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
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
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
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
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
eaten at the same time for it would be eaten in the host by the Priest and at the same time it would not be eaten in heaven Also it would be in a point and not in a point at the same time for in the host it would be in a point and in heaven it would not be in a â—…oint at the same time Therefore seeing it is impossible that one and the same body at one and the same time should be eaten and not eaten should be in a point and not in a point It is also impossible that Christs body should be both in heaven and in the host at the same time Answ. Before I answer this argument I presuppose with all Philosophers that a thing may move or be moved two manner of ways viz. by a motio per se that is its own proper motion and by a motio per accidens that is by its accidental motion by reason of the motion of another thing wherein it is contained sor example when a man is in a ship his own proper motion or motio per se is when he goes up and down the ship and his motio per accidens or accidental motion is his being carried by the ship towards his intended voyage and this is the difference between these two motions that what moves or is moved by a motio per se is never at quiet or rest while it is in that motion But that which is moved only by a motio per accidens although it be carried from one place to another yet it may be at rest and quiet in it self and without any proper moving or stirring so may a block or a stone be accidentally moved in a cart and yet not moved at all in it self but quiet and still iâ—… it s own proper place Likewise the self same thing viz. the same man may at the same time move two contrary ways at once he may move westwards towards his journey by his accidental motion in the ship wherein he is carried that way and yet at the same time he may walk from the west part of the ship to the east part of it by his own proper mâ—…tion and so the same thing may at the same time move and yet be quiet and also move two contrary wayes by these different motions This doctrine which very experience shews us to be true being presupposed I answer the Mounsieurs argument thus first by denying his supposition viz. that Christs body is movable in the Sacrament because it is in it by reason of its substance and all substances secundum se as schoolmen call it that is in themselves are immovable for all things that are properly moved from one place to another are moved by reason of their quantities and not of their substances and therefore because Christs body is in the Sacrament immediatly by reason of its substance or of the substantial conversion of the bread and wine immediatly into his substance it follows evidently that it is immovable in it I answer secondly and distinguish his major thus to move and not to move at the same time with a motio per se his own proper motion is contradictorie I confess the major to move and not to move at the same time but an accidental motion that is to say if a body be at the same time moved by reason of the motion of another thing wherein it is contained as in its improper place I deny the major and the reason is clear for then only is a true and formal contradiction betwixt opposit things or propositions when there is an affirmation and negation of the same thing at the same time and after the same manner but noâ—… if the thing time oâ—… manner be different as for example There is no contradiction in this viz. that Peter should speak and Paul should hold his peace at the same time because they are not one and the same man Nor in this that Peter should be a Bachelour now a married man next year because although he be the same Peter yet it is not at the same time Nor also in this that Peter should be at the same time an Embassadour in France no Embassador in England because though he be the same Peter and at the same time yet he is not after the same manner Even so we say of Christs body in heaven and in the Sacrament for it is in heaven in its proper shape and place and may remain there quiet and still without any motion and yet it may be in the Sacrament in another manner viz. Sacramentally and move there per accidens by the motion of the Sacramental species in which it is contained and which is but its improper and equivocal place Just as we now said that a man may go eastwards in a ship and yet at the same time be carried westwards by the same ship at the same time or as a stone or block may be moved pâ—…r accidens by the motion of a cart or ship and yet remain unmoved in its own proper place all which we know by experience doth often happen without any contradiction because the manner of moving is not the same the one being a motio per se or proper motion and the other being but an accidental improper motion of the body that is in the cart or ship although their motions are proper and per se unto them This solution concerning motion may serve also concerning been eaten being in a point in a place because Christs body in the Sacrament is in a quite other manner then as it is in heaven in its own proper natural humane shape for it is in heaven with its quantitative dimensions and in its proper univocal place but it is in the Sacrament by the dimensions of the Sacramental species only and in its improper and equivocal place which in rigour is no place at all and though the Sacramental species may be said to be in their proper place by reason of their quantitative dimensions yet Christs body cannot be said to be so in them because it is in them Immediately by reason of its substance and consequently as in a point for substances per se that is as they are in themselves possess no place from hence is seen that all the Mounsieurs examples are to no purpose for their force is only bent against a natural and circumscriptive being and place and not against a Sacramental being or place Since this arrow had no better luck he outs with his fourth Rodon 8. Two relatives are allwaies different as the father and the son the husband and the wife c. and relation is alwaies between two things that really differ as the equality between two ells the resemblance between two crows c. In a word nothing can have relation to it self but whatsoever hath relation must necessarily have it to some thing else as appears by the definition of relation But to be distant is a relative and not
in the secret chambers I answer that the Mounsieur and his party ought to take good heed they are not these Prophets themselves for it is most certain and evident that these words cannot concern us because popery has its being from the very beginning of the Evangelical Law as all Ecclesiastical histories can testifie Therefore if popery and the Mass be convertible terms as our adversaries say they are the Mass must be as ancient as popery is for all convertible terms according to dialecticks are simultanean or together But certain it is that the Evangelist meant by the last days the last days of the Evangelical Law and not of any other Law therefore sinâ—…e it is well known to all the Christian world that Popery and consequently the Mass for they are convertible terms began not in the last days of the Evangelical law but had been standing ever since the beginning of the primative Church it follows I say evidently that these words of the Evangelist concern not at all either Popery or the Mass. Moreover although we hold that some eminent great saints of the Popish Religion had the gift of Prophecy bestowed on them yet all Priests and Papists profess not themselves Prophets neither do they hold their Religion upon any other prophecies but such as are authentical by the old and new Testaments we ground our Religion next under the holy writ upon the antiquity of our Church because Christ himself said that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church and we endeavour to maintain prove out of Church-Annals and by the Testimonies of holy fathers that ours is the only Church or congregation of Christian believers that were seen and known through all ages since Christ spoke these words We ground our Religion also upon the uâ—…iversality of our Church that is that amongst all congregations of people who own Christ to be the son of God there is not one congregation so numerous and ample that has so spread and enlarged it self and Christs Gospel through all Natioâ—…s and Countries from all ages as ours hath from whence followeth that ours is the Catholick Church for Catholick and 〈◊〉 are synonims or the same thinâ—… whâ—…e note that S. Athanasius Creed whiâ—…h Protestants also hold warneth us that above all things it is necessary we hold the Catholick or universal faith the which faith the saâ—…e saint says in the last sentence of the said Creed unless every one doth faithfully and firmly believe questionless he must everlastingly perish But it is impossible there should be two universal or Catholick Churches at once for there is but one faith as the Apostle tells us and when we â—…ay our creed we say not I believe in the Catholick Churches but in the Catholick Church Therefore Mr. de Rodon and his party must either snew that their Congregation is and hath been more numerous and universal then ours is which I am sure they will never be able to perform or else they will be forced to lay down the â—…udgells and flatly deny S. Athanasius his creed which to the world they nevertheless seem to profess Thirdly we ground our Religion upon unity or consent for knowing that there is buâ—… one faith and that without that one faith it is impossible to please God as the Apostle saith Therefore concerning all points of faith viz. concerning Transubstantiation praying to saints praying for the dead relative worshiping of Images Purgatory Indulgences Justification c. we all from the highest to the lowest from the doctor to the peasant agree as to the main point and object of our belief submitting our selves wholy to the definitions of our Church because Christ said that those that hear not the Church ought to be esteemed as heathens and Publicans Lastly we ground our Religion upon the sainctity of our Church which we believe is not only holy by reason of her doctrine laws and pious exercises but also for the seaven sources of grace I mean the seven Sacraments dipt in our Saviours bloud which continually run in her and refreshes spiritually all her children of what age or condition soever for by these Sacraments Christ left to his spouse the Church militant a medium or mean to provide for us all By Baptism both great and little are regenerated and from being conceived and born in sin made members of Christ By confirmation we are strengthened and confirmed in the â—…aith we professed in our Baptism when we are come to the use of understanding and by vertue of that holy unction we are made champions to fight Gods battle against our common enemies the devil the world and our own flesh and bloud as also to endure persecutions and bear crosses couragiously for the love of Christ. By the Sacrament of Pennancâ—… we are cured and absolved from our spiritual wounds Christ promising unto us that he would ratify in heaven what his ministers do upon earth if the penitent puts no obstacle to the ministers sentence By the Eucharist our souls are spiritually fed and nourished By holy orders some of us are empowred and sanctified to administer Sacraments to themselves and to the rest of thâ—… faithfull By Matrimony a provision is left in the Church for the lawful propagation of mankind that one woman having but one man at the same time care should be the better taken for the education of the issue that comes from them to have it brought up in the love and fear of God Lastly by extream unction new vigour and grace is given to the faithful combatant while his body is weak and feeble and his soul fulâ—… of anâ—… and care to fight couragiously against his enemies the devils who then sets upon him more eagerly then ever in hopes to bring him to despair for now the devil thinks or never is the time to conquer this soul and therefore sets upon her with all power and fury imaginable and to resist this fierce shock or brunt Christ left unto his Church this soveraignâ—…â—…emedy for these reasons and chiefly for her Sacraments we believe our Church oâ—… congregation of faithful to be more holy then Mr. de Rodons or any other Church and congregation whatsoever that pretends to believe in Christ is Therefore the Mounsieur fasly belyes us and himself also by impeaching us to be those false propheâ—…s the Evangelist mentioned in his 24. câ—…ap for we never did or do pretend to be Prophets although some great saints of our Church had the gift of Prophecy also given them which is more then ever we or they themselves read or heard that any of their Church had yet unless they count Iames Nailor or some such like mad braind fellow who sprouted out of their Church to be one Why we keep the Eucharist in our pixes and decent Church-Tabernacles I gave reason before But why Mr. Rodon and his party keeps the leavings of their Communion bread and wine in cupboards baskets â—…laggons botles or cellars and eat and
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
these other two Qui Ecclesiam non audit sit tibi tanqnam Ethnicus Publicanus He that hears not the Church let him be unto thee as a heathen and Publican S. Math. 18 and to this Qui vos audit mâ—… audit qui vos spernit me spernit he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me S. Luke 10. where note that in the first passage is said that all power in heaven and earth is given to Christ and in the second is said that Christ bequeathed the Power he received from his father unto his Church representative for what else do these words as you my father sent me so I send them into the world import but that they had I mean his Apostles and disciples who were his Church Representative the same spiritual power delegated unto them by him as he received from his heavenly father the difference being only this that his power from his father was absolute and Principal in him the Power he gave to his Church if compared to his power is but a subordinat or delegat power Now then if we consider that Christ having celâ—…ated and bequeathed his power on earth to his Church and commanded us to hear her if we will not be counted as heathens and publicans and tells us also that by despising her we despise himself what I pray good Mounsieur consequence follows or flows from these evident passages of Scripture and all uttered by Christs own sacred mouth but that we are to hear and obey the Church representative which were the Apostles and his disciples in their time and the general Councils ever since their time concerning her canons and statutes and her other direction and guiding of our souls So that until Mr. de Rodon can prove that the Council of Constance was â—…n unlawful or Acephal Council and no Church Representative which he undertakes not in this Tract he hath no reason to exclaim against her Canons and statutes nor to make them so horrible to the world neither have we any reason to be terrified at it because as I shall now shew you it is in effect nothing but a meer sâ—…are-crow For what Christian of any understanding or belief can judge or think that Christ who is verity it self and his heavenly fathers wisdom should contradict his own commandments and yet if the Canons and statutes made by his Church in her General Councils were opposit and contradictory to his commandments it would necessary follow that he contradicted himself Because he and his holy spirit is the self same thing and so by contradicting his spirit he must needs contradict himself But he promised his Church militant that he would be with her all days unto the Consumation of the world and in another place he tells her That his spirit which is in her and his words which he put in her mouth shall not recede from her mouth nor from the mouth of her seed nor of her seeds seed from that time and for ever which is as much as to say that his spirit should be alwaies her directour and guide in all her conciliary definitions and decrees Yet if notwithstanding this reason deduced out of clear Scripture Mr. de Rodon will still persist in his fearful exclamations and object against us that nothing can be more evident and clear then that this Constantian Canon or Law is contradictory to Christs institution and command concerning the Cup we deny that Law to have at all opposed Christs commandment because of the difference of time that interceded betwiâ—… the commandment and that Law Christ told his disciples or Church Representative that he had many things to say to them but they could not bear them at that time Iohn 16. whence follows that Christ by his holy spirit might have revealed some things to his Church which he would have observed by her children whereof he made no express mention to his disciples while he was conversant with them If the Constantian Canon or Law had been made just at the same time when Christ instituted this Sacrament and â—…ommanded it should be received under both species something might be said in the matter But who knows that Christ in future times would not have something altered concerning this Institution by his Church to whom he promised his holy spirit should be her directour and guide in all her statutes and ordinances unto the consummation of the world All divines hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity because without it no body can be saved then that of the Eucharist is And was it not one of the last commandments our Saviour left his Apostles that they should go preach the Gospel and Baptize in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Ghost Math. 28. however the Church of her own proper authority even in the very Apostles times changed this form for a time for some certain reasons and Baptized in the name of Jesu as may be seen in the Acts of the Apostles 19. chap. was not the keeping of the Sabbath-day commanded by God in the first table of his commandements written by his own holy finger But by whose authority was the day altered we have no scripture for it we have no other but the authority of the Church This was an express commandment of God no Christian nay no Jew will deny it all Christians know that the Church altered the day for certain grave reasons viz. that we shold not communicate with the Jews because our Savior rose again upon our Sabath because the Holy Ghost descended upon our B. Lady and the Apostles upon our sabath and for sundry others which the holy Ghost inspired her with wherefore then may not the Mounsieur exclaim and cry out against her as well for this as for her constantian Canon may not he say that she contradicted Gods expresse commandement of keeping the Jewish sabath when by her Canons or ordinations she commanded our sunday should be observed and their sabaoth slighted yes truly that he may and yet as we nay and the Protestants themselves I hope will deny any transgression to have been done by the Church against Gods commandement by her statutes or Canons for not keeping the Jewish Sabaoth so we also deny that by her Constantian Canon she contradicted Gods commandement concerning denying the cup to the Lay-people and the reason is because the commandements and the Canons were not made the same time and because the holy Ghost for sundry reasons inspired the Church to alter some things concerning the former commandement Christ left her but for a certain time as he himself told her before that he had many things to say to her but she could not bear them at that time which is not to contradict but rather to dispense with Christs former commandements To this I add the Apostles command concerning not eating bloud nor strangled meat which notwithstanding is not observed even by those of the Reformed
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
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
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
Transubstantiation to be S. Ambrose seconds S. Augustines tenet concerning this What quoth he we then do not we offer every day we offer surely but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer always the self-same and not now one lamb and to morrow another but always the self-same thing he calls it a sacrifice he says 't is offered every day therefore he meant not the bloudy sacrifice for that was offered but once and he says We offer always the self-same thing therefore it must be the self-same host or sacrifice and since it was never offered bloudily but once it follows evidently that all the other dayly oblations of the same host meant by the holy doctor are the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass. Primasius S. Augustins Scholar in the place I cited him before clears this business and gives solid reasons withall What says he shall we say then do not our Priests daily offer sacrifice they offer surely because we sin daily and 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 the world so also this â—…blation may be a Redemption and clensing to all that offer it in truth and verity Do not you see Mounsieur how contradictory these words of this holy father one of great S. Augustins chief disciples are to your conclusion Do not you see what solid reasons he gives for his saying viz. that because we sin daily and have need to be daily cleansed it was necessary the self-same sacrifice should be reiterated not bloudily and he gives a reason why viz. because he cannot die his body being now a glorified body Then concluding solidly his discourse he says he hath given us the Sacrament of his body and bloud that as his Passion c. where he gives solid reasons wherefore besides the bloudy sacrifice it was convenient and necessary this unbloudy sacrifice should be instituted also viz. because although the bloudy and the unbloudy sacrifice be but the self-same yet as to their effect there is some difference for the bloudy sacrifice is for all men in general but the unbloudy for those in particular who offer it Lastly do not you see Mounsieur that by these last words of this cited Passage viz. that as his Passion was the Redemption and absolution of the world So also this oblation may be a Redemption and cleansing to all that offer it in truth and verity do not you see I say how by these words this holy father makes a clear distinction between the bloudy sacrifice of Christs Passion and the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass which the Priest offers I omit S. Chrisostom Theophilact Oecumenius Haymo Paschasius Remigius and many more of the ancient holy fathers whose authorities as to this point are most clear and manifest because to repeat the same thing over and over again is both irksom and prolix Therefore I will come to his fifth argument which is this Rodon The fifth argument is drawn from the words of the Apostle Heb. 9. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often as the high Priest entreth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others for then must he often have suffered from the foundation of the world but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And as it is appointed to men once to die but after this the Judgement so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation This is confirmed by the words of the same Apostle Heb. 10. The Law being a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the things can never with the sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the commers thereunto perfect for then would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins But in those a remembrance is made again of sins every year for it is not possible that the bloud of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins c. And every high Priest standeth dayly ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God for by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified Which iâ—… conformable to what he had said a little before that We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all from all which I form these arguments Answ. Before the Mounsieurs arguments rush upon us too faâ—…t for clarities sake I will first expound these passages in our Catholick sense and after will answer his arments in order By these words of the Apostle in his first Passage viz. Iesus Christ offereth not himself often as the high Priestss c. we understand them thus that he did not offer himself often bloudily or that he did not offer a bloudy sacrifice yearly as the high Priests of the old Law used to do and so we understand all the rest of the words of the same Passage in the same sense viz. of a bloudy sacrifice for it is unnecessary and also impossible that Christ should suffer again his body being now glorious and impassible But although this Passage denotates a difference betwixt Christs bloudy sacrifice and the sacrifices of the old Law in as much as Christs bloudy sacrifice was but for once and their bloudy sacrifices were yearly yet his bloudy sacrifice hath no opposition to the sacrifice of the Mass but only accidentally in this viz. that the one is a bloudy sacrifice and the other an unbloudy one Notwithstanding which accidental difference the sacrifice remains essentially one and the self-same and to reiterate the same thing though never so often causeth no opposition in the thing to it self as any body of the meanest understanding may easily see for nothing can be essentially opposite to it self as the very light of nature shews us The first words of the second Passage out of Heb. 10. do more confirm our doctrine then the Mounsieurs for these words The Law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the thing c. shews the great difference that is between the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the old Law for the old sacrifices were but meer speculative shadows of Christs bloudy sacrifice and consequently of themselves were of no value or force to sanctifie people or to remit sins whereas according to our doctrine the sacrifice of the Mass is not a meer shadow but a perfect immediate Idea or Image and dayly actual remembrance of Christs bloudy Passion Nay the self-same in essence with the bloudy sacrifice as all the doctors of the Church
teach us and consequently of the same force and value to remit sins to those that receive it worthily as the bloudy sacrifice is in it self to remit all sins in general if no obstacle were put to it The last words of this Passage viz. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God for by one offering he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified we understand in the same sense as we understood the words of the former Passage viz. that after Christ offered one bloudy sacrifice for sins he forever after sits at the right hand of his heavenly father until doomsday and we also understand these words viz. By one offering he hath perfected them that are sanctified we understand I say that his once bloudy offering himself upon the Cross was in it self a perfect rigorous satisfaction and of worth to sanctify all those that are sanctified But that which we deny is that this once-bloudy sacrifice doth oppose or exclude the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass which we say with the holy fathers is the self same essentially with it and consequently of the same force with it in order to the remitting of sins and sanctifing of those who receive it worthily and to whom it is particularly applyed unto as Learned Primasius says in the place above-mentioned Now then to the Mounsieurs arguments Rodon First the old sacrifices were reiterated for the Apostle saith that the high Priest entreth into the holy Place every year with the bloud of others But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ must not be reiterated for the same Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often and that he hath once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass is not the sacrifice of the Cross reiterated or the reiteration of the sacrifice of the cross as our adversaries would have it Answ. If the Mounsieur takes all those to be his adversaries that say the sacrifice of the Cross and of the Mass are the self-same sacrifice I am sure all the fathers of the Church are his adversaries I quoted some of them already and could quote many more if need were But what cares the Mounsieur for all the fathers why may not he answer for himself as well as Luther the chief Apostle of the Protestants did to king Henry the 8th thus Luth. tom 2. con Reg. Aug. fol. 34â—… Against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of devils set no old custome nor multitude of men but the word of the only eternal Majesty the Gospel here I stand here I sit here I glory here I triumph here I insult over Papists Thomists Henricists Sophists and all the gates of hell much more over the sayings of men be they never so holy Gods word is above all the divine Majesty maketh for me so as I pass not if a thousâ—…nd Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand King-Harriâ—… Churches stood against me God cannot err or deceivâ—… Austin Cyprian and likewise all other elect might err and they have erred Here answer Master Harrie here play the man I contemn thy lies I fear not thy threats here thou standest astonished like a stock c. Just the same language may the good Mounsieur give to all General Councils and holy fathers that ever treated of this question for they are all unanimously against his opinion so that since he hath nothing to stand unto but his own bare word or the sayings of those that were since Luthers time and derived from him I see no reason why he should not stand in defiance of them all as well as Luther did Therefore he may very well say with Luther here I stand here I sit here I glory here I triumph and exult over all the General Councils and old fathers that were in the Apostles time or ever since Gods word is above all and the divine Majesty maketh for me so as I Pass not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians Ambroses Chrysostomes and a thousand holy fathers be against me and I contemn your words your lying authorities concerning Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass and have no more esteem for you then for so many stocks this I say and such like good language may the Mounsieur give to the holy fathers as well as Luther gave to King Henry for they both go upon the same Principles viz. upon their one bare words for de Rodons strawy illation drawn out of this passage of Scripture I break thus By confessing the major viz. that the old sacrifices were reiterated as the former words of the Apostlâ—…s Passage do prove and I distingush his minor viz. but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ must not be reiterated Bloudily I confess unbloudily I deny and the subsequent words of the Apostle from whence this illation is drawn do prove no more so that I deny his consequence also viz. that the sacrifice of the Cross and of the Mass are not the self-same which cannot follow from his minor before he proves that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ cannot be reiterated unbloudily a thing which he nor his will ever be able to do out of S. Pauls words here or any where else Rodon Secondly the Apostle adding Else he should often have suffered from the foundation of the world makes it apparent that Christ cannot be offered without suffering for as he that should say this is not fire else it would be hot doth necessarily presuppose that fire is hot and as he that should say he is no man else he would be rational So when the Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered doth necessarily presuppose that Iesus Christ cannot offer himself without suffering But Iesus Christ doth not suffer every day in the Mass therefore he is not offered every day in the Mass by the ministry of Priests Answ. The foresaid words of the Apostle makes it rather evidently appear that Christs bloudy sacrifice is there meant which is just as we expound and understand them which bloudy sacrifice we confess cannot be reiterated without suffering which makes nothing against us for we say not that Christs bloudy sacrifice ought to be reiterated But we deny that Christs body may not be offered or sacrificed unbloudily in the Mass without suffering or that the forementioned Passage makes it apparent and to the proofs or parities the Mounsieur produces as touching fire and heat man and rational sacrifice and suffering first I say that suffering is not essential to sacrifice as rational is to a man nay nor its property also as heat is to fire if we take the word sacrifice in its whole extent and latitude for there were many sorts of rigorous sacrifices of the old Law wherein the things that were sacrificed did not suffer or were capable of suffering as were the sacrifices of meal oyl bread wine c. secondly I
it because God the father did constitute Christ high Priest for to sacrifice himself bloudily upon the Cross for our sins and unbloudily upon the Altar you inferr he hath no need of vicars or companions in his Priesthood what a fine consequence is this Christ sacrificed himself once bloudily therefore there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily this antecedent and consequence hangs not together Nay nor supposing Christ sacrificed himself once unbloudily as we hold he did at the first institution of this Sacrament doth it follow that there is no need of any other Priest to sacrifice him unbloudily for he commanded his Apostles to do as he did himself when he said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me But good Mounsieur tell me how could Christ be constituted by his Father high priest but in reference to some vicar or underpriest are not high and low relative terms you told us once that under and above do denotate different places and different you know is a relative because it imports inequality between two things or more therefore I beleeve you will not deny but that high is a relative word because it signifies as above does But all correlatives be simultanean that is together or at the same time Therefore Christ was constituted high-priest in respect to some Vicars or inferiour Priests and since he was constituted high-priest of the New Testament or Law it follows evidently that there must be Priests his vicars and substitutes of the same Law and if there be Priests of the New-Law then follows it as clearly that there is a sacrifice of the new Law to be offered by them for Priest and sacrifice are also correlatives But there is no more bloudy sacrifice of the new Law therefore the sacrifice which the Priests of the new law now offer is the unbloudy sacrifice of Christs body in the host really Mounsieur these consequences do hang better together then yours doth of its antecedent drawn from the Apostles words For besides its impertinency it openly contradicts the same Apostle who in his 1. Tim. 5. says the Priests that rule wellâ—… let them â—…e esteemed worthy of double honour and again the same place Against a priest receive not accusation Therefore in the Apostles time there were Priests and yet de Rodon concludes there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood The Apostles themselves were all Priests and high-Priests too for they constituted Bishops and Priests as S. Paul did Timothy Titus and many others yet in comparison to Christs Priesthood they were but vicars and substitutes The holy fathers called themselves Priests and said that they offered every day a sacrifice whose examplar was the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross as I have shewed before where I cited their very words yet the Mounsieur confidently inferrs out of scripture that there is no need of vicars or companions of Christs Priesthood an excellent consequence and wittily deduced against S. Pauls express words who mentions Priests and against the whole torrent of holy fathers This is that smart divine of the Reformed Religion whose small treatise in his Translatours opinion is the best Antidote against Popery the holy scripture excepted that over he read and for ought he knows it is not inferiour to the best of this kinde that ever was yet extant these be his own words in the Preface of his Translation But our Diana and Popery will never be annoyed or destroyed with such silly and ungodly stuff as this Christ said Ego sum Pastor bonus I am the good Pastor Iohn 10. wherefore may not the Mounsieur inferr as well out of this text Therefore Christ hath no need of vicars or under Pastours to feed his flock or to be companions in his Pastorship and yet Christ bid Peter pasce oves meas pasce agnes meos feed my sheep feed my lambs In a word if the Mounsieurs consequence holds the Reformed Church needs no Preachers Teachers Ministers or Pastors for Christ himself the good and high Pastor will do it all for them and the people will but displease him for constituting Ministers and Pastors over them to be his companions or vicars in his high Pastorship to say the truth I think their flocks for the most part do not regard very much what they preach or teach for if they did so many sectaries would never sprout from them and without any other commission but their own private spirits invade the pulpit undertake the task of preaching upon themselves I mean both men and women also and many of them but ordinary tradesmen But if their flocks would take away their fat Benefices and stipends from these godly Pastors as their Ancestors did deal with us I doubt whether they would stick so close to their principles as we do to ours and endure so much for their Religion and consciences as we do After this short digression let us return again to Mr. de Rodon Rodon 17. In answer to these Argument's the Romish Doctors are wont to say that the Sacrifice of the masse is the same with that of the Crosse in respect of the essence of the Sacrifice the same thing being offered in both viz. by Iesus Christ. But it differs in respect of the manner of offering for on the Crosse Iesus Christ offered himself bloudily that is when he died he shed his bloud for mankinde but in the masse he offers himself unbloudily that is without shedding his bloud and without dying On the Crosse Iesus Christ was destroyed in respect of his natural being but in the masse he is destroyed in respect of his sacramental being They add that all the arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews respect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Cross but besides this bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass. Lastly they say that the sacrifice of the Cross is primitive and original but that of the Mass representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross as the Council hath it in its 22. session Answ. All this doctrine is sound irre fragable and orthodox save only this clause viz. but besides bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is dayly offered in the Mass for the Mr. belyes the Romish Doctors who say not that it is another sacrifice but another maner of offering the self same sacrifice of the Cross viz. unbloudily and in that sense the whole doctrine is Catholick Rodon To these distinctions I reply that the sacrifice of the Masse doth not differ from that of the Cross in respect of the manner only which is but an accidental difference but it differs in respect of essence too Answ. That we deny he proves it thus Rodon First because the natural death of Iesus Christ is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the
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
your consequences to be but frivolous and strange Therefore to the first part of this third principal reply of yours I answer also that the mediate representation commemoration and application which you found out in a good sense to be in the Sacrament or Mass we are glad you found some good thing in it if it contains any such good thing it hinders not but that an immediate representation commemoration and application according to the holy fathers and Council of Trents meaning may be also found in it which immediate representation commemoration and application because they are of far more efficacy and vertue then the former are they may be very well called a true proper sacrifice propitiatorie for the sins of the living and dead which propitiatory sacrifice Mr. de Rodon hath not as yet refuted nor will be ever able to do having all the holy fathers and practise of Gods Church against him Rodon Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Iesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Iesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his word and Sacraments And this is that Iesus Christ teacheth us S. John 3. in these words as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And S. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applys a pluister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinneâ—… to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but faith As for the distinction of the Sacramental and natural being of Iesus Christ it hath been already refuâ—…ed in the 6. number Answ. This second part of his reply I answer thus that Christ being offered not to us as the Mounsieur says but for us as the holy Evangelist tells us we ought on our parts by a true and lively faith to embrace him with all his benefits offered us by vertue of his passion both in word and Sacraments And since by his word we are to believe that it is his body which is offered for us in the Sacrament we ought to believe it without any staggering or hesitation because he himself said absolutely this is my body And as in S. Iohn the third is said that as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up So must we also believe that he was lifted up bloudily on the Cross and is lifted up dayly unbloudily in the Mass for our sins because our mother the Church commands us so to believe and Christ said he that hears not the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and publican Math. 18. However although belief be a condition requisite that the vertue of Christs Passion and his Sacraments should be applyed unto us yet it is not the principal cause of our sanctification but Christs body offered upon the Cross and in the Sacrament for Christs body offered for us is the principal cause of our salvation and the healing Plaister which is applyed to a sick soul to heaâ—… her spiritual wounds and faith whether it be actuall or habituall cannot alone do the deed and consequently S. Paul in the place alleadged where he says God hath set forth Iesus Christ to be a Propitiation through faith in his bloud must be understood through faith as a condition requisite and not through faith as the Principal cause in his bloud for the principal cause of Propitiation is Christs body and bloud offered for us once bloudily upon the Cross and dayly offered for us in the sacrifice of the Mass so that although the Apostle says not explicitly through the sacrifice of the Mass yet he says it implicitly because Christs bloud is there offered and so there is an end to all Mr. de Rodons replys As to the distinction concerning the natural and sacramental being of Jesus Christ the Prudent Reader may judge whether its refutation be not sufficiently answered by me where I solved all his arguments of the said sixth number Rodon 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the doctors of the Romish dâ—…ctors and called by our adversaries the Angelical doctor This Thomas in part 3. Quest. 8. Art 1. having proposed this question viz. whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concluds wiâ—…e these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fittly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterwards he gives his answer in these words I answer we must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrifice of Christ in two respects first because as Augustin to simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a wall or in a frame we say this is Cicero this is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly the celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe to this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas Answ. Will you indeed Mounsieur this profer I confess is fair but I doubt much whether you and yours will stand to his arbitration as to this point as for my own part I take him to be one of the most eminent doctors of our Church and worthy to be called Angelical both for his excellency in learning especially concerning the B. Sacrament and for his purity of life Therefore I wish you and your party would follow his opinion and choose him umpire betwixt you and us concerning this high question we dispute of for never
believe your bare word against the Apostles clear meaning for certainly the Apoâ—…le purposely mentioned the word Penetrated to let us know that Penetrability is a property that belongs to a glorified body heâ—…p on 〈◊〉 heap on more and more curses upon your own self for adulterating Gods clear word but I am sure no body of understanding reason or belief ought to believe you or pin his saith upon your glosses after so many blasphemyes and lyes by you exprest in this small treatise Therefore it is certain that as to be obscure corruptible impenetrable and lumpish or heavy is proper to every patible body so it is proper to every gloâ—…ious body as Chriâ—…s is most glorious to be luminous incorruptible penetrable active or fleet or if you deny penetrability to a glorified body you must deny it agility incorruptibility and clarity also and then you contradict your own self for in your 4th chap. numb 15. you own that the glory of Chriâ—…s body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light which is nothing else but the gift or dowry of clarity Rodon 15. All the Romish doctors agree with us that modal accidents which are nothing else but the manner of being of substances as Action Passion Relation figure c. cannot be without a subject no not by the power of God himself But all the Objections by which they endeavour to prove that the accidents of the bread and wine may exist without a subject that is without their substance do prove the same thing of modal accidents too so that I shall not stay now to repeat these objections with their answers which are set down at large in my dispute about the Eucharist Answ. Certainly Mr. de Rodon you are much mistaken in the general opinion of all the Romish doctors concerning accidents and I believe you never read them all nor the tenth part of them for although these Accidents which you recount if compared to the accidents of Quantity and Quality because of their small entities and being are but modal yet in themselves they are real and positive entities and not pure modes for each of them constitutes a peculiar Predicament or series of Accident as the common opinion of all the best Romish doctors hold with Aristotle commonly called the Prince of Philosophers But whatsoever they hold of these Accidents whether they be proper entities or only pure modes very sure it is that they hold that subsistence and existence themselves which are substantial modes and more intrinsecal and neer to their subjects or substances then modal accidents be may be separated from their substances as Antichrists subsistence and existence are now separated from his Essence for essences as Aristotle says are ab aeterno from all eternity but subsistences and existences are not But suppose these modal accidents for the smallness of their entities cannot be without a subject yet it follows not but that the Quantity and Quality of the Sacramental species which have a greater and more solid entity may be without their connatural subjects their connatural subject being supplyed by a better and stronger as we say the power of God which upholds the Sacrament is a far better and stronger prop of the Sacramental species then the bare entities of bread and wine were And suppose again that according to all the Romish doctours these modal Accidents cannot be even by the power of God himself without a subject yet it follows not that they cannot be without their connatural subject because God can supply their connatural subject with a better and so he does in the Mystery of the blessed Sacrament for he gives the Sacramental species a better and stronger subject then they had before while they were sustentated by their connatural subjects of bare bread and wine In a word it is sufficient for all Accidents to have an aptitudinal inherence to their natural subjects without having an actuall inherence in them Objection 5th Roman 16. The fifth objiction is drawn from Mal. 1. in these words from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the gentils and in every place shall they offer incense to my name and a new pure offering where by this new and pure offering nothing can be understood but the sacrifice of the Mass because by this offering we cannot understand prayers almes contrition of heart and other good works which are sometimes in Scripture called oblations and sacrifices for the Prophet Malachy promiseth a new offering But Prayers Alms and other good works were common amongst the Iews and besides they of the Reformed Religion do believe that all the actions of the faithfull are polluted and the Prophet speaks of a pure and clean offering Again by this offering which Malachy speaks of cannot be understood lambs Bulls and such like animals which were wont to be sacrificed in Solomons Temple because the Prophet promiseth that it shall be offered in every place amongst the heathens Lastly by this offering cannot be understood the bloudy sacrifice which Iesus Christ offered on the Cross because that bloudy sacrifice was offered but once upon Mount Calvary in Judea and the Prophet speaks of an oblation that shall be offered in every place Therefore by this offering must be understood the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine which is nothing else but the Mass. Rodon 17. To this I answer first that by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual worship and service which believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their persons and Religious actions and this is the reason why S. Paul Rom. 12. speaks thus I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And chap. 15. speaking of the grace that was given him of God he saith It is given him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentils ministring the Gospel of God and that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost whence it appears that by this oblation whereof Malachy speaks we must not under stand the offering of Christs body and bloud under the aecidents of bread and wine but the offering up of the persons and Religious actions of those that should be brought unto God by preaching of the Gospel and particularly the Gentiles Answ. I wonder where Mr. de Rodon did reade or learn all these witty commentations he has upon Scripture If they were revealed unto him by God then they carry as much authority with them as Scripture it self doth But if they be not revealed nor seconded by any of the holy fathers upon what foundation doth their verity rely but upon de Rodons own bare word All the
these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest instead of putting them without a Parenthesis And he was Priest so that we may say in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it Proferens bringing instead of Protulit brought or drew out Secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos for he was a Priest instead of translating it erat sacerdos and he was a Priest Thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei and he blessed him and so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedeck brought bread and wine and he was a Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedeck bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him Answ. When one tells a notorious and impudent lye indeed and provokes another too much with his lye sometimes he is answered no better then thus The devil take the Lyar. S. Ierom or you must needs be the lyar in this Translation for the Romish doctors do follow S. Ieroms Translation and we know no modern Romish doctors Translators of our Bible we all hold to S. Ieroms Translation which goes by the name of the vulgar Translation among us If he be your adversary then we have one champion of our side worth ten thousand de Rodons and all those of his party But I pray tell me Mr. de Rodon where were you your Bible and your Translators when S. Ierom translated his Bible which we all follow or did any of yours oppose or contradict his Translation for so many hundred years that past betwixt him and Luther Calvin and de Rodon Tell me again I pray whether you and yours translated your Bible by inspiration from God or whether you had your Original from us If you had yours by Gods inspiration then doubtless yours is the true and right one and we must acquiesce to it But how shall we know it or what warrant can you give us for it only your bare word pardon us good sir that suffices us not for we have no reason to believe your bare word against the testimonyes of ten thousand authors better then your self who tell us the contrary But if you had our Bible for your original as you your selves confess you had how can your coppies correct their original but by your adding or diminishing something to it by doing whereof you infallibly purchase to your selves a heavy curse Of. S. Ieroms soul to be in heaven I make no doubt and consequently out of the devils clutches and reach But as for Mr. de Rodon who strikes at S. Ierom through the Romish doctors sides who accuses him of corrupting and falsifiing the text and consequently who presumes to blaspheme against so glorious a saint and eminent doctor of Christs Church I dare not swear but the devil holds him very fast for an arrant Lyar and makes him sit next to himself who is the father of Lyes Therefore I do not think Mr. de Rodon that the Romish doctors or any man of reason and sense will easily leave Saint Ieroms vulgar translation approved of for so many ages by the whole Church to adhere to your simple bare word or to any of your parties whose dictator the devil was that filled both your Bible and brains with falshood and lyes But suppose Mr. de Rodon the right Translation were as you say and that of the words must be made 3 different propositions viz. thus Melchisedeck also brought bread and wine and he was a Priest he blessed him suppose I say the true Text runs so since holy writt makes no mention of any other kind of sacrifice that Melchisedeck ever offered unto God and since he was a Priest and since he blessed Abraham and finally since the holy fathers as I shall hereafter produce agree with us as to the principal and main point of this question viz. that the bread and wine which Melchisedeck brought or offered was a type of the Eucharist there is no reason why the words of the text whether made into three propositions without a Parenthesis as he translates it or made into one proposition with a Parenthesis as S. Ierom or the Romish doctors as he says translated it I say there is no reason why the whole text should not be understood in our meaning and sense for the word brought which he translates for the word bringing may be well understood brought to offer or to sacrifice And these words And he was a Priest which he translates instead of these for he was a priest do signify that Melchisedeck was a priest and we may well think that holy Scripture did not make mention of his Priesthood in this place but in order and reference to some sacrifice as Priest and sacrifice are always correlatives And finally these words and he Blessed him which the Mounsieur translates instead of ours Blessed him may be as well applyed unto Abraham as to God whatever Mr. de Rodon says to the contrary for the Romish doctors do take themselves to be as good grammarians and dialectiâ—…ks too as he is and therefore will not swerve from their Principles nor from the unanimous opinion of the holy fathers concerning the main point of this question for Mr. de Rodons bare word or interpretation unless he proves his conclusion better either by holy Scripture or fathers which it seems he cannot do or if he can wherefore doth he not produce them to make his cause good Rodon 22. Secondly I answer that the hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham and indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle heb 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedeck met Abraham and blessed him and a little after he saith that Melchisedeck blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought him bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedeck blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to noâ—…e but to God Answ. Certainly the Mounsieur would make a better dictionarist then Philosopher or divine for he is mighty
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
that he hath reconciled men unto God made their peace with the Angels and hath particularly recommended Peace to them As for Aaron and other high Priests they were no kings much less are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck And they that have written the lives of the Popes have sufficiently declared what righteousness and Peace they have procured for the true and faithful servants of Iesus Christ as I shall shew at large elswhere Secondly the Apostle heb 7. represents Melchisedick to us as a man come from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life not that he was really such a one but because Moses hath wholy concealed from us his father mother descent birth and death that he might be the type of Christ who was without father as he is man without mother as God without descent both as God and man having neither beginning of dayes as God nor end of life as God or as man But the fathers descent birth and death of Aaron and other high Priests are exactly described by Moses And there were never any Popes Bishops or Priests whose Parents birth and death were not known consequently they cannot be after the order of Melchisedec Thirdly the Apostle adds that Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever because Moses makes no mention of his death nor of any one that succeedeth him in his Priestly office that so he might be the type of Iesus Christ who never less his Priestly office but will exercise it untill the end of the world always interceeding for those that are his by presenting his sacrifice to God the father continually As for Aaron and other Priests they are dead and have had successors and the Popes Bishops and Priests die dayly and have successors and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fourthly the Apostle saith likewise that Melchisedec took tithes of Abraham and adds that Melchisedec blessed him that had the Promises viz. Abraham and the less is blessed of the greater whence it appears that Melchisedec having taken tithes of Abraham and blessed him and Levi and all the Priests in his person was more evcellent 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 But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold as to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithfull in whose seed all the Nations of the Earth are blessed and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fifthly the Apostle never spoke of the sacrifice of Melchisedec so far was he from comparing it with the sacrifice of Iesus Christ as being like it or with that of Aaron as being unlike it so that all that our Adversaries say is nothing else but meer humane invention Answ. This your last answer Mounsieur is indeed very false as to its two first points viz. that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron did not consist in this that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread â—…nd wine as also when you deny the likenesse of the Priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Jesus Christ doth consist in this that as Melehisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine This answer I say is not only false but also impious because it contradicts both scripture and the unanimous opinion of all the holy fathers It contradicts scripture because scripture says in plain and express termes that Christ took bread in his hand and said of it this is my body and took wine in a cup and said of it this is my bloud and yet you pertinaciously say it is not founded in scripture or reason It is I confess above our reason to comprehend how Christs body is in the host and yet it is not contrary to reason that it should be there and yet we have reason to believe it is there both because Christ said it and his word is truth and omnipotent as also because the words of the Royal prophet and of the Apostle concerning the everlasting Priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedec must needs be verified in Christ as I said before which since they cannot be verified by his bloudy sacrifice as is also proved and there is no other strict sacrifice imaginable whereby to verifie them but this of the Masse it stands both with scripture and reason that as Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine and consequently that the likeness of both their Priesthoods did chiefly consist in this manner of sacrificing To what you say that these are but human inventions I say they are liker divine inspirations since all the holy fathers concurr in them then your impudent denial without any proof but your own consident word is of any force or weight to weaken or hurt them You say further more that the Apostle writing to the hebrews doth place the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Aaron and its likenesse in quite another thing first because being called Melchisedeck which signifies King of Righteousnesse and being king of Salem which signifies Peace he was the type of Jesus Christ who is truly king of righteousness and king of peace But Aaron you say and other high priests were no kings and much lesse are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck But good Sir with your leave the Apostle by this disparity betwixt Melchisedeck and Aaron viz. that Melchisedeck was a king and Aaron not that th'ones name signified Righteousness and Peace and th' others not placeth no difference between their Priesthood but only between their persons viz. that Melchisedeck being both king and Priest is a more perfect type of Jesus Christ then Aaron was who was but only a Priest and no king and all this we grant But this shews no difference between their Priesthood as any body may see and yet the difference between their Priesthood and not their persons is the thing you are to prove out of the Apostle which you will never be able to do but by the difference of their sacrifices therefore though Aaron nor any of the Romish Priests were kings your consequence has a huge slaw in it The same slaw hath your second consequence because all what you say out of the Apostle Heb. 7. concerning Melchisedecs coming from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life all these I say do shew the difference between Melchesedec and Aarons persons and that Melchisedec was a more perfect type of Christ then Aaron was but it shews
the Sacrament of the Eucharist then we say he offered a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck and commanded this sacrifice should be continued and â—…terated unto the worlds end when he said to the Apostles and consequently to their successors as often as yâ—…u do this do it in remembrance of me And so the fox is hunted through all his Blasphemous Treatise and forced to end it in Blasphemy Yet since we had to deal with an obstinaâ—…e and stubborn enemy and one that will not acquiesce to S. Ieromes vulgar translation but prefers his own bare saying as if every word of his were an oracle with him and his Translator before the Saints vulgar received version since I say he will not yeild to us and we think we have no reason to yeild to his bare word concerning the Translation of sâ—…ripture and since he or his may think that our reasons to prove that Melchisedec before he treated Abraham and his army with bread and wine sacrificed it first unto God are not considerable or convincing and we on the other side to hold their reasons against our said proofs do be as inconsiderable and weak since neither of us will submit one to the other in this point who can be better umpiers to decide this obscure question then the holy ancient fathers of Christs Church who not only lived nearer the Apostles times then we but also far surpassed both Mr. de Rodon his party and us in eminency of learning and sanctity of life especially when they are all unanimous and of the same opinion To these great â—…eroes to these holy fathers court of Judicature I humbly appeal and cite Mr. de Rodon with his whole party these I choose for my Umpiers and â—…udges and challenge de Rodon to this scripturistical combat before them and if he and his be not insolently proud they cannot refuse the Gantlet The first of them I pitch upon is Clemens Alexandrinus whose words lib. 4. stromat be these Melchisedec rex Salem sacardos dei altissimi qui vinum panem sanctificatum dedit nutrimentum in â—…ipum Eucharistiae Melchisedec king of Salem Priest of the most high God who gave wine and bread sanctified aâ—…â—…ypes of the Eâ—…charist where note that he says not only wine and bread but wine and bread sanctified or sacrificed After him I rank S. Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium Nam quis quoth he Magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus nester Iesus Christus qui sacrificium Dâ—…o patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtuleâ—… id est panem vinum suum scilicet câ—…rpus sanguinâ—…m for who is more the Priest of the 〈◊〉 then our Lord Jesus Christ who offered sacrifice to God the father and who offered the self same that Melchisedec offered bread and wine that is to say his own body and bloud what I pray could be said more clearly to our purpose S. Ierome the Mounsieurs adversary shall come next In his Ep. to Marcella he writes thus Recurre ad Genesim Melchisedec regem Salem hujus Principem invenies câ—…vitatis qui jam tuno in typo Christi panem vinum obtulit misterium Christianum in salvatoriâ—… sanguine corpore dedicâ—…vit search Genesis and there you shall finde Melchisedec king of this citty who sometime offered bread and wine in the type of Christ and dedicated the Christian Mystery or Sacrament contained in the body and bloud of our Saviour If these Testimonies and authorities of the abovementioned holy fathers satisfy not the Reader I refer him to all these ensuing renowned Interpreters of holy writt and every of them if I be not mistaken will over ballance ten thousand de Rodons with his partitoes Let him then read Euseb. Caesariâ—…nsis lib. 5. demonstrat Evangelica cap. 3. S. Aug. Ep. 95. ad Innocentium Papam S. Aâ—…b lib. 5. sacram c. 1. S. Epiph. haeres 55. quae est Melchisedechianorum S. Chrysost. hom 35. in Genes S. Theodoret in Comment Ps. 109. S. Leo. 1. serm de Annivers assump suae ad Pontificâ—…t Euseb. Eâ—…iss serm 5. Arnob in ps 109. Eucher lib. 2. cap. 18. in Gen Primasius in Comment c. 5. Epist. ad hebraeos Cassiod in ps 109. Reâ—…ig Antisiod and Euthimius Zigabenus upon the same psalm Damascenus lib. 4. de side c. 14. Oâ—…cumen in Comment c. 5. Epist. ad hebraeos Theophilac in cap. 5. ad hebraeos Ansel. in cap. 5. ad hebraeos All these great ones and many more which were too tedious to recount do unanimously combine with the Romish doctors against Mr. de Rodon and his party in this principal point of our controversie Therefore since all the Mounsieurs Arguments and keen arrows are all spent and all his solutions glosses and answers to our Objections do band directly against the whole to rent of holy fathers and since he is not able to produce one of them to stand of his side I see no reason why he should not be hooted at like a mad dog by all rational and impartial readers for his bare word against so many eminent Pillars of Gods Church is but a meer vain barking and consequently unworthy to be farther answered Laus Deo FINIS The PREFACE OF M. de RODONS Translator THe author of this piece was one Mounsieur de Rodon Philosophy Professor in the Royal Colledge at Nismes a Citty of Languedoâ—… in France where it was written But as soon as it was printed it was supprest by the command of authority prohibiting all persons to keep any of them upon I know not what severe penalties and such copies as could be found were publickly burnt by the hangman about 1660. whereupon the poor gentleman for fear of being condemned to keep company with his books was 〈◊〉 to â—…y to Geneva where he not long after dyed These severities of our Adversaries bring to my remembrance what a learned and ingenious frenchman once told me viz. that this small Tract hath more nâ—…tled their party then any one piece that ever was extant in France since the Reformation of Religion there Whether that be a mistake I know not but this I dare affirm that though many famous men of that kingdom have in the memory of this Age written very smarâ—…ly against the Romish heresies yet there is not one of them whose person and writings have had such hard measure Whence it appears that our Author his very enemies being Iudges hath made good what he undertook viz. he hath destroyed that great Diana the Masse and hath also by way of prevention destroyed all the arguments made use of by the Romish doctors for the restoring and re-establishing of her which he hath so well performed that to this very day not one of them hath dared so much as to attempt to revive her by answering his book so that here you may see her laid in her grave without hope of resurrection and therefore the book may very fitly be termed The
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
longo temporum spatio propter simulatam Religionem mystice communicare Christo râ—…usent ab aeterna se vita procul depellere know ye all that are christned and made partakers of the divine favours and grace if you come to the Church but seldom and out of a feigned kinde of devotion refuse to communicate mistically with Christ that you banish your selves farr from everlasting life Great S. Augustine tract 26. in Ioan. courts our ' Diana thus O Sacramentum pietatis O signum unitatis O vinculum charitatis qui vult vivere habet ubi vivat habet unde vivat accedat credat incorporetur ut vivificetur O Sacrament of piety O signe of unity O chain of charity he that has a minde to live has wherewith to live and how to live let him approach believe be incorporated that he might live See what efficacy and vertue this great Doctor attributes to our Sacrament But heark what golden-mouth'd Chrysostome says hom 60. ad pop Antiochen Quoâ—… nunc dicunt vellem ipsius Christi formam aspicere figuram vestimenta calceamenta Ecce cum vides ipsum tangis ipsum manducas how many are there that say now a days I would fain see Christs shape his face his clothes his shooes Behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou earest him and again tu quidem vestimenta cupis videre ipse vero tibi concedit non tantum videre verum manducare tangere intra te sumere And thou desirest to see his garments but he allows thee not only to see him but also to eat and touch him and to receive him into thy body And in his 61. homely to the same people of Antioch he saith tanquam leones ignem spirantes ab hac mensa recedamus facti diabolo terribiles caput nostrum mente revolventes charitatem quam nobis exhibuit nam Parentes quidem aliis saepe silios tradunt alendos ego autem inquit non ita sed carnibus meis alo meipsum vobis appono vos omnes generosos esse volens c. Therefore going from this table let us like Lions breath fire being made terrible to the devil and let us ponder upon our captain and upon the charity he endowed us with for other parents do often send their children to be nurst by others but I quoth he do not so but feed you with my own flesh and do set my self to be eaten before you for to make you all generous and noble hearted c. And again the same holy doctor in his book de sacerdotio says per idem tempus quo sacerdos sacrificium perficit Angeli assident caelestium Potestatum universus ordo clamores excitant locus altari vicinus in illius honorem qui immolatur Angelorum choris plenus est during the whole time that the Priest offers sacrifice both the Angels stand by and the whole order of celestiall Powers do make a harmony and the place next to the Altar is filled with Quirs of Angels in honour of him that is immolated or sacrificed Here you see gentle reader what esteem and value these holy doctors and fathers had for the eâ—…charist and consequently for the mass you see what vertue and force they attribute unto it how they say it incorporates us with Christ how it works charity in us how it makes us generous and resolute to go thorow all crosses and hardship for the love of God and how it renders us terrible and formidable to the very devil himself All these and ten thousand virtuous operations more are in the Mass or unbloudy sacrifice which is offered in it if we of our part did not obstruct its operations for there is no glowing fire â—…evet so active and hot to make iron or any other metall as this Sacrament is in it self to inflame our souls with the love of God if we would put no obstacle to it and nothing debaâ—…s us more from its operation as S. Cyrill tells us then our long abstinence from it for as great S. Gregory says hoc distare fratres charissimi inter delicias corporis cordis solet quod corporales deliciae cum non habentur grave in se desiderium accendunt cum verò habitae eduntur commedentem protinus in fastidium per satietatem vertunt at contra spirituales deliciae cùm non habentur in fastidio sunt cum verò habentur in desiderio c. Brethren this is the difference which is usually betwixt spiritual and corporal delights or fare that when the corporal fare is not had it raiseth and stirrs in one an exceeding desire and longing for it but when it is had the eater through saticty presently begins to loath it But contrarily while one has not the spiritual fare it is irksome and loathsome to him but when he has it the more â—…e feeds on 't the more desire and likeness he has to it From what is hitherto said in this Appendix considering the clear and express Passages of scripture the unanimous consent of the holy fathers concerning the Eucharist and consequently concerning the Mass and their elogies of it and considering the reason I produced of its agreeablenesse with Gods infinite and highest goodness to impart himself really to us and my other reason or parity betwixt the formal words of God the father and God the son I think no man of reason or understanding unless he be a quite partial censurer can approve of the bitter expression of Mr de Rodons Translator in his preface to his authors treatise against our Diana where he bespatters her with superstition Phanaticisme and Idolatry c. for by upbraiding and accusing her with these horrid crimes he involves all her worshippers and well-wishers in them also and consequently not only the Papists but also the holy fathers and doctors whose clear testimonies I lately produced in her behalf nay the very Angels and whole celestial court who as S. Chrisostome sayes assist and sing at this dreadful sacrifice all these if we beleive the Translator must be counted superstitious Phanaticks and Idolaters for adoring Diana or if they be not counted so for adoring her there is no reason why we should be fo doing as they do But O perversnesse and wickednesse of heresy and of heretical spirits who endeavour to ruine and destroy Christs flock for who could believe but that we know it by sad experience that the devil and all his ministers should be so subtil and crafty as to bring it to pass that this sacrifice which is of so old a standing and universally embraced for so many ages by all Christians and left as a perpetual testament by Christ to his Church should be not only rejected and despised by so many thousands that pass under the notion of being Christians but also that they should take a solemn oath and cause others upon severe penalties to do the like or if they refuse it to turn them out
famed through the whole world for sanctity learning and Prowess wheresore dost thou not consider what Religion made thee so glorious and renowned S. Austin the monk and his forty blessed companions were the first that brought the light of the Gospel from Rome to the Angles or english men from whom thou hast thy denomination this Austin and his fellow-Missioners were all Dianaists or Masse-Priests and received holy orders This much thy own Protestant Chronicles can tell thee To this Austin Bakeâ—… sayes king Eâ—…helbert gave his chief city of â—…anterbury and his own Royal Palace there made sincâ—… the Cathedral of that See withdrawing himself to Reculver in the I le of Thanet where he erected a Palace for himself and his successors He gave him also an old Temple standing without the Eastwall of the citty which he honoured with the name of S. Paâ—…cras And then added a Monastery to it and dedicated it to S. Peter and Paul appointing it to be the place of the Kentish kings sepulâ—…hres But in regard of S. Austin the procurer both Panâ—…ras Petâ—…r and Paul were soon forgotten and it was and is to this day called S. Austins which Abbey S. Austin enriched with divers Reliques which he brought with him from Rome which was a part of Christs seameless coat and of Aarons Rodd thus farr Baker Where you may plainly see out of one of your own Protestant Authors how Christian Religion was first brought into England and planted here by Mass-Priests Here you may see how those that brought it in did dedicate Churches unto them with this intention that the Saints should patronize and protect all those that should frequent their Churches with prayers Here you may also see how in those dayes sacred Reliques were held in esteem and veneration by the Propagators of Christian Religion Finally any body may clearly see by the very notions or names of the festiâ—…al tymes viz. of Christ-Masse Candle-Mass Lamb-Mass Miâ—…hael-Mass Martle-Mass that the Masse was used and held in great veneration by our devout Ancestors ever since England was converted to the Christian saith For it is certain these denominations of the holy times came first from Christians and not from Pagans It is also sure that sanctity and Christian learning could never have been attributed to our heathenish Ancestors Therefore if they were attributed to our primitive Christian forefathers why do we swerve from their pious wayes and Religion which is well known and granted by all Historiographers both Catholicks and Protestants to have been the self same which was and is now in communion with the Church of Rome and consequently that of the Masse Or with what Religion and conscience can the Reformists of our time censure all the Primitive Christians of England since Austin the Monks time to be guilty of the horrid crimes of superstition Phanaticisme and Idolatrie and yet by branding us with those crimes they do it for we hold but the same doctrine of the Masse which they practised taught us and delivered unto us so that by attaching us with those horrid crimes they involve them with us in them also But who could not rather think that any man of reason and understanding any man that hath any spark of belief of the love or feare of God in him or that hath any sense or feeling of the hour of his death of the immortallity of his soul of eternity aâ—…d of the terrible judgment of God Who I say would not think but he ought rather to ponder well and consider with himself how dangerous a thing it is and of what weight and concernment to his soul and eternal salvation not to shake of all antiquity and the old lyturgy which hath been used and practised by all the orthodox Christians of all ages since Christs time untill now and which is now also in use amongst the most universal Professors of Christianity a lyturgy so well grounded upon many clear and express texts of Scripture backt and seconded by the unanimous interpretations and definitions of all the General Councils and holy fathers of Gods Church in a word a liturgy so well cohering and agreeing with the infinit goodness charity and mercy of God to us whereby he demonstrated his love to us in the highest degree imaginable that could be in this life This mistical liturgy to reject abandon câ—…shiere and contemn upon the bare words of some self interessed calumnious opiniators who in comparison with the Roman Catholicks of all ages with the General Couneils and with the whole torrent of holy fathers are for fanctity of life for learning and for veneration of antiquity but like a handfull oâ—… wilde rude illiterate cow heards to compare with an innumerable multitude of grave Councellors or Judges What man I trow that has any belief or care of his soul if he were not starkmadd would clâ—…ave to such kinde of fellows and swerve from all the grand heroes of Gods Church what thing else is this but openly and manifestly to turn ones back to Christ and to contradict his express commandement where he bids us hear his Church or he will count us but for heathens and publicans Did not the Apostle forsooth prophecy unto Titus 2. Tit. 4. thus for there shall be a time when they will not hear sound doctrine but according to their own desires they will heap to themselves masters having itching ears and from the truth certes they will avert their hearing c. These words can in no wise be alluded to the Roman Catholick nor to their doctrin of the Mass which is of as old a standing as Popery is for our adversaries say that the Mass and Popery are convertible terms But all Ecclesiastical histories do attest that there have been Popes or Bishops of Rome ever since the Apostles time therefore if Popery and the Mass be convertible terms the Mass has been immediately from the Apostles time and consequently it cannot be that unsound doctrine the Apostle prophecied or spoke of to Titus Neither do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles or elsewhere that the Apostles ever opposed the Mass or Popery either which if it were a Phanatick superstitious or Idolatrous doctrine and liturgy as the good translator stiles it to be doubâ—…less they would have done tooth and nail and would never have suffered it to have â—…rept into Christs Church and so venemously to have infected her S. Pauls faith and the Romans was the same when he wrote these words unto them for I desire to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace to confirm you that is to say to be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both your faith and mine Rom. 1. did the Romans differ then in Religion and Lyturgy from their first Bishop or Pope no certainly therefore it is much to be seared nay in all reason and probability if it be not a theological demonstration that the opposers of the Mass be those peâ—…ple the