to it by reason of the dowry of clarity from whence follows that the state of the soul being altered the properties of her body especially its secondary properties as are impenetrability and circumscription are altered also and so likewise this arrow follows the rest without hurting Christs body Diana or the Apostle His eleventh arrow
seeing that his own personal presence was necessary both in heaven and upon earth in heaven to glorify his Church triumphant on earth to assâ—…t his Church militant he ascended into heaven and â—…ays there in his natural glorious shape and yet at the same time he gives us his body under the form or species of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment Now supposing this saying of Christ Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world Math. 28. and this other saying of his This is my body Math. 26. and Luke 22. and comparing these two passages with that of the Prov. 8. viz. and my delight 's to be with the Children of men he said not his representation figure or signe but his real self it follows evidently that he is to be also really upon earth until the consâ—…mation of the world And since he cannot be in his natural glorious shape in both places at once it follows that he is in his natural shape in heaven and sacramentally with us here upon earth And whereas he saw our nature abhors to eat and drink raw flesh and bloud he found it necessary to attemperate and accommodate his body and bloud which he instituted for our spiritual food to our nature and therefore exhibiteth himself unto us in the likeness or shape of bread and wine which be our natural and ordinary food But to do this he saw t was necessary the substances of bread and wine should vanish and that the substance of his body should come in and supply their place he saw also 't was necessary that the accidents should remain undestroyed to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment And because Christs body is not in the Sacrament impanated that is in bread as Luther falsely asserts for Christ said not This bread is my body or This is my body and bread or This is my body in bread it was necessary the Accidents of bread and wine should be in the Sacrament without their connatural subjects therefore by vertue of his omnipotent word he gives the Sacramental species a substance-like existence in and by themselves without any subject and he props them miraculously with his own infinite power though still with this difference that the sacramental species retain their aptitudinal inherence which substances do not Moreover it was necessary seeing he is in his humane shape in heaven that he should be sacramentally on earth for to verify his above mentioned saying viz. that he would be with us unto the consummation of the world he then being sacramentally with us it follows that he may be in an equivocal place and consequently in a point as the soul is in the body And whereas this Sacrament was instituted to be our spiritual food and we are commanded to eat it we being in a thousand million of places together it was necessary that the Sacrament may be in so many places together also for us to be fed therewith It is also necessary it should be obvious to the good and wicked for to make the good better and to make the wicked people good and devout the which if it doth not alwaies it is no fault of Christ or of the Sacrament but our own fault As no more is an Apothecarys shop the worse for having all sorts of excellent medicines and druggs in it although some of them may chance to kill here and there some people that take them undisâ—…reetly In like manner although some Iudas-like people receive the B. Sacrament unworthily and to their own spiritual ruine and damnation yet it is necessary that it should be ministred to all sort of people to the wicked as well as to the faithfull being it was instituted for us all as also because the Priest who is the right minister of this Sacrament cannot discern the worthy from the unworthy for if Christ himself who knew Iudas his heart gave him his body to eat though he was sure he would receive it unworthily why may not Christs minister not knowing the unworthi ness of the receiver give it him in hopes it would make him better Christ gave his own body to Iudas though he knew it would work his damnation because though he knew Iudas to be wicked and unworthy yet his sins were not publick and known to the world but only secret sins viz. of avarice or theft even so doth our holy Mother the Church to whom the administration of this Sacrament is left she bars no body for his private sins from receiving it knowing that as Christ was tender of Iudas his fame and reputation though he was a vile sinner concealedly and therefore denied not him his body because he was to communicate publickly with the rest of the Apostles so she ought also to deal in this matter with her children But unto publick sinners or Excommunicated persons she flatly and openly denies this Sacrament before they become wholly reconciled and penitent at lest exteriorly to the sight of the world And although it be not necessary that a devil incarnate or a beast should eat it or that it should be stoln burnt or taken away by the devil yet because it is very necessary in it self for our spiritual nourishment and because we are not Gods but only his unworthy ministers to discern a devil incarnate from a meer man also because we know not what future accidents may chance by reason of fire water thieves or bruit beasts and especially because we believe and are sure no annoyance or harm can come to a glorified body from any of all those forementioned things we hold it necessary and not at all inconvenient to keep the B. Sacrament in decent Tabernacles deputed and consecrated meerly for that use and nothing else for to have it always ready at hand in time of need for the spiritual refreshment and nourishment of the faithfull especially of those who are very sick and like to take their leave of this world And as our Tabernacles are only for this purpose so are our Churches for no other use but prayer and offering this Sacrifice whatever use the Mounsieur and this confederate reformers put their Churches to as also those of ours which they wrongfully wrested out of our hands notwithstanding our quiet and peaceable enjoyment of them for many hundred years successively even since their erection by our Ancestours who built them and planted Christian Religion here in England Nay all this the very Protestant chroniclers themselves assert and cannot deny That the devil ever ventured immediately upon the Sacrament either to touch it or take it away I never read nor heard as yet and therefore believe not Mr. de Rodon as to that point But that Jews witches thieves or such like rabble may have carried it away and abused it and also of stupendious Miracles and exemplary punishments that often happned unto the malefactours in sundry ages and countries I have read in several grave and credible Authors Therefore all the
whole one body But this which we do is done for a commemoration of that which was done for we offer not another Sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but alwaies the self-same c. with S. Chrysostom hom 17. in Epist. ad Heb. and after him with Theophylact. Oecumenius with Haymo Paschasuis Remigius and others who object to themselves thus Do not we also offer every day we offer surely But this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer alwaies the self-same and not now one lamb and to morrow another but the self-same therefore this is one sacrifice otherwise because it is offered in many places there would be many Christs and a little after Not another sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but the self-same we do alwaies offer rather working a remembrance or commemoration of the sacrifice With Primasuis S. Augustines Scholar who preoccupates the Mounsieurs oblections thus What shall we say then do not our Priests daily offer sacrifice they offer surely becaus we sin daily daily have need to be cleansed and because he cannot die he hath given us the Sacrament of his body and bloud that as his Passion was the redemption and absolution of all the world so also this oblation may be a redemption and cleansing to all that offer it in truth and verity in which sense also venerable Bede calleth the Mass Redemtionem corporis animaesempiternam the everlasting redemption of body and soul lib. 4. c. 22. histor To these above mentioned holy doctors who not only unanimously agree that the Sacrament of the Altar is an host and sacrifice but also that it is the self â—…ame sacrifice which was offered upon the Altar of the Cross for our Salvation I add these ensuing General Councils and holy fathers of the primitive Church whereof some were the Apostles contemporaneans and Disciples The first holy Council of Nice chap. 14. in fine tonc ex graeco the Council of Ephesus Anathematis 11. the Chalcedon Council art 3. pag. 112. the Ancyran Council chap. 1. 5. the Neacaesarean Council Can. 13. Laodic can 19. Carthaginian 2. c. 8. Carthag 3. cha 24. and Carthag 4. chap 33. 41. S. Denyse cha 3. Eccles. hierarch S. Andrew in hist. Passionis S. Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrn S. Martialis Epist ad Burdegal S. Iustine dial cum Tryphone S. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 23 24. Tertullian de eultâ—… feeminarum corona militum Origen hom 13. in Levit. S. Cypr epist. ad Cecilium num 2. de coena Domini num 13. and Euseb. demonstrat Evangel lib. 1. c. 10. Let us now compare all these holy Councils Fathers and Doctors unanimous authorities with M. de Rodons bare word without any text of Scripture contradicting them let us I say compare all their affirmative votes to his no mention no foot step and judge which of these two parties deserves to be counted hereticks for they cannot be both counted orthodox because they contradict one another in point of faith what man then unlesse he were willfully prodigall of his salvation would adhere to de Rodons crack-brain'd obstinate self-opinion and forsake for him the whole torrent of General Councils Fathers and Doctors of Christs Church Neither are S. Gregory and Bellarmine for him too but rather point-blank against him as to the main point of this question which is that at the first Institution of this Sacrament Christ offered and sacrificed his body and bloud to his father for Bellarmine in the place alledged by the Mounsieur viz. out of his first book of the Mass chap. 27. speaks only thus that this sacrifice consists not precisely in the consummation of the host nor in any other part of the Mass but only in the words of consecration because S. Gregory said that the Apostles used no other ceremonies at the Mass when they first practised it but only the Lords prayer and immediatly after they consumed the consecrated host But neither he nor S. Gregory ever said that Christ and his Apostles never offered sacrifice to God the father in the Mass for Bellermine says positively in that very chapter that Christ offered sacrifice to his heavenly father and that the Apostles and their successors do the like dayly But he holds that the sacrifice consists precisely in the words of Consecration and not in the oblations before or after nor in the consumption of the host all which makes nothing for Mr. de Rodon who is not ashamed confidently to say that S. Gregory and Bellarmine are of his side whereas there is no such thing to be seen in them but the quite contrary as may be evidently seen in the alledged chapter of Bellarmines said book As for learned Salmeron the Jesuits commentary and Cardinal Baronius his free confession concerning an unwritten Tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist any man of reason or belief would sconer believe the Traditions of the whole Church then admire or stand in doubt of them and much less would they harken against them to Mr. de Rodons bare word or to his srivolous no mention no footstep for Gods Church had no other rule to follow from Adams time until Moses who was the first that ever writ of the old Testament concerning what she was to believe but Tradition And from the time of our Saviours Assension untill some of the Apostles and the Evangelists set their penns to paper what else had the faithful to trust unto but only unwritten Tradition what Scripture have we for changing the Sabaoth day or for the twelve articles of our Creed made by the twelve Apostles which be the Principles and foundation of our faith without which none can be saved only Tradition finally doth not the Apostle in his 2. Epist. to the Thessal 2. chap. command us to hold the Traditions which we have learned whether it be by his word or by his Epistle wherefore then should it be a strange thing that the Mass which is the dayly practise and sacrifice of the whole Church from the Apostles time until ours suppose there were nothing left written concerning it wherefore I say ought it not be held and believed as well as the changing of the Sabaoth day or as the twelve articles of the Apostles creed Moreover being the Mass as we hold and is evidently proved by the testimonies of the General Councils and holy fathers above-mentioned doth chiefly and essentially consist in the words of consecration and that Christ himself was the first that ever consecrated we consequently hold that he was the first and chief Priest that ever said Mass And whereas we find that after he consecrated he commanded his Apostles that as often as they did this that 's to say consecrated they should do it in remembrance of him we find I say that the Mass was instituted and commanded expresly by Christ himself Therefore in my opinion it is a thing far more wonderful and strange that any man of common reason
or sense should join in opinion with Mr. de Rodon against the Mass which has the Tradition and practise of the whole Catholick Church from the Apostles time unto ours of its side and the Mounsieur not a tittle out of Scripture Council or holy father that makes for him but his silly negative no mention no footstep And as the Mounsieur is impudent and obstinate in opposing the universal Church so is he also shamless in believing of her for he says that her doctours require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass which is an arrant lye for although it be true that our holy Mother the Church commands all her children if they have no lawful impediment viz. of sickness or some other very urgent affayrs of consequence to the contrary to be personally present and assist at the oblation of this divine sacrifice on sundays and holy-days of obligation for to hear Mass on workingdays is only of counsel not of precept or command yet she never taught them that by only hearing Mass they should be saved But she rather teaches them the contrary viz. that if they hear never so many Masses while they are in mortal sin they shall reap no benefit by them in order as to any the least jott of merit or reward unless they believe as the Church believes go to confession and do penance for their sinns and firmly resolve to keep Gods commandments and the commandments of his Church for the future and finally do some satisfactory works for the transgressions of their ill life past And far from truth is it also what de Rodon saith viz. that if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist hath offered unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should be again sacrificed on the Cross farr I say is that from truth Because as all the sacrifices of the old Law were but types and derived all their force and vertue from Christs bloody sacrifice upon the Cross so also this incruent or unbloudy sacrifice hath its reference or relation to the said bloudy sacrifice and the difference between the old sacrifices and this our sacrifice of the new Law is this that they were but mediate types and meer shadows of the bloudy sacrifice But our sacrifice is not only an immediate type but also a true Idaea and dayly express real commemoration of it Nay as all the holy fathers do generally accord it is the very self same sacrifice as that of the Cross was though not offered in the same manner for that was bloudy and this is unbloudy and the reason is because Christ as I said before having a desire to be amongst the children of men and promising his Church to be with her alwaise unto the consummation of the world since he is to be in heaven in his humane and glorious shape until the time of the restitution of all things he found out in the infinite abyss of his wisdom this other admirable and ineffable way of being really and personally present with his Church militant in the most blessed Sacrament for to encourage seed strengthen her wirh the manifold graces that flow from his real presence in her into the souls of his elect servants To his farther addition out of S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. 1 Tim. being he inferrs all from negatives he can never conclude However since the Apostle makes mention unto Tymothy of Presbyters that is to say Priests and since betwixt Priest and sacrifice there is a correlation it follows that the Apostle at least virtually made mention of sacrificers Rodon 3. The second argument is drawn from the definition of a sacrifice as it is given us by our adversaries Card. Bellarmine in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 2. defines it thus sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mistical ceremony destroys something that is sensible permanent from those last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form 2. arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass. The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our adversaries say it is a sensible thing but the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing Sacrificed Answ. From these last words viz. that the lawful minister destroys something that is sensible drawn out of Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice Mr. de Rodon forms two arguments like two huge milstones that will crush and destroy the sacrifice of the Mass consequently poor Dianaâ—…s head too To his first crusher which begins thus In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses I grant its major and its minor which is this But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience I distinguish thus but the body and bloud of Christ c. do not fall under our senses in their connatural and proper shape I confess the minor do not fall under our senses in a sacramental shape or in the form and shape of bread and wine which by experience we know falls under our senses I deny the minor and consequence also for we never say that Christ is in the Sacrament in his proper humane shape but only sacramentally that 's to say in the shape of bread and wine and yet we hold that he is really and personally there because he himself said so in most express terms These sacramental species then being obvious to our senses and Christ being really in them they being destroyed although Christs body according to its natural and human shape be not destroyed for he is not reduplicatively so in the Sacrament but only specificatively his sacramental presence is also destroyed in them and consequently we say that by destroying the sacramental species which are palpably obvious to our senses a true and proper sacrifice though an unbloudy one is offered to God the father in remembrance of Christs once-bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross Rodon 4. Against this answer Mr. de Rodon hath these two replies The first is that Christs body is not visible by the species of bread because as his adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it and he says moreover that although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizible by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently he infers
form thus By the Sacramental being is understood an accidental Predicable being which Predicable being is a substantial mode or manner of Christs being present in the Sacrament I confess By the Sacramental being is understood an accidental Predicamental being of him in the Sacrament I deny and the reason I gave just now which is that because his body is not circumscriptively in the Sacrament but only sacramentally his ubication or presence in it cannot be a predicamental one belonging to any of the nine series of accidents for all predicamental ubications or presences must necessarily result from univocal and proper places as the received definition of a Predicamental ubi which Gilbertus Porretanus in opusc de sex Principiis viz. Ubi est circumscriptio corporis a circumscriptione loci proveniens an Ubi ubication or presence is a circumscription of a body proceeding from the circumscription of a Place doth evidently shew Then replyes the Mounsieur again If Christs being in the Sacrament be a substantial being since his substantial being is nothing else but his substance and nature then it follows that if Christs being be destroyed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in respect of his substantial being there he must be also destroyed in respect of his natural being I deny the sequel for although Christs entity be in the Sacrament by vertue of the words of consecration yet it is there but modally by vertue of the words and he remains still essentially and in his proper humane shape in heaven so that his essence or entity remains still as it was although his modality or manner of being so and so in the Sacrament which we say is a substantial and not an accidental manner of being for the reason alledged be destroyed or ceaseth to be there If we should say that Christs body is circumscriptively and in his proper human shape in the Sacrament by vertue of the words of consecration then something may be said in the matter but we hold no such thing we only say that by vertue of the words of consecration his substance is really in the Sacramental species which are no proper place at all because he is in them immediatly by reason of his substance and no substance can immediatly by reason of its own self possess any proper place but only by reason of its quantity and all Philosophers I know not what the great Mounsieur holds do hold that ten thousand substances may be contained in a point without being in any proper place So that the sacramental species being destroyed it follows only that Christs substantial presence which was modally in them as in no proper place ceaseth to be in them after they are consumed or destroyed and yet ceaseth not because they are destroyed to be at all or to be in his proper natural shape in heaven Moreover as all Philosophers do commonly say corporal things do depend of their proper places in order to their conservation and are in statu violento as they call it that is they have an inclination to tend towards their center and are not at rest and quiet until they be there but suffer some kinde of violence and force from such bodies as obstruct their passage so we see fire tends always upwards towards its Element which is its proper place and all the waters tends towards their own Element But Christs glorified body has no natural inclination or tendency towards the sacramental species which is a signe that it is not there in its connatural place and consequently that it hath no dependency from them from whence followeth evidently that when they are destroyed although his substance ceaseth to be in them that his substance is not at all annoyed or destroyed by the destruction of them for it never depended of them This formal distinction of both kinds of accidents Praedicamental and Predicable obstructs all de Rodons rushing absurdities which he saith would ensue from the doctrine of the Mass. It obstructs the first because according to this distinction the sacrifice of the Mass is not a sacrifice of an accident only but of a substantial mode or manner of presence accidentally predicated of an essence and nature which hath and always will have its natural being in its proper place in heaven until the restitution of all things Acts. 3. It obstructs the second because the holy fathers above mentioned and especially S. Ambrose and S. Chrisostome whose authorities are of far more worth and rather to be believed then de Rodons simple bare word is do expresly affirm that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are but one and the self same sacrifice essentially though not in manner or mode the one being bloudy and the other unbloudy It obstructs the third because the same thing which was produced viz. Christs substantial ubication or presence in the Sacrament is only that which is destroyed at the destruction of the sacramental species and not his nature essence or substantial being for after the consumation of the sacramental species Christ ceaseth to be personally present in them any more but he ceaseth not to be in his own humane shape in heaven for their being destroyed It obstructs the fourth because we hold with Bellarmine that the sacrifice of the Mass consists chiefly and essentially in the words of consecration which are not uttered in the Priests stomack and not in any oblations of the host before or after neither in the consumpsion also though at the consumpsion of the host we confess the sacrifice is integrated and compleated and consequently no more to be offered in the Priests stomack for when the accidents are consumed and dessended into the Priests stomack they are out of our sight and sphear of offering them and they are then altered in fieri as schoolmen call it that 's to say in the way of being altered or destroyed And since we know not how long they remain undestroyed there there is no reason why we should offer them in his stomack for they were offered already both as to the essential and integral oblation at the words of consecration and ceremonies following unto the consumption inclusively It obstructs the last because it being the self same sacrifice with that of the Cross as all the holy fathers and doctors of Christs Church do unanimously assert its vertue force and satisfaction is totally derived from the Justice and satisfaction of the cruent or bloudy sacrifice of the Cross for this sacrifice is nothing else but an express Idea and perfect memorial nay to speak more properly it is but the self same sacrifice with the bloudy one reiterated after an incruent manner and consequently it is propitiatory for the sinns of the living and dead His first milstone being thus split and shattered into small pieces we need not fear his second because one Milstone alone cannot grinde yet fearing left the Mounsieur or his party should think that its weight should crush or destroy us I let it
Mounsieur is utterly false as to all its parts and his bare word for it without any proof is no imaginary but real obstinate impudence for he contradicts all the General Councils holy fathers and universal Church of God yet he offers to prove it thus Rodon First because it is said Heb. 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Therefore in the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass there can be no remission of sins and consequently it cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Answ. To this silly consequence I answer again and again and say that what the holy fathers unanimously consented unto and practised dayly as concerning an unbloudy Propitiatory sacrifice is ten thousand times of more weight and a better warrant for our opinion then de Rodon and all his Phanatick rabbles bare word is to destroy or weaken it Therefore I confess with the Apostle Heb. the 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Because if there had been no primitive bloudy sacrifice this unbloudy sacrifice had not been instituted for it was instituted as a memorial or remembrance of the bloudy one from whence follows not at all that the same host which was once offered bloudily may not be offered again unbloudily for our sins and consequently that the sacrifice of the Mass cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Rodon Secondly because Iesus Christ cannot be offered without suffering for the Apostle saith Heb. 6. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ with suffering is a bloudy Sacrifice therefore there is no unbloudy Sâ—…crifice Answ. That Christ can be offered without suffering and that a rigorous Sacrifice may be without death bloud or suffering is sufficiently maintained before as also that these words of the apostle must be understood of a bloudy sacrifice which we confess is not to be reiterated but not of an unbloudy one we said before Therefore these consequences drawn out of the Apostle are but frivolous repetitions of his old shattred stuff Rodon Thirdly because the bloudy sacrifice of the Crosse being of an infinite value hath purchased an eternal redemption Heb. 9. and hath taken away all sins past present and to come whence it followeth that there is no other Sacrifice either bloudy or unbloudy that can purchase the pardon of our sins the Sacrifice of the Crosse having sufficiently done it Let the Mounsieur stir the râ—…bbish never so often and turn it over and over and let him turn and search the Apostle to the Hebrews and look narrowly into all his other works never so often I am sure he will never be able to pick one golden or silver consequence nay not one worth a straw to serve his turn against us for we grant that there is no other sacrifice bloudy or unbloudy essentially distinct from the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross that can purchase the pardon of our sins But we deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is essentially distinct from that of the Cross or that the sacrifice of the Mass being the self-same with that of the Cross cannot purchase the pardon of our sins and I pray Mounsieur what force hath your consequence out of the Apostle against this answer no more certainty as any man may see then a broken straw hath Rodon Fourthly Because the justice of God requires that sins shall be expiated by the punishment that is due to them and this is so true that the wrath of God could not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the Iustice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering Answ. I grant that Gods wrath for our sins was appeased by the bloudy and ignominious death of Christ upon the Cross and that the satisfaction was according to rigorous Justice But I deny that the nature of Gods Justice must have changed if sins can be expiated in the Masse without pain or suffering because the Masse as it is a sacrifice derives all its force vertue and vigour from the Primitive bloudy sacrifice of the Crosse and being both are of one essence and that there is no more need of a bloudy satisfaction for sin it followeth that the repetition or reiteration of the same sacrifice now offered unbloudily for there is no more need of a bloudy sacrifice has the same force and efficacy to expiate sin now as it had when it was offered upon the cross the person offered being the self-same and of the same value and worth And this is true that the Mounsieurs consequence is very false because Christ having satisfied once bloudily and his body being now glorious and impatible as it is not convenient he should suffer again having satisfied sufficiently already for all sins in general so is it convenient his bloudy passion should be rememorated unbloudily and applyed for the sins of the faithful in particular both because Christ left orders with his Church in express terms it should be done so when he said as often as you do this do it in remembrance of me as also for holy Primasius his reasons viz. because we sin dayly Now then to his third Reply Rodon 20. Thirdly to the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is dayly offered in the Mass I reply first that what the Council of Trent saith in sess 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine powred into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Iesus Chaist and his death according to his own command in these words do this in remembrance of me and according to what S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applyed to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a crue and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead which hath been already refuted at large Answ. That you have done indeed as Luther refuted king Henry the eighth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of devils c. But I think any impartial reader may easily see and judge that I have fully and pathetically answ ered all your refutations and shewed
any body yet spoke more divinely of this grand Mistery of the B. Sacrament then our famous Thomas Aquinas did and so great was his devotion to this Sacrament that he was the first who obtained of the Pope to institute a solenm holy-day throughout the whole Church in its honour he himself composed the whole office which we use in this festivity both in Church and at Masse In his Rithem upon the Masse of corpus Christi day he says thus docti sacris institutis panem vinum in salutis consecramus hostiam we are taught by holy statutes and ordinances that we consecrate bread and wine into an host of health or safeguard here he calls it an host and consequently a sacrifice for an host and a sacrifice are correlatives Again in the same Rythem he says Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit Panis vinum in sanguinem a decree is left to all Christians that the bread is changed into flesh and the wine into bloud And again Caro cibus senguis potus manet tamen Christus totus sub utraque specie The meat is flesh the drink is bloud and yet Christ remains entire under each species In a word there is nothing more clear and palpable then famous S. Thomas of Aquins opinion is in all this holy Rythem concerning the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist and concerning his unbloudy sacrifice Nay if the Mounsieur were pleased but to be so just as to prosecute the said doctors words in the self saâ—…e place where he cites him he may easily see that this testimony is also quite against him for the holy doctor hath these ensuing words in that very place viz. Quantum igitur ad primum modum poterat dici Christu immoâ—…sri etiam in figuris veteris Testamenti c. sed quantum ad secundum modum proprium est huic sacramento quod in ejus celebratione Christus immoletur As concerning the first acception of a sacrifice Christ may be said to have been sacrificed in the types of the old Law also c. But as concerning the last acception of a sacrifice it is peculiar and proper to this Sacrament that Christ is sacrificed in its celebration where he clearly says that although in the first acception of a sacrifice viz. as the Sacrament is a signe Image or representation of Christs passion it may be called a sacrifice as the word sacrifice is common to the Sacrifices of boâ—…h Laws yet in the later acception of a Sacrifice viz. as by this Sacrament we are made partakers of Christs passion in this later sense the holy Doctor says it is proper and peculiar only to this our Sacrament in its celebration to be called a sacrifice which is the self-saâ—… thing we say for we hold that we are made partakers of Christs passion and of his bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross by receiving this our Sacrament offered unbloudily in its celebration of the Mass for us Therefore M. de Rodon all other arguments failing him if he were not mad would never pitch upon our Thomas Aquinas of all men in the world and he with his whole party subscribe to his Testimony here which is father quite against them for 't is very well known to all the world that our Venerable Lady Diana never had a stouter Champion to deâ—…end her then Thomas Aquinas However while the Masse is sound and saâ—… and will be alive until the worlds end maâ—…gre all the devils of hell as Christ promised it should be We must give leave to malicious and mad hereticks to speak madly and make 〈◊〉 Funerals as this of de Rodons concerning the Mass is the maddest and most malicious that ever was written CHAP. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors ALthoug when conbatants or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fight they commonly before they go to the field choose what arms they are to fight with and foresee lâ—…t there should be any inequality in their weapons veâ—… it was never heard or seen that the advers party should choose his enemies sword before they went to fight weild it for him while they are actually a fighting that he leaves to himself to make use of as he pleaseth and much less ought he to blunt it However prudent Reader I would have you take notice that Mr. de Rodon observes not this common way with us in this controversal conflict which all duelists use but chooses such arguments of ours as he please and puts them in such order or form as he likes best he mentions not our authors that we may know whether the arguments be theirs and set out in their manner or form this is the way to blunt our weapons and to give us directions how we must fight him but so and so make our blow or thrust at him but so and so what else is this but that he weilds our sword for us while we are actually fighting against him and blunts it while he sets out our arguments in his blunt manner or form Sure any body may see that this is a very unjust and inequal manner of fighting with ones adversary Nevertheless being he has no other shift left him now to oppose and annoy Diana he shall be answered and encountred this way also for although he chose the weapons both his and ours yet I am sure we stand upon the firmer and better ground Behold him coming against us thus Rodon 1. In the two first chapters we have answered the two principal objections of the Romish doctors drawn from these words This is my body c. and from these he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life c. Now we must answer the rest Answ. In the first two chapters of this book these your answers are clearly refuted shattered and quasht therefore answer the rest better then you did these otherwise your labour will prove but ridiculous and vain and I question not but it will prove so at last Objection 1. Romanists 2. The first objection is this when the establishing of articles of faith the Institution of Sacraments and the making Testaments and covenants are in agitation men speak plainly and properly and not obscurely and figuratively But in the celebration of the Eucharist Iesus Christ established an article of faith Instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist and spake of a Testament and a covenant for it is said of the Cup that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ yea he spake then to his disciples to whom he spake in plain and proper terms and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables as he did to the people Answer Rodon â—… To this objection I answer first that it is false that Articles of faith are always exprest in proper terms in holy scripture as when it is said in the Creed that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God it is evident that this is a figure
represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist Besides the types and Sacraments of the old Testament were instituted that the faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls But the faithful under the old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal lamb and though they had come to the knowledge of it yet they had had no benefit thereby In a word seeing the Passeover and the Eacharist are types Images and signes of Iesus Christ 't is very impertinent to say that the Passeover is the type of the Eucharist because a type is not properly the type of another type but only of the thing typified as the Image of Caesar is not the Image of another Image of Caesar but only of Caesar himself Answ. Mr. de Rodon breaks this thrust or objection three manner of ways all which I will answer in order to his first wherein he says that the thing typified by the Paschal lamb is Jesus Christ and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as S. Paul shews clearly 1. Cor. 5. when he calls Jesus Christ our Passeover in these words Christ our Passeover was crucified for us I answer that this Passage of scripture shews not clearly that the Paschal lamb is not also a type of the Eucharist Nay I say that this text makes rather for us for whereas all the holy fathers and doctors of the Church with all the general Councils do unanimously hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist offered is nothing else but Christ immolated unbloudily upon the Altar in remembrance of his once bloudy Passion If the same Christ we say then the same thing typified and the only difference is in the immolation or offering viz. that the primary oblation of him was bloudy the secondary incruent or unbloudy all which we grant and for that reason do averr and maintain that the Paschal lamb was a type not only of Christ crucified but also of Christ in the Eucharist And we leave it to any Prudent and impartial Reader to consider and judge whose authority and opinion is surer to be imbraced and followed in this debate Iohn Calvins Mr. de Rodons and a handful of new Phanatick opiniatours or the General Councils of all ages that ever treated of this subject all the holy fathers and the universal Christian Church But replyeth Mr. de Rodon such a lamb represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist I answer that it represents that which is believed to be in it which is a surer and better sight or knowledge then what we see or know with our corporal eyes which may be deceived by the illusions of the devil whereas our understanding supported by the light of saith cannot be because it relyes upon the testimony of Gods word which testimony and word we have expressely in the 6th of S. Iohn of our side But quoth he again besides the types and Sacraments of the old Testament were instituted that the faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls But the faithful under the old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal lamb and though they had come to the knowledge of it yet they had not benefit thereby I confess that the types and Sacraments of the old Law were instituted for the reason you alledge and I distinguish your minor thus But they never came to an explicite sormal knowledge of the Eucharist I confess but they never came to an implicite vertual knowledge of the Eucharist I deny and deny also that they had not the vertual benefit of it for the Eucharist and its immolation being the self same thing with Christ and his immolation upon the Cross although this being the primary immolation as is said before and including virtually the secundary which is that of the Altar yet because the very same thing is still offered it followeth that this secondary immolation which is the Eucharist was typified also vertually and implicitly by the Paschal lamb and that those of the old Law reapt benefit by it as they did explicitly by that of the Cross. In a word seeing the Passeover and the Eucharist are not Types alike but the one mediate and the other immediate the one but a bare type and the other both type and the thing typified it is not at all impertinent that the Passeover should be the type of the Eucharist Neither is the Parity of Caesar with his own Image to any purpose for Caesar and his Image are not the same thing as Christ is the self-same thing with the Eucharist There M. de Rodon ought to hold â—…is impertinent tongue or speak better to the purpose But he that is full of impertinencies and hath nothing else in him must of necessity burst out with some of them or otherwise he would become quite dumb Rodon 10. Secondly I answer that the excellency of one Sacrament above another must be drawn from its form and efficacy and not from its matter because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form But the form of Sacraments depends on the words of Institution because being signes of divine Institution their form can only depend upon the will of God who chooseth certain things to signifie other things and this will of God cannot he known but by revelation which is the word so that it is properly said that the word joyned with the element makes the Sacrament therefore although the Sacrament of the Passeover be more excellent then the Eucharist in respect of its matter because the Paschal lamb and its bloud are more excellent then the bread and the wine of the Eucharist and that the lamb and its bloud have a greater Analogy with Iesus Christ his bloud shed on the cros then the bread and wine of the Eucharist have yet the Sacrament of the Eucharist is much more excellent then that of the Passeover in respect of its form which depends on the words of Institution because that at the institution of the Sacrament of the Passeover God spake not the word of the principal end for which he did institute it viz. to be the type of Iesus Christ and his death But at the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ declared in expresse terms that he did institute the eating of the bread broken and the drinking of the wine poured into the Cup to be commemorative signes of Christ himself and his death The Sacrament of the Eucharist is yet more excellent then that of the Passeover in respect of its efficacy which depends on two things viz. on the form which being more manifest in the Eucharist doth operate with more efficacy and also because it represents a thing past viz. the death of Christ But the knowledge of things past is more clear and perfect then the
believe your bare word against the Apostles clear meaning for certainly the Apoâ—…le purposely mentioned the word Penetrated to let us know that Penetrability is a property that belongs to a glorified body heâ—…p on 〈◊〉 heap on more and more curses upon your own self for adulterating Gods clear word but I am sure no body of understanding reason or belief ought to believe you or pin his saith upon your glosses after so many blasphemyes and lyes by you exprest in this small treatise Therefore it is certain that as to be obscure corruptible impenetrable and lumpish or heavy is proper to every patible body so it is proper to every gloâ—…ious body as Chriâ—…s is most glorious to be luminous incorruptible penetrable active or fleet or if you deny penetrability to a glorified body you must deny it agility incorruptibility and clarity also and then you contradict your own self for in your 4th chap. numb 15. you own that the glory of Chriâ—…s body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light which is nothing else but the gift or dowry of clarity Rodon 15. All the Romish doctors agree with us that modal accidents which are nothing else but the manner of being of substances as Action Passion Relation figure c. cannot be without a subject no not by the power of God himself But all the Objections by which they endeavour to prove that the accidents of the bread and wine may exist without a subject that is without their substance do prove the same thing of modal accidents too so that I shall not stay now to repeat these objections with their answers which are set down at large in my dispute about the Eucharist Answ. Certainly Mr. de Rodon you are much mistaken in the general opinion of all the Romish doctors concerning accidents and I believe you never read them all nor the tenth part of them for although these Accidents which you recount if compared to the accidents of Quantity and Quality because of their small entities and being are but modal yet in themselves they are real and positive entities and not pure modes for each of them constitutes a peculiar Predicament or series of Accident as the common opinion of all the best Romish doctors hold with Aristotle commonly called the Prince of Philosophers But whatsoever they hold of these Accidents whether they be proper entities or only pure modes very sure it is that they hold that subsistence and existence themselves which are substantial modes and more intrinsecal and neer to their subjects or substances then modal accidents be may be separated from their substances as Antichrists subsistence and existence are now separated from his Essence for essences as Aristotle says are ab aeterno from all eternity but subsistences and existences are not But suppose these modal accidents for the smallness of their entities cannot be without a subject yet it follows not but that the Quantity and Quality of the Sacramental species which have a greater and more solid entity may be without their connatural subjects their connatural subject being supplyed by a better and stronger as we say the power of God which upholds the Sacrament is a far better and stronger prop of the Sacramental species then the bare entities of bread and wine were And suppose again that according to all the Romish doctours these modal Accidents cannot be even by the power of God himself without a subject yet it follows not that they cannot be without their connatural subject because God can supply their connatural subject with a better and so he does in the Mystery of the blessed Sacrament for he gives the Sacramental species a better and stronger subject then they had before while they were sustentated by their connatural subjects of bare bread and wine In a word it is sufficient for all Accidents to have an aptitudinal inherence to their natural subjects without having an actuall inherence in them Objection 5th Roman 16. The fifth objiction is drawn from Mal. 1. in these words from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the gentils and in every place shall they offer incense to my name and a new pure offering where by this new and pure offering nothing can be understood but the sacrifice of the Mass because by this offering we cannot understand prayers almes contrition of heart and other good works which are sometimes in Scripture called oblations and sacrifices for the Prophet Malachy promiseth a new offering But Prayers Alms and other good works were common amongst the Iews and besides they of the Reformed Religion do believe that all the actions of the faithfull are polluted and the Prophet speaks of a pure and clean offering Again by this offering which Malachy speaks of cannot be understood lambs Bulls and such like animals which were wont to be sacrificed in Solomons Temple because the Prophet promiseth that it shall be offered in every place amongst the heathens Lastly by this offering cannot be understood the bloudy sacrifice which Iesus Christ offered on the Cross because that bloudy sacrifice was offered but once upon Mount Calvary in Judea and the Prophet speaks of an oblation that shall be offered in every place Therefore by this offering must be understood the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine which is nothing else but the Mass. Rodon 17. To this I answer first that by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual worship and service which believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their persons and Religious actions and this is the reason why S. Paul Rom. 12. speaks thus I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And chap. 15. speaking of the grace that was given him of God he saith It is given him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentils ministring the Gospel of God and that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost whence it appears that by this oblation whereof Malachy speaks we must not under stand the offering of Christs body and bloud under the aecidents of bread and wine but the offering up of the persons and Religious actions of those that should be brought unto God by preaching of the Gospel and particularly the Gentiles Answ. I wonder where Mr. de Rodon did reade or learn all these witty commentations he has upon Scripture If they were revealed unto him by God then they carry as much authority with them as Scripture it self doth But if they be not revealed nor seconded by any of the holy fathers upon what foundation doth their verity rely but upon de Rodons own bare word All the
clean one the Prophet spoke of If it be a strict sacrifice a sacrifice with Incense as the Prophet sayes it is it must be destroyed Is the new time you speak of that sacrifice a great deal of that time I confess is past and spent but when was it incenst were the new people the Christians this sacrifice 't is true many of them are dead and gone but were they all thurified an Incenst at their departure out of the world or is the new place the world your new or clean sacrifice that is neither quite destroyed as yet nor in most places Incenst No more are the Lords Prayer the new sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords supper as they are celebrated by you nor your new preaching if they be your sacrifices I say they are not offered with Incensation or thurification But the Prophet promised that at the new or clean offering or sacrifice of the new Law which sacrifice is to be offered every where or in every country or dominion it shall be offered with Incense and thurification to the honour and glory of Gods name and so I am sure do the Roman Catholicks through the whole world when they celebrate or offer the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass solemnly to the honour and glory of Gods name they offer it with Incense and thurification And this sacrifice as we believe it is the real body and bloud of Christ is infinitly cleaner then your bare bread and wine and then all the rest of the sacrifices you mentioned are Therefore since the Prophet says there must be a new or clean sacrifice and that this sacrifice must be offered in every place with Incense to the name of God it followeth according to the Prophets words that the sacrifice of the Mass whereat Incense is dayly offered is that new and clean sacrifice since that of the Cross cannot be it it having not been Incenst nor offered in every place and the Mounsieur nor any of his party can shew us any other clean or new sacrifice of theirs where at Incense is used Moreover God not only changed and multiplied his people but also changed and bettered his sacrifice for in place of sacrificing Cattle birds and other weak and poor creatures which were not able to purge sins and were also often polluted by the sins of the offerers God in this place promised a most effectuall pure and excellent dayly sacrifice to continue perpetually in all places of his Church that cannot be polluted which accordingly our blessed Redeemer and Saviour instituted of his own body and bloud in the forms of bread and wine as all ancient fathers prove So Iustinus Martyr teacheth in dialogo cum Trpihone S. Cyprian lib 1. cap. 18. adversus 〈◊〉 5. Damascâ—…n lib. 4. c. 14. de fide orthedoxa S. Ierom. S. Theodoret and S. Cyril in their comentaries upon this place S Augustine lib. 18 c. 15. de civit S. Chrysost. in Ps. 95. oratione conara Iudaeos shewing plainly and urging the Jews and all oppugners of this Catholick belief and doctrine that this Prophecy is not otherwise fulfilled but in the daily sacrifice of the Church for that here is prophâ—…sied another sacrifice distinct and different from the Jewish sacrifices neither were sacrifices offered in all the world neither could be ordinarily offered out of Ierusalem But of this most sacred Mistery and particularly that this is here prophesied there is so much published by ancient and late writers that more need not to be here added And yet Mr. de Rodon with his bare word or exposition thinks to carry away the prize from all these so great is his opinion of himself and of his illuminated spirit a thing common to all hereticks Rodon 19. Thirdly I answer that the oblation which is offered to God under the Gospel is pure and clean the service which performed unto him according to his word is pure thâ—… preaching of the Gospel is pure In a word the Christian Religion is pure though there be many failings in those that profess it And although the faithfull that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed about with many infermities and that their Religious actions be accompanied with diverse failings yet their persons and words may be said to be pure and clean in Iesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfy God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy bâ—…fore God for it is these S. Peter speaks of in Ep. 1. chap. 2. Who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. And so our sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Iesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holyness so that the defects of them are not imputed to us To this I add that besides the perfect purity which we have by the imputation of Christs rigteousness we have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost of which S. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost for that which God hath decreed Iesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun is reputed by God perfect and compleat And S. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1. Tym. 2. 8. in these words I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinckle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Answ. Your third answer is that the oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel is pure and clean the service which is performed unto him according to his word is pure the preaching of his Gospel pure In a word the Christian Religion is pure though there be many failings in those that profess it All this I confess is true but what is it to your purpose I think if all the holy fathers above-cited ought to be more believed then you and I know not why they should not I think I say and I am sure on 't too that you rather accuse and condemn your self and your whole party by this answer then save or excuse your selves for by that pure oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel all the holy fathers did understand the body bloud of Christ as they are daily offered sacrificed upon the Altar in the Mass then which nothing can be offered and sacrificed more clean and pure but they never made any mention of your bare bread and wine By the pure service which is performed unto him according to his word cannot be understood your
of your selues for as Christ covers not your impurities nor imputes his righteousness unto you but rather esteems you for no better then heathens and publicans because you hear not his Church so the holy Ghost has nothing to do with you for Christs holy spirit never contradicts Christ. True it is what you say that that which God hath decreed Jesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun that that is reputed by God perfect and compleat But this only concerns orthodox people and not you for them be these the Apostle speaks of 1 Tym. 2. 8. in these words you aledge I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Iesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Very farr alass are you from such people for you pray but very little or nothing in comparison of others who pray both day and night and you pray not every where for if you were compared with the rest of the world who profess Christ you are but a handful of people in little corners or Islands and there too but for a very short time in comparison of former ages how holy your hands are set aside your own private conceits of your selves the rest of the world can easily judge how void of wrath especially against us we very well know how undoubting you are in points of Religion no body breathing can tell for no two of you could ever as yet fully agree as to that point and every one of you is always seeking but never finding what can quiet and content his conscience in that matter you run from the luke-warm Protestant to the precise Puritan or Presbyterian who hates and rayles at the Protestant Bishops and Clergy as much as they do at us others of you from being Presbyterians turn Independents and viceversa from Independents and Presbyterians you turn Anabaptists from Anabaptists you become Quakers from Quakers Fanaticks and from Phanaticks at last you become Atheists your union consists only in this that to preserve your worldly Interest you retain the common notion or name of Protestant and band all against the Roman Catholick whereas on the contrary the Roman Catholick or Papist holds still to his old Lady Dinna to his Invocation of saints to his praying for the souls departed to the Indulgences which are as he believes bequeathed by Christ unto his Church to Pur gatory all which they say are included in these two articles of our belief viz. I believe in the holy Catholick Church and in the communion of saints In a word all the Roman Catholicks do unanimously agree in all the tenents and points of their whole Religion and are perfectly satisfied and contented in their consciences as to all matters of faith without running here and there from one sect to another to search and seek after new opinions as the Protestants do How then can you be the Church the Congregation of the faithful whom the Apostle sayes Ephes. 5. Christ loved and gave himself for how can you be a glorious Church a Church without spot or wrinckle or any such thing a holy one and without blemish Objection 6th Roman 20. The sixth objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedeck king of salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him and from Ps. 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck from which words they argue thus Iesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck the difference between Aaron and Melchisedeck consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of beasts which they sacrificed to God as a signe and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings he offered to God bread and wine And seeing this bread and wine offered to God by Melchisedeck were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Iesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the Institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer to the shaddows and types Secondly that although Melchisedeck had brought all his bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Armyâ—… that returned from the slaughter of the kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine and the reason of this is because the scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils amongst which there was bread and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and of his people Also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedeck met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly they say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was a Priest of the most high God which show the reason why Melchisedeck brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the scripture would have said that he brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was a Priest fourthly they say that Jesus Christ is a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Iesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Masse viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of broad and wine of Melchisedeck Answer Rodon 21. To this I answer first that the hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. But our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put
these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest instead of putting them without a Parenthesis And he was Priest so that we may say in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it Proferens bringing instead of Protulit brought or drew out Secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos for he was a Priest instead of translating it erat sacerdos and he was a Priest Thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei and he blessed him and so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedeck brought bread and wine and he was a Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedeck bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him Answ. When one tells a notorious and impudent lye indeed and provokes another too much with his lye sometimes he is answered no better then thus The devil take the Lyar. S. Ierom or you must needs be the lyar in this Translation for the Romish doctors do follow S. Ieroms Translation and we know no modern Romish doctors Translators of our Bible we all hold to S. Ieroms Translation which goes by the name of the vulgar Translation among us If he be your adversary then we have one champion of our side worth ten thousand de Rodons and all those of his party But I pray tell me Mr. de Rodon where were you your Bible and your Translators when S. Ierom translated his Bible which we all follow or did any of yours oppose or contradict his Translation for so many hundred years that past betwixt him and Luther Calvin and de Rodon Tell me again I pray whether you and yours translated your Bible by inspiration from God or whether you had your Original from us If you had yours by Gods inspiration then doubtless yours is the true and right one and we must acquiesce to it But how shall we know it or what warrant can you give us for it only your bare word pardon us good sir that suffices us not for we have no reason to believe your bare word against the testimonyes of ten thousand authors better then your self who tell us the contrary But if you had our Bible for your original as you your selves confess you had how can your coppies correct their original but by your adding or diminishing something to it by doing whereof you infallibly purchase to your selves a heavy curse Of. S. Ieroms soul to be in heaven I make no doubt and consequently out of the devils clutches and reach But as for Mr. de Rodon who strikes at S. Ierom through the Romish doctors sides who accuses him of corrupting and falsifiing the text and consequently who presumes to blaspheme against so glorious a saint and eminent doctor of Christs Church I dare not swear but the devil holds him very fast for an arrant Lyar and makes him sit next to himself who is the father of Lyes Therefore I do not think Mr. de Rodon that the Romish doctors or any man of reason and sense will easily leave Saint Ieroms vulgar translation approved of for so many ages by the whole Church to adhere to your simple bare word or to any of your parties whose dictator the devil was that filled both your Bible and brains with falshood and lyes But suppose Mr. de Rodon the right Translation were as you say and that of the words must be made 3 different propositions viz. thus Melchisedeck also brought bread and wine and he was a Priest he blessed him suppose I say the true Text runs so since holy writt makes no mention of any other kind of sacrifice that Melchisedeck ever offered unto God and since he was a Priest and since he blessed Abraham and finally since the holy fathers as I shall hereafter produce agree with us as to the principal and main point of this question viz. that the bread and wine which Melchisedeck brought or offered was a type of the Eucharist there is no reason why the words of the text whether made into three propositions without a Parenthesis as he translates it or made into one proposition with a Parenthesis as S. Ierom or the Romish doctors as he says translated it I say there is no reason why the whole text should not be understood in our meaning and sense for the word brought which he translates for the word bringing may be well understood brought to offer or to sacrifice And these words And he was a Priest which he translates instead of these for he was a priest do signify that Melchisedeck was a priest and we may well think that holy Scripture did not make mention of his Priesthood in this place but in order and reference to some sacrifice as Priest and sacrifice are always correlatives And finally these words and he Blessed him which the Mounsieur translates instead of ours Blessed him may be as well applyed unto Abraham as to God whatever Mr. de Rodon says to the contrary for the Romish doctors do take themselves to be as good grammarians and dialectiâ—…ks too as he is and therefore will not swerve from their Principles nor from the unanimous opinion of the holy fathers concerning the main point of this question for Mr. de Rodons bare word or interpretation unless he proves his conclusion better either by holy Scripture or fathers which it seems he cannot do or if he can wherefore doth he not produce them to make his cause good Rodon 22. Secondly I answer that the hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham and indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle heb 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedeck met Abraham and blessed him and a little after he saith that Melchisedeck blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought him bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedeck blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to noâ—…e but to God Answ. Certainly the Mounsieur would make a better dictionarist then Philosopher or divine for he is mighty
copious in expounding of words as you see though none of them can help him out of his straights or necessities in a Philosophical or theological sense nay nor in a gramatical also for I granted him brought instead of bringing and let him make three several propositions of our one and yet all cannot serve his turn as I shewed immediatly before But he to recompense our bounty regratifies us and says that although this hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet we would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but to be offered and presented unto Abraham for so he will have it understood But good Mounsieur the text makes express mention of Melchisedecks being a Priest And he was a Priest thus you translate it your self but why does the text make mention of his Priesthood but in order to a sacrifice if in order to a sacrifice because Priest and sacrifice are allways correlatives then the sacrifice was offered to God and not to Abraham for otherwise Melchisedeck would be an Idolater Therefore if the word brought signifies brought to offer and if the offering was done by a Priest why may not this offering be thought a sacrifice and if a sacrifice then being offered by such a Priest as Melchisedeck was it is most certain he offered it to God and not to Abraham As to your proofs of Scripture to strengthen your reason that Melchisedeck offered bread and wine to Abraham and blessed him we agree with you as to the later part viz. that it was Abraham that was blest by Melchisedeck But we deny that if Melchisedeck had sacrificed bread and wine unto God that the Pronoun Relative him could not relate to Abraham but to God against the exposition of the Apostle for we say and so doth our famous grammarian Lilie also that the relative him may relate either to the former or to the later thing mentioned be-fore in the precedent sentâ—…e Rodon 23. Thirdly I answer that Melchisedeck brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 6. confesseth that Melchisedeck brought brâ—…d and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people who returned faint and feeble from the slaughter of the kings which is true but he adds that Iesus Christ had offered it to God before which is false and cannot be proved Jerome in his Epistle to Evagrius writes that the Iews understood it that Melchisedeck meeting Abraham after his victory brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people Josephus writing this history saith that Melchisedeck presented bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his Army Damascen Book 4. of the orthodox faith saith that Melchisedeck treated Abraham with bread and wine Answ. Doubtless this Mounsieur must needs be some great Rabbin in his own or in his parties opinion for he speaks so confidently and masterlike as if all his sentences were oracles he thinks all the world is bound to believe what he says without giving any reason why or wherefore he says that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God we must believe him because he sayes it though he gives no reason nor authority of any body of note why he sayes Bellarmin in his 1. book of the Masse chap. 6. confesseth that Melchisedeck brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people who returned faint and tired from the slaughter of the kings so we say too he says that S. Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius writes that the Jews understood it that Melchisedeck meeting Abraham after his victory brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people what if they did understand it so might he not have refresht them with his bread and wine after offering it to God before or might he not have refresht them with his consecrated bread and wine the same I say concerning Iosephus and concerning Damascens words But why does not the Mounsieur as he ought prove that Melchisedeck did not offer his bread and wine to God before he brought it drew it out caused to be brought caused it to come c. for these be his words before Abraham and his people The Mounsieur is here the oppugner he is to destroy our Objection wherefore then doth he not prove it certainly if his Translatour were not a very partial man he could never have said in his Preface that de Rodon hath by way of Prevention destroyed all the Arguments made use of by the Romish Doctors for the restoring and re-establishing of our Diana or Mass for I am sure all his preventions hitherto are by me sufficiently retorted upon himself in this Treatise and if his Translatour has a minde to second or vindicate him I trust so much in the goodness of our cause that I doubt not with Gods help but to give him a full and sufficient answer also Rodon 24. Fourthly the reasons of our adversaries mentioned in the objections to prove that Malchisedeck brought bread and wine to Abraham that he might partake of the sacrifice which he had offered are not considerable viz. because Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils and so there was meat and drink enough for him and his people and that they had taken their repast before Melchisedeck met them c. These reasons I say are inconsiderable because although Abraham had great spoils yet he restored all to the king of Sodom and though his people had eaten and drunk of such as they found amongst the spoils yet it is not said that Abraham did eat and drink and though both he and his people had eaten and drunk yet it is not said how long it was since and that they had no need of more provision and though they had no need of more yet Melchisedek not knowing that they had eaten and drank did that which prudent men are wont to do viz. provide all that may be needful in case of necessity Ans. Although these reasons Mounsieur in themselves are not to me I confesse demonstrative and evidently convincing because it is very hard to demonstrate things so long past with all their circumstances yet they are in themselves as considerable as the reasons you give to destroy them which are not also demonstrative or convincing unless your bare word must be taken for a demonstration or oracle and that we have no reason to do considering your so manifold former lyes blasphemies and absurdities yet if these reasons be backt and seconded by the unanimous Testimonies of the holy fathers as I shall hereafter shew they be then I dare say your answer is of no more consideration or weight to counterpoise them then a feather is to a wain load of lead therefore I pray good sir untill you produce better proofs
out of Scripture or fathers to over-ballance them give us leave to hold them for probable and considerable in themselves and for demonstrative by reason of the holy fathers Testimonies Rodon 25. Fifthly I answer that the principal reason which our Adversaries bring to prove that Melchisedeck offered unto God bread and wine viz. because it is in the hebrew text for he was Priest is a manifest falsification for it is in the hebrew text and he was Priest Also the old latine Interpreter and the Greek Septuagint translate it as we do viz. and he was Priest And it is very probable that this Passage hath been corrupted in S. Jeroms latine translation because in his hebrew Questions and in his epistle to Evagrius he translates it and he was Priest S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Caecilius and S. Augustine Book 4. of Christian doctrine chap. 21. and elswhere translate it and he was Priest So that although the hebrew particle used by Moses do sometimes signifie for yet seeing that both its proper and common signification is and and that for one place where it signifies for there are a thousand at least where it signifies and and that there is nothing that obligeth us to translate it for it is evident that the argument of our Adversaries is of no force at all Therefore it is more pertinent to refer these words and he was a Priest to what follows viz. and blessed him then to what goes before viz. brought bread and wine for as Melchisedeck being a liberal King brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people so as he was a Priest much more excellent then Abraham he blessed him And though it should be translated for he was a Priest yet it would not follow that Melchisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine unto God for it might be said that Moses would shew the reason of the good will of Melchisedeck towards Abraham viz. it was very fit that he that was Priest of the most high God should testify his kindness to so eminent a servant of God as was Abraham by presenting bread and wine to him whereof he thought there was need Answ. It is more then you can do Mounsieur to make this a manifest falsification or a probable falsification either for S. Ierome was ever counted for a better latinist then you or I are and yet this is not the first and only place of Scripture where for his elegancy in the latine tongue he translated and into for In the 20th of Gen. where the hebrew text hath Lo thou shalt die for the woman that thou hast and she hath a husband S. Ierome translates it thus for she hath a husband and in Gen. 30. where the hebrew text hath I have learned by experience and God hath blessed me he translates it thus I have learned by experience that he hath blessed me which is as much as to say for he hath blessed me and again in Isai. 64. the hebrew text hath Behold thou art angrie and we have sinned he translates it Behold thou art angrie because we have sinned which because signifies the same thing as for doth so that S. Ierome in his latine translation for the elegancy of the latin Phrase doth often use for for and for he attends not to the meaning of every word verbatim in his translation as no man else ought to do when he translates a book into another language but he attends to the sense and meaning of the whole sentence Therefore it is not probable that this passage hath been corrupted in S. Ieroms latin Translation as Mr. de Rodon says because S. Ierome attending to these words that went before viz. bringing forth bread and wine he purposely changed and into for because he understood that the word for related to the antecedent words viz. bread and wine and not to the subsequent viz. blessed him or and he blessed him as Mr. de Rodon would have it to be And for the better confirmation of what is here said it is to be noted that not only in the hebrew text but also in the Caldean Greek and latine texts immediatly after these words viz. and he was a Priest there is set a full stop or point which sort of stop the hebrews call soph pasuch and it perfectly ends the whole sentence which termination proves evidently that these words for he was a Priest relate only to the precedent words viz. bread wine not to the subsequent viz. and he blessed him But what need I stickle with Mr. de Rodon about these two words for and whereas I have already referred our main question to his own translation and yet as I have shewed before he benefits nothing by it Rodon 26. Sixthly I answer that from what is said ps 110. and Heb. 7. viz. that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever it will not follow that he must offer himself every day in the Masse under the species of bread and wine by the ministry of Priests for the Apostle writing to the hebrews placeth the perpetuity of the Priesthood partly in this viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more seeing by one oblation he hath consecrated for ever those that are sanctified and partly in this viz. that being exalted far above the heavens he intercedes continually for us for the Priesthood consists in certain functions and in the vertue and efficacy of them And seeing there are two parts of Christs Priesthood whereof one relates to the oblation of himself which he offered on the Cross and the other to his Intercession it is certain that the vertue and efficacy of the oblation is eternal and that the Intercession will coâ—… unto the end of the world Answ. Do noâ—… you know Mounsieur that the Royal 〈◊〉 sayes that Christ is not only a Priest after the order of Meichisedec but also that he is a Priest for ever after that order that is to say until the worlds end And do not you know that if he be a Priest for ever there must be an everlasting sacrifice answerable to his Priesthood and corresponding with the order of his Priesthood because Priest and sacrifice are correlatives and convertible terms If Christ then be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec it must necessarily follow that a sacrifice is to be offered for ever after the same order but that sacrifice cannot be his bloudy one for although its effect will last for ever yet the sacrifice it self was offered but once and besides it was a bloudy sacrifice and so not after the order of Melchisedec therefore the everlasting sacrifice must be unbloudy and since we know of no other sacrifice bloudy or unbloudy that Melchisedec offered but bread and wine nor of any other kind of sacrifice that is offered in Gods Church but that of the Mass under the species of bread and wine we conclude that this is the sacrifice whereof the Royal psalmist and the Apostle
no difference of their manner of sacrificing and consequently touches not their Priesthood at least reduplicatively as it ought to do to make the Mounsieurs consequence slawless your words out of the Apostle viz. Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever to make your third consequence follow smoothly are quite for us and against you for if the son of God abideth a Priest for ever then it will follow that he will sacrifice for ever or that there must be a perpetual sacrifice but the perpetual sacrifice cannot be that of the cross for though its effect be perpetual yet the sacrifice it self is not so for it is past and gone and a new other bloudy sacrifice he cannot offer any more because Christ can die no more Rom. 6. Therefore it must be an unbloudy sacrifice which is offered by his ministers his mistical members that must correspond with Christs everlasting Priesthood and that is the holy sacrifice of the Mass offered under the species of bread and wine symbolized by the bread and wine sacrificed to God by Melchisedeck and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass out of these words of the Apostle is a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedeck And Christs continual intercession for us in heaven as Mr. de Rodon surmizes is not a sacrifice at least not a strict one yet if Christ be a strict Priest for ever there must be a strict sacrifice answerable to hisstrict Priesthood for ever first because his Priesthood doth not totally consist in his intercession as Mr. de Rodon himself confesses secondly because his intercession unless it be medianâ—…e victima through the mediation of a victime is no more sacrifice then the prayers of other people are and if it be through the mediation of a victime then Christ offers new victimes continually which our adversaries will not admitt of Thirdly the inconveniences I spoke of before would follow if Christs continual intercession for us in heaven were a strict and rigorous sacrifice viz. there would be no Christian Religion nor Law here upon earth nor no naked and pure truth in heaven but only shadows and types of truth for the reasons there shewn But the Mounsieur says that Aaron and the high Priests all died and that the Popes Bishops and Priests die daylie therefore he concludes our sacrifice is not after the order of Melehisedeck which is to last for ever Aaron we confess and all the Priests of the old Law died and their Priesthood is also quite destroyed But although our Popes Bishops and Priests die daily we deny that our Priesthood dies or is destroied no more then the Kingship of a kingdom dies or is destroied when the King dies and leaves a successor behinde him to succeed where is now your brave consequence Mounsieur He will fetch it out smoothly with his fourth reason which is because Melchisedeck took Tithes from Abraham and the Levitical Priests who descended from him and consequently Melchisedeck was a type of Jesus Christ who was infinitely more excellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only all this we grant Then replyes the Mounsieur strongly But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold aâ—… to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithful in whose seed all the Nations of the earth are blessed No more do I also and I am sure on 't too that none of the Romish Priests nay nor the Pope himself dares prefer his own person before the person of Abraham or of any of the least Saints in heaven But for his Priesthood or Priestly function I am sure both the Pope all his Priests will prefer theirs before Abrahams priesthood and all the priestly functions of the old Law But all this will not fetch out the consequence you aim at Lastly both holy Scripture and the Apostle make mention that Melchisedeck brought or offered bread and wine and they say he was a priest without mentioning any other thing that he ever brought or offered to be sacrificed but bread and wine and they say also that Aarons offering or sacrifices were beasts soul c. and all the holy Fathers as I shall presently shew do compare and collect out of these different sort of sacrifices the difference betwixt Melchisedeck and Aarons priesthood therefore if it be true that Christ promised his spirit to his Church until the consummation of the world as we believe he did therefore I say if this be but a humane invention I dare maintain it is a very good and solid one and a hundred thousand times of more firmity and weight then Mr de Rodons divine inspirations as he may think them to be or rather diabolical illusions as I take them to be with his own silly bare word without any kinde of proof for the contrary Rodon 29. To conclude my answer with this argument Iesus Christ hath offered no sacrifice but after the order whereof he was established a Priest but he was established a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck only as the Apostle observes Therefore he hath offered no sacrifice but after the order of Melchisedeck but accocding to the Romish Doctors there is no other sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck but that of the masse therefore according to the Romish Doctors Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice but that of the masse and seeing according to them the sacrifice of the masse is an unbloudy sacrifice it follows that Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice and consequently he hath not offered a bloudy sacrifice on the Cross which is blasphemy Answ. Mounsieur as I followed and hunted you all along this Treatise be sure this captious and sophistical argument shall not save you Therefore I answer that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of Aaron either but the proto-type of both for both Melchisedeck and Aarons sacrifices were but types of Christs bloudy sacrifice Therefore since Christs bloudy sacrifice cannot be a type of its own self it cannot be a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck or of Aaron which were but meer types and consequently since Aarons Priesthood and sacrifices are quite abolisht and destroyed it is necessary for to uphold and maintain Christs everlasting Priesthood that a sacrifice should be instituted after the order of Melchisedeck which is to remain for ever and since this sacrifice cannot be a bloudy one it must needs be an unbloudy one which we say and have hitherto defended is no other then that of the Mass and so we say that although Christ offered a bloudy sacrifice which we confess were blasphemy to deny yet his bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of the order of Aaron but the primitive principal and prototype sacrifice of both But at the Inâ—…itution of
is his sâ—…h he said noâ—… this bread is the barâ—… signe or figure of his flesh but his real flesh for it was his real flesh and not its bare figure that was offered or sacrificed for the lifâ—… of the world therefore this bread is â—…ot a meer signe only of Christs body but his very real substantial body for it was his real body and not its type only that was sacrificed for the life or salvation of the world After our saviour said to the Jews I am the bread of life I am the bread which descended from heaven and the Jewes thereforâ—… murmured and gâ—…umbled among themselves saying is not this the son of Joseph whose father and Mother we know and again how câ—…n this man give us his flesh to eat our saviour to confirm that it was his real body assevered it by oath or intermination saying Amen Amen for that was his usual teste I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you here he calls it all along his flesh and his bloud and not the signes only of his flesh and bloud and for the farther confirmation thereof he adds for my flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed What is but a figure or type of a thing cannot be the thing it self really and indeed Therefore if Christs flesh be truly and really our meat in the Sacrament or Sacramental species the Eucharist must needs be the true and real body and bloud of Christ indeed and not in type or signification only S. Paul 1 Cor. 10. in clear terms shews it The chalice quoth he of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of our Lord he sayes not the communication or participation of any signs or types but of his real body and bloud And in his 11th chap. to the said Cor. he mentioneth that our Lord took bread and giving thanks brake said take ye and eat this is my body which shall be delivered unto you These words I am sure cannot be understood of a figurative or typical body for it was not a typical body that was offered or delivered for us as the Maniâ—…hees falsly commented but the real and substantial body of Christ for it is certain the Apostle Rom. 8 when he said proprio filio non pepeâ—…cit c. he hath spared not also his own son but for us all delivered him spoke not of a bâ—…re type or figure but of his â—…eal body as all these clear passages so well cohering do manifestly demonstrate This is also confirmed by these words of the said Apostle 1 Cor. 11. Quiâ—…unque manduâ—…averit panem vel biberit calicem domini indigne reus â—…rit corporis sangâ—…is domini Therefore whosoever shall â—…t this bread or drink the chalice of our Lord unworthily he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord how can this be if it be but the figure or signe of his body and bloud and not his real body and bloud those that did eat the Manna and the Paschal Lamb were not said to be guilty of his body and bloud for eating them unworthily and yet they were signes of his bloudy sacrifice Therefore for eating or drinking of a meeâ—… signe or for tearing and destroying the meer â—…mage or picture of any man it is a very hard and severe Law to condemn him or make him guilty of his death Therefore it is for eating and drinking of our Lords real body and bloud unworthily and not for eating and drinking the signes only of his body and bloud that the Apostle sayes a man is guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. Hence any man of judgment may see how clear and express these texts are for the real presence of Christs body in the hoâ—…t and how improperly and wrongfully our adversâ—…ries extort upon the clear Texts to wrest them and draw them to their own sense of a signe or type But seeing scripture is so clear of our side Let us see what the holy fathers the spiritual beacons and true interpreters of Gods word say to it I will begin with ancient Tertullian who saith Tertul de resurr carn n. 7. our flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatted therefore they shall both have one reward at the resurrection Next follows Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14. whose words be these how do they affirm that our bodies be not capable of life everlasting which are nourished by the bâ—…dy and bloud of our Lord S. Greg. Nyssene also â—…aith in orat cathec magna that lively body entring into our body changeth it and maketh it like and immortal Allexander 1. that venerable Prelate and Martyr saith There can be nothing greater in sacrifices then the body and bloud of Christ To these I add the renowned S. Hylarie there is no doubt left of the verity of the body and bloud of Christ for now both by Christs own confession and by our belief it is truly flesh and truly bloud If God was pleased to be made man quoth Damascene lib. 4. de fide orth c. 14. and take flesh of the most pure bloud of the virgin without seed can he not make bread his body and wine and water his bloud Great S. Augustin lib. sentent Prosper adds his susâ—…rage to these in these words But we under the species of bread and wine do honour invisible things viz. flesh and bloud S. Ambrose lib. de sacram sides also with the rest in these plain and express terms it is ordinary bread at the Altar before the sacramental words But when it is consecrated then of bread it is made Christs flesh To these I add S. Ierome writing to Edibius S Cyril of Alex de consecr di 2. c. necessario S. Greghom Pasch. S. Crysost 3. dial de dignit sacerd c. 4. Theophilact in comment super Ioh. S. Anselme and in a word all the holy fathers and general councils that ever treated of this mistery Therefore all the greatest and most famous lights of Gods Church do hold with us as to this main point And although this Mystery be above humane reason yet because it is not contrary nor destructive to reason our divinos do give plausible congruityes and reasons for it The first whereof may be this it is the nature of goodness to impart or communicate it self to others because as the Philosophers says bonum est communicativum sâ—…i Goodness is communicative of its own self and to say the truth we know not a good or liberal man from a niggard but by imparting of his goodness and liberality to others If then it be the nature of goodness to impart it self to others it must be the nature of the highest and chiefest goodness to impart and communicate it self to others in the
highest degree as we see Christ imparted himself to our humane nature in the highest degree by the mystery of his Incarnation suppositating our nature substantially and covering it under his divine Personality But it is a far higher degree of communication to impart himself to the rest of mankinde really and corporally for to make them his mystical members then to impart himself to them figuratively only or typically therefore this real communication in the Sacrament is more agreeable to Christs infinite goodness then a typical or figurative communication is and also his real body is of more vertue and efficacy to incorporate us mystically and make us his members then the type or signe of his body is The second reason is this God the father and God the son are of equal power and verity therefore when God the father and God the son do express themselves in the self-same manner of speaking their words ought to be understood in the same meaning and sense But when God the father in the second of S. Matthew said This is my son every one that heard him understood that Christ was his true and real son and to understand his words otherwise would be open blasphemy Therefore it is open blasphemy to deny when Christ said This is my body that it is not his true real body but the figure or signe of his body only The words were uttered alike the power and verity of the uâ—…terers were alike why then should not their words be understood alike I see no reason for it because I see no disparity in the case Many other reasons and plausible proofâ—… do our Catholick divines and Romish doctors produce for the verity of this conclusion deduced from holy scripture which are theological demonstrations But what need I repeat any of them in this place where the case is so clear out of sundry express texts of holy writ and backt by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers and General Councils all which to contradict is not only an intolerable impudence but a meer frantick maddness Therefore leaving such giddy-brain'd people to the mercy of God and to be more pittied or prayed for then farther refuted I conclude out of these irrefragable proofs and premises that the Mass whom our adversaries in derision call the great Diana is of the noblest highest and most eminent extraction imaginable This Diana whereof we here treat derives her immediate root and being from heaven her descent and pedegree from Christ and his twelve Apostles her father is the first person of the most blessed Trinity her mother a most pure and immaculate virgin her Majesty and glory none can paralel her face is so resplendant and bright that the very cherubins seraphins are dazled when they behold her In a word her brightness is so eminent that it is inaccessible and the greatest beatitude and felicity of Angel or man consists in contemplating upon her beauty and yet notwithstanding all this she endured many a harder shock from her adversaries then Mr de Rodon or his bitter translatour will ever be able to give her but yet she still comes off with glory and victory All the heathenish Philosophers and their mighty Emperours she vanquished the learned Rabbins could never shake her all the hereticks from Simon Magus to the Quaker she crusht and quasht therefore she need not fear the Mounsieurs translator as for matter of superstition Phanaticism or Idolatry happy are we in her and thrice happy too if we can but serve her as we ought but as she deserves we are not able in this frail life however all our felicity and rest of conscience we own unto her in this life also for without her we should become restless and distracted or desperate Having hinted a little at her extraction or pedegree which no Angel or tongue is able to express or come near for its loftiness and celsitude I must say something of her vertue and worth which because it is infinite and in exhaustible I confess I know not how to begin however this I am sure of that her father who is omnipotent bequeathed unto her all power and dominion over heaven and earth Math. 28. so that there is no creature whatsoever of what rank be it never so high but must acknowledge his being vertue and power to depend wholy on hers It is in her as the Apostle sayes Acts 17. vivimus movemur sumus we live we move we be whatever perfections are dispersedly in every creature are all united in her and all their perfections and vertues are but shaddows and a meer participation of her essential ones Christ by his Incarnation noblisied and raised our humane nature above all the quires of Angels by his bloudy sacrifice of the Cross he purchased our Redemption and by this unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass he unites us unto himself and makes us his Mystical members for he sayes Ioh. 6. qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo he that eats my flesh and drinks my bloud he sayes not the signes of his flesh and bloud abides in me and I in him that is to say we shall be knit and united together and sayes again with an oath ibid. Amen amen unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall have no life in you And again he that eateth me the same also shall live by me So that according to the clear expression of those texts our union with Christ consists in the Mass or which is the same thing in eating the sacramental bread which is offered in the Mass and our disunion or separation from Christ consists in our not eating it and by the third text we are taught that in it our life consists for he sayes presently after he that eâ—…teth this bread shall live for ever The Angelical doctor S. Thom. Aquinas to whose arbitration Mr de Rodon profers with his whole party to subscribe concerning the Eucharist in opusc 57. hath these words O pretiosum admirandum convivium salutiferum omni suavitate repletum quid enim hoc convivio pretiosius esse potest in quo non earnes vitulorum hircorum ut olim in lege sed nobis Christus sumendus proponitur verus deus quid hoc sacramento miralibius in ipso namque panis vinum in corpus sanguinem Christi substantialiter convertuntur O pretious wonderful and healthful banquet replenished with all sweetness for what can be more pretious then this banquet in which not calves or goats flesh as in former times but Christ the true God is set before us to be eaten what is more wonderful then this Sacrament for in it bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and bloud of Christ. S. Cyril in Ioan. admonishing the faithful people sayes sciant igitur baptizati homines divinae gratiae participes facti si rarius in Ecclesiam proficiscantur
enough to pearce or annoy our Diana in any thing the leaâ—…t so likewise his Translators rayling and sâ—…olding at her can do her no more harm then a doggs barking can do to the Moon therefore he had better follow the good counsel of grave Gamaliel to the Jewes concerning how they should deal with the Apostles whose words be these And now therefore I say unto you depart from these men and let them alâ—…ne for if this counsel or work be of men it will be dissâ—…lved but if it be of God you are not able to dissâ—…lve them lest perhaps you be found to â—…esist God also Act 5. Even so in my poor judgement had the Translator best do to the Masse for with railing and scolding at it he will never be able to hurt it It hath stood from all ages since Christs time untill now and if it be of God it is not the Translator or I that shall be able to put it down alas both he and I shall be dead and rotten while noble Diana will be as brisk merry and fresh as she was the very first day she came into this world However I cannot but exâ—…use the good Translator because of his great zeal if his bitterness towards us proceeded onely from ignorance and not from malice or interestâ—… for S. Paul himself out of his ardent zeal to the Synagogue wherein he was born and bred was once a severe enemy and violent Persecutor of Gods Church But after he was illuminated by Christ and knew better things who ever after was more zealous for her honour and glory then he and yet he himself doth confess that God shewed him his great mercy quia ignorans feci because I did it quoth he ignorantly so I beg God heartily that this small book of mine by his blessing may illuminate the minds of those that are plunged â—…n the Abyss of heresy and Ignorance through the means of Mr de Rodon and such like Phanatick hereticks who by their false interpretations and applications of holy scripture set out and garnished with their sophistical arguments do deceive and mislead many thousands of poor ignorant souls to their utter ruine and everlasting damnation for leaving their true Mother the Church out of which there is no salvation for any And amongst the rest of the illuminated I wish the Translator were one To conclude this Appendix I exhort all the Catholicks of England and I earnestly beg and beseech them for the love of our sweet saviour Jesus Christ and the tender bowells of his infinite mercy towards them to stick closly and cleave constantly to their pretious Diana and for her sake to be always ready and prepared to undergoe all manner of persecutions tribulations and losses rather then forsake her for whatever damage or ill-entreatment they suffer upon her account they may be sure she will requite them a hundred-fold double for it with full interest Our saviour himself did â—…id us Not fear them that kill the body and after this have no more to do but I will shew you quoth he whom ye shall fear fear him who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell Luke 12. for your momentary sufferings in this life for his sake your crown and reward will be everlasting hereafter More then eye can see ear can hear or understanding can comprehend 1. Cor. 2. verity himself doth promise it and his promise he can and will perform Expect him but a little while with patience and in your patience ye shall possess your souls S. Luke 21. It is far better for you to suffer a little and short famine cold want misery imprisonment nay death it self for her sakes then to live plentifully and abundantly here for a moment and for ever after for denying her to be in everlasting famine imprisonment torment misery and want for unless we be Christs fellow sufferers in this life we shall not be his copartners in glory as the Apostle tells Timothy 2. If we shall sustain we shall also reign together In a word I conclude my book with the â—…ame prayer the Translator ends his preface with viz. I earnestly beseech my Lord and God he would make it prosperous and successfull for the good of souls and if any shall receive benefit by it I desire them to give him all the glory and I shall think my self infinitely recompensed for my pains in composing it yet if there be any thing in it that is not orthodox and sound I humbly submit my poor judgment to the censure of our holy mother the Church Errata PAge 13. line ult for it is not repugnant r. is not repugnant p. 37. for Iohn he that r. is mentioned in S. Iohn 6. he that p. 67. l. 19. for the wine was destroyed r. the water was destroyod p. 85. l. 25. for charity sake r. clarity sake p. 87. l. 21. for neither r. either p. 115. l 5. for place r. places p. 118. l. 8. for would r. could p. 130. l. 14. for between corporal things r. but between corporal things p. 168. l. 27. for that charity r. that clarity p. 171. l. 9. for therein r. their p. 175. l. 11. for consure r. censure p. 192. l. 21. for next under the holy writt r. next unto holy writt p. 204. l. 14. for in this glory r. in his glory In the Appendix p. 3. l. 27. for your r. our p. 24. l. 23. r. metal â—…iery p. 25. l. â—… r. corporis cordis FINIS AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS Contained in this Book Chap. I COâ—…cerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body p. 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Exposition of these woâ—…ds He that eateâ—…h my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Everlasting Life My Flesh is Meat indeed p. 36. Chap. III. Against Transubstantiation p. 64. Chap. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or Consecrated Wafer p. 96. Chap. V. Against the Adoration or Worshipping of the Host. p. 199. Chap. VI. Against taking away of the Cup. p. 242. Chap. VII Against the Mass. p 293. Chap. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors p. 345. The Preâ—…ace of Monsieur dâ—… Rodons Translator p. 461. An Answer to the Preface and an Appendix to the Book p. 1. An INDEX of the chief things contained in this Book CHrists word is Creative productive and effective pag. 4 Transubstantiation cannot be plainlier exprest than by these woâ—…ds This is my Body p. 6. Christs words are practical Signs and causes of what they signifie other mens words are but speculative signs only of things signiâ—…fied by them p. 12. An Image hath always an Essential relation to its Prototype p. 11. Transubstantiation both a Sacrament and the thing signified p. 13. It is not repugnant that the same thing should signifie its own self p. Ibid. The Bread and Wine were not made the Body and Blood of Christ by a bare Blessing or Thanksgiving p. 14. The words of
spoke To what you say concerning the Apostles words to the hebrews and that he placeth the perpetuity of Christ Priesthood partly in this viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more we confess that there is no need he should be offered bloudily any more because the effect of his bloudy sacrifice lasts for ever but we deny that there is no need he should be offered unbloudily any more because the psalmists words must be verified in him viz. that he being a Priest for ever after the order of Melchesedec there must be an everlasting sacrifice also after the the same order To what you farther say viz. that Christs intercession will continue untill the end of the world we say so too but that his intercession is a partial sacrifice if you intend a strict sacrifice such as we dispute of here I deny for by his Intercession you either understand his prayers as they are offered for us in themselves without a victim or by the mediation of a victim if without a victim then they belong not to the function of his proper Priesthood and consequently they are no part of a strict sacrifice if through the mediation of a victim then it necessarily follows that Christ doth always offer victims which is that our adversaries deny Besides by Christs intercession there is nothing sensible and permanent destroyed which is requisit in a strict sacrifice To this I add these inconveniencies that would follow from the Mounsieurs answer first it would follow that there would be no more Christian Religion or Law here upon earth because the Priesthood being translated into heaven Religion and Law must needs follow it as the Apostle says heb 7. It would follow also that there is no bare and as we may say naked truth in heaven but only shadows figures Types and ceremonies of Truth for all proper sacrifices must be types of that of the Cross and certain Religious Ceremonies It would follow also that Christs oblation must needs be often repeated a thing which our adversaries will by no means hear of Therefore the Mounsieur must seek after a better answer then this or else his cause will be quite lost Rodon 26. Seaventhly I answer that in all the holy Scripture where the Priesthood of Melchisedeck is spoken of three things only are mentioned of him viz. that he was a Priest that he was a Priest for ever and that he was so with an oath according to the application that is made of it to Iesus Christ in Psa. 110 and Heb. 7. in these words the Lord hath sworn and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck But there is nothing at all spoken of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck nor is it said wherein it did consist for as it was fit that all the offices which we finde were born by the greatest kings Priests and Prophets under the old Testament should be collected under the person of the Messiah which was done by proposing them as types and figures of Iesus Christ and that the most illustrious type was Melchisedeck so it was more expedient not to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck because it was not expedient then to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of the Messiah And therefore we know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck yet we know that he was a Priest Even as we know that Melchisedeck was a king though we know not in what manner he executed his kingly â—…ffice Answ. Mounsieur as I told you before that it is pitty you were not with the Apostles to help them concerning this question we are about so I tell you now that it is pity you were not one of Gods grand Councellors of the old time to direct and teaâ—…h the Patriarchs and Prophets of those times what was expedient and what was not to be mentioned in holy writt concerning their rites and sacrifices since all things by your advice must be done by expedience or convenience I pray tell us why was it expedient that Christs bloudy sacrifice should be typified by the Priests of the Levitical Law and the things they were to offer were particularly specified and that it was not expedient the things Melchisedeck offered as a type of Christs sacrifice whether bloudy or unbloudy should be mentioned or specified at all what mystical conceit have you in this I pray let 's hear it or else if you keep it to your self we are never the wiser nor the more illuminated by you to follow your opinion and leave our own and if you know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck God help you the more is your ignorance but we are well enough satisfied as to that because all the holy fathers say unanimously that he sacrificed unto God bread and wine and that holy writ says that he was a Priest for if one should tell us such a man is a father although he makes no mention of his son nor of his nature or quality yet we presently know he has a son or a child so also when we hear the word Priest we presently understand its correlative sacrifice so that when holy Scripture thrice mentions Melchisedeck's Priesthood and makes mention of bread and wine which he brought or offered without mentioning any other kind of thing that he ever offered and the holy fathers all agree that he sacrificed bread and wine to God as types of his body and bloud in the Eucharist we make no doubt of the nature and quality of the things he offered more then we do of his Priesthood let Mr. de Rodon and his party doubt of it as long as they please Rodon 28. Lastly I answer that it is false that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedeck and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread and wine It is also false that the likeness of the Priesthoost of Melchisedeck to that of Iesus Christ doth consist in this viz. that as Melchisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Iesus Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine these are humane inventions and are founded neither on Scripture or reason for on the contrary the Apostle writing to the hebrews placeth the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedeck and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing first he is called Melchisedeck which being interpreted as the Apostle saith heb 7. is king of righteousness and then king of Salem that is king of Peace and herein he very well represents our Lord Iesus Christ who is truely king of Righteousness not only because he is righteous and was always without sin but also because by his satisfaction he hath purchased righteousness for us being made unto us of God righteousness he is also truly king of Peace in
Consecration ought to be understood according to their immediate sense p. 17. The B. Sacrament is the New Testament in Christs Blood not only of his Blood p. 22. These words This is my Body signifie a substantial being and not a Sacramental only p. 23. The Protestant Communion exhibits not Christs Body Blood to the Believers p. 27. The Sacramental Species receiveâ—… worthily makes the receiver a Mystical Member of Christ. p. 30. Faith alone insufficient for this Sacrament Ib. Faith is no mouth literally or metaphoâ—…ically p. 31. Christs glorified Body never damnified by the receiver of the B. Sacramenâ—… p. 32. To verifie a proposition it sufficeth the thing be as the proposition says it is p. 35. Iâ—… is the Sacrament that is the chief and whole cause of our spiritual refreshment and the thing which the Soul principally hungers and thirsts after Faith is only a conâ—…ition requisite so is Hope and Charity also for to receive worthily p. 38. Christs Body worthily received works spiritually upon the Soul p. 40. These words of St. Aug. To eat the â—…lesh of Christ is a Figure c. which De Rodon alledges against us expounded p. 43. Cardinal Cajetans Authority alledged against us expounded p. 45. The action whereby we obtain remission of sins anâ—… sanctification ending in gloâ—…ification consists not in the spiritual eating or drinking by Faith only p. 5â—… In these words My Flesh is meaâ—… indeed no Figure falls upon the word Meat p. 55. Christs Flesh is a corporal food that nourishes spiritually only p. 57. Objects of Divine Faith not to he levelled by our reason and sense p. 59. Christ comeâ—… into the Sacrament by an adductive power p. 66. He is not produced there entitatively but modally only p. Ibid. Certain passages of Scripture alledged aâ—…ainst us by De Rodon viz. That there is â—…reaking givinâ—… eaâ—…ing and drinking after Consecraâ—…ion answered p. 68. When Christ said Drink ye all this Mat. 26. he meant his Blood p. 71. Why the eâ—…ects of the Sacramental Species â—…emain after Transubstantiation p. 73. Transubstantiation is a total substantial conversion and not a formal substantial conversion only p. 75. The Sacâ—…amental Species are something Subâ—…ect liâ—…e p. 77. Transubstantiation destroys not the nature of Acciâ—…ents p. 79. Transubstantiation destroys not the Nature oâ—… Sacâ—…aments p. 84. Corporal nourishment in the Sacramental Sâ—…ecies nâ—…t requisite p. 85. The Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be adored with a Latria p. 88. If our adversaries give not a Latriacal adoration to their Communion Bread it may be lawfully given to Dogs p. 89. If they adore their Communion they are greater Idolaters than we p. 91. Christ gave power to Priests to Consecrate p. 97. Christs Body is in the Sacrament immediately by reason of its substance p. 99. It s quantity is also there though not with its quantitative dimensions p. 100. The definition of a proper place and how many manner of ways both Christian Divines and Philosophers hold a thing may be in a place p. 103. A glorious Body may be in its equivocal place p. 109. The Iacobins and the Jesuits opinion concerning Christs Body to be brought or produced in the Sacrament saved p. 112. Christs Body is in all things subject to his Soul as his Soul is subject to his Divinity p. 117. Why the local extension of Christs Body in the Sacrament is hindred p. 119. De Rodons Argument of to move and not to move at the same time c. answered p. 121. Wherein a formal contradiction consists p. 123 De Rodons ridiculous quibbles and Unphilosophical illations answered p. 129. Distance is only betwixt corporal things whilst they are in their univocal places p. 130 A Sacramental place is properly no place at all p. 133. De Rodons Dropsical Argument of a drop of water that drowned many thousands c. mouldred p. 136. Division is only between corporal things in their proper places p. 138. God and Nature are not obliged to do what they can do p. 140. De Rodon shoots at Christ through Diana's side p. 143. Christ is seen in the Sacrament by the Spiritual Eye of our understanding supported by the light of Faith p. 146. It is not convenient we should see Christ visibly with our Corporal Eyes in the Blessed Sacrament p. 148. Substances possess no place p. 151. Christs Body in the Sacrament whether taken substantially or quantitatively has no posture or scituation in it p. 154. His Body appears not more or less for dividing or sub-dividing the Host p. 156. Christ is as glorious and happy in the Host as he is in Heaven p. 161. What these terms Reduplicatively and specificatively what sensus compositus and divisus mean p. Ibid. As Christ comes into the Host without local 〈◊〉 so he leaves it without local â—…e 〈◊〉 p. 165. De Rodon gives the Apostle the lie p. 167. Christ Diana and the Apostle saved from De Rodons keen Arrow p. 168. De Rodon jumps with the Iews against Christ p. 170. His Thunderbolt or Coelestial Arrow shivered p. 172. According to De Rodons Principles there ought to be no Sacrament of our Lords Supper at all p. 174. Clâ—…ud de Xaintes defended against De Rodon p. Ibid. Exorcismes p. 176. De Rodons miraculous Arrow put by p. 179. Christ really in Heaven and really in the Blessed Sacrament at the same time p. 182. He is not in the Sacrament impanated p. Ibid. He gave himself to Iudas also p. 18â—… Bellormine and Peron defendeâ—… p. 186. The Sacraments of the old Testament had a relation to those of the new p. 187. The Moâ—…sieurs Scripturistical Arrows shatâ—…ered p. 190. The marks of the Roman Church p. 193. The Seven Sacraments expounded p. 195. Why we keep the Eucharist in our Pixes and 〈◊〉 p. 197. Monsieur and his Party the false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of p. Illid God many manner of ways in his Creatures p. 202. External Adoration due to Christ where he is known to be personally present p. 203. Hereticks uncivil both to God and Man p. 206. According to De Rodons Principles we may adore the Devil instead of Christ p. 209. VVhy External adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament more than in the VVater of Baptism p. 210. Heaven and Hell destroyed by the Monsieurs Principles p. 211. The Monsieurs third Foundation built upon Quick-sands p. 215. De Rodons very considerable Argument pernicious to all mankind p. 218. Destructive to Goâ—…s Providence p. 222. A moral certitude of being Christned sufficient p. 223. Pope Adrian defended against De Rodon p. 226. Apostate Priests and Monks in credit and spiritual jurisdiction with De Rodon and his Party p. 228. The Pâ—…imitive Church adored the Host p. 233. Proved by the Testimonies of sundry Holy Fathers p. Ibid. Our Diana or Mass holds it out from all Ages maugre De Rodon and all Hereticks p. 237. Diana vindicated against Idolatry p. 238. The Church makes no new Articles of