Missa triumphans, or, The triumph of the mass wherein all the sophistical and wily arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice venerable sacrifice in his funestuous tract by him called, The funeral of the Mass, are fully, formally, and clearly answered : together with an appendix by way of answer to the translators preface / by F.P.M.O.P. Hib. Collins, William, 17th cent. 1675 Approx. 690 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 297 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A34012 Wing C5389 ESTC R5065 12633436 ocm 12633436 64832 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A34012) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64832) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 348:12) Missa triumphans, or, The triumph of the mass wherein all the sophistical and wily arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice venerable sacrifice in his funestuous tract by him called, The funeral of the Mass, are fully, formally, and clearly answered : together with an appendix by way of answer to the translators preface / by F.P.M.O.P. Hib. Collins, William, 17th cent. F. P. M. O. P. [10], 464, 48, [16] p. [s.n.], Printed at Louain : 1675. The epistle dedicatory signed: W.C. Attributed to William Collins. Cf. NUC pre-1956. Errata on p. 48 of appendix. Includes index. Pages 239-240 of pt. 1, and p. 40-41 of pt. 2 have print missing in filmed copy; p. 220-253 of pt. 1 and p. 30-48 of pt. 2 photographed from Bodleian Library copy and inserted at the end. Identified on film as Wing C5389. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Derodon, David, ca. 1600-1664. -- Tombeau de la messe. -- English. Mass -- Early works to 1800. 2003-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-06 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-07 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2003-07 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-08 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Missa Triumphans , Or , The Triumph of the Mass ; WHEREIN All the Sophistical and wily Arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice Venerable Sacrifice , in his funestuous Tract , by him called , The Funeral of the Mass , are fully , formally , and clearly Answered . Together with an Appendix by way of Answer to the Translators Preface . By F. P. M. O. P. Hib. Beware lest any deceive you by Philosophy and vain fallacy , Col. 2. v. 8. Permissu Superiorum . Printed at Louain . 1675. The last Will , &c. Know all men by these presents , that I IOhn Presbyter Knight , by Countrey a Scotch-man , of the Tribe of Rabshekah , of the Linage of Iudas ; ( being of perfect memory , onely a litle troubled with melancholy , and a disease called , The particular Charge of the Army ) doe ordaine this my last Will and Testament to stand in full force and vertue . Imprimis , I give and bequeath my soule into the hands of him that gave it ; and whereas I have alwayes ( in my life time ) been used , and taught all others to plunder and rob both God and Caesar of their dues ; yet at my death I detest all such horrid Actions , Equivocations , and mentall Reservations , and will not rob the Devill of his : Therefore in plaine English , Devill take thy due . For my body , I bequeath to the earth ; provided first , That it bee first decently wrapped in six sheets of the Directory , and then reverently coffined up in the sacred Ordinance for Tithes , and so with all solemnity carried from the Temple to Westminster by the C L asses , Doctor Burges , Doctor Gouge , Master Edwards , and Byfeild being close Mourners , and going before the Corpes , and the wicked Elders following after , weeping , howling , and knashing of their teeth , as if they were already in the fire , which such stinking Trees were made for , upon one of which Iudas my great Gransire hanged himselfe , You may read more of them in the History of Susanna , with a slow motion , and in the midst of the streets , that my body may be seene by all , and let your sorrow so much abound , that you may take up that Lamentation of old , Wisdome crying out in the streets , but ●…e regardeth h●… — my will is , That my learned Countriman , Doctour Cybballs teach at my Funerall in a deplorable tone of language ( according to his speciall gift ) my will being that he preach upon that Text in the 89. Psal. ver . 44. The dayes of my youth hast thou shortened , ●…nd covered me with dishonour . Next I desire that Mr. Calamy and Mr. Case may be sent up to desire a conference with both Houses , to procure an Ordinance , that there may be a day of Humiliation appointed and set apart to deplore my sad losse , and that a Message be prepared , and sent with all speed into Scotland , to give them timely notice thereof , that they may humble themselves with you , and that whereas wee have continued a Monthly Fast for the distressed Protestants in Ireland , and wee our selves having revoked the Protestant Religion , and instituted the Presbyterian , ( and now finding our owne distresses to be above or equall with theirs ) we conclude that our Prayers have not beene availeable for them , and may now change the day , and fast and pray as long or longer for our selves . And likewise , that they may be pleased to put it to the Vote , whether my corps may not be interred neare his Excellency their late Lord Generall , and Mr. Iohn Pym , and so hereafter all Parliament men disceasing , that wee our selves may as well now , as hereafter take up all the resting places of the Saints , and so leave no roome for either the King or his evill Counsell or Popish Bishops , they having formerly engrossed that place only for themselves , that an Ordinance may be speedily drawne up to this effect . Thirdly , I will and bequeath vnto Doctour Burges to have the di●…sing of all fat Benefices whatsoever ; provided that the said Dr. Burges hold and freely enjoy as many of the said Benefices as he himselfe pleaseth , and the rest to be by him disposed of to such persons as he shall thinke quallified and indued with gifts befitting so great a Cause as the present Reformation shall require : to which end , for the better incouragement of him the said Dr. therein , I do freely give and bequeath unto the said Dr. Burges all the scaffolds , and loose stones in or about , or belonging to the Church of Pauls , to pull downe , take , carry away , and dispose of as he shall thinke fitting . Fourthly , I give and bequeath unto my Reverend Son Dr. Gouge the full sum of 500 l. for these religious uses following , viz. 20 pounds to find his Parish Bell-ropes , and in case his said Parish shall not have any use thereof , that he or any of the rest of the venerable Assembly shall have full power and authority to use them at their owne discretions : That one hundred and 50 pounds shall be by the said * Dr. Gouge disbursed in sea-coale whilst they are cheap , and by him sellered up ( as lately he did , most of his Parish can justifie the same ) and by him againe sould out to the poore of his Parish , or any other poore Christians at 10. d. the Bushell cleare gaines . And I ordaine that he imploy the remaining sum in like manner , or if he thinkes it fitting to put it to use at 10. in the hundred , and not under , and the gaines thereof arising to be distributed equally to Mr. Wil. Pri●… , and Dr. Bastwick , that they may be the better encouraged to Query against the Army , to raile against Independents , to rout out Monarchy , and to prove Presbytery jure Divino , provided that the principall remaine intire to Dr. Gouge himselfe , without any other fraud or deceit , Fifthly , I give and bequeath to my deare Child Mr. Edwards , 500. Acres of Bishops Lands , with all the timber growing thereon , to be by him converted to Gibbets to hang up the Independents ; and in case the said Independents shall resist the holy Synod , as it is probable they will ; That then it shall be lawfull for any of the Assembly being already furnished with hempe ( if not enough in my former Legacy , the Common people of England questionlesse will supply their needs ) to hang themselves , and to fulfill the old Proverbe , give them halter enough and thei le hang themselves . Sixthly , I give and bequeath all my plundered Books , and Libraries lately tane from the Bishops to Mr Calamy , Mr Sedgwick , and Mr. Case ▪ it being likely the Case may suddenly be altered , and my sonne Calamy feele Calamity , for I feare destruction is ●…igh , and my son Sedgwick will shortly ●…leat ( like one of Ieroboams Calves ) to his Country-men in Essex , in one only single poore Benefice . Seventhly , I give and bequeath all my Charity to the Aldermen of the City , and by them to be disposed of to the Parliament , as they shall have need thereof . Eightly , All my wisdome and learning to the Common Councell , that they may preserve the City as I and my Children have preserved the Church , and brought it to the great light and glory that now you see it is . Ninthly I give and bequeath to all broaken Aldermen , defunct Committees , and accused Members of the House of Commons , my n●…w Creed ; and by them to be disposed of to their Creditors , and all others as they shall see cause , that they may renew their faith , and againe become credible men , by which meanes the publique faith may againe revive , and the City looke up : and whereas my Predecessor knowne by the name of Doctors Commons of famous memory did decease about sixe yeares since , having first made a will which was made publique in print , and for as much as the said Doctors Commons is againe revived to my great and unspeakeable terrour , I doe hereby bequeath unto my said Predecessor all jurisdiction , priviledges , profits , and emoluments whatsoever so unjustly usurped and detained by me , and the rest of my precious Brats . Tenthly , All my zeale for the Cause I give and bequeath to the dissenting Souldiers that have deserted the Army , that they may stand up mightily in the gap , and stop the plaguy devouring Army of Sir Thomas Fairfax . Eleventhly , I give and bequeath all my new invented Oathes , and Covenants , all my Schismaticall Sermons , all my Perjuries , Forgeries , Plots , Treacheries , Rebellions , Equivocations , and mentall reservations , to my deare children the Scots , provided that they shall make use of them in their owne Countrey , and not else where . Twelfthly . I give and bequeath unto Dr. * Cyballs 10. l. of lawfu●…l money of England , in consideration of my Funerall Sermon , besides two Canenicall Coats , which he may turne , as he sees fitting ; and I desire him to make his prayer shorter then the ordinary use hath been , for I my selfe must confesse the blasphemies , treasons , heresies , incongruities , tautologies , absurdities of my children in their measure of Prayer , from time to time ( observed by the people ) hath beene a great cause of my untimely disease : And also I desire that his Sermon may be printed , and published , and that Wal-ey'd Bartlet at Austins-gate , and Bellamy at the Old Exchange have the Printing thereof ; and that an Ordinance may bee desired , that none dare to reprint the same . Lastly , I do intrust all that out of a conscientious duty to me ( shall suddenly after my discease ) leave and abandon the House of Commons , ( Provided they exceed not the number of threescore ) to be my Executors , that they see this my last Wil and Testament performed , without any fraud according to the true sense and meaning thereof , and the severall legacies to be paid to the persons aforesaid within five moneths after my death . And this my Will to remaine in full force , revoking all former Wills , Bonds , Bills , Gifts , whatsoever . Witnesse my hand and Seale , Adoniram Byfield , Scribe . Sealed and delivered , Iuly , 1647. Iohn Presbyter . Simon Synod . Cornelius Burges . Postscript . REjoyce O heavens ▪ sing aloud O earth , clap thy hands for joy , O England , post nubula soles , thou shall now have a time of quietnesse , of peace , of content , for Presbyter Iohn is dead , and will never vex thee more , nor imprison thy free Denizens , nor eate up thy fat things , nor devour thy good things , nor eate the bread out of thy childrens mouthes : Therefore farewell persecution for conscience ; farewell Ordinance for Tythes ; farewell Ecclesiasticall Supremacy ; farewell Pontificiall Revenue ; farewell Dissembly of Divines , dissembled at Westminster , you shall constult together no more ; farewell Sir Simon Synod , and his sonne Presbyter Iack Gens antiqua ruit , multos dominata per Annos , And therefore O England , Interpone tuis interdum gaudia curis His EPITAPH . HEre lies Jack Presbyter , void of all pity , Who ruin'd the Countrey , and fooled the City : He turned preaching to prating , and telling of lies , Caus'd jarres and dissentions in all Families . He invented new Oathes , Rebellion to raise , Deceiving the Commons , whilst on them he preyes . He made a New Creed , despised the Old , King , State , and Religion by him bought and sold. He foure yeares consulted , and yet could not tell The Parliament the way Christ went into Hell. Resolved therein , he never could be , Therefore in great haste , he 's gone thither to see . FINIS . gratiously to hear the humble Prayers of his hidden Petitioner ; and MADAM , Your Majestie 's most Loyal & Devoted Beadsman , W. C. Chapter I. Concerning the Exposition of these words : This is my body . MOnsieur de Rodon , against ths exposition of the Roman Catholicks , who by this passage of Scripture , This is my body , understands the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament of the Altar , frames his argument thus . Rodon . 1. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world , and takes words otherwise then all other men do , must without doubt speak very obscurely ; but if Iesus ▪ Christ by these words This is my body , had meant the real presence of his body in the host , ( as the Romish Doctors assert ) and consequently had meant the substantial Conversion of the bread into his body , he had spoken contrary to the common usage of a●… the world , and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do ; which I prove thus . The●… was never any author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these , This is my body , to signifie the real presence of a thing immediatly after the pronouncing of them , and not before ; on the contrary , there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was to be . For example , when God the Father speaking of Iesus Christ said , this is my beloved Son , it is certain that Iesus Christ was the son of God , before God said it ; and in common usage it is never said , this is that , except the thing be so , before it is said to be so . For example , we do not say this is a Table , before that which we mean by the word , this , be a table . Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane , and contrary to the common usage of all men , to make these words of , Iesus Christ , this is my body , to signifie th●… substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body , and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest , and not before ; seeing then that Iesus Christ , when he said , this is my body , did not speak contrary to the common usage of all ●…h●… world , and d●…d not tak●… the word●… otherwise ●…hen all other men do ; it necessarily follows , that these words of Iesus Christ , when he said , this is my body , do not signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body , nor the real presence of Christs body in the host , immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them , and not before . And this being so ; the Romish doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture , than this , This is my body . to prove such a conversion , and such a presence ; and seeing they can find none , I conclude that such a conversion , and such a presence , have no foundation in Scripture . Answ. To this argument I answer , confessing the major , viz. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world , &c. and denying the minor , viz. But if Jesus Christ by these words , This is my body , had meant the real presence , &c. he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the world . And to the probation of his minor , viz. There was never any author , either facred or prophane , that made use of such words as these . This is my body , to signifie , &c. that I grant ▪ and deny the consequence , viz. therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors , as well sacred as prophane , and contrary to the common usage of all men , to make these words of Jesus Christ , this is my body , to signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body , and the real presence of his body in the host , immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest , and not before . And the reason is this ; because of the disparity that is betwixt Christs words , and the words of all authors sacred and prophane ; for Christs words , as uttered by him , have a creative , productive , and effective vertue and force . It was with his word he changed water into wine , at the feast of Cana in Galilee . It was with his wotd , he cured and cleansed the Leprous man in the Gospel . It is with his word , he wrought all his stupendious wonders and Miracles ; and ( if Mr de Rodon believes he is God ) he ought to believe , that it was with his word he created heaven and earth ; or dare the Monsieur say , that when God spoke these words fiat caelum , fiat terra , be the heavens made , be the earth made , that heaven and earth were in being , before God uttered his creative word : or thinks he that Christ had no hand in that creation ? if he doth ; then I dare say , and can assure him , he has no more belief then a meer heathen . But as for the words of a meer man , whether he be an author sacred or prophane , sure it is that they are not of a creative , productive , or effective vertue and force , as Christs are ; and so it is no wonder if according to the common usage of all mens meaning their authors words do presuppose that the things whereof they treat or speak , have their being before ; and not by vertue of their bare significative words . But as it is proper to a meer mans word , ( be he never so good an author sacred or prophane ) not to give a being to the thing he speaks of , so it is proper to Chri●…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 e●…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 a●…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 und●…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 e●…presseth the concept . But in this passage , This is my body , the words are instituted to signifie properly and immediately , a●…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 gr●…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 in●…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 ●…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 Romis●… 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 : t●…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 ; n●…y the very signum naturale , natural signe it ●…elf , hath not that similitude ; for othe●…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 Tav●…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 v●…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 creat●…d or produced any thing , but by h●…s b●…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 , b●…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 ●…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 t●…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. d●… 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 ( i●… ) is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being , but for a Sacramental and significative being ; because neither the cup nor that which i●… 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 mu●…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 ●…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 believe●… 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 Philoso●…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 en●…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 drunkard●… 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 ●…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 mand●…cavit & ●…ibit , he did eat it ( as Iudas did ) to his own damnation ▪ what impious , nonsensical , and Blasphemous doctrine this is , let any rational man consider . But according to the doctrine of the Romanists , the Eucharist is quite another thing , they say , that bare bread and wine are not the substract or foundation whereupon signification relyes in the Sacrament ; but that the Sacramental species are the foundation whereupon signification is grounded ; which Sacramental species being received worthily by the mouth of the body , because they contain the body and bloud of Christ , they say that at the same time they feed the soul also , because they have a spiritual exhibitive faculty to convey Christ into the soul , and work upon her by uniting her to Christ and making her one os his mistical members ; and thus the soul by feeding upon his body , now glorified and impatible , ( if she receives him worthily ) he changes her affections wholy into himself , and as it were incorporates her ; for all the delight of a devout soul , is to be wholy united , and absorpt in Christ , and yet his body , being now impatible and glorified , receives no damage or harm thereby , more then the sun doth by casting his beames upon a dunghill . And although faith be necessary in him that eateth this bread ; we say that hope and charity must also accompany this morsel , unless a man eats it to his damnatian ; for faith alone is not enough to give it a relish in the soul. The Royal prophet calls it the bread of Angels , for it feeds their spirits also ; which if it were but the meer entity of bread , it could not do ; for they never eat wafer , nor bakers bread , nor drink of the entity of our corporal wine ; neither do they eat the Sacrament it self , by the mouth of faith , as Mr. de Rodon would have our soules to eat it here , for if we believe the Apostle , there is neither faith nor hope in heaven , where the Angells are ; but only charity . And since we are come to the mouth of the soul , faith , ( for so the Mounsieur calls it ) saying ; by the mouth of the soul , viz. by faith : I wish he would shew us , either by the common usage of speaking , or in true Philosophy , that faith is the mouth of the soul. If he takes the word ( mouth ) litterally , the soul being a pure spirit , has no mouth ; as it hath no hands nor leggs . If he takes it figuratively or metaphorically , he will never be able to make it out in true philosophy , that faith is the mouth of the soul ; which I prove thus : a mouth must be an intrinsecal part of that thing whose mouth it is , whether the word ( mouth ) be taken litterally or figuratively ; for a corporal mouth is an intrinsecal part of the body that eateth or speaketh : and when God , or an Angel doth speak methaporically , they express themselves by their understandings and wills , which are intrinsecal unto them . But faith is not intrinsecal to a mans soul ; for otherwise , every soul would have faith ; besides , faith according to all divines , is one of the Theological or supernatural vertues ; but no supernatural thing can be intrinsecal to a meer natural thing , such as a soul is . Therefore unless he means to make a Monster of mans soul , faith which is extrinsecal to her , can not be her mouth litterally nor figuratively . In short , the whole debate betwixt Mr. de Rodon and his party , and the Romanists and their party , consists in this ; that Mr. Rodon holdeth Christ is conveyed into our soules , and feedeth them spiritually , with the meer entities of bread and wine ; for signification , ( which is the formal part of the Sacrament ) hath no exhibitive , but only resultative power . And the Romanists hold that our souls are fed spiritually , with the real entity of Christs glorified body ; which being taken by the mouth of the body , we say he is exhibited into our souls . Now whether it stands more with reason and faith , and whether it be more consonant with sound divinity and Philosophy , that the entity of Christs real body can better feed the soul , then the bare entityes of bread and wine can ; we leave the prudent and impartiall Reader to Judge . But if our adversaries say , that by eating Christs real body we damnify it , or do it any irreverence , That we deny ; because we eat his body as it is now glorified ; and a glorified body , we say , is uncapable of suffering any harm or wrong . Neither can any irreverence be done to it , but when it is taken unworthily , that is to say , while one is in mortal sin ; and then the receiver takes it to his own damnation ; but Christs glorified body , is never the worse , or in the least annoyed thereby ; for his body is now impatible ; and as it cannot die again , so can it not suffer . But now we are come to the Mounsieurs additional argument which is thus . Rodon . 6. When a man saith that a thing is such , if it be not such , during the whole time , which he imployes in saying it is such , he makes a false proposition ; for example , when a man saith , that a wall is white if it be not white , during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white , he makes a false proposition . But according to the Romish Doctours , when Iesus Christ said , This is my body , it was not his body , during the whole time which he imployed in saying , This is my body ; for they say , it was his body afterward only : therefore according to the Romish doctors , Iesus Christ uttered a false proposition : which being blasphemy to affirm , we must lay down this for a foundation , that that which Iesus Christ gave to his disciples , when he said , This is my body , was his body , not only after he had said it , but also while he was saying it , and before he said it ▪ And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church , that we believe the truth of these words of Iesus Christ : This is my body , much better then they do , because they believe it at one time only . viz. after he had said it : but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it , when he was saying it , and after he said it . But here some may object , that we must not take the words of our Lord , in too rigorous a sense ; and that in these words : This is my body , we must take the present-tense for the next future , and then the sense will be this : this will immediately be my body . To which I answer , that the Romish doctors will have us take these words : This is my body , in the rigour of the litteral sense , and then the proposition is evidently false . I know that the present-Tense may be taken for the next future , as when Iesus Christ said : I go to my father , and to your father , I go to my God , & to your God , that is , I shall go speedily . But who can be so bold and ignorant , as to affirm that this speech is without a figure , seeing all Grammarians know that it is a figure called Enallage of time ? Therefore the Romish doctors must confess , that by their own doctrine , this proposition of Iesus Christ ; This is my body , is either false or figurative ; and seing that it is not false , it must be figurative , and that the figure must be a Metonimy , whereby the signe takes the name of the thing signifyed ( as hath already been proved ) and not an Enallage of time . Answ. To this additional argument I say , that to verify any proposition , it is enough that the thing is such as the proposition sayes it to be , after the proposition is uttered , although it be not such , while the proposition is in uttering ; if by a ptoposition Mr. d●… Rodon understands a perfect and significative proposition , as he ought to do ; & as this proposition , this is my body , is . But if we should grant that while a meer man uttereth a proposition , the thing meant by the proposition ought to be such before he spoke , and during the time he is speaking it , to have his proposition not to be false ; yet it follows not that while Jesus Christ , ( who is both God and man ) doth utter a proposition , the thing he speaks of should be such , before ▪ and while he speaketh ; to make his proposition be true ▪ for as I said often before , that as Christs word is an effective word , so his proposition is an effective proposition ; because his word and proposition do make what they signify . Therefore the Romish doctors say very well , that the bread was made his body , only after he pronounced the words , and not before ; and yet we deny that Christ then uttered a false proposition . Nay we hold de Rodons layed foundation to be blasphemous , because it gives not an effective vertue to Christs words ▪ above the words of ordinary men . 〈◊〉 we take not only the words , but also 〈◊〉 Tense or time while they were spoken , in as rigorous a sense as he does , viz. in their real litteral meaning ; and the word ( is ) in the present Tense ; without a recourse either to a Metonimy , or Enallage of time ; and yet we deny the proposition , as uttered by Christ to be at all false ; because his was an effective proposition , though other mens are not . We deny also that our adversary hath any advantage of belief over us , for beleving it was Christs body , before , while , and after he spok the words . CHAP. II. Concerning the exposition of these words . He that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my bloud , hath everlasting life . My flesh is meat indeed , &c. MOunsieur de Rodon , did promise in his precedent Chapter , to prove in this , that Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by faith , which he sayes is the mouth of the soul ; and not of a corporal eating and drinking , by the mouth of the body : his first argument is this . Rodon . 1. When a man would satisfie his hunger , and quench his thirst , he o●…th , and drinketh that thing , which he hungers and thirsts after , because eating satisfieth hunger , and drinking quencheth thirst : But it is by faith , that is , by beleiving in Iesus Christ , that we satisfie the hunger , and quench the thirst which Iohn : he that cometh to me , shall never hunger , & he that believes in me , shal never thirst ; and he that beleveth in me , shall never thirst : Therefore it is by faith , or by beleving , that we eat and drink Iesus Christ , and consequently the eating of Christs flesh , and drinking of his blood is spiritual , and not corporal . Answ. To this argument I answer , granting the major , and distinguishing the Minor thus : but it is by faith , as by a condition requisite , that we satisfie the hunger , and quench the thirst , which we have after Christ , I confess ; but it is by faith , as by the proper and formal cause of satisfying our hunger and quenching our thirst , after him ; or as faith is the spiritual mouth of the soul , to convey Christ into her ; I deny the minor , and both the consequences following . Therefore ( I say ) although not only faith , but also hope and charity , be requisite conditions , wiihout which no body can have the spiritual refreshment this divine food gives unto the soul , and which the soul so much hungers and thirsts after ; yet neither faith , hope nor charity , jointly , or severally , are the cheif cause of this refreshment and spiritual satisfaction ; but the real entity of Christs body , ( which is in the consecrated host ) being received corporally by us , while we are in the state of grace ; is that which chiefly and principally causeth this spiritual refreshment , in us , it is that glorified body , that satisfies our spiritual hunger , and quenches our spiritual thirst , and faith is only one of the requisite conditions , that Christs body should feed us spiritually ; just as the application of fire to wood , is a condition requisite that fire should burn the wood ; but none can say , that the application , the condition requisite , is that which burns the wood ; but the fire is the whole cause of burning ; Even so we say of Christs body in the Sacrament , that it is the chief and whole cause of the spiritual refreshment of the soul ; and the thing which she chiefly hungers and thirsts after ; and faith is but a condition requisite , when his body is taken corporally by us , that it should refresh us spiritually . To the passage he alledgeth out of S. Iohn , I answer ; that his words must not be understood , that he that cometh to me , by faith alone shall never hunger , and he that only beleiveth in me shall never thirst , for many may believe in Christ , and yet be actually in mortal sin ; and yet certain it is , that mortal sin , causeth a divorce betwixt Christ and the soul : or dare Mr. de Rodon say , that if he , or any of his party , should chance to be drunk , to swear , or to envy another man , that by such an action he forfeiteth his belief ? if so : then he presently becomes an heretick ; for heresy is nothing else , but forfeiture of belief in a Christian. Therefore the said passage must be understood thus : he that cometh to me by vertue of this , or any other of my Sacraments , or by true contrition , and believeth in me , ( taking faith as a condition requisite , not as the cause of coming unto him ) such a soul if she leaves him not by falling into sin again through her own fault ; shall never hunger nor thirst spiritually ; but be for ever refresht by vertue of his body and bloud , with increase of charity , and all other vertues . Neither is it to be doubted , but Christs body , when worthily received , by the mouth of the body , doth work spiritually upon the soul ; which I prove thus : because where Christs glorified body is really present , there is his divinity , humanity , and person also , by concomitance ; and where his person is , there the persons of the father , and of the holy Ghost are , by circumincession , as Divi●…s ●…all it ; but where the divinity personally i●…abits , it replenishes and satiats that soul and body with spiritual food and joy . Therefore whosoever takes the body of Christ worthily , and puts no obstacle to its spiritual operations , he is satiated ▪ spiritually with the the same body , by reason of the concomitance of the divinity and soul of Christ , that alwayes accompany his glorified body : as also by reason of the circumincession of all the three persons of the most blessed Trinity , inhabiting the soul. But now let us come to his second argument , which is this . Rodon . 2. Iesus Christ saith , he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life . And except ye eat the flesh of the son of man & drink his bloud , ye have no life in you . John. 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by faith that gives life everlasting , and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body . Because many Reprobates ( according to the very doctrine of Rome it it self ) do corporally eat the flesh , and drink the bloud of Christ , and yet shall not inherit eternal life . Answ. To this Argument I answer ; denying Mr. de Rodon's supposition , viz. that the soul eateth spiritually by faith ; for faith being no mouth of the soul , in any sense , as I proved before ; and nothing being able to eat properly or improperly without a proper or improper mouth ; it follows that the soul cannot eat by the mouth of faith . Besides , the Angels do eat of this celestiall food , not with the mouth of faith , for there is no faith in heaven , but a clear vision ; Therefore the thing that seeds the soul spiritually , is the real substance of Christs body , received by the corporal mouth of him that is in the state of Grace while he receives the Sacrament ; which real substance of Christs body , works spiritually upon the soul , by reason of the concomitance of Christs divinity and soul ; and of the circumincession of the other two divine persons with Christs person there really present with the substance of his body ; however I confess faith and the other Theological vertues , are conditions requisite for one to be sed spiritually ; and I confess also , that a reprobate can take the real body of Christ , by his corporal mouth , without any spiritual nourishment or satisfaction ; but the fault is in him , not in the Sacrament , which alwaies operateth spiritually in such souls as are well disposed by faith and the other Theological vertues to receive it . Therefore what the Mounsieur objects concerning eating Christs body corporally , by reprobats , is to no purpose ; for we confess , that to eat him corporally only , without faith , and the rest of the Theological vertues , brings rather eternal damnation , then eternal life to the soul ; and yet we still deny that he is eaten spiritually , by the mouth of faith alone , or that there is any such thing , as mouth of faith . Rodon . 3. His third argument he takes from S. Augustine , and Cardinal Caietan , who expound ( he saies ) the words of Iesus Christ as he doth . S. Augustine in Book 3. of Christian doctrine , speaketh thus . [ To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure ; teaching us to partake of Christs Passion , and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit , that Christ was crucified for us . ] Cardinal Caietan in his commentary on S. John 6. saith : [ To eat the flesh of Christ , and drink his bloud , is faith in Christs death ; so that the sense is this ; if you use not the death of the son of man as meat and drink , ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you : ] And having sufficiently proved this exposition , he adds , [ To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common , as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily : but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of , is not common to both ; for he faith , he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my bloud , hath eternal life ; he faith not , he that eateth worthily , and drinketh worthily , but he that eateth and drinketh . ] whence it clearly appears , that according to the letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist , but of eating and drinking the death of Iesus Christ. Answ. This exposition of the holy Father we embrace , for it makes nothing against us , but rather for us ; for we say also , that when we receive the substance of Christs body , which is his flesh , by our corporal mouth , under the species of bread and wine , we say , we eat the Sacrament , which is a figure or sign , that makes us partake of Christs Passion , and impri●…ts with delight and profit , Christs Passion in our mindes , for we hold with the great divine S. Thomas of Aquin , that the figure or Sacrament , which we eat , is a signum rememorativum , a rememorative sign of Christs death . And our Saviour himself said , when he instituted this Sacrament ; as often as you do this , do it in remembrance of me ; which we understand thus : as often as you eat this Sacrament , which is an unbloudy sacrifice , and a figure of my bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross , remember my bitter Passion ; for by offering this unbloudy sacrifice unto my father , he will be pleased with it : and since your prayers , fasting , almesdeeds and all your other best works , as they are , precisely yours , are not satisfactory to him for your offences against his divine Majesty , and are not of themselves able to appease his just wrath against you , according to the rigour of the attribute of his divine Justice , which he cannot but uphold , when he beholds this pure Sacrifice , and sees that I am become your mediator , and that it is offered him in remembrance of a rigorous satisfaction for your sins , by my bloudy sacrificing my self unto him upon the altar of the cross , it will incontinently pacify and reconcile him unto you ; it will encourage you , and delight your souls , for it will put you in hopes of your salvation , whereof you would be otherwise for want of this inter-mediation , in a deep dispaire : This and many more vertues and graces doth this Sacrament operate in our souls , unless we our selves , by receiving and offering it in mortal sin , do obstruct or hinder them ; which if we do , the fault is ours , not the Sacraments , which retains alwaies this vertue in it self . If any man can with reason and faith attribute such vertue to the bare entities of bread and wine ; I leave any prudent reader to judge . As to the learned Cardinal , however his exposition , alledged against us , upon S. Iohn . 6. must be understood ; no body doubts but his opinion concerning the real presence was the same ours is , and that he died in it ; therefore if he be of any authority with Mr. de Rodon , he ought to understand him according to his meaning . The words be these , but if rightly understood , and according to his meaning , not at all against us . To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death : so that the sense is this ; if you use not the death of the son of man , as meat and drink , ye shall not have the life of the spirit in you : the accute Cardinals meaning was to expound the true meaning and sense of these words : [ is saith in Christs death : ] and also to instruct people how to receive this Sacrament with profit to their souls . Therefore he sayes : that the sense of those words is , to use the death of the son of man as meat and drink , if we intend to receive profitably ; and what else is it to use the death of the son of man , as meat and drink , but to ruminate and meditate upon his death ? so that the Cardinals meaning was , that to receive the Sacrament profitably , when we eat and drink the body and bloud of Christ , we must do it in remembrance of his Passion ; which is the self same thing Christ commands us to do ; and which Catholicks practise dayly . And his additionate words , viz. to eat and drink the Sacrament , is commonly as well , &c. do clear his meaning ; for he knowing that to eat Christs body corporally , is a thing common as well to the reprobate as to the elect ; he tells us , that to eat it profitably , we must beleive it to be a rememorative of Christs death ; and that by so eating it , we eat , and ruminate upon his death . Therefore although we confess , that faith is necessary in him that receives the Sacrament , to take it worthily , and profitably , yet we deny , that faith is the mouth wherewith we eat it : or that by faith alone we eat the death of Christ ; for we deny , that faith is the mouth of mans soul , or body ; and without a mouth , there can be no eating . As to the Cardinals last words , viz. he saith not , he that eateth worthily , or drinketh worthily ; but he that eateth or drinketh . I am sure he meant by eating and drinking , to eat and drink it worthily ; for he could not mean , to eat and drink it unworthily ; and betwixt eating and drinking worthily and unworthily , there is no medium : so that of necessity , when he speaks of eating and drinking it spiritually , or with profit ( as he meant here ) he must be understood , by eating and drinking ; eating and drinking worthily : from whence it doth not clearly appear that according to the letter , he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist , but of eating and drinking the death of Jesus Christ ; for these words ( eating and drinking ) may better in a litteral sense , be alluded to the Sacrament , then to death , the one having a positive being , and the other consisting in a privation only . But let us hear the Mounsier speak . Rodon 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine , we must consider , wherein the life which Iesus Christ gives us doth consist ; for seeing the flesh of Iesus Christ is meat to us , because it gives us life , it is evident , that if we know what life that is which Iesus Christ gives us , we must know likewise h●…w Iesus Christ is meat to us , and consequently how we eat him . But to know what that life is which Iesus Christ gives us , we must consider what that death is , in which we are involved , which is expressed by S. Paul , Eph. 2. in these words : [ When we were dead in sins and trespasses , God hath quickned us , together with Christ ; by grace ye are saved ] and consequently the death in which we were involved , consists in two things , first in the curse of the Law , which imports the privation of felicity , and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins : secondly it consists in an habitual corruption , whereby sin raigns in us ; and therefore it is said , [ 1. Tim. 5. The widdow that lives in pleasure , is dead while she liveth . ] Also sins : are called dead works . Heb. 10. So that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us , consists in two things , first in deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins , as S. Paul tells us . [ Colos. 2. God hath quickned you together with Chri●… , having forgiven you all trespasses , blotting out the 〈◊〉 that was against us ; ] which obligation ●…receded from the Law , because it did oblige all th●… transgressors of it to a curse ; secondly , it consists in regeneration , or sanctification , whereof I●…sus Christ speaking in John. 3. saith , [ Except a man be born again , he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. ] And S. Paul. Heb. 12. [ without holiness no man shall see the Lord. ] Therefore seing that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us , consists in the pardon of our sins , and in our regeneration , and sanctification , which ends in glorification ; and that Iesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life , we must consider the me n●… ▪ whereby Iesus Christ hath purchased these things for us : and seing it is certain , that his death is the means by which he hath purchased Pardon of sins and regeneration , we must conclude that Iesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death . But that Iesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us ( that is Iustification , which consists in the pardon of our sins , and regeneration , which consists in holiness of life ) appears by these passages of Scripture , viz. [ We are justified by the blood of Christ , and reconciled to God by his death . Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud , even the remission of sins , &c. ] Therefore seing Iesus Christ hath purchased life for us by death , and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink ( because they purchased life everlasting for us on the Cross , viz. the remission of our sins , and sanctification ending in glorification ) it follows that the action whereby Iesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification , is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ , and drink his bloud . But this action is nothing else but faith , as the Scripture tells us . [ Being justified by faith we have peace with God. Rom. 5. God purifi●…s our hart●… by faith . Act. 15 ▪ he that beleiveth , hath eternal life : Iohn . 6. ] from what hath been said , I form this Argument . That action whereby we obtain remission of sins ▪ and sanctification ending in Glorification , is the same , whereby we have that life , which Iesus Christ purchased for us by his death ▪ because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification , as we have proved . But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith , and not the corporal by the mouth , is that action where by we obtain remission of sins , and sanctification , as we have also proved ; therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith , is the action , whereby we have that life , which Iesus Christ purchased us by his death , and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth : And consequently seing in S. John. 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of , whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death ▪ it is evident , that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of , and not a corporal . Answ. Now after clearly understanding Mr. de Rodons long sermon-like doctrine ▪ we confess , the flesh of Christ is meat to us , because it gives us spiritual life , we confess also , that the life it gives us , consists in the forgiveness of our sins , and in our sanctification which ends in Glorification ; Thirdly we confess , that the death wherein we were involved ▪ consists in the privation of eternal felicity , and in the suffering of eternal and temporal punishment for our sins : in a word , we grant our souls are quickned from the death of sin , and all its effects , and that she liveth spiritually , by the merits of our Saviours death and passion ; and lastly , we grant also , that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applyed unto us for righteousness , and sanctification ending in Glorification , is the s●…me by which we eat the flesh of Christ , and drink his bloud . But that this action is nothing else but faith , as Mr. de Rodon inferrs , we ●…atly deny ; and maintain , that besides the act of believing , there must be also an act of corporal eating . Therefore to his proofs out of Scripture , we answer ; that the three forementioned passages , speak not of faith alone , nor of faith , as the cause of our sanctification ; but of faith as a condition requisite to it , as I have formerly proved . And being action proceeds from a suppositum ( as Schoolmen call it ) or cause , and is attributed to it , and not to a bare condition , as 't is to be evidently seen in the example of fire , which is the cause of burning wood ; not the application , which is only a condition requisit ; where the action of burning , is attributed to fire , the cause , not to application the bare condition . Even so is it in this case : The Sacrament is the cause of our sanctification ; and to receive it with faith as a remembrance of Christs death , and Passion , is only a condition requisit for receiving it spiritually , and with profit to our souls . By this solution , Mr. de Rodon's concluding argument upon the premises above-granted , and passages of Scripture clearly expounded , vanisheth into smoak : his argument is this : That action whereby ●…e obtain remission of sins , and sanctification ending in glorification , is the same w●…ereby we have that life which Jesus Christ purchased for us by his death ; because that life chiefly consists , in the remission of sins and sanctification ; that I confess . But ( quoth he ) the spiritual eating and drinking by faith , and not the corporal by the mouth , is that action whereby we obtain remission of sins , and sanctification ; that I deny ; as also the supposition , viz. that the soul can eat by faith , as by her mouth ; faith bei●…g no mouth of the soul , whether a mouth be taken litterally , or figuratively ; which Mr. de Rodon never proved , or will be able to prove in sound Philosophy . Therefore his conclusion is blown and vanished like smoke : and consequently seeing in S. Iohn 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of , whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death ; it is certain and evident , that a corporal eating and drinking , which hath a spiritual operation upon the soul , when we receive the Sacrament , being in the state of Grace , and we believe it is a rememorative of Christs death , is there spoken of , and not an imaginary spiritual noteating by the notmouth of faith . Rodon . 5. From what hath been said it appears , that when Iesus Christ saith : My flesh is meat indeed , &c. the figure falls upon the word ( Meat ) which is taken not for corporal , but spiritual meat . The reason whereof is , that corporall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the body , as spirituall food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the soul , so that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body , yet that only doth not make ●…t to be corporal food , except it be taken for the nourishment of the body , otherwise poison , medicine , a bullet , &c. which a man swallows would be corporal food , which is absurd to affirm . But the flesh of Christ , which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist , by the mouth of the body , is not appointed for the nourishment of the body ; because that food which is appointed for the nourishment of the body , is changed into the substance of our bodies : therefore the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food , but his flesh broken , and his bloud shed on the Cross is a spiritual food , which nourisheth the souls of those who by a true and lively faith , do embrace this flesh broken , and this bloud shed ; that is who do wholly rest amd rely on the merits of his death and Passion , for obtaining mercy from God. And certainly seeing that the life which Iesus Christ gives us by his death , is spiritual , that the nourishment is spiritual ; that the eating his body and drinking his bloud , is spiritual ( as hath been proved ) ; it follows , that his flesh must be spiritual meat , and his bloud spiritual drink . And this flesh of Christ , is incomparably better , and more truely meat indeed in regard of its effects , then corporall food can be , because it doth better , and more perfectly nourish the souls of the believers , then corporal food doth their bodies , this being corruptible food which gives temporal life only , but that spiritual and incorruptible food , which gives life everlasting . Answ. From what Mr. de Rodon hath been hitherto answered , it appears , that when Jesus Christ saith : My flesh is meat indeed , no figure falls upon the word ( meat ) but that it must be taken litterally for that flesh is meat indeed , according to the common usage of speaking , is understood more properly in a litteral , then in a figurative sense ; as are also all other things , which are said to be such things indeed . And yet this corporal flesh of Christ , being taken by the mouth of the body , is ordained to feed and nourish the soul , and not the body ; because it hath a supernatural operation , by reason of its personal union with Christs divinity , and most blessed soul : which supernatural and spiritual operation , the bare entities of bread and wine have not as also no other corporal food hath , but is only appointed for the nourishment of the body , by which dispurity between the operation of Christs flesh , and the operation of all other corporal ●…oods , the silly reason of the Mounsieurs argument , is both enervated , and precluded ; and all the consequences he draws from it , are of no force or truth . I say his reason is but silly , because he says , that although corporal food , be taken by the mouth of the body , yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food , except it be taken for the nourishment of the body ; for otherwise Poison , medicine , and a bullet taken in , would be corporal food ; which to say , is absurd . Tell me I pray , Mr. de Rodon , where did you ever see or hear , that poison , phisick or a bullet were taken for corporal food , by any man , unless he were of less reason then your self ? or tell me , if you eat bread , though not with an intention to nourish you , whether it will not nourish you ? or if you should chance to swallow down a bullet , or chaw it ( if your teeth be so good ) with an intention it should nourish you ; would it nourish you , because you took it for your nourishment ? This any body may see , is but very silly stuff : whence you in ferr : But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body , is not appointed for the nourishment of the body , because the body of Christ is not changed into the substance of our bodyes . I confess it . But what then ? Therefore ( you say ) the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food : his flesh is not a corporal food , that nourishes corporally , I confess : a corporal food that nourishes spiritually ; I deny ; and the rest of your consequences also , inasmuch as they militate against eating the corporal real body of Christ , though its operation we confess is but spiritual ; however we agree with you in this ; that the flesh of Christ is incomparably better , and more truly meat indeed , in regard of its effects , then any other corporal food can be ; for the reasons you alledge . But yet we say , that it is sufficient to take his flesh , with the mouth of our body , being in the state of Grace ▪ and believing the Sacrament to be a rememorative of his death ; to have it work its spiritual effects in our souls . Rodon . 6. I conclude this Chapter with this consideration , when a doctrine is proposed which is pretended to be divine , and that passages of holy Scripture are alledged for the proof of it , if it opposeth , or seems to oppose sense and reason , and to include contradictions , and that a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages , so that all those inconveniencies and contradictions may be avoided ; there is nothing more just , then that we should embrace that probable and rational sense , and reject that doctrine which opposeth sense and reason , and seems to imply contradictions ; But the doctrine of the real presence of the manbood of Christ in the host , and the Transubstantiation of the bread into his body , is repugnant to sense and reason , and seems to include divers contradictions ; ( viz. that a human body is in a point , without any local extension ; that a body may be in divers places at one and the same time , that the bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ , which were before , that accidents may be without a subject , &c. ) And the passages that are impertinently alledged to prove such a presence , and such a change , have a sense very commodious , and very rational , for the avoiding all these contradictions , as appears in this , and in the former chapter ; where I have rationally expounded those two passages which the Romish doctors impertinently make use of for this subject ; Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational sense which we have given them ; and to reject the doctrine of the real Presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the Host , and the doctrine of Transubstantiation . Answ. How much this grave consideration of the Mounsieur can work upon ignorant illiterate people , upon heathens , Jews or Turks , or upon brute beasts , of best sensation , if they had intellectual , or cogitative faculties agreeing with their sensation , I know not ; But sure I am , that no good Christian , or man of learning or knowledg ought to regard or value it ; for all Christians , and all rational and learned men do know , that objects of divine faith , ( such as this is ) ought not to be levelled or measured by our reason and senses ; for otherwise some beasts and birds , whose sensitive faculties surpass mans , must also surpass him in faith ; And if the best reason should carry away the cause , then the best Philosophers , would be the best believers ; and so Plato and Aristotle , who were far more Eagle-sighted concerning objects of natural reason , then many millions of poor Christians are , would surpass all these Christians in divine faith ; a thing both impious and ridiculous to assert amongst Christians : neither do seeming contradictions , unless they be real ones , validate or strengthen this his profound consideration ; for many things may seem impossible to us , which are not so really to God. This the Mounsieur ( I am sure ) must grant , unless he maintains that man can comprehend Gods omnipotency , which to say , is open Blasphemy . However , for disputation sake , we let pass the major ; but we deny the minor , as to all its parts ; first , we deny , that the real Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is repugnant to reason and sense ; though it be above them ; so we say , that the raising of a dead man to life , and all miracles are only above reason and sense , but not repugnant or against them ; for what is repugnant , or contrary to reason and sense , quite destroyes them ; as to be , and not to be , at the same time , and after the same manner , is impossible , and destroyes reason and sense ; but we deny Transubstantiation to be of that kind . Secondly , we deny , that it implyes , or seems to imply a contradiction , that a human body should be Sacramentally in a point , without any local extension ; though we grant it cannot be circumscriptively in a point . Thirdly , we deny , that Christ to be in his human shape in heaven , and to be at the same time sacramentally upon earth ; or for him to be sacramentally in ten thousand places together upon earth , is at all any contradiction ; because to be sacramentally , in a place or places , requires no local extension ; for as in true Divinity , if Christ should assume and suppositate hypostatically three several humane natures altogether , to his Divinity , they would all ( in that case ) have but one person , without any implicancy or contradiction ; so Christ may also without any contradiction be at once sacramentally in several places : who is then able to penetrate and dive into the infinite power of God ? finally , we grant that accidents cannot be naturally without their connaturall subjects ; but supernaturally they can ; as Christs humane nature is now without any other but the divine personality of Christ , and yet naturally it should have a humane person , which no body can say it hath , without being an heretick ; for otherwise he must own that there are two persons in Christ , a divine , and a humane one , and consequently say , there is a quadrinity in the mystery of the blessed Trinity : Even so I say , that as Christ without contradiction , supplyeth the human personality with his divine ; so can he also without contradiction , supply the connatural subjects of bread and wine , with his infinite power . Therefore since this answer is well grounded in true divinity and Phylosophy ; and that all the holy fathers and General Councils that ever have been in Christs Church , and treated of this matter , were of the same belief concerning the real presence , as we are of ; and since it is more consonant both to reason and faith , that the substance of Christs body is more nourishing to the soul , then the bare entities of bread and wine are . Farthermore , since the question here in agitation , is above , though not repugnant to reason and sense , it being an object of divine faith , which Christ revealed unto his Church ; and she ever practised from the Apostles time , as all Ecclesiastical histories do testify : Neither could our adversaries ever shew , what year , or in what place or country the Mass crept first into the Church ; nor who were the orthodox fathers , or general Councils that ever opposed it , untill many hundred years after it was in practise throughout the Christian world : and finally , since the first oppo ▪ ser of it , was presently cried down by all the orthodox , for a publick heretick : For these and sundry other such reasons , I say , no rational , or learned man , ought to value the groundless and weak consideration of Mr. de Rodan , which hath no other prop to uphold it , but frail human reason , wherewith he intends to inveagle and deceive the poor ignorant illiterate sort of people , who ought rather , submit their judgements and understanding humbly to the common belief of the Universal Church , concerning matters of faith , then rely upon either ▪ their own , or the grave Mounsieurs deep reason and wit. This ancient and universal doctrine of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist , do the Romish Doctors must solidly and pertinently maintain and desend against all the enimies of Christs Church , against Luther , Calvin , Rodon , and all his impertinent sophisms ; nay , and against all the devils of hell , if they should come to assist him , and furnish him with their arguments . Neither hath he hitherto in this , nor in his former chapter said any thing against it which I have not fully and sufficiently answered ; as I leave any indifferent impartiall Reader to judge . CHAP. III. Against Transubstantiation . BY destroying Trasubstantiation , which is the life of the Mass , the Mass must perish also . Mr de Rodon considering this , picks out of the storehouse of his Philosophy , his keenest arrows , wherewith having ( as he questions not in this Chapter ) hit the the mark home ; although he conceits , he is the killer himself ; yet he is pleased to bestow the funeral exequyes ; as the Title of his book shews . To bury the dead , I confess , is with us , one of the seven works of corporal mercy , but to bury one alive , we count to be an inhuman tyranny , and most horrid and execrable act . We then believing our Mass is alive , and will be , untill the worlds end ▪ cannot but censure and accuse Mounsieur de Rodon of inhuman tiranny ; unless he demonstrats , that he killed the Mass , before he made the funeral ; that he is sure to do , by destroying Transubstantiation , and therefore ayms at it with his first arrow thus . Rodon . 1. In every substantial conversion , that thing into which another thing is converted , is alwaies newly produced ; for example , when seed is converted into an animal , that animal is newly produced ; when Iesus Christ turned the water into wine , the wine was newly produced , &c. But the body and bloud of Iesus Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist . The second proposition , viz. that the body and bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced , I prove thus : that which is newly produced , receives a new being ; because to produce a thing , and give it a being , is the same thing ; but the body and bloud of Christ cannot receive a new being , which I prove thus : A man cannot receive that which he hath , while he hath it , and therefore cannot receive a being , while he hath a being ; for as it is imposible to take away a being , from that which hath no being , so is it imposible to give a being ▪ to that which hath a being already : and as you cannot kill a dead man , so you cannot give life to one that is living . But the body and bloud of Christ have , and will allwaies have a being ; therefore they cannot receive one ; and consequently , cannot be reproduced in the Eucharist . Answ. To this argument I first answer that in every substantial conversion , there must be some thing newly produced , or adduced , and so we say , bread and wine are converted substantially into Christs body and bloud , by an adductive action ; because by vertue of the words of consecration , Christs body which is in its humane shape in heaven , is brought into the Sacramental Species , and remains in them in a Sacramental manner ; without any new production of his body , which was produced already . Secondly , I answer to the said major thus : In every substantial conversion , that thing , &c. is alwaies newly produced , entitatively or modally , I confess ; entitatively only , I deny . And to his minor thus : but the body and bloud of Christ , cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist ; entitatively , and in his humane shape , I confess ; modally or Sacramentally ▪ I deny the minor ; and the consequence also : and all Mr. de Rodon's ensuing proofs militate against an entitative production only ; which we grant him ; but not at all against a modal or Sacramental production . Therefore we say , that Christs body being already produced , as to its entity and natural being , the same entity is not newly reproduced in the Sacrament , in order as to give his body a new essential being ; because he hath that already in heaven ; But we say , that the entity of his body is newly produced , or rather adduced into the Sacrament , in order to a sacramental or modal being ; against which modal being , Mr. de Rodon's proofs , are of no value or force : and so his first arrow has miss't the mark . Rodon . 2. In every substantial conversion , that thing which is converted into another , is destroyed : for example ; when the water was turned into wine , the wine was destroyed ; But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist , the bread and wine are not destroyed by the consecration ; which I prove thus . In the celebration of the Eucharist , there is breaking , giving , eating , drinking , after the consecration , as appears by the very practise of our adversaries , who after consecration , break the Host , and divide it into three parts , give nothing to the communicants but consecrated Hosts , and eat and drink nothing but what was consecrated . But the Scripture saith , that in the celebration of the Eucharist , bread is broken , and bread and wine are given , and that bread is eaten , and wine drunk ; as appears by these following passages . S. Paul. 1. Cor. 10. saith , [ the bread which we break , is it not the communion of Christs body ? ] and 1. Cor. 11. S. Math. 26. S. Mark. 14. and S. Luke . 22. it is said , that Jesus Christ took bread , brake it , and gave it : and S. Mark 14. and S. Math. 26. Iesus Christ after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist , saith , I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine ; and 1. Cor. 11. As often as you eat this bread , and drink this cup , let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. Answ. To this argument I answer , granting the major , and distinguishing the minor , thus . But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist , the accidents of the bread and wine are not destroyed ; I confess ; the substance of the bread and wine are not destroyed , I deny . To what he farther urgeth , viz. that there is breaking , giving , eating , and drinking after the consecration ; as concerning their accidents , I grant ; as concerning their substances , I deny ; for their substances are converted into Christs real body and bloud , by vertue of the words of consecration , though their accidents remain un destroyed and are sustentated supernaturally by the power of God ; for we hold of no transaccidentation in the Sacrament , but only of Transubstantiation As concerning the passages by him alledged out of Scripture , to prove that ●…t is bread that 's broken , that it is bread and wine that are given ; I answer , that in every of these passages , the words , bread and wine , must be taken Analogically , not litterally ; because Christ in other places , calls them expresly , his flesh , his bloud , and his body : and all orthodox Christians from the first institution of this Sacrament , for many ages , did without controulment hold as we do , that after the words of consecration the bread and wine are converted into the real body and bloud of Christ. Therefore although because of the symbolls or accidents of bread and wine , which still remain in the Host after consecration , they retain the denomination of bread & wine , yet they are not really , but Analogically only bread and wine , and really the true body and bloud of Christ ; and they are analogically called bread and wine , because of the Analogy or likeness real bread and wine have with this Sacrament ; the one nourishing the body , the other the soul : but now to Mr. de Rodon . Rodon . 3. When Iesus Christ said to his disciples : drink ye all of this Math. 26. that is , drink ye all of this cup , either he commanded to drink of a cup of wine ; or of a cup of bloud : if he commanded them to drink of a cup of wine ; then it follows that they drank nothing but wine , because it is certain that they obeyed Iesus Christ : for it is said Mark 14. that they all drank it : or if he commanded them to drink a cup of bloud , then it follows that the wine was already changed into his bloud ; because it is not probable , that Iesus Christ said to them , drink ye all of this cup of bloud , and yet that it was not a cup of bloud , but a cup of wine . But when Iesus Christ said , drink ye all of this ; he did not speak to them of a cup of bloud ; for the wine was not then converted into Christs bloud ; because ( according to our Adversaries ) it was not changed until Iesus Christ had made an end of uttering these following words for this is my bloud : But he uttered these words ; drink ye all of this before he uttered those , for this is my bloud : because a man must utter a proposition , before he can give the reason of it . Answ. To this I answer , that when Christ said , drink ye all this , he meant , of his bloud ; for although by reason of the sacramental species , he gave it the donomination of wine ; and although it was not his bloud immediatly after he said , drink ye all this , untill he added these other words ; for this is my bloud ; yet by so saying , he made it his bloud ; and consequently , he meant , that they should drink of his bloud : for I suppose , ( and to think otherwise is not at all propable ) his disciples were not so rude , illbred , and irreverent to their Lord and Master , as to snatch the cup out of his hand , and drink it before he made an end of his speech to them ; the last part whereof , viz. for this is my bloud , made it his bloud : and so is this arrow of Mr. de Rodons blunted in bread and wine , and cannot pierce Transubstantiation : Therefore he out●… with his third arrow . Rodon . 4. When a thing is converted into another , we cannot see the effects and properties of the thing converted , but only of that into which it is converted : for example , when the seed is changed into an animal , we can see no more the effects , and properties of the seed , but of the animal only ; and when Iesus Christ turned water into wine , the effects , properties , and accidents of the water were no more seen ; but of the wine only , &c. But in the Eucharist we cannot after the consecration , perceive the effects , properties , accidents , or parts of the body and bloud of Christ ; but we see there all the effects , properties , and accidents of bread and wine . Therefore in the Eucharist , the bread and wine are not converted into the body and bloud of Christ. And the truth is , if that which appears to be bread , and hath all the effects , accidents , and properties of bread , be no bread , but Christs body clothed with the accidents of bread ; then it may likewise be said ; that they that appear to be men , and have all the effects , properties , and accidents of men , are not men , but horses clothed with the accidents of men . Answ. I distinguish the major proposition thus : When a thing is converted , &c. we cannot see the effects and properties , &c. with our corporal eyes I confess ; with the spiritual eye of our soul , viz. with our understanding supported by divine faith , I deny : the major , with its minor also in the same sense , which being both shattered , the consequence must needs vanish away . The reason why the effects and properties of the Sacrament are not seen with our corporal eyes , is , because they are objects of faith ; which objects are beyond the sphere and capacity of our corporal eyes , and other senses ; for the object of our corporal sight , is coloratum quid , some coloured thing , and the objects of our other senses are meer corporeal things ; but objects of divine faith , are never seen nor known by their colours , nor by smelling , touching or tasting ; from whence a man may see , how sharp , keen , and witty this arrow of Mr. de Rodon's is against Transubstantiation , which is a high object and mystery of divine faith . As to both his examples of seed into an animal , and water turned into wine , without any of their effects seen either in the animal or in the wine ; I confess all that to be true ; and the reason is , because those are but meer simple conversions , and no sacraments : But Transubstantiation , is not only a conversion of one substance into another , but it constitutes a Sacrament also ; and because it is a Sacrament , it is necessary , that although the entityes of bread and wine are destroyed ; their accidents should remain , to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment ; and are therefore called Analogically bread and wine ; though they are not really but meer accidents of bread and wine ; and the natural entityes of bread and wine , wherewith they were formerly sustentated , are really changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This then being so , the truth is , that although the Sacramental species appear to our corporal eyes , to be but bread and wine ; and according to our senses seem to have but the effects , accidents , and propertyes of bread and wine ; yet to the eye of our soul , viz. to the understanding , supported by divine faith ; they are not really such , but the true body and bloud of Christ ; because he himself said so , and his word could make them so . And it is also plain truth , that if Mr. de Rodon had ever received the Sacrament worthily ( but alas he never did ) it would have wrought its spiritual effects and properties upon his poor soul , as it doth upon all other devout ones , and fils them with interior joy , devotion , and tranquility of mind and conscience : But since he never did , or believed in Christs words , as his Church understands them , but was alwaies led by the track of his senses only , to the sight of this supernatural object ; certain ( I say ) it is , and the very plain truth , that he had no more faith in him , then a horse hath , that followeth the sent of oats . But let us hear him farther . Rodon . 5. In every substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substance to another ; for else it would be a creation , which is the sole action that doth not presuppose a subject . But in the Sacrament of the Eueharist , after the consecration , there is no subject , because according to our adversaries , there remains no subject , for at they assert , the accidents of bread and wine , remain without any subject at all . Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is no substantial conversion . Answ. To this argument I answer , denying the major ; for this proposition is verified only in formal substantial conversions ; that is to say , when one substantial form is changed or converted into another ; as when the form of seed is changed into the form of an animal , and the form of water was changed into the form of wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee ; which are but simple substantial conversions , in which the matter or subject passes from one form to another . But Transubstantiation is a quite other sort of substantial conversion ; for not only the forms of bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of Christ , but also their matters or subjects , by vertue of the omnipotent effective word of the infinite Agent , who hath an absolute power over all sorts of entities , as well material as formal . Therefore the material entities of bread and wine being as subject to Christs effective word in order to a substantial conversion , as their formal entities are ; and Transubstantiation being a total conversion of both the material and formal entities of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ , as the words of consecration do plainly import ; it follows evidently , that although in every simple formal substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substantial form to another ; yet in Transubstantiation which is not a simple conversion of one substantial form into another ; but a totall conversion as well of the material entityes of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ , as of their formal entityes ; I say , in this extraordinary supernatural , and total substantial conversion , there need be no subject to pass from one substance , or substantial form to another ; because here , the subject it self , is as well changed as its substantial form : And yet this miraculous conversion cannot be tearmed a creation ; because it is not productio rei ex nihilo , a thing produced of nothing , or a sole action that doth not presuppose a subject , as the Mounsieur saies right , creation is , However though the Sacramental species ( because they are accidents , and no accidents can properly be called subjects ) be not the proper subjects of this conversion ; yet they are somewhat subject-like ; for they pass through the whole conversion , and exist supernaturally without any subject to prop or sustentate them . God miraculously supplying the place of their connatural subjects ; as he supplies the natural subsistence or personality due to Christs humane nature ; which if Mr. de Rodon will not believe because he cannot see it with his corporal eyes , nor apprehend it with any of his other senses : he will be forced , besides the three Persons of the B. Trinity , to allow also of a humane person in Christ , to personate his humane nature , which is plain and manifest heresy . Now to the Mounsieur again . Rodon . 5. That doctrine which asserts , that Accidents are not Accidents but substances , destroys the nature and essence of Accidents : because it is impossible that an accident can be a substance ; But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts , that Accidents are not Accidents , but that they are substances : which I prove thus . That doctrine which asserts , that Accidents are not inherent , but that they subsist by themselves , doth assert , that Accidents are not Accidents , but that they are substances ; because inherence is the essential difference of a substance . But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts , that Accidents are not inherent , but that they subsist , which I prove thus ; That Doctrine which asserts , that Accidents may be without a subject , doth assert , that Accidents are not inherent in a subject , but that they subsist by themselves : But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts , that Accidents may be without a subject , viz. the Accidents of bread and wine without any substance , and without any subject to sustain them . For by Transubstantiation the substance of the bread and wine is gone , and their Accidents remain ; Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts , that Accidents are not inherent , but do subsist by themselves : and consequently asserts , that Accidents are not Accidents , but substances , and so destroyes the nature and essence of Accidents . But here it may be said , that actual inherence doth not constitute an Accident , but Aptitudinal only : Against which I form this Argument : Whatsoever doth exist actually , either it exists in some thing else actually , so that it cannot be without it ; which Philosophers call actuall inherence , as walking ; or else it exists by it self actually , so that it may be alone by it self ; which Philosophers term actual existence ; the former of these constitutes an Accident ; and the later constitutes a substance . But the Accidents of the bread and wine after consecration , do exist actually ; therefore they must exist either in something else actually , or in themselves actually . But they do not exist in , and by themselves actually ; for then they would subsist by themselves , and b●… real substances , which i●… impossible ; therefore they exist in something else actually , viz. in the substance of the bread and wine , and consequently the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration , and so there can be no Transubstantiation . Answ. As to this fifth arrow of the Mounsieurs we deny , that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Accidents ; yet we grant , it is impossible that an Accident can be a substance : we also deny , that the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts , that Accidents are not Accidents , but substances : And to his Probation , viz. that doctrine which asserts that Accidents are not inherent are not Accidents , I answer , and distinguish this proposition thus ; That doctrine which asserts , that Accidents are not inherent actually nor aptitudinally , asserts ( I consess ) that Accidents are not Accidents : that doctrine that asserts , because Accidents are not alwaies actually inherent , asserts , they are not Accidents : I deny . And consequently , I deny , that because the accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist do not inhere actually in their connatural subjects , viz. in the entities of bread and wine ; that therefore they are no accidents : And the reason is , because it is not actual , but Aptitudinal inherence ; that is essential to accidents ; which aptitudinal inherence to their natural subjects , viz. to the substances of bread and wine , we say , the Sacramental species have still ; also after the words of consecration ; for an aptitudinal inherence consists in a natural sympathy inclination , or dependence which the Accident hath to its own natural substance or subject ; insomuch that i●… its subject were reproduced , and restored to its former being again ; the Accident would naturally cleave , adhere , and result unto his proper subject , if God did not supernaturally supply the subjects place ; as he doth in this misterious conver●…on ; just as I said before , he supplies Christs humane subsistence or personality in the Mystery of his Incarnation : Therefore though the actual inherence of the Sacramental species be hindred and supplied , yet they still retain their natural sympathy , inclination , and propensity to their proper subjects in case they were reproduced : in which inclination and propensity the ●…ature of Accidents doth consist , and not in their actual inherence . And consequently since Transubstantiation destroys not the Aptitudinal inherence of Accidents , but only their actual ; it follows evidently , that it leaves them in their essential being , which consists in an Aptitudinal inherence only . As to his reply concerning aptitudinal inherence , viz. that it m●…st exist in somthing else actually , or else in , or by it self ; I deny : that accidents naturally do properly exist , but rather coexist with their subjects , for existence pertains properly to substances ; and is called by all Philosophers modus substantialis , a substantial mode , and takes its seat in the indirect line of the series or Predicament of substance , and it is properly excluded from all the Predicamental Accidents : however we own , that the Sacramental species do supernaturally exist in , and by themselves , without any subject at all ; and yet we deny , they are substances therefore : because although they exist supernaturally in , and by themselves , as subjects do exist naturally in , and by themselves ; yet their existences are for unlike : for their existence hath a natural inclination and propensity to their proper subjects , if they were restored to their being again ; But substantial existences have no such inclination or propension to any subject : so that the Sacramental species , although they exist in , and by themselves supernaturally , and miraculously , by the power of God , like substances ; yet they are still essentially Accidents ; ●…or they retain their aptitudinal inherence and inclination to their proper subjects ; which aptitudinal inherence substances have not . Rodon . 7. Every Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace , as the Council of Trent saith , in sess . ●… . and every sign re●…ates to the thing signified ; so that we must speak of signes and Sa●…raments , as of things relating to something else . But all Relative things have as it were a double being . viz. an absolute being , which is the natural being of the thing , and a relative being , whereby it relates to something else ; for example , in a man that hath begotten a child , we consider his absolute and natural being , as he is a man , as others are , and his relative being whereby he is a father , and is distinguished from other men that have no children , and so are not fathers . So in the Sacrament of Bap●…ism ; the signe , viz. the water 〈◊〉 , an absolute and natural being , viz. it s cold and moist substance , whereby , it is water , as other waters are : and a relative Sacramental and significative being , whereby it is the signe and Sacrament of Christs bloud . Even so is the Sacrament of the Eucharist ; the bread and wine which are the signes , have their natural and ●…blute being ; viz. their substance whereby they are bread and wine , as other bread and wine which we commonly use ; and their relative S●…cramental and significative being , whereby they are the Sacrament and signes of the body and bloud of Christ , and differ from all other bread and wine that is not thus ▪ imployed . To this I add , t●…at it is impossible a relative being should be without an absolute ; because a relative cannot be withou●… its foundation : for example , it is impossible to be a father without being a man , to be equal without quantitie , &c. and this being granted , I form my Argument thus . That which takes away the natural being from signes and Sacraments destroys their natur●… and essence , because the relative and Sacramental being cannot be without the absolute and natural , as hath been proved . B●… the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the natural being of the bread and wine which are signes and Sacraments of Christs body and bloud ; for by Transubstantiation the whole substance of the bread and wine is destroyed . Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the nature and essence of Sacraments . Answ. All this doctrine , viz. as concerning the definition of a Sacrament , That it is a relative , and that all relatives have a double being ; and that it is impossible that a relative being should be without an absolute , we grant ; we grant also that the substantial entities of bread and wine , which be the subject and foundation whereupon the sacramental species , before the words of consecration , relied , are by the same words of consecration , destroyed or rather changed into the body and bloud of Christ ; and yet we deny , that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments . And the reason is this ; because signification , which is the formal part of the Sacrament , is not destroyed , and this signification relies upon the quantitative and qualitative accidents of the former bread and wine , which accidents are absolute entities , and remain still undestroyed in the Sacramental species , miraculously without their natural and proper subjects : so that though the absolute accidents of bread and wine , viz. their quantitie and quality ( which are no relatives ) exist supernaturally and miraculously without any subject ; yet signification , which is the ●…ormal part of the Sacrament ( and a relative term ) has something subject-like to rely upon ; viz. the quantity and quality of the consecrated host : which being supplied and maintained by Gods infinite power , are stronger props then the bare entities of bread and wine were . Neither do we grant unto Mr. de Rodon that to keep up the Analogy , signification , and likeness betwixt the Sacrament , and the thing by it signified , corporal nourishment is requisite in the Sacramental species ; for this Analogy is evidently saved , and seen in the meer Accidents of bread and wine ; for it is they that signify spiritual nourishment , and not their substances : so that whether they nourish the body or no , is impertinent to their signification for which they were instituted . By this answer the Mounsieurs first reply is also precluded : yet for charities sake , I answer his argument in form thus : That which takes the natural being from signes and Sacraments destroys ▪ their nature and essence : I distinguish this Major ; if it takes away their formal being , and supplies not their material and fundamental , with another as good or better ; I confess the major : if it takes away their material being only , and leaves the formal , supplying it with another ( as it were ) materal being , as good , or better ; I deny the Major ; and in the same sense I distinguish the Minor , and deny the consequence . This may be exemplified in a house or any other such like thing ; for who can say , that a house is destroyed while it keeps its form and shape : is it because ( forsooth ) its first foundation , which was but a mudd-wall was destroyed , if another better of brick or free-●…t●…ne be set under it , to supply the muddwalls place ? no man I am sure will say so . Even so ●…is in our case here ; for the entities of bread and wine which did sustentate the significative part of nourishment before the words of consecration ; by vertue of the said words , those entities are destroyed . But after the words of consecration , instead of those substantial entities , God with his infinite power supplies their place , & makes the Sacramental species exist in , and by themselves and serve instead of subjects to prop and sustentate signification , which is the formal part of the Sacrament . Now these spocies upheld and supplied by Gods power and word , are firmer props then the entities of bread and wine were ; and ( as I said before ) because their existence hath alwaies a natural inclination and sympathy to their proper subjects , it retains alwaies its aptitudinal inherence , and consequently is no substance and so because the sacramental species , which be the absolute accidents of the bread and wine , do sustentate signification , which is the formal and relative part of the Sacrament , it remains still verified , that a relative being is not without an absolute being ; and because the existence of the sacramental species retains its inclination to its proper subjects , and has anaptitudinal inherence in it ; it follows evidently , that Transubstantiation which is the causer of all this , neither destroys the nature of Accidents nor of Sacraments neither . Let this then suffice for his sixth arrow , and its first reply : Now to his second reply . Rodon . 8. Secondly the Council of Trent in sess . 13. commands , that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latria , which according to our adversaries is the sovereigne worship due to God only : but the Accidents of the bread and wine ought not to be adored , because they are creatures ; and that God alone must be adored : Therefore the accidents of bread and wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist . Answ. To this second reply we answer , and obey the holy Councils commands , and we adore the most blessed Sacrament with the adoration of Latria , which is the highest soveraigne worship due to God only . And to what he inferrs , viz. that the accidents of bread and wine , because they are creatures , ought not to be adored so , I answer and distinguish that proposition thus : with an absolute Adoration I confess ; with a relative adoration I deny ; for we give a relative adoration of Latria , not only unto the Sacramental species , but unto the holy cross also ; and yet we deny it to be Idolatry ; because the Adoration redounds wholy upon God ; but if we should give unto the Cross , or any other creature an absolute adoration of Latria , that is , if we should adore them absolutely as they are in themselves , without any relation or reference unto God ; then indeed I confess , it would be Idolatry . But far is that from our intention , when we adore them , or any other pictures or Reliques , however our adversaries , are pleased to interpret and force our intentions . Nay more then that , we give but a relative Adoration of Latria even unto the body , bloud , and soul of Christ , inasmuch as they are but creatures ; and yet we hold them to be more and better then the accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament ; nevertheless we afford both them and the Sacramental species too , an absolute Adoration of Latria , inasmuch as they are united hypostatically to the Divinity , and yet deny it is Idolatry to do it . But since the Mounsieur and his Translator , do impeach us with Idolatry , concerning the Adoration of Latria , we give to our Sacrament ; as also concerning our worshiping of Images : wherefore may we not also pose them , and those of their party , concerning their communion bread and wine ? wherefore , I say , may not we ask them , whether they afford any spiritual worship , adoration or reverence to their communion bread and wine , after they are consecrated by them , or no ? If they answer , no , then what respect have they for their Sacrament , or communion , more then they have , for the other ordinary bread and wine which they dayly eat and drink ? aud why may not they carouse with their communion wine , and drink to one another with it , as they do ordinarily with the other wine when they drink together in a Tavern ? or why may not they throw a bit of their communion bread to a dog , as they use to do when they are at their common meales ? for if they have no more spiritual reverence or worship for the one , more then they have for the other ; there is no reason why they may not use them both alike : If this be their principle and tenet concerning their Sacrament , or communion , and if they have no more adoration or worship for it , then they have for their other ordinary bread , which they often throw to dogs ; I would have them consider , to what a pass they have brought one of the two Sacraments they only own , of the seven which the Church doth hold Christ himself did institute ; and which he called that of his last supper : among other of his divine words he said : Nolite sanctum dare canibus ; give not that which is holy to the dogs . But if they have no more worship or respect for their communion bread , then they have for their ordinary other bread , whereof they give some to their dogs ; I know not what their consecration signifies ; if it hallows the bread , then the bread must be holy , and to any holy thing a reverence , veneration or worship is due ; if it doth not hallow the bread , then the bread is as it was before ; and consequently , it may be given to dogs as other bread is often thrown to them ; and what would else ( forsooth ) follow from this doctrine ; but that their communion-bread may lawfully be given to dogs : it follows also ; that if bread can be consecrated and hallowed ; that water may be consecrated also ; and then they will be forced , to acknowledg some vertue or force in our holy water . But if their answer be affirmative , and they give a spiritual worship and adoration to their Sacrament or communion ; this adoration or worship , can be no less then a Relative Latria ; for they worship their communion-bread , because it is a sign or Sacrament of Christs broken body , and spilt bloud upon the Cross ; and consequently they adore it in relation to Christ , or if they adore and worship it , not in order to Christ , but as it is in it self ; then they give it an absolute worship ; which is a far grosser kind of Idolatry , then that they attach us with : for they believe their Sacrament to be nothing else but bare bread and wine ; and consequently nothing else but meer creatures ; but we believe our Sacrament to be the real body and bloud of Christ with his divinity ; and therefore we adore our Sacrament upon far better grounds , then they do theirs . Moreover , if they give a Relative adoration of Latria to their Sacrament , and may lawfully do it , because it is a sign , or it signifies Christ ; why may not we also give a relative adoration to our crucifixes and Images , because they are signes of Christ and of his Saints , whom they represent ? or if they call us Idolaters for for doing this ; why may not we call them Idolaters for adoring their communion-bread ? In a word they must either give it no adoration , worship , or reverence at all , no more then they give to their unconsecrated bread ; and consequently they may as well give it to their dogs , as they do their other bread ; or if they give it any adoration , worship , or Reverence , it must be some kinde of a Latriacal adoration , either Relative or absolute ; ( for they must adore it because it signifies Christs passion ; or they must adore it as it is in it self , without any Relation to Christ ) which if they do , they fall into a grosser Idolatry , then we do . Rodon . 9. Thirdly , a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in sess . 6. and 13. But in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not visible , therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not signes . Answ. To his third , I answer and acknowledg the holy Councils definition of a Sacrament ; but I deny , that the body and bloud of our saviour are not visible by the eye of our understanding , holpen and supported by the supernatural light of faith ; although we cannot see them with our corporal eyes ; as no more can we see the entities or substances of bread and wine with our corporal eyes , if they were not destroyed , but their accidents only : and those accidents we see in the Sacrament also , which is sufficient for to constitute a Sacrament ; being we firmly believe his body and bloud are in the species . But the Mounsieurs faith is so nice and delicate , that unless he sees and smells the object , he will not believe it ; certainly this divine man saw and smelt the Mysteries of the Blessed Trinity , and of Christs Incarnation , or if he did not , why does he believe them ? O curious eye ! O delicate nose ! Rodon . 10. Lastly , I say , that in every Sacrament the signe relates to the thing signified : and Relation is alwaies between two different things , because nothing relates to it self , and consequently nothing can be both the signe , and the thing signified . But the body and bloud of Christ , are the things signified ; therfore the body and bloud of Chrst are not the signes . And it is to no purpose to say , that Iesus Christ in the Mass , is the signe and figure of himself on the Cross ; for Iesus Christ wheresoever he is , is one and the same , yesterday ▪ to day , and for ever ; and therefore Iesus Christ , not being different from himself , cannot be relative to himself , nor the signe of himself . Answ. To his last reply , I answered sufficiently already , where I shewed , that it is neither inconvenient nor contradictory , that the self same thing may represent and signifie its own self : for example , that an old man may represent his own self in his youthfull actions or represent upon a Theater what feats of armes he did in the feild ; where the representer and the represented is the self same man ; which thing is so clear , that every old woman and little child can easily apprehend and understand it : what hard matter is 't then to understand , that Christ can represent himself in the Sacrament , as he was upon the Cross , although he be still the same Christ ? It is a great wonder and admiration to me , that such a famous Philosophy-professour as the Mounsieurs Translator takes the Mounsieur to be ( especially he having so curious an eye and dainty a nose as can reach up to objects of divine faith ) that he should be so sensless and dull as not to apprehend that which is obvious to all old women and childrens understanding . Mr. de Rodons Quiver being quite exhausted , his arrows vainly spent , Transubstantiation untoucht , and consequently the Mass alive as yet : Let us now see what great feats he will perform in his next chapter ; for he vowed our Diana's death , & resolves here to give her her healing-stroak , and to that intent , he in his next chapter more then double fills his Quiver ; for whereas in this chapter he had but six , in the next he has thirteen keen arrows : Therefore , let us for shame accompany our old Mistriss , and forsake her not , while she has any life in her , and we any hope to save her from her Tragical end . CHAP. IV. Against the real presence of Christs body in the Host , or consecrated wafer . LOok now very well to your self Madam Diana , for Mr. de Rodon hath bent his bow , and aims thus at you . Rodon . 1. The Romish doctors affirm ; That immediatly after the Priest in the celebration of the Mass , hath pronounced these words , this is my body , the ●…ody of Christ is really present in the host ; and that it is whole and entire in every part and point of the host : which doctrine I destroy by these following arguments . Answ. The Romish Doctors have an excellent ground and reason for saying so , because the Priest received power from Christ to do as he did himself , when he took bread , and changed it into his body , saying , this is my body ; for Christ commanded his Apostles ( whose successors the Priests are ) to do as he did himself , and gave them power to do it , by vertue of these words : as often as you do this , do it in remembrance of me : for he commanded them to do , this , that 's to say , the same thing he did himself , when he uttered these words , this is my body : But they could not make it his body unless they had power from him to do it : therefore since they did as he commanded them to do ; 〈◊〉 follows evidently , that if he made it his body and bloud , they did so also : for most certain it is , that he commanded them not to ●…o a thing impossible ; and consequently that 〈◊〉 gave them power to consecrate bread and wine into his body and bloud , as he did himself . Or dare the Mounsieur say , that Christ could not Transubstantiate bread and wine into his own body and bloud ? and after Christ said in express terms , this is my body , dare he say , it is not his body ? what thing else I pray is this , but to contradict Christs words , and give him the lie in his teeth ? for what else are , It is and it is not , but contradictories , when they are said of the self same thing , at the same time , and after the same manner ? so that as any man may clearly see , this good Mounsieur opposes here , not only the Priests , but also Christs power concerning the real presence of his body in the consecrated host : and he gives no more vertue to Christs effective and creative word , then he gives to the words of other ordinary men . But let us hear this Lucifer like Goliah speak , that dares oppose Christs plain words , a●… they are generally understood by his whole Church . If he can by true Philosophy ( I mean by a Philosophical conclusion deduced , out of any Philosophical principle generally allowed of by all Christian Philosophers ) demonstrate against the Romish Doctors , that Transubstantiation is a thing impossible , and beyond Christs power ; then I confess , he carries away the victory and prize : for all men of understanding agree in this ; that implicancies and contradictions are impossible , even to God himself , because they quite destroy reason and sense ; and God is reason it self . But if he be not able to perform this task , and demonstrate that it is not in Gods power and might to Transubstantiate ( a thing which he nor any else will be ever able to do ) then how can he appear to the world , and especially to all Christians , but as a Lucifer-like heretick , for opposing Christs omnipotent power and word ? I am no Romish doctor , but one of their meanest disciples ; and yet I dare take up the ●…udgells in this just quarrel against great and famous de Rodon , next unto holy writ ( as his Translator esteems him ) one of the smartest and best of his party , that ever wrote yet , and is extant against the Romish heresies ; and I leave the decision and arbitration of our contest ▪ to the verdict of any judicious and 〈◊〉 Reader . But lo , here he comes with his first keen arrow . Rodon . 2. If a thing be created in a place , either it must be produced there , or it must come , or be brought thither from some other place , for it is impossible to finde out a third way of putting any thing in a place . And the Romish Doctors have hitherto been able to invent but one of these two waies of putting Christs body in the host . The Jacobins telling us , that it is brought thither from some other place ▪ and the Iesui●…s , that it is produced there ; But the body of Christ can neither come , nor be brought thither into the host ; nor can it be produced there . Therefore the body of Christ is not in the host . Answ. To this argument I answer , denying Mr. de Rodons supposition , viz. that Christ body is created in the Sacrament , but only the bread and wine Transubstantiated , or converted into his body and bloud ; at which conversion ▪ one substance succeedeth another ; so that Christs body is in the Sacrament immediatly , and formally by reason of its substance , and not by reason of its quantitative dimensions ; But all Philosophers agree in this , that a thousand substances can be altogether in one point , without taking up any proper place . And yet we confess that where his substance or body is , that there his quantity is also by concomitance , though not with its quantitative dimensions in order to its parts , as they are extended in a place ; for extension of parts in order to a place , is but a property of quantity , or of a quantitative body ; and the essence of quantity consists in the extension of the parts of a quantitative body , as they are in order to themselves : and if the Mounsieur ask us , how this is feasable , or how can a body be , without being in a place ? we will ask him , how Sydrach , Mysach , and Abednego could be in the Babilonian furnace without feeling the heat of the great fire that was put under it ? and if he sayes , ( as he ought to say ) that God supplied or hindred the heat , notwithstanding the fire remayned , because heat is only a property , and not essential to fire : the same thing say we also of quantity , or of a quantitative body , and of its parts as they are extended in order to a place . Therefore since Christs body is really in the Sacrament by reason of a substantial conversion , and no substance is properly in a place by reason of its own self , but only by reason of its quantitative dimensions ; since Christ hinders or obstructs the quantitative dimentions of his body in the Sacrament , as he did obstruct the heat of the fire of the Babilonian furnace ; it follows evidently that Christs body in the Sacrament , is there , without being in any proper place . Rodon . 3. The body of Christ cannot come , or be brought into the host from any other place , because it can come from no place but heaven ; being no where but in heaven ; But Christs body neither comes , nor is brought from heaven into the host ; which I prove thus : when a body comes ; or is carried from one place to another , it must leave its first place : for example , if a man would go from Paris to Rome , he must leave Paris ; but the body of Iesus Christ never leaves heaven , for the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things . Acts. 3. Therefore Christs body neither comes , nor is brought from heaven into the host , Besides it is impossible that Christs body should come , or be brought into the host , without passing through the space that is between heaven and earth , where the consecrated hosts are , because a man cannot pass from one extream to another , without passing through the space that is between them ; But the space between heaven and earth is too vast to be passed through in a moment ; for these doctors will have it , that immediatly after pronouncing these words , This is my body , the body of Christ is brought into the host . Moreover , it must in a moment be in all the heavens , and in all : he Aires between the highest heavens and this earth where the hosts are , ( because a man cannot pass through a place without being there ) and then it would have three sorts of existences at once , viz. one natural and glorious existence in heaven , one Sacramental existence in the hoji , and one ayery existence in the Ayr ; But s●…ing all th●…se things are absurd , we must conclude , that Iesus Christs body , neither comes , nor is brought into the host . Answ. I told you just now Mounsieur , that Christs body is not in the Sacrament , as in its proper place , for the reason all Philosophers give , viz. that no substance is in a place , but by reason of its quantitative dimensions , which dimensions we say , Christs body has not in the Sacrament ; but is in it immediatly by reason of the substantial conversion , wherein one substance immediatly succeeds the other : and so according to this answer , we deny , that Christs body is either brought from another place into the Sacrament , or produced in it , as in its propor place , but rather that it exists in it without any local dimensions ; as all other substances , if they were without their quantitative dimensions , would exist in , and by themselves ; without taking up any place : yet since you are so acute a Philosopher ; ( or at least taken by your party to be so ) and do make use of Philosophical principles against us ; I think it not amiss , for the clearer understanding of my answer ; first to set down the common definition which all philosophers give of a place ; as also to let the Reader know how many manner of ways all divines , and Christian Philosophers do acknowledg a thing may be in a place . As to the first , they unanimously own a proper place to be defined thus ; Ultima superficies corporis continentis immobilis primi : The last superfice or overmost part of the first immovable containing body ; for example , my proper place , is the next hollow superfice of the air surrounding my body ; and the proper place of water in a vessel , is the next hollow superfice of the vessel , not the exterior , but the interiour superfice : Where note , that according to Philosophers , a proper place hath also these two properties or faculties in order to the thing that it contains : first , it circumscribes and environs the thing placed of all sides , and round about : Secondly , a proper place is a preservative of the body which it contains ; and therefore it is , that every corporal thing hath a natural inclination to tend to its own proper place and center . So we see , fire hath a natural inclination to ascend towards its own Element , and when it is there in its proper center and place , it rests , and is quiet : Water also tends naturally towards the sea ; and until it be in its Element & center , is never at rest ; so is it also with all other Elementary and mixt bodies . As to the second , all Philosophers agree in this , that a thing may be in a place two manner of ways , viz. circumscriptively , and definitively ▪ corporal things circumscriptively , and spiritual things , as an Angel or mans soul , definitively ; that is to say , they are not in every place , as God is ; but in some finite or limited place wherein they operate ; and yet they are not circumscribed by the place wherein they are , because they are no bodies , nor have any superfice : nor also depend of their places in order to their conservation , as corporal things do . Besides , these two manner of ways of being in a place , which all Philosophers own , the divines hold of a third way ; viz. to be Sacramentally in a place ; from whence we have from both divines & Philosophers , that a thing may be in a place 3 manner of ways ; viz. circumscriptively , definitively , & sacramentally : what is in a place circumscriptively , is properly in its place because the superfice of the place touches & surrounds the superfice of the body which it contains : so the hollow superfice of the vessel touches and surrounds the water which is within the vessel : What is in a place definitively or Sacramentally , is not properly in any place ; because the superfice of the place , and of the thing contained , touch not one another immediatly , as all proper places ought to touch immediatly all the things properly contained in them : for an Angel , and a soul , have no superfices wherewith to touch the superfices of the place wherein they are contained , for they are pure spirits , and only corporal things have superfices : however they are said to be in a place improperly , because they are contained within some limits of bounds where they operate ( or else they would be in all places as God is ) like unto corporal things which are contained strictly within the immediat limits of their proper places : yet with this distinction still ; that spiritual things never touch the superfice of their proper places ( and consequently are not circumscribed by them ) as corporal things touch and are circumscribed by their proper places . All proper places are called by divines and Philosophers , univocal or circumscriptive Places : and all improper places , they call Equivocal places , such as are definitive and sacramental one●… : for properly and in rigour , they are no places at all because the definition of a proper place agree , not with them , for want of a superficial manner of containing the things that are said to be within them . This received doctrine of all divines and Philosophers presupposed . I answer the Mounsieurs major with this distinction ; the body of Christ cannot come , or be brought into the host , circumscriptively , as into its proper and univocal place ; I confess the major , sacramentally , as into its equivocal place : I deny the major . Therefore I say , that Christs body is really in the host , but not as in any proper place , for to be in an equivocal place , is as much in a manner , as to say in no place at all ; and certain it is , that an equivocal place , is no more a proper place , then an equivocal or painted man , is a proper and reall man : so that the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the body and bloud of Christ without any circumscriptive motion , or bringing it circumscriptively from one proper place to another , as our circumscriptive bodies move from one place to another : but by vertue of the effective words of consecration , and omnipotent power of God , his substance succeeds the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated host , without any proper local motion : for he is there , by reason of his substance , and substances are incapable of any proper motion ; and although his quantity be where his substance is by concomitance , yet it is not there with its quantitative dimensions : for these are hindred in the Sacrament , as I sayd before ; the heat of the Babilonian fire or surnace was hindred supernaturally : and being Christs body is in the host , as we say , by reason of its substance ; it is in it , in one respect , like as our souls are in our bodies : that is to say , totus in toto , & totus in qualibet parte : all Christ in the whole host , and all Christ in every point and particle of the host ; as all Philosophers say : the whole soul is in the whole body , and the whole soul in every part and point of the body ; yet the manner of Christs body being in the host , differs from the manner of the souls being in the body in this , viz. that the soul is in the body , but as in one definitive or limited improper place , but Christs body is in the Sacrament , as in its improper place , not definitively or limited to one host , as the soul is to one body ; but Sacramentally , that is to say , in all places where the words of consecration are uttered upon the bread and wine : and this Sacramental existence Christs body hath by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity which is in all places ; and yet the Sacramental ubication or existence differs from the the divine general ubication in this ; that the Sacramental ubication is but where the words of consecration are uttered , and the general divine ubication , is in all places ; for without it , the creatures would desist to be . But here the Mounsieur may object , that there is a great difference betwixt Christs body , and an Angel , or mans soul ; for an Angel , and a soul , are pure spirits , and therefore be not capable of an univocal place , but only of an equivocal one ; But Christs body , is a true real body ; and therefore it can have but an univocal circumscriptive place . To this I answer , and confess that Christs body is a true real body , & no spirit ; & yet I deny but that it may have an equivocal place in the host ; because it is now a glorified body , and as it were spiritualized with spiritual qualities , which redound into it from his glorified soul , which spiritual qualities the Divines call dotes corporis gloriosi , the dowries of a glorified body ; as are subtility , impassibilitie , Agility , and clarity . By reason of the all manner of subjection a glorified body hath to its soul , in so far that it neither cloggs nor burthens her ( as our lumpish bodies do our souls here ) the body may move in an instant by the instantanean motion of its soul , or of her minde : and by reason of the Hypostatical union betwixt the divinity and soul of Christ , and of his glorified body ; it may accompany them into ten million of equivocal places at once , according to the Apostles saying . 1. Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body , it shall rise a spiritual body ; that is to say , a real body endowed with spiritual qualities , such as those of the soul are ; not with a spiritual entity or substance , because the substance of a spirit , and the substance of a body are two different entities , essentially differing the one from the other : so that if Christs body had risen with a spiritual entity , it could be no more a true real body but a spirit , which to affirm is plain heresy . Therefore according to the Apostle , glorified bodies will rise again with their corporal substances , but endowed and qualified with spiritual dowries redounding from their souls . From whence followeth , that by reason of their subjection to the souls , and because they shall be no clog to them , that they can in an instant move from heaven to earth , with an equivocal motion , following the instantanean motion of the minde : from whence also followeth , that Christs glorified soul , being in heaven , and having a thought or desire , to be in an instant upon earth , and in a thousand equivocal places there sacramentally , at the same time without passing through any intermediate place , ( which she can do , by reason of her hypostatical union to the divinity ) that his body because of its perfect subjection to his soul , can pass with a Motus discretus , or equivocal motion , and accompany her in all her sacramental places together , and be really in every of them , not after a quantitative or circumscriptive , but after a sacramental or spiritual manner , as the soul is in a mans body : all the soul in the whole body and all the soul in every point and particle , of the body : for as a spirit possesseth not a place quantitatively or superficially ; so also may a glorified body being spiritualized , be in a place after a spiritual manner . By this solution Mr. de Rodons first arrow is not only shivered and broken , but his following proofs also eluded and enerved ; For all their force is bent only against the bringing , or being of Christs body in the host circumscriptively , and into its natural and univocal place ; all which we grant cannot be supposing the heavens are to contain him until the time of the restitution of all things ; Acts. 3. But they make nothing at all against its being , or being brought in the host sacramentally ; and in its equivocal place ; for such a being , or coming depends not upon a proper and univocal place , as all divines and Philosophers confess . And consequently Mr. de Rodons ayery existence of Christs body , is but a meere ●…himera . Though we grant Christ hath a natural existence in heaven , and a sacramental one upon Earth ; which we say is but one and the self same of him as he is in several manners . For if he should change himself into the form of a child ; or into any other form whatsoever , ( as he can do ) his natural existence , and that would be one and the self same . By this solution is also seen , how Christs body may be brought into the Sacrament ( as the Iacobins say ) or produced in it ( as the Jesuits say ) without his leaving to be in heaven in his human shape : for no body leaveth its proper place wherein it is , but by its proper local motion , from the proper place wherein it was , ▪ into another proper place . But a proper local motion belongs only to circumscribed bodies , when they are brought circumscriptively to their proper and univocal places . Therefore since Christs body is not brought so into the Sacrament , it may keep its connatural station and situation in heaven ; and yet notwithstanding be brought , or produced in the host , being he comes , nor is produced there by local motion ; nor is in the Sacrament , as in its proper place ; but only in an improper and equivocal one , as we have often said before . Rodon . 4. Secondly , Christs body cannot be reproduced in the consecrated host , because a thing that is produced already , cannot be produced again without a preceding destruction : for as a dead man cannot be killed , nor that be annihilated which is annihilated already : so neither can that be produced which is produced already , nor that receive a being , which hath one already . This common conception of all men is founded upon this Principle : that every action , whether it produceth or destroyeth a thing , must necessarily have two distinct terms ; the one called in the schools Terminus a quo , that is , the term from which the thing comes ; and the other , Terminus ad quem , that is , the term to which it comes . But according to this Principle , that cannot be annihilated which is so already , nor that receive a being which hath one already ; because the term from which it should come , and the term to which it should come , would be one and the same thing ; contrary to the maxim already laid down , viz. that the terms of Action must necessarily be distinct , and that one of them must be the negation or privation of the other . Answ. To this argument I answer , that that which is produced already , cannot be reproduced as to its entitative and essential being ; but that which is produced already as to its essential being , may be produced , or rather adduced , as to its modal being ; and so we say Christs body is in the Sacrament , because his essential being , as he is in his natural human shape in heaven hinders not his Sacramental or modal being here upon earth ; for neither his entity , nor his Sacramental existence depends upon any univocal place or space . Rodon . 5. Here perhaps it may be objected , that by Transubstantiation the substence of Christs body is not newly produced , but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was : But to this I answer , that in all substantial conversions and actions , a new substance must be produced , as in accidental , a new accident must be produced ; But Transubstantiation ( according to the Romish doctors ) is a substantial conversion : Therefore by Transubstantiation a new substance must be produced : And seeing that the new presence of Christs body in the place where the bread was , is not a substance , but an accident of the Cathegory which the Philosophers call ( ubi ) it is evident that by Transubstantiation the presence of Christs body only is not produced in the place where the substance of the bread was , and seeing that the substance of Christs body is not produced there , ( as hath been proved in the preceding number ) we must conclude , that there is no Transubstantiation nor real presence of Christs body in the host ; which hath been already refuted in number the third . Answ. Mounsieur , you need not bragg much of your refutations in both your said numbers , for they are clearly answered by me in their due place : And the objection you make for us here , is very true : for it is not the essential substance of Christs body that is newly produced by transubstantiation , but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was ; for that essential production was made at his Incarnation , and will abide for ever : however we say , that his body hath a substantial and essential existence in the host , by reason of its Sacramental presence there ; and you speak very unskillfully , and unphilosophically , when you say , that Christs presence in the Sacrament , is an accident of the Cathegory which Philosophers call , ubi ; for his Presence there is no Cathegorical or Predicamental , ubi , but a substantial and Sacramental one ; because all Predicamental ubies , must result from univocal , and not from Sacramental places ; as all good divines and Christian Philosophers do unanimously teach : And consequently your proofs can be of no force or value amongst them , whatever you would have them be amongst the illiterate vulgar people , whom you intend to delude and deceive with your Philosophical quibbles . The Mounsieurs first arrow being thus vainly shot , he pulls o●…t his second , which is this . Rodon ▪ 6. In a true humane body , such as Christs body is , there is somthing above , and something under , right and left , before and behind ; for the head is above the neck , and the neck above the shoulders ; the shoulders above the breast , the breast above the belly , &c. But all the world knows , that in a point , there is nothing above or under , right or left , before or behind ; Therefore Christs body is not in a point ; and consequently it is not in every point or part of the host . To this I add , that the quantity and greatness of Christs body , is nothing else but its extent , as ▪ we all know , and a body is extended when it hath its parts one without another ; as all the Iesuits expound it . But the doctrine of the presence of Christs body in the host , puts all its parts one within another , because it puts them all in a point . Therefore such a doctrine takes away its extent ; and consequently its quantity . Answ. This arrow follows his former directly ; for if Christs body could have no other place but an univocal one , nor no being in it , but a circumscriptive being ; the arrow would hit right : But seeing Christs body is in all things subject to his soul , as his soul is to his divinity ; and that his soul is ( as ours are ) all in his whole body , and all in every point and part of his body : it follows , that his body now glorified and spiritualized by reason of its spiritual qualifications and dowries , may be not only naturally in its univocal place , as our bodies are in their natural places ; but that it may also be in an equivocal or Sacramental one , as pure spirits are , without any dependency of an univocal or proper place : and consequently , that it may be in every part and point of the host , as our souls are in every point and living part of our bodies . But here I ask the Mounsieur , if he ever was in heaven , and saw the situation of Christs glorified body there ? because he says some part of it must be above , and some part under ; some before , and some behinde ; some on the right side , and some on the left : I would fain know of him , where is above and under in heaven ? where is the right and left hand there ? and where the before and behinde ? or is there any other body in heaven , above the heaven where Christ and his Angels and saints are , to denotate high and low , right and left , before and behind ? sure it is the●… , that ●…he never was there , and ( unloss he changed his opinion before he died ) I fear never will be : and sure also it is , that this his argument o●… arrow , is but a very pittiful miserable one , for comparing and liking the situation of Christs glorified body unto ours , as if Christ would not situ●…te himself in heaven , or upon Earth but after our circumscriptive material manner . Certainly if he can do no more then what we apprehend or understand , and cannot transcend our weak capacity in his works , he is no God ; and there is no such thing as an object of divine faith . Therefore ( forsooth ) because Mr. de Rodon cannot with his Philosophy comprehend or understand , how a man cannot be without his head , above his shoulders , and his shoulders above his breast , Christ cannot be really in the Sacrament ; an unanswerable reason , and a keen killing arrow , I confess , to ignorant illiterate people of no belief ; but to the learned and faithfull , it has no more force then a broken straw . To his addition I say , that he that can make a Camel pass through a needles eye , can also put his own quantity into a point . To his lastly or last , I answer , that the quantity of Christs body , as also of all other bodies , is nothing else essentially , but the extent of its parts as they are in order to themselves , and not as they are extended in order to any place ; for that extension is on●…y a property of the former extension , a●…d may be hindered supernaturally , as the heat of the forementioned Babilonian ●…urnace was , which heat although it was the property o●… the fire that was set under the furna●…e , and wrough●… its effect upon the standers by , yet God could , and did suspend its operation upon the three holy young men that were put into it , and it ●…either burnt or hurt them at all ; even so can he do , and doth with Christs body in the Sacrament , for the substance of his body is there with its essential quantitie by concomitance ; although the properties of his essential quantity , ( whereof extension of its parts in order to a place is o●…e ) be hindred and suspended , for being the Sacrament was instituted for us that we should receive and eat it ; it was necessary that the local extension of Chri●…s body in it , should be hindred ; Therefore as Christ when he said , this is my body , could , and did put his body substantially in the Sacrament in the species and form o●… bread and wine , for to attemperate it to our natures , that we may receive it without any loathsomeness , so he did also suspend and hinder its local extension sor to accomodate it to our bodies for our spiritual nourishment : and so this arrow follows the other . Now to his third . Rodon . 7. To move , and not to move at the same time ; to be eaten , and not to be eaten , at the same time ; to be in a point and not to be in a point at the same time ; to occupy a place , and not to occupy a place at the same time , ar●… contradictory things . But if the body of Christ were in diverse consecrated hosts , it would move and not move at the same time : for example , when a Priest carries a consecrated host to a sick person ; the body of Christ which is pretended to be in it moves with the host ; for it leaves the Altar , and goes with the Priest towards the sick persons house ; and at the same time , the body of Christ which is pretended to be in the other host that remains at the Altar moves not : and so the same body of Christ , at the same time , moves and moves not , which is a contradiction . Seeing then it is impossible , that one and the same body , at one and the same time , should move , and not move ; it is likewise impossible ●…hat Christs body should be in divers hosts at the same time . In like manner , if Christs body were at the same time in heav●…n and in the host ; it would be eaten , and not 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 ●…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 i●… 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 m●…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 no●… if the thing , time , o●… 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 p●…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 an absolute term ▪ for when we conceive an absolute term , we conceive but one thing , as when we conceive a crow : but when we conceive a relative term , we necessarily conceive two things ; for example , we connot conceive a crow to be like , without conceiving something else , to which it is like : seeing then we cannot conceive a thing to be distant , without conceiving something else from which it is distant ; it is evident , that to be distant is a relative term , and that distant things are relatives ; and consequently , are really different , whence I form this Argument Relative things are really different , as hath been proved , but the body that is at Rome , is distant from that which is at Paris , by reason of the space of 300. leagues that is between these two cities ; & the body that is in the highest heavens , is distant from that which is upon earth , by reason of the many thousands of leagues that are between heaven and earth : Therefore the body that is at Rome , is different from that which is at Paris , and that which is in heaven , is different from that which is upon earth ; and consequently one and the same body cannot be at the same time at Rome and at Paris , in heaven , and upon earth ; else one and the same body , might be distant and different from it self which is a contradiction . Therefore seeing Iesus Christ is not distant and different from himself , it follows , that he cannot be at the same time in heaven and in the host , nor at the same time in the consecrated host at Rome and at Paris . But perhaps it may be said , that a body being at the same time in two distant places , is not distant from it self ; but that the places only are distant ; and therefore that Christs body in heaven is not distant from it self in the host ; but it is the places only , viz. heaven and earth ( where the host is ) that are distant . To this I answer , that it is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in those distant places : for example , the reason why Peter at Rome , is distant from Paul at Paris , is not because they are two things really different ; else they would be alwaies distant , even when they are in one bed together ( for they are alwaies really different ) but all the reason of their distance is , because they are in two distant places ; Seeing then ( according to our Adversaries ) that Christs body is in two distant places at once , viz. in heaven and in the host , at Rome and at Paris in divers hosts , it follows , that Christs body is distant and different from it self , it is evident that it cannot be in two distant places at once ; and consequently not in heaven and in the host . Besides , suppose that Peter could be at Rome and at Paris at once ; and that Peter that is at Rome should have a minde to go to Paris , and should go accordingly ; and that the same Peter that is at Paris , should have a minde to go to Rome , and should go accordingly ; it is certain that Peter would draw near to himself , and meet himself ; but things that draw near to each other , must of necessity have been at a distance before ; and therefore if a body draw near to it self , it is certain that it was distant from it self before : and hereupon I would fain ask our Adversaries , whether when Peter should meet himself , he would let himself pass or not ? and if he should let himself pass , whether Peter going to Rome would step aside , and give way to himself going to Paris , or else the contrary ? but if he should not step aside and give place to himself , I would ask , whether he would hinder himself from passing or not ? and if he should not hinder himself from passing , whether he would passe through himself , and so make another Janus with two faces , &c. whatsoever answers they will make to these questions , must ( I am sure ) be very absurd , and ridiculous . Answ. I am sure , the answers I shall make to these your questions and argument also , will appear to any learned man to be both solid and sound , and better grounded in true Philosophy , then all your sophismes are ; and they will manifestly evince that these unphilosophical illations ( and as you think , witty conceited interrogations , of yours ) are but meere ridiculous quibbies and impertinent foolish trifles , not at all touching our Diana , which is the mark you ought to aim 〈◊〉 with your arrow . Therefore to give your argument or arrow the more vent and force ; I grant two Relatives are different , and that Relation is alwaies between two things that differ really or modally ; I also grant that two crows , and two Jackdaws too , although they are like in colour and shape , do differ in their entities ; and that nothing hath a relation to it self , while it is taken in the same formality ▪ Finally I confess that this word ( distant ) is a relative , and not an absolute term : Now all this being granted , I hope the Mounsieur will hit right : thus he shoots : Relative things are really different ; But the body that is at Rome , is di●…tant from that which is at Paris ; therefore the body which is at Rome , is different from that is at Paris . Before I shatter this vain and ill-leveled arrow , I must let the Reader know , that although this word ( distant ) be a relative term , that signifies an interval betwixt different things ; yet because there is no distance between corporal things by reason of their proper and univocal places ; therefore distance cannot extend it self beyond the sphear of an univocal place . So that there can be no proper distance , but betwixt bodies , and only betwixt such bodies too , as are circumscribed , and are in their univocal places : for no body can rightly and properly say , that two angels , or two spirits are distant from one another , because they have no bodies , and consequently no univocal places to circumscribe them : and the whole reason is , because distance depends wholy upon an univocal place ; so that where there is no proper place , there can be no distance . This sure ground thus layd , I confess the Mouusieurs Major , and distinguish his minor thus : But the body which is at Rome is distant from &c. The body which is circumscriptively at Rome is distant from the body which is circumscriptively at Paris : I confess the minor ; the body which is sacramentally or in its equivocal place at Rome , is distant from the body that is at Paris , or in heaven either ; I deny the minor , and consequence also . Therefore we say , that it is not to be in two equivocal places , nor in twenty also together , that causes two bodies to be near or distant : Nay more then that , although one of those bodies were in its proper place , and the other but in an equivocal one , we say those two bodies would not be properly near or distant : because nearness and distance has no relation at all to equivocal places , but only to univocal ones . Since then Jesus Christ is in his natural shape in heaven , in his proper place ; and in the Sacrament he is but in his improper , and equivocal place , to which distance hath no relation at all ; it followeth evidently , that his body in heaven , is not different or distant from it self in the Sacrament ; no more then two Angels or spirits are distant from one another ; which yet no good Philosopher will acknowledge , because of their incapacity of being circumscribed , for want of supersices . By this solution is clearly seen , how frivolous , ridiculous , and impertinent all Mr. de Rodons ensuing Instances , and witty quodlibetical questions are ; and how wide they are from the mark : for they all aym , and strike at one body , the same time , in two or more circumscriptive places but they touch or concern not at all one body at the same time in its natural place , and in its sacramental place ; which is the only question we are about . Therefore according to good Philosophy , he argues unskilfully , and impertinently , by arguing from an univocal place to an equivocal one , or vice versa : for I grant him that the same body at the same time cannot be circumscriptively in two places ; but what is this to our present controversie ! Therefore I am mistaken if I have not ( according to the judgment of any indifferent Philosopher ) answered the Mounsieurs argument pertinently and Philosophically as all other Philosophers would have done , and not absurdly and ridiculously , as he is sure it could not be answered otherwise ; and to his ridiculous questions , I say , that if Christ or Peter , should meet themselves in their sacramental or equivocal places , they may walk by themselves freely , without passing through themselves or making a Ianus or two faces ; for when our saviour gave himself sacramentally to himself , and to his Apostles , he made neither a Ianus or double face because as I have a hundred times repeated it over and over , a body sacramentaly or equivocaly in a place , ( which properly and in rigour is no place at all ) cannot stop or hinder a circumscribed body from going unto any proper place : Neither do we allow of any nearness or distance , but between circumscribed bodies in their univocal places : from whence I conclude , that these questions are more ridiculous and impertinent , then any answer could have been given them ; and so this arrow is also lost . Now then to his 5th . Rodon . 6. It is a perfect contradiction , that a body should be one , and not one : But if Christs body should be at the same time in heaven , and upon earth in the host , it would be one , and not one ; for it would be one by our adversaries own confession , and it would not be one , which I prove thus : that a thing may be one , it must neither be divided in it self , nor from it self , as appears by the definition of unity . And it is certain that nothing is divided and separated from it self . But if Christs body be at the same time in heaven and upon earth in the host , it will be divi●…ed and separated from it self , that which is in heaven ●…eing separated and divided from that which is upon earth , because it 〈◊〉 not in the space between both . Here again it may be objected , that a body in divers places , is divided from it self locally because the places in which it is , are divided but not entitatively , because it is still one and the same entity of body . To which I answer , 1. that entitive division ( which is nothing else but a plurality of beings , or a plurality of things really different ) is no true division : for then the three divine Persons , which are really different , would be also really divided ; and the body and soul of a living man , which do really differ , would also be really divided . Secondly , I say , that if a body be divided and separated from bodies which it toucheth , it is also divided and separated from bodies which it doth not touch ; and if a body be divided and separated from bodies to which it is near , it is also divided and separated from bodies that are far distant from it ; but especially the division is true , when between two there be bodies of divers natures , to which there is no union . Therefore seeing that between Christs body , which is really in heaven , and the same body , which is pretendedly upon earth in the consecrated hosts , there be divers bodies of divers natures , to which it is not united ; it is evident by our adversaries own doctrine , that Christs body is really divided and separated from it self . And seeing it is impossible it should be separated from it self , it is also impossible that it should be in heaven , and in the host at the same time . Thirdly , I say , that local division takes away entitive division ; and things that are divided locally , are also divided entitatively , that is , they are also really different ; else no reason can be given why two glasses of water taken from the same fountain , ●…are really different , seeing these waters are like in all things , except in reference to place ; and there can no reason be given why the ocean is not one single drop of water only , reproduced in all places occupied by the ocean , except it be that one drop of water cannot be reproduced in all those places ; but if it be possible , then reason obligeth us to believe that it is really so , because God and nature do nothing in vain , and it is in vain to do that by many things , which may be done by one thing : and if it be really so , then it follows , that all the Sea-battells that ever have been , were fought in one drop of water ; and many thousands of men have been drowned in one drop of water , and all people since Adam have drunk but one drop of water , which things are absurd and ridiculous . Answ. Yet more impertinencies Mr. de Rodon , and more of your foolish merry ▪ conceited ridiculous sequels : I doubt not ( gentle reader ) but this famous Philosophy-professor was excellently well pleased , at this witty and merry conceited drop of water , that drains the ocean , drowned so many thousands , and refreshes us all . But who knows that the Philosopher took not a harty draft or two of good wine , to season his brain , before this great drop presented it self to his whimsical nodle ? Therefore lest he should grow frantick with his dropsical conceit ; I moulder his argument , and its sequels thus : by denying his minor ; viz. that in that case he puts ; Christs body would be one , and not one ; and to his proof , I deny also his second minor , viz. that if Christs body were at the same time in heaven , and upon earth in the host , it would be divided , and separated from it self , because Christs body is in the host but Sacramentally only , just almost in a manner as our souls are in our bodies : ( and the difference is this , that our souls are pure spirits , and his body is a true body spiritualized ) and that his body is not confined and limited to one equivocal place , as the soul is to the body ; but it may be at the same time i●… sundry Sacramental places : yet Christs body in the Sacrament , and mans soul in his body , agree as to this ; viz. that neither of them is in a proper and univocal place , but only in an equivocal one , which in rigour is no place at all : but if this Philosopher forgets not himself , he confesses that although the body and soul of a man are different , yet they are not distant from one another ; and 't is true ; because the soul is in her body , only definitively , that 's to say , in her equivocal , or improper place ; Therefore ( also I say ) because Christs body is in the host but Sacramentally , ( which is but its equivocal place ) it is not distant from it self in heaven in its natural place ; although its manner as it is in heaven , and as it is in the Sacrament be different . If the Mounsieur be a Christian Philosopher , he must confess that Jesus Christ when he was incarnate and descended from heaven into the Virgin Mary's sacred womb ; and that his divine person was then different from the persons of God the father , and God the holy Ghost ; but dare he say that their persons were then also distant from one another ? Christ was then here upon earth 33. years in his circumscriptive place ; and yet was not distant from the other two persons who remained in heaven ; because the other two persons are pure spirits , and have no circumscriptive place : wherefore then may not Christs glorified body remain in its humane shape in heaven , and yet be Sacramentally , or after a spiritual manner in the host , without being distant from it self ? verily , no other but a dropsical brain would ever contradict this most true doctrine . Therefore in answer to his impertinent and ridiculous replies and dropsical sequels , I grant and say with him , that a plurality of things really different , is no true and real division , and consequently that there is no such thing as an entitative division , without a respect or relation to an univocal place : But that which I flatly deny is , that a body can be divided or separated either from it self or from any other body , or that it can touch it self or any other body . or be near to it self or any other body : or lastly , that it can be distant from it self or from any other body , but while it is in its univocal place , and the other bodies in their univocal places also . And therefore since Christs body in the host is not in its univocal place , it is neither divided near to , nor distant from his body in heaven : I confesse also , that things which are divided locally , if they be divided by a proper or univocal local division , such things are divided entitatively also ; but I deny that things for being in their improper or equivocal places ( as Christs body in the Sacrament is but in its equivocal place ) are at all distant from themselves or from any thing else : I grant also , that if a body be divided or separated from bodies which it toucheth , it is also divided from bodies which it doth not touch ; but I deny that a body in its improper or equivocal place can touch or be touched by any other body , whether these bodies be separated or not separated from one another . Lastly , I acknowledge , that local division causeth entitative division , but I deny that there is any proper local division between Christs body as it is in heaven , and as it is in the host ; because he is not in the host as in his proper place : and though I grant Christ can put the whole Ocean into one drop ( for it implys no contradiction in it self , nor imperfection in God so to do ) as he can make a camel passe through the eye of a needle , and put life into the least grain of dust or sand , yet I deny that reason obligeth us to believe he did really so , or that God and nature by doing otherwise should work in vain , because God and nature are not obliged to do all that they can do : God can create another world , and yet he is not obliged to do it , and never will create another ; and since he created the ocean , and ordained it should be in its proper and univocal plaee ; it follows not , that all sea-battels were fought in one drop of water , nor so many thousands of men were drowned in one drop of water , nor that all the people from Adams time drank but of one drop of water , all which sequels of the Mounsieur are but dropsical , nonsensical , and ridiculous and yet it follows that because Christ did put his body in the host sacramentally only ; it is there ; as our souls are in our bodies ; all in the whole host ; and all in every point of it ; without being near distant , or divided from his body as it is naturally in heaven , but one and the same : and consequently as the Mounsieurs proofs are nonsensical and ridiculous , s●… this arrow of his i●… forever lost . Now then to his sixth . Rodon 7. Iesus Christ cannot be in divers places at once , as he is man , if another man cannot be so too ; because Iesus Christ , as he is a man , Was made like unto us in all things sin only excepted , as the Apostle to the Hebrews observes . But another man cannot be in divers places at once : for example , Peter cannot be at the same time at Paris , and at Rome ; which I prove thus : It is impossible that Peter should be a man , and no man at the same time . But if Peter could at the same time be at Paris , and at Rome , he might at the same time be a man , and no man ; which I prove thus . He that may be at the same time dead and alive , may at the same time be a man , and no man ; because he that is alive is a real man , and he that is dead , is no real man , but a carcass ; but if Peter could at the same time be at Paris , and at Rome , he might be both alive and dead at the same time ; for he might be mortally wounded at Paris , and die there ; and at the same time not hurt at Rome , but alive and making merry there . Besides Peter may be divisibly at Paris and indivisibly at Rome , ( as Christs body according to our adversaries , is divisibly in heaven , and indivisibly in the host ) but if in Paris ( where he should be divisibly ) his head should be cut off : and so he should remain at the same time a living and real man ; which is á contradiction . In a word Peter might be at Paris in the midst of flames , and be burnt , & reduced to ashes , & consequently should die , & be no man ; whereas at the same time , he might be at Rome in the river Tiber sound and brisk , and consequently be a true and living man. Whence it follows , that he might be a man , and no man , which is a contradiction . To this may be added other absurdities that would follow from this position ; that one body may be in divers places at once , viz. that one candle lighted might give light to all the world , if it were reproduced in all parts of the world ; that a great army might be made of one man , reproduced in a hundred thousand adjoyning places ; that all the debts in the world , might be payed with one crown , reproduced as many times as there be crowns due , That all the people in the world might quench their thirst with one pottle of wine , reproduced as many times as there be inhabitants in the world ; that all the men in the world might drink in one and the same glass , reproduced as many times as there be men in the world , ( whereupon a man might be so curious as to ask , whether if this glass should be broken at Paris , it would also be broken at Rome , Constantinople , and other places ) that one man reproduced in an hundred thousand places , might at the same time marry an hundred thousand wives , and lie with them ; whereupon a man might desire to know whether these women might not conceive , and every one of them be delivered of a childe at the end of nine moneths : and consequently it may be said , that one man did in one night beget an hundred thousand children , &c. Answ. It is a common saying , Stultorum plenus est mundus , that the world is full of fools ; and I think our Mounsieur may serve for all ; for the little Microcosme of his aery giddy brain is so full of senseless frantick figaries , that it is not in his power to rid himself of them ; so he proceeds from folly to folly , or ( rather to use his own terms ) he produces one foolish arrow , and reproduces it so often , that from it and its sequels , he falls into an horrid blasphemy : for thus he shoots ; Jesus Christ as he is man , cannot be in divers places at once , if another man cannot be so too ; because Jesus Christ as he is man , was made like unto us in all things , sin only excepted : But another man cannot be in divers places at once , ergo , &c. This arrow certainly aims not only at Diana , but also at Christ himself , therefore rather then it should hit Christ , let us leave her , and run to save him . But how Rodon ? because the Apostle says ▪ Christ is made like us in his humane nature and essence , and in all the rest of our properties which flow from our essence , ( though not conceived and born in sin , as we were ) does it follow that we are equal and like to him in power also ? If so ; then the Mounsieur rose again the third day after his death at Geneva , by his own proper might and vertue , without the ministry or aid of any Angel , and sits now check by joal to Christ , at the right hand of God the father ; and will descend with him to judge the quick and the dead ; for none of these things be sins ; and we must be like Christ in all things , sin only excepted . Where be all those ( forsooth ) that the Mounsieur raised from death to life ? where be all the lame , all the blind , all the dumb , deaf , and sick people he cured ? Christ did many such things , and yet they were no sins : how can he then , or any of us be like unto Christ in all things , sin only excepted , save only in our humane nature ? But to be in two places at once , belongs to Christs power , and not to his humane nature : where is Mr. de Rodons comparative argument , then now ? If this be no blasphemy , I know not what to call blasphemy . Therefore Peter , Paul , nor Mr. de Rodon himself are like to Christ in his power , though they be like him in their humane nature , sin only excepted : and consequently although Peter cannot be killed at Rome , and alive at Paris , at the same time , for otherwise ( if he means a mortal Peter ) he should be man , and no man at once ; yet Christ can be in heaven naturally , and Sacramentally at Rome , the self same time , because he is in the Sacrament , not as in his proper place ; and his body in it , is a glorified , immortal , and impatible body , and consequently cannot be killed ; as Peter , being but a mortal man can be at Rome . To those additionate absurdities which I call his additionate impertinencies ( for none of them are pertinent to our question ) I answer , as I often did before ; that no body can be in two places at once circumscriptively ; though it may be circumscriptively in one place , and sacramentally in another . And all his impertinencies militate only against one body circumscriptively at once in two places : which we grant cannot be . And so this arrow endeth in its venom and Blasphemy . Now then to his seventh . Rodon . 8. If Christs body were in the host , it would be seen there ; for being there in its glory ( as the Roman Doctors say it is ) it would be there more visibly , then it was when he conversed amongst men here below ; because the glory of Christs body , doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light . Like to that which he had upon Mount Thabor ▪ ●…ut who dares affirm , that such a glorious body is not visible , wheresoever it is ? yet it is certain that Christs body is not to be seen in the host , which is an evident signe that he is not there , &c. Answ. I distinguish the major thus : If Christs body were in the host , it would be seen there with the eye of our understanding holpen by faith , I confess ; with our corporal eye ; I deny . The Romish Doctors then do hold that it is enough , this grand Mystery is intelligible , and implies no contradiction ; to have it be believed ; for if there be no impossibility nor contradiction in the case as concerning the veracity of the thing in it self ; they rely upon Christs own effective and true word ; therefore since our intelligible faculty holpen by faith sheweth us , that Christ can create , which is a thing more difficult in it self , then to transubstantiate one thing into another ; as also that he left us an evident pattern of his power in such a case , by converting water into wine ; we considering his omnipotency , and his goodness whose property is to impart his self to his rational creature in the highest degree ; our spiritual eye , viz. our understanding illuminated by faith ; seeing this far more clearly then our corporal eyes can see any thing : & seing also that for Christ to communicate himself really and substantially unto us , is a more perfect and high degree of communication , then if he should give himself figuratively only we seeing the thing feaseble in it self , and agreeable to Christs infinite goodness : believe it , upon his word which we know to be firmer then heaven and earth . Mr de Rodon strives by his natural reason grounded upon humane Philosophy , to demonstrate that it is not in Christs power to Transubstantiate bread into his own body : this is the main point , and substance of our dispute : he opposing Christs power as to this thing , and we propugning it , and maintaining it to be agreeable to his infinite goodness , that the thing should be so , as he expresly said . But although we believe he is glorious as he is in the Sacrament too , yet we confess , we see him not there with our corporal eyes shining in glory ; because he hides it from us there ; for he knows it is neither expedient nor requisite that he should manifest his glory unto us here upon earth ; that our merit should be the more by believing his plain and express word . This was the reason why , that during the time while he was conversant with men , in his patible body , although his soul was also then alwaies glorious by reason of the Hypostatical union ; yet this glory of hers never redounded to his body , but once at Mount Thabor , and then , but transeunter , for a short time only ; to animate Peter , whom he designed to be his Vicar on earth ; as also Iames and Iohn , who were his neer kinsmen , and of the chief of his Apostles ; that these three being eye-witnesses of his glorious Transfiguration , should be the more confirmed in their own , and the better strengthen the rest of the Apostles and disciples in their belief concerning the death of their dear master , and the grand Mistery of his Resurrection ▪ Therefore while we are members of the Church militant , it is not expedient we should see the body of Christ shining in glory with our corporal eyes ; although we are bound to believe his glorified body is really in the Sacrament . Neither is brightness , and splendor of an extraordinary light , more proper and principal to a glorified body , then are impassibility , subtility , and agility , which are likewise dowries of a glorious body , and yet the Apostles saw none of these three other dowries of Christs body in the Mount , though his body had them there ; so also although Christs body in the Sacrament , has all the same dowries and properties , after his Resurrection ; yet it is neither expedient or necessary , that every one of us , should see them with our corporal eyes the●…e , but it is enough we believe it ; from whence follows not evidently ( as the Mounsieur says ) that they are not there ; for an argument from a corporal visible not seeing , to an intelligible spiritual not being , concludes but against ignorant people , and misbelievers ; not against any learned or faithfull . Rodon . 9. But ( quoth Mounsieur helping us out ) it may be said that Christs body is under the accidents of bread and wine , and that these accidents hide it from us . To which answer he replies very Philosophically and acutely ( as he is wont ) thus . But the substance of the bread and wine , was not under the accidents , and the accidents were not upon their substance ; for then the substance of the bread and its accidents , had been in different places ; above , and under , being two several differences of place , and that which is under , is not above ; Therefore Christs body cannot be under the accidents of bread ; and consequently the accidents do not hide it from us : O Philosophy ! Philosopher ! Answ. But who can but admire , to hear such a silly reply , from so famous a Professor , as Mr. de Rodon is esteemed , and cryed up to be amongst his admirers and applauders ? I pray tell me Mr. Rodon , whether the substance of your own body , be over , or under its accidents or no ? if you say , I ; then your body ( which consists of substance and accidents ) is at the same time in two places ; for according to you ; over and under , are differences of several places ; and consequently , according to your Philosophy one body may be naturally in two places at once ; for I suppose your body is but one , and its situation is not a supernatural one : now then ; if under and above , be differences of divers places , and your substance is under your accidents , it follows manifestly that your body is naturally in two places at once ; which is more , then we affirm of Christs body , for we say it is in the Sacrament , not naturally , that is , after a natural manner ; but supernaturally : If your answer be , no : then , I pray tell us where the substance of your body is ? is it in the accidents ? then , why may not we also say , that the substance of the bread , before the consecration , and the substance of Christs body , after the consecration are in the Sacramental species ? which if so , then they are all but in one place ; and consequently , the substance being in the accidents , for ought this reply can contradict , the substance is absoonded in them ; and so are really all substances hidden from our corporal eyes ; for we never see the substance of any body , but only its outermost superfice : But in true Philosophy , substances separated from their accidents , have no over nor under ; and consequently possess no place , but by reason of their accidents or quantity . So that according to all good Philosophers ( Mr. de Rodon only excepted ) a thousand substances may be together in one point : from whence followeth , that the Mounsieur is either the only Philosopher himself ; or else , that this reply is meerly nonsensical ; he speaking contrary to the usage of all Philosophers . Neither is his second reply more pertinent , then the former was ; though more ridiculous ; for he plays the fool with Philosophy in it : These be his words . Rodon . 10. And seeing ( as our adversaries say ) Christs body is in every part and point of the host , it must needs be in the supersice ; and consequently cannot be hid or covered by the accidents of the bread ; ( then he helps us out again ) , here again it may be said , that Christs body is glorious , luminous , and visible of it self , but God hinders us from seeing it : To this I answer , that if God hinders it , it is only because he is pleased so to do ; and consequently , if he were pleased not to hinder , he would not do it , but would permit it to be seen in the same posture as it is in the host : ( then he comes up with more of his witty , merry interrogations again ) , viz. in what posture it would be seen there ? whether sitting , standing lying , or in any other posture ? or whether it would be in any posture at all ? If it be in no posture , it must be without any external form , because posture or situation absolutely depends upon external form . But how can a man be seen without an external form of a man , and without being in any posture of a man ? and how can Christs body be without posture , and without external form , seeing ( as our adversaries say ) it is whole , and entire in the whole host , and occupies the whole space of a great host ? But if it be sitting , or standing , or in any other posture , and with the external form of a man , and if ( as they say ) it be whole , and intire in a point of the host , Then it will follow , that a man may be seen sitting , or standing in a point ; and seeing a man that is standing , hath his head above and his feet below ; it will follow that Iesus Christ will be seen in a point of the host , with his head above , and his feet below ; though in a point , there be nothing above or below . To this I add ( quoth he ) that if it could be seen in the host , it would appear as big as the host ; because it would occupy the whole space of the host ; and it would appear round , because it would be bounded by the space that the host occupies , which is round . Besides , if the host should be divided into two equal parts , it would appear less by one half , and in the form of a half circle ; because it would be whole and intire in the half of the host , and occupy the space of it . It would also appear a hundred thousand times lesse , and in a hundered thousand several forms ; for , as they say , it is wh●…le and entire in a hundred thousand parts of the host ; and occupies the spaces of them . In a word , there was never such a monstrous thing seen in the world , as Christs body would be , if it were really in the host , in such a manner as our Adversaries affirm it to be . Answ. To these impertinencies I answer , that according to all Philosophers , a body may be taken two manner of ways , viz. either substantially , as it belongs only to the Predicament of substance , and is placed directly in that line or series ; or Quantitatively , as it belongs to the Predicament of Quantity : a body in the first acception , has no extension at all , and is not properly in a superfice , or any other part of its accidents , as in an univocal place , but it only sustentates both the superfice and all the other parts of its accidents ; for no accident can be naturally without its proper subject ; and therefore Philosophers commonly say , that substances are under their accidents , and yet they say not ( as the Mounsieur doth ) that their accidents are above them , nor that they , and their subjects are in different places ; the accidents above , and the substance under ; because they know substances has no proper places : But if they express themselves not sufficiently , I give our Mounsieur leave to correct them ; however , I had rather follow their common way of expression , then his . If a body be taken in the second acception ; then , I say Christs body in the host is in every part of it , and in its superfice also , with its quantitative extension , in order to his parts , as they are in themselves ; ( which kinde of extension is essential to all quantitative bodies ) but I deny that Christs body is in the host , with its local extension ; for a local extension , or extension of the parts of a quantitative body , in order to a place ; is only a property that flows from the former essential extension : this common and solid Philosophical foundation being laid : I answer all his impertinencies , in these few words : that Christs substantial and quantitative body is in the host really , without any situation or posture ; because situation and posture do depend of extension in order to a place ; not of the essential extension , in order to the parts of a quantitative body , as they are in themselves . Therefore if he asks us , in what posture or situation Christs body is in the Sacrament ? we will ask him , where was the heat of the fire that was set under the furnace , to destroy Sydrach , Misach and Abdenego ? if he answers ( as he should do ) that God hindred and suspended its operation , because heat is only a property of fire , and God can hinder the effects of Properties , although the essences from whence they flow remain undestroyed : so we can answer him , that God can hinder local extension , which is but a property of quantitative essential extension , in order to the parts of a quantitative body , as they are in themselves ; without destroying the quantitative body : and consequently we can say , that Christs body is in all parts of the ho●…t , and in its superfice , extent in its parts , as they are in order to themselves , though not as they are in order to their local extension ; and being situation and posture depends only upon local extension ; because Christ is not in the Sacrament with his local extension ; it followeth evidently , that he is not by situation or po●…ture although his quantitative body be really in it , with its parts as they are extent in themselves : from whence also followeth , that all the rest of the Mounsieurs pretty and witty questions about great host , little host , half host , round host , &c. are but meer childish and foolish quibbles . Lastly , it followeth that Christs body appears not more or less for dividing and subdividing , and hundreddividing the host , because division depends upon a local extension ; that is to say , if a body be in a place extended o●… strecht out , then if you divide it , it will appear less ; but if a body be not at all extended in a place ( as we say Christs body is not extended in the Sacrament ) then break the host into never so many pieces ; Christs body will be intirely in all of them , and yet will not appear in them more or less . In a word , Mr. de Rodon tells a monstrous lie , in saying , that there was never such a monstrous thing seen in the world , as Christs body would be if it were really in the host , in such manner as we ●…ffirm it to be ; for we say only that he is there in his Essence and quantitie , though not after a quantitative , but spiritual manner ; that is to say , not with its local extension ; but as the soul is in the body : because the Apostle saies ( speaking of a glorified body ) seminatum est corpus animale , surget corpus spiritale : 't is sown a natural body , it will rise a spiritual body , 1. Cor. 15. that is to say ▪ with spiritual qualities ; as I shall hereafter prove : and so this arrow is also set by . Rodon . 11. Either the manhood of Iesus Christ , which is pretended to be in the host , can act there , or it cannot ; if it cannot , ●…hen it follows that it cannot see , hear , know , or love , or exercise any other function of the sensitive or rational soul. But if the manhood of Christ in the host , knows nothing nor loves nothing ; then it followeth , that it will not be happy ; because happiness chiefly consists , in the knowledg and love of God. Also the manhood of Christ in the host , will be different from his manhood in heaven ; for it will know in heaven , and at the same time know nothing in the host ; it will love in heaven , and love nothing in the host ; it will see in heaven , and see nothing in the host . But if Christs manhood can act in the host as it doth in heaven ; then it will follow , that it will open its eyes , and move its feet in a point ; because according to our adversaries , it is whole and entire in every point of the host ; and being ; as they tell us , God can easily put the whole world into a point , as he doth the whole manhood of Christ into a point of the host ; it will follow , that all the parts of the world , existing in a point , may do in it , all those actions which they now do in a vast space , as the parts of Christs manhood existing in a point of the host can do in it all those actions which they do in heaven ; and so in a less space then is occupied by a grain of corn , the sun may move from east to west ; and the sea may have its flouds and ebbs , and the English may have a seafight with the spaniards . In a word , a sparrow may easily swallow all the world , seeing the world will not occupy so much place as a grain of corn doth , and yet the world which it shall swallow , will be as great , as it is at present ; even as Christs body is as big and as tall in the host , as it was on the Cross , as our adversaries affirm . Answ. Here you see Mr. de Rodon fo●… lows the hare still , with his hare-braind sequels ; though he is like never to catch him . But the thing which I must wonder at , is this that the Mounsieur is not only an enemy to Diana , and seeks to distroy her ; but seek●… also to distroy and pearce Gods omnipotency through her side . The first article of our creed , is , to believe in God the father almighty ; if we believe God is almighty ; then we must believe he can do all things that imply no contradiction in themselves , nor imperfection in him , as all divines and Philosophers do unanimously assert . Therefore until Mr. de Rodon can demonstrate that it is impossible to God , or that it argues an imperfection in him , to put the whole world into a point , we have no reason to doubt , but that he is able to do it . Neither will he be ever able to perswade us , but that Christ , as man ( because his manhood is united to his divinity ) can do more then all other men can do , notwithstanding his likeness to them , in all things , sin only excepted . But although Christ can put the world into a point , and has power being in the host , to act as he doth while he is in heaven ; yet it follows not that he doth , or will act while he is in the host , as he acteth in heaven . All Philosophers ( nay and I am sure the Mounsier himself ) hold that a consequence a potentia ad actum ; from the power , to the act , or execution of that power , is never good ; for example ; this is no good consequence ; viz Peter can go to Ierusalem , therefore he will go thither ; as no more is this : Christ can open his eyes in the Sacrament , therefore he will open them in it ; when I say , Christ can put the world into a point , or Christ can act in a point , I mean not that Christ can act in a point , or that the world can act in a point , reduplicatively , that is to say , precisly while they are in a point ; but my meaning is , that Christ , ( and the world also ) being in a point , can act specificatively ; that 's to say , Christ , and the world also , existing in a point , have power ( also while they are in a point ) to act when they are out of a point . From whence follows , that Christs body is as glorious and happy while it is in the Sacrament , as it is in heaven , it being the same body in both , though not in the same manner : for certain it is , and no Christian can deny it that Christs body , while it was patible , by reason of its hypostatical union to the divinity , was alwaies as happy and glorious in it self , as t is now in heaven , and yet while it was a patible body , it was not a glorified one reduplicatively , for to be patible and impatible at the same time , is impossible : nevertheless , even while it was a patible body , it was a glorious body specificatively ; that 's to say , the self same body that was then but patible , could , and had the power to make it self glorified when Christ pleased ; as he did once , for a short time at his Transfiguration : Even so it is now , ( we say ) with his body in heaven , and in the Sacrament . These terms Reduplicative and specificative are expounded otherwise by the Divines ; who by the word Reduplicative , understand , sensus compositus , a compound sense , that is , a sense that joyneth power and act together at the same time ; In this sense , we say , it is impossible to move , or be able to move in a point . By the word specificative , they understand , sensus divisus , a separated sense , or a sense that separates and divides the power from the act : for example ▪ Peter standing , has a power to sit ; in a compound sense , this proposition is false ; because it signifies , that Peter should both stand and sit together , which is a thing impossible ; but in a separated sense , the proposition is true ; because it signifies , that Peter while he is standing , has power to sit afterwards , though not of standing and sitting together , or at the same time : Even so we say of Christs body in the Sacrament ; that in a compound sense , it cannot be in a point and act in it ; because it is impossible to act in a point but in a separated or divided sense , we say , his body may be in a point , and yet have power even while it is in the point , to act out of it . By this solution is easily seen , how it is impossible the sun should move from east to west , reduplicatively , or in a compound sense , while it is in a point ; or that a sea-fight should be fought in a point , reduplicatively ; or that a sparrow could easily swallow all the world , reduplicatively , though if the sun , the sea , or the world were by Gods power put into a point ; the same specificative sun , sea , or world , have power ( even while they are in a point ) to be extended as great , or greater then they are now ; not jointly while they are in a point ; but separately ; being extended afterwards : for the power of being extended remains still in them , also while they are in a point ; though the act of extending them is not jointly together with that power : and so the hare escaped this arrow . Now to his ninth . Rodon . 12. As a body cannot be in a place , except it be produced there , or that it comes , or be brought thither from some other place ; so a body cannot cease to be in a place , without being destroyed , or going to some other place : and consequently , if Christs body ceaseth to be in the host after the consumption of the accidents , it must necessarily either perish , or go to some other place : but Christs body cannot perish ; for Iesus Christ dieth no more . Rom. 6. and Christs body goes to no other place ; for if it should go to any other place , it would go to heaven ; but it cannot go to heaven , because it is there already , and a man cannot go to a place where he is already : Therefore Christs body doth not cease to be in the host : whence it follows , that either Christs body remains still in the host and that it is impossible that it should be consumed , or else that it was never in the host ; but every man knows by experience , that the hosts are eaten and consumed , and that Christs body cannot be there after the consumpsion of the accidents of the bread . Therefore it never was in the host . Answ. To this argument I answer thus : that as a body is produced , or brought into a place , so it can leave , or cease to be in that place : Therefore since ( as I said in answer to Mr de Rodons first argument of his third Chapter ) Christs body is not newly produced in the Sacrament , in order to its entitative being ; ( which was produced already ) but only produced , or rather adduced , in order to a Sacramental modal being : which is as much as to say , that the self same eutity of Christs body which is already produced , and now in heaven in its natural shape , by vertue of the words of consecration , hath a sacramental existence , and equivocal place in the host : since also there is no proper coming , going , or bringing of a body , but to , or from a proper and univocal place . And lastly since a thing cannot perish , unless its entitie be destroyed , although it may cease from being in a place , or leave its place , after the same manner as it came into it , without going away after another manner . Therefore , I say , Christ not coming into the Sacrament , as into his univocal place , by way of a proper local going ; and being not reproduded in it , in order to a new entity or essence , having his entity in heaven before ; but only in order to a new sacramental existence , and for that he is uncapable of perishing because his body is now glorious ; It follows ▪ that as he came into the Sacramental species without any proper or local motion , or reproduction ; that he can also leave , or cease to be in them , after the consumption of the accidents , without any local recession , or perishing either : whence it follows also , that after the species are taken and consumed ; Christs body remains there no more : and finally it follows , that although ( as experience shews ) the host be consumable , nevertheless the Mounsieur concludes falsly , by inferring inconsequently , that Christs body was never there : whereas for my reasons to the contrary , no such lawful consequence can follow : and so his ninth arrow , is also blown , have at us now with his tenth ; but before he lets it fly ; he wisely layes this platform of doctrine ; that he may shoot with the better aym . Rodon . 13. The properties of a species are incommunicable to every other species . For example , the Properties of a man are incommunicable te a beast ; for seeing the properties flow from the essence , or are the very essence it self , it is evident that if the essence of a species be incommunicable to another species , then the properties of a species are also incommunicable to another . But the body and the spirit are the two species of substance , therefore the properties of the spirit cannot be communicated to the body , as the properties of the body cannot be communicated to the spirit : But there are two principal properties which distinguish bodies from spirits . The first is , that spirits are substances that are penetrable amongst themselves ; that is , may be together in one and the same place ; but bodies are impenetrable substances amongst themselves ; that is , they cannot be together in one and the same place . The second is , that bodies are in a place , circumscriptively ; that is , all the body is in all the place , but all the body is not in every part of the place ; but the parts of the body are in the parts of the place ; But spirits are in a place definitively , that is , all the spirit is in all th●… place , and all the spirit is in every part of the place ; because a spirit having no parts , must necessarily be all , wheresoever it is ; whence I form my argument thus . That doctrine which gives to a body the properties of a spirit , changes the body into a spirit , and consequently destroys the nature of a body ; seeing properties cannot be communicated without the essence : but the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host , gives to a body the properties of a spirit ; because it affirms that the quantitie of Christs body penetrats the quantity of the bread , and is in the same place with it ; that all the parts of Christs body are penetrated amongst themselves , and are all in one and the same place , and that Christs body is all in all the host , and all in every part of the host . Therefore the doctrine of the Romish Church , touching the pretended presence of Christs body in the host , destroys the nature of Christs body . Answ. Mr. de Rodon endeavouring to save Christs body harmless , hits his Apostle directly with this arrow , and gives him the lie in his teeth : for the Apostle in his 1. Cor. 15. hath these express words . It is sown a natural body , it will rise a spiritual body . Now I ask the Mounsieur whether according to the Apostles words , the body shall rise a spirit , or a body spiritualized ? if he says it will rise a spirit , then it will not rise a real body ; for he himself here in his platform doctrine doth confess that a body and a spirit are two different species of substance . If he says , it will rise spiritualized ; that is , with the properties , and qualities of a spirit ; that is , the contradictory of his own argument ; for he says , that the properties of a spirit are incommunicable to a body ; and the properties of a body are likewise incommunicable to a spirit . But to save Christs body , our Diana , and the Apostle harmless from this keen arrow ; I answer , that as it is the property of a natural or patible body , to be corruptible , lumpish and obscure ; to be impenetrable with another body ; to be circumscribed , and commensurated by another body , and to have all its parts corresponding with the parts of its proper place ; so it is the property of a glorified body , to be subtil , impassible , quick , and luminous or clear : for as the state of the soul is ●…ltered though not her essence so will the state of her body be altered , its essence remaining the same . The Mounsieur himself says , that the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness , and splendor of an extraordinary light , like to that which it had upon Mount Thabor ; which is nothing else , but the dowry or gift of clarity ; and yet it is certain ; that charity or brightness , is not the property of a natural or patible body ; which is rather properly obscure and dark : wherefore then may not penetrabilitie be communicable to a glorified body , by reason of the dowry of subtillity : as brightness is communicable to it , by reason of the dowry of clarity ? from whence follows , that the state of the soul being altered ; the properties of her body ( especially its secondary properties , as are impenetrability and circumscription ) are altered also , and so likewise this arrow follows the rest , without hurting Christs body , Diana , or the Apostle . His eleventh arrow takes its force from heaven , viz. from Christs glory ; and unless it be waved , will descend like a thunderbolt upon Diana's head , and crush her in peeces : if the Mounsieur can but hit right now , she is utterly destroyed , and Popery too : out comes this celestial dart thus . Rodon . 14. Iesus Christ being sat at Gods right hand , is in a glorious estate : and yet the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host , subjects him to divers ignominies , viz. that his body goes into peoples bellies , and among their excrements ; that it is subject to be eaten by his enemies , yea by Mice , and other beasts . Hear what Claude de Xaintes a famous Romish doctor , saith of it , Repet . 5. Chap. 2. Of all these , we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lords flesh in the Sacrament ; let him be Turk , Athiest , Infidel , or Hypacrite , yea though he should be the Devil himself incarnate . It is also subject to be stoln ; for about 25. years since , a thief was executed at Paris , for stealing out of a Church a chalice , and this God in it ; and the Priest went to the prison in his sacerdotal ornaments , and falling on his kne●…s before the Thives pocket , pulled his God out of it ; And as it is a God that cannot keep himself from being stolen , so neither can he keep himself from being burnt , as it appeared when the Pallace-hall at Paris was burnt . In short , the host , or ▪ God of the Mass , hath been seen in the hands of one possessed by the Devil , and consequently in the devils power ; yea there are charms made by the Romish Priests , to compel the devil to restore God to them ; a horrible and prodigious thing to put God into the devils power , and into a capacity of being eaten by the devil incarnate ; especially being he is now glorious in heaven . Answ. While de Rodon pretends to vindicate Christs glory in heaven , he blasphe●…nously derides him just as the high Priests and scribes did when he was crucified ; alios salvos fecit , seipsum non potest salvum facere ; he saved others ( said they ) but he cannot save himself : and as it is a God ( quoth the Jewish-like Mounsieur deriding the B. Sacrament ) that cannot keep himself from being stolen , so neither can he keep himself from being burnt . These Jewes believed not , that Christ was the son of God , because he descended not from the cross , when they uttered therein geering tants against him ; and yet all Christians believe , that if Christ would , it was in his power then also to save himself from that ignominious death . De Rodon believes not Christ is really in the consecrated host , because the host is liable to be stoln , or burnt ; and yet all orthodox believers are certain that if Christ would , it is in his power to hinder both . So that as you see , the Jewes derided Christ upon the Cross , even so is he derided by this godly Mounsieur in the Sacrament ; for as the Jews argued that he was not the son of God , because he could not descend from the cross , so he argues that he is not in the Sacrament , because he cannot save it from being stolen and burnt ; and consequently thus far he jumps with the Jews against Christ. Now then to his Thunderbolt or celestial arrow . The doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host , subjects him ( says the Mounsieur ) to divers ignominies , That I deny : it goes into our bellies , and among our excrements , ( quoth he ) ; suppose it doth , what ignominy is that to a glorified body ? as much as it is to the sun to cast it●… beams upon a dunghil . Certain it is that Christ ordained this Sacrament , for to be eaten by us , that by receiving it into our bodies , we may become his mystical members : as the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. insinuats by these words . For being many , we are one bread , one body , all that participate of one bread : what can incorporate us mystically unto Christ , more then his body taken in the form of bread ? was not this the food Christ meant , when speaking to one of his favorits , he said ; cibus sum grandium , cresce , manducabis me , nec ego mutabor in●…e , sed tu mutaber is in me : I am the food of the great ones , encrease , and thou shalt eat me ; I shall not be changed into thee , but thou shalt be changed into me , and S. Ciril of Ierusalem Catechesi Mistagog 4. says : non si●… haec attendas velim , tanquam sint nudus & simplex panis , nudum & simplex vinum ; corpus enim sunt & sanguis Christi : I would not have you take these things so ; as if they were but bare and simple bread , and bare and simple wine ; for they are the body and bloud of Christ. Thus this holy father understood what the B. Sacrament is ; thus all the rest of the holy fathers understood it ; thus all General Councils that ever treated of this matter , defined it . Christ did institute it , as a mean to incorporate us into himself mysticaly ; and says it shall not be changed into us , but we into it ; what ignominy or hurt then , can our bellies or excremenrs do it more then the sun or its beams receive from a dunghil ; the Mounsieurs thunderbolt , ( I think ) will prove but a Buggbeare at last , to terrifie children . or ignorant childish witts ; for Christs divinity , and glorified body also , are incapable of ignominy , or being hurt by any thing . It is ( says the Mounsieur subject to be eaten by his enemies ; yea by mice , and other beasts . What of that ? so was his body also while t' was patible , subject to be abused , and ignominiously treated by his enemies ; and although Christ could hinder them yet he did not ; however though he foresaw the ignominies that should happen to his sacred humanity , he was nevertheless pleased to become Incarnate : can the Mounsieur find fault with him therefore ? even so , although Christ was pleased to bequeath his body , now glorified ( and consequently incapable of ignominy ) to his Church ; in the Sacrament , for to be her spiritual food , and to incorporate her unto himself ; because forsooth , the Sacramental species are liable to some accidental mischances , which reflect not at all upon his glorified body , to do it any annoyance or hurt , it being incapable thereof ; therefore Mr. de Rodon thinks it a horrible & prodigious fault , that his body should be really in the host . But his communion bread and wine are as liable to these ignominies , at least to some of them , as our Sacrament is . Therefore he must either think it is of no value or worth ; or if he thinks there is any thing of divine in it , he must needs grant , that it is a horrible and prodigious thing to expose it to those ignominies it is liable to ; and so consequently lest we should fall into prodigious crimes and sacriledges , we must have no Sacrament of the Eucharist at all . O brave Mounsieur . As to Claude de Xaintes , if his words be rightly understood , they import not any the least ignominy to Christs glorified body ; for Xaintes his meaning was this ; that if any man should with pretence of devotion , and of being a Christian , come to receive the B. Sacrament , although he were in himself a Turk , an Infidel , an Atheist an Hypocrite , or devil incarnate , the Church will not bar him from taking the Sacrament ; and the reason is , because the Church doth judge of exteriour things only , and not of interiour . But if a Christian and Catholick also , were convinced of a publick and notorious crime , or were known to be under an Ecclesiastical consure ; until he were reconsiled to the Church , absolved from his sins , and did satisfactory pennance for them ; he may be sure , he shall not be admitted to this Sacrament : what ignominy is this , I pray , to Gods glorified body ? That the Sacrament was stoln away at Paris , and the theif executed for it ; was wickedly done by the theif , and he was justly punished for it ; and the Priest that took the Sacrament out of his pocket , did very well to go in his sacerdotal ornaments , kneel , and take it out reverently ; and in all this the Priest did but his duty . But where is the ignominy done to Chr●…sts glorified body all this while ? or did it suffer any prejudice by the Theif , or by the Priest ? and when the sacramental species were disasterously burnt with the kings Palace at Paris ; did that fire work upon Christs glorified body ? or can a glorified body be subject to fire , water , sword , gun , or any kind of sublunary body or element ? In this my thinks the Mounsieur shews what an excellent Divine and Philosopher he is . That the host , the God of the Mass , hath been seen in the hands of one possest , I do not believe the Mounsieur , because no body may handle , our Sacrament lawfully , but a Priest or a deacon , unless it were through extream necessity for saving it from fire or from the hands of infidels . But that the Priest might lay the Sacrament upon a possest bodies head , or hold it before him , I questi●…ion not ; and yet if the Sacrament were put into the hands of a person possest , I deny it would be in the Devils power therefore , more then it was when Christ himself gave it to Iudas the traytour : but will de Rodon say , that Christ did a horrible and prodigious act for giving himself to Iudas ? That the Romish Priests do use exorcisms composed by the Church , ( which are no charms as the Mounsieur slanderously term them ) to compel the devil to obedience , and sometimes make use of the B. Sacrament too , as of her most es●…icatious means in order to that effect ; is no ignominy at all to Christs glorified bodie ; but it rather shews manifestly that the Romish Priests are the true successors of the Apostles , unto whom Christ gave power to tread upon the infernal serpents and scorpio●…s , and upon all the power of the enemy . Luke 10. 19. a thing which de Rodon , nor any of his , ever as yet did dare practise , or when ever they did , or do ; they never come off with better luck , then the seven sons of Sceva the Jewish high Priest did . Act. 19. 14. In short , whereas our Saviour himself gave the Sacrament to Iudas , who was not much better then a devil incarnate ; and since he gave it him while his body was as yet patible ; and consequently more subject to be hurt and annoyed then it is now being glorified and impatible ; sure it is , that although those who receive his body unworthily , will ( as Iudas did ) reap unto themselves ignominy , harm and misery ; yet Christs glorified body , by reason of its spiritual dowries , is , and will always remain glorious and hurtless in it self ; and so will our diana also , for ought this arrow can do against her : his twelfth arrow is miraculous ; that 's to say , drawn from miracles thus . Rodon . 15. God doth no Miracles without necessity ; But what necessity is there that he should do so many miracles in this Sacrament , viz. that accidents should be without a subject ? that the bread should be converted into Christs body , which is already ; that Christs body should be in a point , and in a hundred thousand places at once ; what necessity is there that it should be eaten by wicked men , by beasts , or by devils incarnate ? what necessity is there that it should be carried away by the devil , that it should be stoln , or burnt , &c. Can it be said , that it is for the salvation of the soul of him that eateth it ? But Reprobates , as our Adversaries confess , eat it too ; and the faithful under the old Testament did not eat it ; nor do the little children of the believers under the new , and yet they are saved for all that . Can it be said with Bellarmin and Peron , that the host being eaten , serves as an incorruptible seed for a glorious Resurrection ? but the faithful of the old Law , and the little children of the believers of the new , will rise ag●…in gloriously , though they never participated of the Eucharist . And S. Paul tels us Rom. 8. that this seed of the Resurrection of our bodies , is not Christs flesh , but his spirit , in these words ; If the spirit of him that raised up Iesus from the dead dwell in you , he shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you . Answ. That God doth no miracles without necessity , or some great cause , I confess ; and to each Quaere of this interrogative argument , I shall answer ; first , presupposing this , Gods own saying ; and my delight 's to be with the children of men : Prov. 8. for this reason , Christ ascending into heaven , in his corporal shape , and sitting at the right hand of his heavenly father , to feed all the celestial spirits , with the sight of his glory ( for their chief felitity consists in contemplating and beholding of it ) where he is to remain until the time of the restitution of all things ) yet he was also gratiously pleased , to remain with us in his Church militant , after an ineffable sacramental manner , to feed our souls upon earth , with his graces that flow from this Sacrament ; as also for to forti●…e and strengthen us against our common Enemies , viz. the devil , the world , and our own proper flesh , with his divine presence , lest otherwise they should prove too hard for his poor fighting Church . Lastly , he was pleased so to do ; that we should know , and be encouraged thereby , that we have a Mediatour , to interpose himself betwixt his father and us ; which father , when he sees the rememorative unbloudy sacrifice we offer him in remembrance of the bloudy Passion of his mo●…t dearly beloved son , in satisfaction for our hainous sins , committed against his divine Majesty ; for the worthiness and purity of the oblation or sacrifice , ( if we offer it him with due devotion , and while we are in the ●…tate of Grace ) he is presently reconciled unto us , for his sons sake , and ready to bestow upon us more of his new favours and Graces ▪ Christ then , who is the wisdom of his heavenly father , seeing that his own personal presence was necessary both in heaven and upon earth : in heaven to glorify his Church triumphant , on earth to ass●…t his Church militant ; he ascended into heaven , and ●…ays there in his natural glorious shape , and yet at the same time , he gives us his body under the form or species of bread and wine for our spiritual nourishment . Now supposing this saying of Christ , Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world , Math. 28. and this other saying of his : This is my body . Math. 26. and Luke . 22. and comparing these two passages with that of the Prov. 8. viz. and my delight 's to be with the Children of men ; ( he said not , his representation , figure , or signe , but his real self , ) it follows evidently , that he is to be also really upon earth , until the cons●…mation of the world . And since he cannot be in his natural glorious shape in both places at once ; it follows that he is in his natural shape in heaven , and sacramentally with us here upon earth . And whereas he saw our nature abhors to eat and drink raw flesh and bloud , he found it necessary , to attemperate and accommodate his body and bloud , ( which he instituted for our spiritual food ) to our nature ; and therefore exhibiteth himself unto us in the likeness or shape of bread and wine , which be our natural and ordinary food . But to do this , he saw t was necessary , the substances of bread and wine should vanish , and that the substance of his body should come in and supply their place ; he saw also 't was necessary that the accidents should remain undestroyed , to be symbols or signs of our spiritual nourishment . And because Christs body is not in the Sacrament impanated , that is in bread , as Luther falsely asserts : ( for Christ said not , This bread is my body ; or This is my body and bread , or , This is my body in bread ▪ ) it was necessary the Accidents of bread and wine should be in the Sacrament without their connatural subjects ; therefore by vertue of his omnipotent word , he gives the Sacramental species a substance-like existence , in , and by themselves , without any subject , and he props them miraculously with his own infinite power ; though still with this difference , that the sacramental species retain their aptitudinal inherence , which substances do not : Moreover , it was necessary , seeing he is in his humane shape in heaven , that he should be sacramentally on earth ; for to verify his above mentioned saying , viz. that he would be with us unto the consummation of the world ; he then being sacramentally with us , it follows , that he may be in an equivocal place , and consequently in a point , as the soul is in the body . And whereas this Sacrament was instituted to be our spiritual food , and we are commanded to eat it we being in a thousand million of places together , it was necessary that the Sacrament may be in so many places together also for us to be fed therewith . It is also necessary it should be obvious to the good and wicked ; for to make the good better , and to make the wicked people good and devout ; the which if it doth not alwaies , it is no fault of Christ or of the Sacrament , but our own fault . As no more is an Apothecarys shop the worse for having all sorts of excellent medicines and druggs in it , although some of them may chance to kill here and there some people that take them undis●…reetly . In like manner although some Iudas-like people receive the B. Sacrament unworthily , and to their own spiritual ruine and damnation ; yet it is necessary , that it should be ministred to all sort of people , to the wicked as well as to the faithfull , being it was instituted for us all ; as also because the Priest ( who is the right minister of this Sacrament ) cannot discern the worthy from the unworthy ; for if Christ himself who knew Iudas his heart , gave him his body to eat , though he was sure he would receive it unworthily , why may not Christs minister , not knowing the unworthi ▪ ness of the receiver , give it him in hopes it would make him better ? Christ gave his own body to Iudas though he knew it would work his damnation ; because though he knew Iudas to be wicked and unworthy , yet his sins were not publick and known to the world , but only secret sins , viz. of avarice , or theft ; even so doth our holy Mother the Church , to whom the administration of this Sacrament is left ; she bars no body , for his private sins , from receiving it ; knowing that as Christ was tender of Iudas , his fame and reputation , though he was a vile sinner concealedly : and therefore denied not him his body because he was to communicate publickly with the rest of the Apostles ; so she ought also to deal in this matter with her children . But unto publick sinners , or Excommunicated persons , she flatly , and openly denies this Sacrament , before they become wholly reconciled and penitent , ( at lest exteriorly ) to the sight of the world . And although it be not necessary that a devil incarnate ; or a beast should eat it ; or that it should be stoln , burnt , or taken away by the devil ; yet because it is very necessary in it self , for our spiritual nourishment , and because we are not Gods , ( but only his unworthy ministers ) to discern a devil incarnate from a meer man : also because we know not what future accidents may chance by reason of fire , water , thieves or bruit beasts ; and especially because we believe and are sure no annoyance or harm can come to a glorified body from any of all those forementioned things ; we hold it necessary , and not at all inconvenient , to keep the B. Sacrament in decent Tabernacles deputed and consecrated meerly for that use , and nothing else ; for to have it always ready at hand , in time of need , for the spiritual refreshment and nourishment of the faithfull , especially of those who are very sick , and like to take their leave of this world . And as our Tabernacles are only for this purpose , so are our Churches for no other use but prayer , and offering this Sacrifice ; whatever use the Mounsieur and this confederate reformers , put their Churches to , as also those of ours , which they wrongfully wrested out of our hands , notwithstanding our quiet and peaceable enjoyment of them for many hundred years successively , even since their erection by our Ancestours who built them , and planted Christian Religion here in England . Nay all this the very Protestant chroniclers themselves assert , and cannot deny . That the devil ever ventured immediately upon the Sacrament , either to touch it , or take it away ; I never read nor heard as yet , and therefore believe not Mr. de Rodon as to that point ; But that Jews , witches , thieves , or such like rabble , may have carried it away , and abused it ; and also of stupendious Miracles , and exemplary punishments that often happned unto the malefactours , in sundry ages , and countries , I have read in several grave and credible Authors . Therefore all the forementioned necessities being wel consider'd , it may be very well said with Bellarmine and Peron , that the host being eaten , serves as an incorruptible seed for a glorious resurrection : and though we grant , that the faithfull of the old Testament , and the little children of the believers under the new , which were Baptized will rise again in glory , having never received it ; because it was not 〈◊〉 in the time of the old law for the faithfull of that time ; and the little ones of the New , departed this life before they were capable of di●…eerning what it was , and consequently un●…t to receive it : yet we believe that as the Sacraments of the old Law were but types and figures of the Sacraments of the New ; so they caused Grace , and gave spiritual nourishment only in reference to our Sacraments ; The old Sacraments ( as all divines do hold ) were but vasa vacua , emply vessells , and produced grace , only , ex opere operantis , by vertue of those that received them ; But Christs Sacraments of the new Law , are vasa plena vessells full and replenisht with graces , and do produce grace ( when they have no obstacle ) ex opere operato , by their own operation : for if Christs Sacraments were of no more efficacy then those of the old law were ; for example , if circumcision were of as great vertue as Baptism is , and the Paschal lamb as good as the Eucharist , what needed he institute his Sacraments and make new laws , whereas the old ones were quite as good as his are ? Therefore to save Christs credit from making superfluous Sacraments and laws , we must of necessity maintain and say , that his Sacraments are far more excellent and efficacious , then the Sacraments of the old Law were ; and consequently , we must grant , that the old Sacraments had alwais a relation or reference to those of the new : and in real truth it is so ; because all the Sacraments of the new Testament derive their sorce immediatly from Christs Passion , and as one may say , were dipt in his pretious bloud ; whereas those of the old Law , were but meer symbols or types of his Passion , and lookt remotely , and as it were afar off upon it , however because they had a reference to Christ and to his Passion , they served as remedies to those of their time , while they were in vigour ; because those of the new Law were not as yet instituted ; But after the new ones were instituted and promulged ; then the old Sacraments were quite cashired ; and the case is now quite altered with us , for no body can now be saved without them , or at lest such of them as they are capable of receiving : from whence followeth , that because the Sacrament of the Eucharist was not instituted in the time of the faithfull of the old Testament , those of them that died in the state of Grace , will rise again in glory , without having ever participated actually of our Eucharist , by vertue of the Paschal lamb which they eat in reference to our Sacrament ; and the little children of the believers of the Law of grace , if they be Baptized ( because they are capable of Baptism ) will rise so also ; though they never received actually the B. Sacrament , because they were never capable of receiving it . But as for all the rest of our believers that are come to the use of understanding ; they shall never rise again in glory , unless they receive the Eucharist actually , or at least in desire , if they cannot have it otherwise ; for our Saviour himself says , that unless we eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his bloud , we shall n●…t have life in us . Finally , as to S. Pauls words alledged against us by Mr. de Rodan ; Rom. 8. I deny that the Apostle says absolutely that Christs flesh is not the seed of the Resurrection of our bodies ; for he only says thus : If the spirit of him that raised up Iesus from the dead , dwell in you , he shall also quicken your mortal bodies , by his spirit that dwelleth in you : Which words may be very well expounded and understood thus : viz. that although it be the spirit of God that shall principally and immediately quicken our mortal bodies , yet that Christs flesh may be the seed , which mediatly and remotely , brings or conveys his spirit into us : and certainly we have more reason , and better grounds to believe , that his sacred flesh , united to his soul , and divinity , can better convey his spirit into us , then the bare entities of bread and wine can do , and so is this miraculous arrow unluckily split . His last arrow is drawn out of clear Scripture ; but if rightly understood , it is so far from hurting our Diana , that it makes more for , then against her , here it is . Rodon . Lastly , the holy scripture is clear in this matter ; for Jesus Christ is ascended into heaven . Acts. 1. and the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things . Acts. 3. And he himself saith : I leave the world , and go to the father . S. John. 16. The poor ye have alwaies with you , but me you have not alwaies . S. Math. 26. To which may be added , what Iesus saith , S. Math. 24. viz. in the last daies , false Prophets will come that shall say , Christ is here or there , and that he is in the secret chambers ; ( or cabinets ) which cannot be but by the doctrine of the Romish Church , which puts Christs body in divers places , and shuts it up in several cabinets on their Altars . And it is very remarkable , that in the Greek it is , in the cupbords , tameion being properly a cupboard to keep meat in . Answ. The Mounsieurs four first scripturistical arrows , I break in shivers with one blow : for I say , that those four Passages must be understood , of his going to heaven to remain there in his proper humane shape ; which hinders not his being with us upon earth in the sacramental species . And whereas the Mounsieur alledges , that Christ himself said , I leave the world and go the father . Iohn 16. and the poor you have alwaies with you , but me you have not alwaies S. Math. 26. So I alledge also against the Mounsieur that Christ himself said : This is my body ; S. Math. 26. and S. Luke 22. and , bebold I am with you even to the consumation of the world . S. Math. 28. Therefore to versie all these passage●… , which seem to contradict and oppose one another ; to bring them to a concordance and true sense , it is necessary , that Christ should be really after one manner of way in heaven , and really after another manner of way upon earth , until the consummation of the world ; which is the same thing our Romish Doctors do teach , viz. that he is in his humane shape in heaven ; and yet really with us in the Sacrament also ; which Mounsieur de Rodon and his party do flatly deny . To our impeachment of being those false Prophets S. Matthew makes mention of in his 24th Chapt. who in the last days will come and say , Christ is here or ▪ there , and that he is 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 sin●…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 u●…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 Natio●…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 thin●… : wh●…e note that S. Athanasius Creed ( whi●…h Protestants also hold ) warneth us , that above all things it is necessary we hold the Catholick or universal faith ; the which faith ( the sa●…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 ●…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 ●…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 bu●… 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 ●…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 Pennanc●… , 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 th●… 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 ful●… of an●… 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 soveraign●…●…emedy : for these reasons , and chiefly for her Sacraments , we believe our Church o●… 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 prophe●…s the Evangelist mentioned in his 24. c●…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 , ●…laggons botles or cellars , and eat and drink of it until ( as I was told ) they are fudled , I know no reason for it , nor no more do I think the Mounsieur does himself ; unless it be because they believe there is nothing of sanctity in it , more then in other ordinary bread and wine , for otherwise , I know not how they can excuse themselves from committing open sacriledge , for prophaning thei●… consecrated hosts . But I pray good Mounsieur , i●… a man may be so bold as to ask you a question , tell us , why may not you and your party be suspected to be those false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of more then we ? for you and your doctrine are much later then ours ; you are divided into many sects and opinions amongst your selves , and every sect of you hates and condemns the other , and thinks that he alone found out Christ ; none of you all can shew such marks ●…or your Churches , as those I shewed for ours ; or if you can , I pray let us see them , and we will willingly shake hands with you , to rid ourselves from persecution and troubles . But if you cannot , wheresore without convincing us by reason , do you force us with vour penalties and heavy laws to abj●…e our faith against our consciences , and the light we find within us ? or do you think by for●…ing us thus ( if we should yield to your terrours and tortures ) we could be saved , while we go against our consciences ( which we cannot help ) to please you , and save our lives and estates ? verily this is a strange and extraordinary way , to make orthodox Christians , a way to prefer this life before the next , and this world before God and his heavenly kingdom and riches ; a way I say , quite contrary to that Christ taught us , while he conversed upon earth : as S. Luke tells us in his 14. chap. If any man come to me , and hateth not his father and mother , and wife and children , and bretheren and sisters , yea and his own life besides , he cannot be my disciple . Now Mr. de Rodon , I having fully answered all your arguments , and your Quiver being wholly exhausted in vain against our Diana , to conclude this chapter , I think we may well answer you , as Diogenes ( if I be not mistaken ) or some other of the ancient Philosophers answered a certain unskillful archer , who shooting at a Butt , and the Philosopher seeing how far he used to shoot off the mark , ran quickly to the mark , and stood before it , while this archer was ayming to shoot at it with his bow ; who spying the Philosopher in his light , called to him , bid him be gone , and askt him if he was not mad for standing at the mark while he was shooting ? But the Philosopher bid him shoot on freely , and that he stood there for his more security of being hit by his arrow . Even so is the case betwixt us , our Diana , and Mr. de Rodon , for we can be never securer from his arrows , then while we stand before our Diana , while he aym●… at her , and so endeth this Chapter . CHAP. V. Against the adoration or worshiping of the host . MR. de Rodon not being able to keep Christs body out of the Sacrament , yet he will not have it adored there , for these three reasons : the first is this . Rodon . 1. We are not obliged to adore or worship God every where , or in all places , where he is , at least , not with external adoration ; but we are only obliged to worship him in all plac●…s where he appears in his glorious Majesty : The first part of this Proposition , viz. that we are not obliged to worship God in all places where he is , appears by the practise of all Christians ; for God being every where , and consequently in stones , trees , beasts , devils , and all other creatures , there is no man so extravagant as to fall on his knees before a tree , an Ass , or a devil , that he may worship God in them , who is really present in them , as he is in heaven . The second part of this proposition , viz. that we are only obliged to worship God both with internal and external adoration in all places where he appears in his glorious Majesty , is proved , first by the commands which Iesus Christ gave his Apostles when they asked him how they should pray , for he answers them thus : when ye pray , say , Our father which art in heaven . S. Luke 11. why doth he say , which art in heaven , and not which art on Earth , or in the Sea , or in the Air , seeing God is equally in all places ? but only because God appears in heaven in his glorious Majesty , and there crowns all the blessed spirits with his glory . Secondly , when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush , which was not consumed , he said to him , Take thy shoos from off thy feet , for the place wherein thou standest is holy ground : Exod. 3. why is this ground called holy , and Moses commanded to approach it with reverence , submission , and adoration , seeing any other ground is equally Gods creatures , and that he is equally present every where ? but only because God did manifest somewhat of his power and glory in that place , by causing the bush to burn without being consumed . Thirdly , Josua and the Isralites did prostrate themselves before the Ark of the Covenant , Josua . 7. 6. because God appeared there in a peculiar and glorious manner , for , from the Mercyseat which covered it , he gave his oracles , and made known his will , Exod. 25. 22. Numb . 7. fourthly , when the Priest celebrates Mass , a little before consecration , he recommends the sursum Corda , that is , the lifting up of their hearts ; why the lifting them up , seing God is equally above and below ? but only because God appears above in heaven in his glorious Majesty ; and consequently it is thither that we must direct our vows , our Prayers , and our worship . Answ. These passages I confess do prov●… that God ought to be adored and worshipped with internal and external adoration when he appears in his glorious Majesty ; But they prove not at all , that he is not to be worshipped in the host also , or that he ought not to be adored but when , or while he appears in glory ; which notwithstanding is the conclusion our Mounsieur undertakes to prove . However , the better to satisfie the Reader ; we acknowledge that God is present in all his creatures , though not in every of them after the self same manner ; for otherwise , he should be with the devils in hell , manifesting his glory there unto them , as he doth to his Angels and saints in heaven , and consequently the devils should be as happy as the Angels and saints are : we also acknowledg that wheresoever God is , his glory is alwaies with him , though not alwaies manifested to his creatures ; and therefore we say God is in all places , but differently ; he is in the whole universe with a general kinde of presence and power , conserving it in its being ; he is in hell , shewing those that are there the Attribute of his Justice only ; he is with the just upon earth , more peculiarly shewing them his favours and graces , then he is with the wicked ; he is in the sacramental species more peculiarly yet , for he is in them personally present , though abscondidly from our corporal eyes ; and finally he is in the Blessed Trinity , manifestly to be seen in heaven , in his Essence , Persons , and Glory . Of all these manner of ways that God is in his creatures , and can manifest himself unto them , Mr. de Rodon holds , that external adoration is never due to him , but where , and when he manifests his glory . But we say , that external adoration is also due to him , where we know and believe him to be personally present . Now I ask Mr. de Rodon , whether the three holy kings that came with presents from the East , to visit Christ , did extravagantly , when falling down at his feet ( as the text says ) they adored him ? for in the place where they found him , they saw not his glory , neither did he manifest it unto them there . But perhaps the Mounsieur may say , that they saw the miraculous star that stood over him , which star shewed his glory , and therefore they adored him . But then I ask the Mounsieur again wherefore did not they rather fall down and adore the star , wherein was the godhead also , and shewing it self in glory ? Therefore it evidently followeth , that the cheif thing adored by the three holy kings , was Christs person , which they found in a poor stable or manger , without shewing any signs or tokens of his glory , which he purposely absconded from them ; and yet their adoration was not extravagant , but very pious , and praise worthy . I believe if the Mounsieur had been in their company , he would have checked and reprehended them , and called them extravagant fellows for doing what they did ; so far would he have been from adoring Christ in such a mean place , although he had known he was there in person , because he would not vouchsafe to shew himself to him in this glory : from this also followeth , that external adoration is due to Christs person , whereever he is known , or believed to be present , whether he manifest himself in glory there or no : for sure external adoration is as much due to Christs person whereever he is known to be , as external honour is due to the person of any earthly Prince or Monarch ; and yet if a man should chance to be so ill bred as not to put off his hat in the presence of an earthly king ; ●…y in his Presence-chamber , whether the king were in it or no , whether he were in his Regal robes of Majesty or no ; doubtless the kings servants would shrewdly assront , and soundly rebuke and beat that malapert ill bred fellow , for so slighting their king and dread soveraigne ; and no body would pitty him , or take his part , but they would rather say , he deserved it very well , and more too for his malepartness in such a place . And why ( forsooth ) should it not be the same with us , knowing Christ to be really and personally present in the Sacrament , if we should refuse to give him his due adoration there , unless Mr. de Rodon thinks , that more honour ought to be done to an earthly King , then unto Christ ? The L●…per adored him , saying , Lord , if thou wilt , thou canst make me clean , S. Matth. 8. and yet he saw not his glory . And Matth. 9. did not a certain Governour approaching to him , and adoring him , say ▪ Lord , my daughter is even now dead , but come lay thy hands upon her , and she shall live . The like recounteth the same Evangelist in his 14th chap. 20th . and 28th . and S. Mark in his 5th . all which adorations were done to Christ , by divers , while he was in his patible state , without she wing them any glimpse of his glory . But according to the Mounsieurs Principles , all these adorers , ought to be counted but for extravagant fellows , because they adored him , without shewing them his glory . But to speak the plain truth , the proper effects of heresy and hereticks are to be undutiful and uncivil both to God and king ; which makes me the less wonder at Mr. de Rodons first Proposition . The second part whereof , because it makes nothing against us , I pass by . Therefore our Catholick tenet against Mr. de Rodon is , that although external adoration towards God , be not obligatory by reason of his ordinary presence ; neither for his extraordinary remote ( as he is in the Just ) presence also ; yet where we believe and know him to be particularly and personally present ( as we believe he is in the Sacrament ) there we say we are obliged to adore and worship him with external adoration ; though he shews us none of his glory in it ; which tenent I think is sufficiently proved and demonstrated out of the precedent plain passages of Scripture even now alledged by me ; where these several Adorers , ( as may be manifestly seen ) adored him not precisely for any ray of glory they saw shine in his face , or about him , for he absconded that from them , but they adored meerly for his personal Presence , which personal presence we believe he hath also in the blessed Sacrament ; and because we are sure the adorations of those holy men the Evangelists makes mention of , were not at all extravagant , but very meritorious and pleasing to God ; therefore we doubt not but our adoring him in the Sacrament ( being both our adorations are alike and of the same kind ) are so also . Let Mr. de Rodon and his party think or say of it what they list . His second reason , or Proposition is this . Rodon . 2. We are not obliged to adore Iesus Christ in the water of Baptism , though he be really there , in regard of all that is adorable in him . The first part of this Proposition , viz. that we are not obliged to worship Iesus Christ in the water of Baptism , is chiefly proved by the practise of all Christians ; for no man ever fell on his knees before the water of Baptism , and adored Iesus Christ in it , at least not with external worship , which is only here intended ; and doubtless the reason is , because Iesus Christ discovers no beam of his glory there , nor doth he appear in the water of Baptism any more then in other waters ; so that as we are not obliged to worship God , save only where he appears in his glorious Majesty , as hath been proved ; so neither are we obliged to worship Iesus Christ , but only where he discovers some beam of his glory , which he doth not in the water of Baptism . The second part of this Proposition , viz. that Iesus Christ is really present in the water of Baptism , in respect of all that is to be adored in him , is proved thus : All that is of it self adorable in Iesus Christ is either his Godhead , or his divine person , or his divine Attributes . As for his Godhead , seeing it is really every where , it cannot be denyed , but that it is also in the water of Baptism . As for his Person , seeing it is divine , and eternal , and infinite , it is really every where , and consequently in the water of Baptism . And as for his divine Attributes , seeing they are not really different from the Godhead , or the Person of Iesus Christ , it necessary follows , that seeing the Godhead and person of Iesus Christ are really in the water of Baptism , his divine Attributes must really be there likewise . Answ. The Mounsieur , you see , stands stifly upon his punctillios of honour with Jesus Christ ; he will not give him an inch of respect , not as much as one congey , bare head , or bow , unless he shews him first his Patent signed with a ray of glory for it . Frenchmen are generally counted to be very ceremonial and civil and we use to send our children into France to learn breeding , and good manners ; But this French Mounsieurs principles of Religion forbid us to be dutifull and civil even to God himself while he is personally present , although we know he be so , unless he first does us the honour to shew us some glorious sight ; for doubtless ( he says ) the only reason why we ought to adore Christ , is , for shewing us a beam of his glory : But this only reason which is doubtless to the Mounsieur , is not doubtless to us ; for our doubtless reason , why he ought to be adored in the Sacrament , is , because of his personal presence in it , as those holy men , whom the Evangelists mention , adored him , only for his personal presence , without seeing any beam or ray of his glory . Nay the devil , who ( as holy writ says ) can change or transfigure himself into an Angel of brightness , may shew himself unto us in a resplendant beam , and so if the only reason why we ought to adore Christ were because of his beam or ray of glory ; the devil also appearing unto us in a bright ray ; we may chance to adore the devil insteed of adoring Christ : from whence followeth evidently that this reason of the Mounsieur is very fickle and weak . Therefore I answer his argument thus : by granting the Antecedent , viz. that we are not obliged to adore Jesus Christ with external adoration in the water of Baptism , though he be really there in regard of all that is adorable of him ; and yet we deny the sequel or consequent which the Mounsieur intends to draw out of it ; which is this ; viz. that we are not obliged to adore Jesus Christ with external adoration , in the Sacrament , though he be really there , in regard of all that is adorable of him : our reason and disparity for it is this , because Jesus Christ , though he be really in the water of Baptism ( as he is in all other creatures ) in regard of all that is adorable of him , yet he is not in it personally , though his person be also there , but he is in it only with a general kind of presence , as he is in all other things , to keep them in their being ; for otherwise they would return to their former nothing . But he is in the B. Sacrament , not only really in regard of all that is adorable of him ; but also Personally ; that is to say , his divinity , Person , Attributes , and Manhood are not only really there , but they are also peculiarly and demonstratively there , with their particular presence ; for Christ when he instituted this Sacrament , said , This is my body , and the Pronoun demonstrative ( This ) denotates some particular thing ; for example , when one says , thi●… man is my father ; this is my horse ; But when he instituted the Sacrament of Baptism , or any of his other Sacraments , he made no use of the Pronoun ( This ) and consequently his real being in them , or any other of his creatures ; where there is no mention made of the demonstrative ( This ) although he be in them really , in respect of all that is adorable of him ; yet he is not in them personally with a particular personal presence , as he is in the blessed Sacrament . Moreover , if there were no distinction betwixt Christs being really present in his creatures , when he is in them withall that is adorable of him ; it would follow that he shold be all alike in them all ; and so , that he should be in hell shewing the Attribute of his mercy , as well as the Attribute of his Justice , and in heaven , shewing the Attribute of his Justice , as well as that of his mercy ; for he is in both withall that is adorable of him : and what else would follow from this ( good Mounsieur ) but to confound heaven and hell together ; or to destroy both heaven and hell . Therefore besides this real being of Christ in his creatures , with all that is adorable of him , by reason of his general presence in them ; he must also have a particular presence in some creatures more then in others ; that is , he must shew some of his Attributes to some , and hide them from others ; or else doubtless , all will be in a confusion ; and consequently by reason of the pronoun demonstrative ( This ) Christ must be personally & peculiarly in the B. Sacrament , & not in the water of Baptism , where no ( This ) is mentioned ; although we grant he is really in it in regard of all that is adorable of him with a common and universal ubication or presence : and so the Mounsieurs second Proposition , is fully answered , as to both its parts : his third Proposition is this . Rodon . 3. We are not obliged to adore Iesus Christ in the host though he be really there , in respect of all that is to be adored in him , viz. in respect of his Godhead , his divine person , and his divine Attributes ; yea though he were there invisible in respect of his Manhood too . The principal reason of this hath been toucht upon already , viz. that we are not obliged to worship God in all places where he is ( at least not with external worship ) but there only where he appears in his glorious Majesty , viz. ordinarily in heaven , and extraordinarily elsewhere , as hath been proved in the first Proposition . And as we are not obliged to worship Iesus Christ in the water of Baptism with external adoration , though he be really there in respect of all that is adorable in him , because he doth not discover the least beam of his glory there , nor appears in the water of Baptism , more then in other waters , as hath been proved in the second Proposition ; Even so , we are not obliged to worship Iesus Christ in the host with external adoration , although he be there in respect of all that is to be adored in him ; yea though he were there in respect of his Manhood too ; because Iesus Christ doth not discover any beam of his glory there , nor doth he appear in the consecrated hosts any more , then in those that are not consecrated , for no man can distinguish the one from the other : And for his Manhood which is pretended to be there invisibly , I say that that there is no sensible mark of its presence , and consequently nothing which obligeth us to external worship , for the same reason as is already alledged : for if the invisible presence of the Godhead , divine Persons , and divine Attributes of Iesus Christ , which are of themselves adorable , do not oblige us to exteriour worship in the water of Baptism ; why should the Manhood of Iesus Christ , which is not of it self adorable , oblige us to external adoration , though it were in the host , it being there only as they say , invisibly ? In a word , they must shew the disparitie , and tell us the reason why we are not obliged to adore Iesus Christ with external worship in the water of Baptism though he be really there present in respect of all that which is adorable in him , viz. in respect of his Godhead , his divine Person , and his divine Attributes , and yet we are obliged to worship Iesus Christ in the host with an external worship , though nothing renders him more adorable there , then in the water of Baptism . Answ. Mr. de Rodon , you are so far from having proved what you said in your first Proposition , that I have produced in answer to your weak proofs there , not only solid reasons , but also many evident texts of scripture to the contrary , which undermines the whole structure or foundation you build upon . And in my answer to your second Proposition , I likewise by shewing the disparity of Christs being in the Sacrament , and in the water of Baptism ; viz. that he is in the water of Baptism only with a common general presence , as he is in all creatures ; but he is in the Sacrament with a particular and proper personal presence ; I have , I say , broken your second ground ; so that this third argument or Proposition of yours is built only upon Quicksands ; therefore I le●… any rational man iudge how firmly it can stand . But you say that his Manhood which is pretended to be there invisibly , is not there sensibly present . What then ? doth your consequence therefore follow ? I deny that ; for it is sufficient we believe it is there ; the eye of our understanding supported by divine saith , being a surer ground and foundation to rely on , then the fickle & weak testimony of our carnal eye though holpen also by one of Mr. de Rodons rayes or beams , which may prove diabolical Illusions , especially concerning an object of so high a nature as this is of . Therefore though the learned Jesuit S. Rigants answers to your arguments and replies be in themselves , true , sound , and orthodox , yet we want them not here ; for you lost your self quite in choosing your ground , which is no better ( as I tould you ) then quicksand , as any body of understanding may easily see , and for that cause , leaving your frivolous and impertinent replyes against the Jesuits answers , I come to your additionate Proposition , which in your own opinion is very considerable , but in mine not worth a rush ; as I hope here to demonstrate . But first we must hear it out . Rodon . 4. To the three fore-going Propositions , I add this Argument , which is very considerable . In lawful adoration it is requisite that ●…e that adores , be well assured that what he adores is the true God , else he may be justly reproched , as Iesus Christ reproched the woman of Samaria . Ye worship , ye know not what . But the Romanists can never be assured ( according to their own maximes ) that the host which they worship is the true God , and they have alwayes cause to suspect , that they worship a morsel of bread instead of the Redeemer of the world ; because according to their own doctrine , the real presence of Christs body in the host , depends on lawful consecration , and lawful consecration depends on the quality of the Priest , and on the pronouncing of the words of consecration , and on his intention in pronouncing them , for there is no consecration ( they say ) when either he that celebrates Mass is no Priest , or doth not pronounce the words that are essentially requisite to consecration , viz. this is my body ; or doth not pronounce them with intention to conscerate . And consequently in these cases the host remains meer bread . But it is impossible certainly to know these three things ; for as for the quality of the Priest , he must have been Baptized , and he that baptised him , must have observed the essential form of Baptism , and have had intention to baptise him . Again , he must have received ordination from a true Bishop , and the Bishop must have observed the true form of Ordination and have had intention to make him a Priest ; and to make this Bishop a true Bishop , he must have been baptised in due form , and with the requisit intention , and must have received Ordination in due form , and with the requisite intention from other Bishops ; and they again , for the making them true Bishops , must have received also Baptism and ordination in due form , and with the requisite intention , from other true Bishops , and these from others ; and so back to the Apostles . But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now adays , there hath been no fayling , either in the essential form of Baptism or Ordination , or in the requisite intention ? As for the pronouncing the words requisit to consecration , none but the Priest can know whether he pronounceth them or not , because in the celebration of the Mass , those words are pronounced so softly , that no person present can hear them . And as for the intention , it is evident that no man but himself can know it . Besides , it is known , that some Priests are Magicians , as Lewis Gossredi , and some other wicked Priests who do neither consecrate in due form , nor with the requisite intention ; especially such as believe nothing of what they profess , yea diverse Monks and Priests that have been converted to our Religion , have assured us that for a long time before their conversion , they did abhor the Idolatry that was practised in the adoration of the host ; Iudge then if such persons as those had any intention to consecrate , in the celebration of the Mass. Answ. In Mr. de Rodons opinion , and I believe in his translators too , this is a very considerable argument ; But in my opinion , and I think , in the opinion of any learned or understanding Christian Reader , it will prove to be not only inconsiderable and of no value , but also pernicious to all mankind , for it everts all laws , both divine and humane , and destroys Christian society , which I prove thus . If this argument were of any force or worth , no Christian could know himself to be a Christian , no man could know any other man to be a man ; the father should not know his son ; nor the mother her child , and we should be in as bad a condition after the Evangelical law , as the heathens , Turks , and Jews are . But all this is absurd , and destructive not only to Christian society , but also to human kind , and to the divine law . The major as to its first part viz. that no body could know himself or any body else to be a Christian , is evident and clear ; for no body according to the Mounsieurs assertion , can tell whether he be Baptized or no , and Baptism is the only thing that makes a man a Christian , or else what is it good for ? and all Christians ( I know not what Mr. de Rodon believes ) holds it to be the Sacrament of regeneration ; that is , the Sacrament that makes us from being conceived , and born out of our mothers wombs in sin , ( as the Royal psalmist tells us in his 50th . psalm ) to become members of Christ , and regenerated or born again to him , as our Saviour himself told Nicodemus , Amen I say to thee , unless a man be born again of water and the spirit , he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. John. 3. That no body can tell whether himself or another is baptized , with a phisical , Metaphisical , or Logical certainty ( which be the certainties the Mounsieur aims at here , for of a moral certainty I shall speak hereafter ) is most certain , for who knows , ( unless God reveals it unto him ) whether he that offered to baptize him , had any belief , or intention to baptize ? moreover , who knows but that he that offered to Baptize him ( which is the second part of the major ) was a devil incarnate , and no man ? for the devil can naturally assume the shape of any humane body , and delude our five senses , with his prestigious black art , if God permits it him ; who ( I ask the Mounsieur in such a case ) knows his child , or any man else from a devil incarnate appearing to him in the perfect stature and shape of his child or of such a man ? when our Saviour cured the young man , ( mentioned in the Gospel ) that was blind from his nativity ; although the scribs and Pharises saw , and knew him every day before while he was blind , yet when they saw him have his perfect sight , they doubted whether he was the same man or no ; and thereupon sent for his father and mother to be informed by them of the truth ; As to the third part of the major I ask Mr. de Rodon , how divine or humane Laws can be observed amongst us , unless we certainly know we converse with men ? and yet according to his argument , we can have no phisical certainty ( which is the certainty he requires for Baptism and ordination ) that our conversation is not with devils incarnate instead of men ; and much less have we certainty that we converse with Christians , for we know not whether those we converse with were ever Baptized or no. But how , not only inconsiderable and rediculous , but also impious , abominable and pernicious , these sequels are , ( which flow from the Mounsieurs very considerable argument ) in the cars of all good Christians ; I let the prudent Reader judge . And before I answer his argument in form ; I will lay down this Christian platform of doctrine received by all , to bear my answer up . Therefore I presuppose with all other Christians , that Jesus Christ who is true God and true man , and the wisdom of his heavenly father , being he was graciously pleased to descend from his heavenly Palace , and converse with men for the space of about three and thirty years concerning the salvation of their souls ; and to that intent , left them his life as a pattern to imitate , for he is the way , the veritie , and the life ) and his Sacraments for their spiritual comfort , I suppose I say , that during all that time , he planted his Church Militant here upon Earth , and that he planted her so firmly too , that he lest those of her Congregation a certain & sure method how to serve him in her ; else , where was his infinite wisdom ? I suppose also with all Christians , that Baptism is the gate and entrance to Christianity , for all men , and the Sacrament of Regeneration ; for by it only we are enrolled in Christs book , and called Christians , or made mistical members of Christ. And whereas it is a Sacrameat of so great necessity , that without it no body is a Christian ; doubtless Christ who in all other things concerning our corporal necessities , is so careful provident , and wise , was not ●…ailing concerning the grand and chief thing of all which is our souls safety ; but lest means sure & safe in his Church , in order to the ayd and relief of mans soul to bring her safely to the happy port of eternal felicity ; which was the end wherefore she was created . These means or mediums , were chiefly his Sacraments , which derive their vertue from his Passion , and are ( as one may say ) dipt in his pretious bloud ; But especially the Sacrament of Baptism , which is of greatest necessity , being no body without it can have as much as the name of a Christian ; and consequently it is most certain that Christ hath a particular care and Providence concerning Baptism , that it should be certainly administred unto the faithful . But wherein ▪ that certainty consists , whether it be a Phisical or moral one is the question : a Phisical certitude ( as Philosopers say ) is when a man hath a palpable and evident knowledge either by his reason or senses , of the thing he knoweth : a Moral certitude ( they say ) is , when one is sure of a thing , not because he saw it with his eyes , or toucht , heard , or tasted it : but because all men say it is so : for example , when all the world says there is a famous City in England , called London ▪ those , that were at London and saw it , have a phisical certitude thereof ; but those that never were in it , nor saw it , have but a moral certitude of it , viz. by the relation of all people : where note , that a moral certainty may sometimes have as a much or more firmity in it then a Phisical one hath ; especially when it is grounded upon Gods providence and word . This true doctrine presupposed , I answer Mr. de Rodons argument thus : granting his Major , viz. that in lawful adoration , it is requisite that he that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God : And denying his minor , viz. that the Romanists according to their own Principles can never be assured that the host which they worship is the true God ; & to his second minor , viz. But who can be assured , that from the Apostles , to a Bishop or Priest now a days , there hath been no fayling , either in the essential form of Baptism , or ordination , or in the requisite intention ? I answer , that all Christians may be assured thereof with a moral certitude , ( because of Christs care and providence for his Church ) that for the generality of all Christians , and especially of those whom he picked out of the rest to make them ministers of his Sacraments , there is no such faylings as Mr. de Rodon mentioneth , destructive to the Sacraments , from the Apostles time untill the Bishops and Priests of our days ; for otherwise , Christs care and providence for his Church Militant , would not be sufficient , which is impious and blasphemous even to think of . And this moral certainty , ( especially as it relyes upon Christ care and Providence for his Church , is far firmer and better , then any of our Phisical natural certitudes are . And consequently Mr. de Rodon's very considerable additionate Proposition is not worth a rush . Rodon . 5. The Romish doctors have sought all the remedies imaginable to prevent this danger . Pope Adrian Quest. 3. speaks thus : In the adoration of the Eucharist , there is always a tacit condition , viz. if the consecration be duly made ( as hath been decided at the Council of Constance ) otherwise they could not be excused from Idolatry , that worship the host when the Priest pretends to celebrate , and is no Priest , as it many times happens : observe these words , it many times happens ; for they shew that there is great cause of doubting , and that much caution must be used : for as if a woman , in her husbands absence , should say to a man that comes to her , and tells her he is her husband , ( and she hath probable grounds to suspect him ; ) If thou art my husband I will receive thee , and thereupon endeavours to clear it before she admits him to privacy ; this condition frees her promise from blame ; but if she gives her self up to him , before she clears this doubt , saying I will receive thee , if thou art my husband ; this condition doth not free her action from blame , but she will be reputed an adulteress : Even so , if a man to whom an host is proposed to be adored , and he hath reason to doubt whether it ought to be adored , should only say : If thou art Christ , I will adore thee , and should not adore it before he be well assured of it ; this condition would render him blameless ; But if notwithstanding his doubt , he adores it , this condition , If thou art Christ , I adore thee , doth not exempt him from the crime of Idolatry ; for to what purpose is the condition , whether it be tacit or exprest : I adore thee , if thou art Christ , because he actually adores it , without knowing whether it be so , or not . Answ. Mr. de Rodon , whatever shifts and remedies the Romish Doctors sought out to answer your unconsiderable pernicious and impious proposition , which I manifestly proved not to be worth a rush ; I am sure these last words of Pope Adrian , viz. as it many times happens , of whom you desire a particular notice should be taken , strengthens not your very considerable Proposition at all ; for they may be well applyed to two , or three , or half a dozen desperate miscreants , who in some ages might have oftentims committed such horrid sacriledges ; But not to the generality of all Christians , and Priests ; for otherwise Christs providence for his Church would be insufficient ; as hath been proved already . But I believe the Mounsieur had rather Christ should fail in his providence , then be adored in the Sacrament . The said Popes first words concerning a conditional adoration , do clear the case and difference between a woman receiving another man for her pretended husband , and the conditional adoration of the host ; for the woman before she receive such a man , may , and ought strictly to enquire , and be surely informed that he is her husband indeed ; which morally speaking , she may easily do , by reason of some fore-passed circumstances of speech , place and time when they were married ; by his , or her own relations , or a hundred other ways . But no such inquiry can be made of a Priest or of his intention of celebrating , the only enquiry which can be made about his Priesthood , is , that he shew his sacerdotal Patents , or some authentical letters from his superiours for his being a Priest , which if he hath not to shew , and is in a strange Countrey where he is not known , the custome of our Church is , not to let him celebrate at all ; and this we hold to be sufficicient for a moral certitude of ones Priesthood , and consequently of adoring the host by him consecrated ; relying , as to the rest , upon Christs providence and care for his Church . Neither if we should chance to adore an unconsecrated host for a consecrated one , ( if we know it not ) is the Idolatry but material ; just as the drunkenness , or fornication of a pure naturalist or ninny , are but materiall , and not sinful at all , according to the laws of God and man. If some of our Monks or Priests that Apostatized from us , for the love of a wench , or some such thing ( which is commonly their cause ) and you receive them with open arms , and presently ( to fasten them the more unto you ) bestow benefices upon them and make them Parsons or Pastors of your flocks ; If ( I say , ) such devout , honest , and exemplary persons , that so well kept their solemn vows , made even to God himself ; ( to please , or rather to delude you the more do tell you sacrilegious tales of themselves or scurrilous lies of us , after they are converted by your mony , or to speak more truly , perverted by wenches ; you have very great reason to believe them ; but much more to trust your souls to them and their doctrine : Make much of them , much good may they do you ; for I am sure that amongst us , they are esteemed the archest Rogues and knaves in nature . Rodon . 6. To what hath been said , I add , that the Primitive Church never adored the host , nor believed that the body and bloud of Christ were really , and invisibly in the Sacrament of the Eucharist ; for if the Christians of the Primitive Church had believed it , they had furnished the heathens with specious pretences , to excuse their Idolatry of their Image-worship , and to retort upon the Christians , those very arguments , which they had made use of against them : for , First , the heathens did maintain that their Idols were composed of two things ; viz. of a visible Image , and an invisible Diety dwelling in it . They bring their Gods ( saith S. Chrysostome in Theodoret in Atress . ) into their base Images of wood and stone , and shut them up there as in a prison : your Gods ( saith Arnobius , book 6. ) dwell in playster and baked earth ; and that they may make these materials more venerable , they suffer themselves to be shut up , and to remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison . But might not the heathens have justly replyed ●…o the ancient Christians , if they had believed what the Romish doctors do now adays . And do you not believe the very same of your host , that it is composed of two things , viz. of the visible species of bread , and the invisible body of Christ which is hid under the species ? doth not your Christ dwell in baked dough ; and that he may make a piece of bread more venerable , doth he not suffer himself to be shut up , and doth he not remain hid as in a Prison ? Secondly , the heathens held , that consecration was the means whereby the diety , which they adored , was made present in the Image : So Tertullian in his Apolog. chap. 12. saith , I find nothing to object against Images , but that the matter of them is such as our frying-pans and Kittles are made of , which changeth its destiny by consecration . And Minutius Felix speaks thus of a Pagan Image . Behold it is melted , forged , fashioned , and yet it is not God ; behold it is gilded , finished & created , and yet it is not God ; behold it is adorned , consecrated and worshiped , and then it is God. And Arnobius in Book . 6. Dedication and consecration makes them dwell in Images , they refuse not to dwell in habitations of earth , or rather being forced to go into them by the right of Dedication , they are incorporated and joyued to the Images . But might not all heathens have replyed to the Christians thus ; we find it just so in your Eucharist , viz. that the signes are of the same matter with our common bread & wine , but change their destiny by consecration ; Behold it is kneaded and moulded , and yet it is not God. Behold , it is baked in the Oven ; and yet it is not God Behold it is consecrated and adored , and then it is God : for your Christ doth not refuse to enter into these earthy matters ; or rather being forced to go into them by the right of consecration , he is incorporated and joyned to the species of bread and wine . Thirdly ; the heathens had both great and little Images , and did believe that the deity which they worshiped , was as well in the little , as in the great ones . Arnobius in Book 6. jears them for this , saying : that if their Gods had their great and little Images in which they dwelt , they must needs be straightned for want of room in the little ones , whereas in the great ones , they might strech themselves out at their full length . But might not the heathens have reproached the Christians of those times in the same manner , if they had believed that Iesus Christ had been wholy contained as well in a little host as in a great one , and as well in the least part of the host as in the greatest ? Lastly , the heathens were reproached , for worshiping wood and stone , the work of mens hands ; things that cannot see , hear , smell , taste , breath , speak or move ; things exposed to age , rust , corruption , dust , falling , breaking , burning , &c. to the injuries of worms , mice and other beasts ; subject to the power of Enemies ; to be stolen , lockt up , &c. as you may read in Arnobius , Lactantius , Minutius Felix , and other ancient doctors of the Church . But if those ancient doctors had believed what the Romanists now do ; might not the heathens have replyed thus . And can you deny that the host which you worship , is the work of mans bands that moulded it , and gave it such a form as pleased him , and then consecra●…●… with certain words to make your Christ come into it whole and entire ? do not you adore your host , which neither sees , nor hears , nor smells , nor breaths , nor walks , nor speaks non moves ? Is not your host subject to age , dust , felling burning ; to worms , to mice and to other beasts ? Is it not subject to be taken away , stolen , lockt up , &c. But if it be said , that the accidents of the host are only subject to these inconveniencies , and not Iesus Christ that is under them ; I answer , that the heathens had said the same , viz. that their Gods were not subject to these inconveniencies , but the Images only in which they were : for in Arnobius his 6 book they speak thus . We believe not the copper , gold , and silver whereof the Images are made , to be Gods and Deityes , that of themselves deserve adoration ; but in these materials we adore those that sacred Dedication introduceth , and causeth to dwell in the Images . Answ. Certainly what you add ( Mounsieur ) viz. that the Primitive Church never adored the host , nor believed that the body of Christ and his bloud , were really and invisibly in the Sacrament ; is most false ; and you may easier prove , that all the Romances that ever were made , were true histories , and the Moon is made of green cheese , then either prove or maintain this assertion : for besides , that Christ himself in most plain and express terms said ; This is my body , the practise of his Church from all ages has been to adore the host , and believe the Sacrament as we do . All Ecclesiastical histories , all General Councils ; and all the holy fathers of the Primitive Church , bare witness against Mr. de Rodon , and contradict him in plain terms , in this point . S. Alexander 1. that glorious Pope and Martyr of Christ , who lived in the year of our Saviour 121. is numbred by all the orthodox amongst the holy fathers of the Primitive Church ; this holy prelate passing his verdict upon the Eucharist says : Nihil in sacrificiis majus esse potest , quam corpus & sanguis Christi ▪ In sacrifices , there cannot be a greater thing then the body and bloud of Christ : which is as much as to say , that in the Eucharist are sacrificed the body and bloud of Christ , which is the greatest of all sacrifices . Cyrillus the most worthy Bishop of Alexandria ( one also of the holy fathers of the Primitive Church ) speaking in the name of the whole Council of Ephesus , declareth the verity of the Eucharist in these terms . Incruentam celebramus in Ecclesiasticis sacrificiis servitutem & sanctificamur participes corporis & pretiosi sanguinis Christi , non ut communem carnem percipientes , sed vere vivificatricem , & ipsius verbi propriam factam : We celebrate an incruent service in our Ecclesiastical sacrifices , and are sanctified ; being made partakers of the body and most precious bloud of Christ ; not receiving it as common flesh , but as the true life-giving and proper-made flesh of the word . To these S. Hillary not Iess renowned for learning and sanctity , and also of the Primitive Church : subscribes in his 8. Book de Trinit . with these words ; de veritate carnis & sanguinis , non relictus est ambigendi locus : nunc enim , & ipsius Domini professione , & fide nostra verè caro est , & verè sanguis est . Concerning the verity of flesh and bloud , there is no doubt left , for now both by the consession of our Lord himself and by our own faith it is truely flesh , and truly bloud ; what could be said more plainly ? S. Damascen also adds his suffrage to these holy fathers above mentioned , lib. 4. de fid . orthod . c. 14. Non est figura ( quoth he ) panis & vinnm corporis & sanguinis Christi ( absit enim h●…c sed est ipsum corpus Domini deificatum , ipso domino dicente : hoc est meum , non figura corporis , sed corpus , non figura sanguinis , sed sanguis ; Bread and wine are not the figure of the body and bloud of Christ , ( God forbid ) but they are the very body and bloud of our Lord Deified ; our Lord himself averring ▪ this is my , not figure of body , but body ; not figure of Bloud , but Bloud . Oh what a frind and favorit was Damascen of de Rodon , and of his Presbyterian opinion and faction ? great S. Aug. testimony is also for us , lib. sent . Pros. Caro ( saies he ) ejus est quam forma panis opertam accipimus , & sanguis ejus quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus . It is his flesh we take covered under the veyle of Bread ; and it is his bloud we drink in the shape and taste of wine . S. 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 Mounsieur●… 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 win●… which remain in the sacrament , after Transubstantiation , by vertue of the words of consecr●…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 some●…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 hea●…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 mad●… 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 circumscriptively or definitively as water is in a vessel or the soul in the bedy ; for they wanting the light of faith , knew not what a sacramental presence is . But the Primitive Christians , ( and we also ) believe Christ to be in the Sacrament , Sacramentally only , that is in every consecrated host , as our souls are in our bodies ; tota in toto , & tota in qualibet parte , all Christ in the whole host , and all Christ in every part and particle of it . And thus Mr. de Rodons three propositions , with his very considerable additionate , are fully and pathetically answered ; and an end put to this chapter . CHAP. VI. Against the taking away of the cup. Rodon . 1. THe taking away of the Eucharistical cup , was established as an Article of faith by the Romish Church Representative , assembled in the Council of Constance ; 1415. sess . 13. in a canon , the chief clauses whereof are these : seeing that in divers parts of the world there be some who rashly presume to say , that Christian people ought to partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species of the bread and wine , and to give the Communion to Lay-people , not only under the species of the bread , but also under the species of the wine ; This present holy General Council of Constance lawfully assembled in the name of the holy Ghost , being desirous to provide for the safety of the faithfull against this errour , doth therefore declare , decree , and determine , that although Jesus Christ did administer this venerable Sacrament to his disciples under both the species of bread and wine ; and although in the Primitive Church , the faithful did receive this Sacrament under both species ; yet notwithstanding that ( for the avoiding of certain dangers and scandals ) this custome , which was introduced with reason , ought to be kept , viz. that Priests that say Mass , shall communicate under both the species of bread and wine , but that Lay-persons shall communicate under the species of bread only ; and they that shall say the contrary ; ought to be expelled as Hereticks , and grieveously punished by the Bishops , and their officialls ; This canon was confirmed by the succeeding Romish Councils , and particularly by the Council of Trent ▪ 2. Against so horrible a Canon , and so strange a Law , it is very difficult to oppose any thing , for if you tell them , that this Law i●… contrary to the Institution and command of Iesus Christ , they freely confess it ; seeing that although Iesus Christ did institute and administer the Eucharist under both species , yet they will not have it so practised . If you tell them that this Law is contrary to the command of S. Paul , and practise of the Primitive Church ; they ingeniously own it ; for they openly declare , that the faithful in the Primitive Church did receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species , yet they that practise it thus ovght to be expelled and punished as Hereticks . This is the true way of ending all Controversies , and of keeping us from disputing with them . For example , if we alledge that S. Paul. Tim. 4. saith , that they who forbid to marry , and command to ab●…ain from meats , do teach the doctrines of Devils ; they need only answer , that although S. Paul doth say so , yet we must not believe it , because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise . Again , if we alledg , that the same Apostle Eph. the 2. saith that we are saved by grace , through faith ; and that not of our selves , it is the gift of God ; not of works , lest any man should boast ; they need only answer , that although this was written by the Apostle , yet we must not believe it , because the Romish Church hath determined , that we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves , and from the strength of our own free-will , &c. And now I leave you to judge ; whom we ought to follow , whether these lying doctours , or Iesus Christ , and his Apostles . But that which I finde utterly unsupportable is this viz. that they accuse of rashness , errour , and heresy , those that by obeying Iesus Christ , and his Apostles , and following the Practise of the Primitive Church , do affirm that we ought to partake of the Cup as well as of the bread . Again I finde it an insufferable piece of impudence , that they boast so much of Antiquity , and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church , and yet can so openly renounce both , in this chief and principal point of Doctrine . Answ. That the Romish Church Representative , ever made or established an article of faith ; we deny ; that she made Canons or statutes in her general Councils , which were grounded upon former articles of faith which the Apostles left us ; and that what one precedent General Council decided and declared to belong unto an article of faith , ( because what the Council declared , was implycitly included in that article ) another subsequent general Council approved , and confirmed it , we freely confess ; for it makes more for us then for Mr. de Rodon , though he is sure he got a great advantage over us thereby ; because the other General Councils , and especially the Council of Trent approves and ratifies this Canon which he recited out of the Council of Constance , which Canon ( he sayes ) contradicts Christ , and his Apostle . But I am sure , that if the Council of Trent had contradicted that of Constance , his advantage had been much more , for neither the one or the other of these holy Councils doth contradict Christ , or his Apostle . Because then , and not otherwise , ( as I proved before ) is a proper contradiction , when there is an affirmation and negation of the same thing , at the same time , and after the same formality or manner ; for if the thing , time , or formality be not the same , then is there no contradiction ; for example ; there is no contradiction in this , viz. that Peter should be virtuous , and Paul wicked at the same time ; because Peter and Paul are not one and the same man : Nor in this , viz. that the same Peter should have a beard , and not have a beard at different times ; as also neither in this , viz. that the same Peter , at the same time , should be an Embassadour in France , and be no Embassadour in England or in Spain . This true doctrine which is commonly received by all Philosophers and learned men , being presupposed , I evidently demonstrate out of several Passages of Scripture if well considered , knit and compared together ; that this Canon or statute of the Constantian Council , doth not in the least manner contradict or gainsay the commands of Christ , or of his Apostle . The first Passage whereupon I build my proof is this ; Data est mihi omnis Potestas in Caelo , & in terra ; that to Christ is given all power in heaven and upon Earth : S. Math. 20. The second is this : sicut tu misisti me in mundum , & ego misi eos in mundum : as thou didst send me into the world , I also have sent them into the world : S. Iohn . 17. Let us now compare these two passages , to 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 , m●… 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 cel●…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 ●…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 s●…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 betwi●… 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 ●…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 Church : so that the Mounsieur hath reason to exclaim against them also , and against the whole Christian world : for they abstain from such meats no more then we do ; and neither they nor we have any warrant for eating such prohibited meats , but only the authority and statutes of the Church ; and upon that score we do it , and will do it , notwithstanding Mr. de Rodons fulminations , exclamations , and out-cryes . Now I leave the Prudent Reader to judge ; whom we ought to follow ; whether the true doctrine of the Church Representative , guided by the holy Ghost , or the groundless and frivolous opinion of pitiful Rodon ? But that which I find utterly unsupportable in this miserable wretch , is , his intollerable Pride , in making himself censurer of the whole Christian world ; by contradicting not only so many General Councils , but also the most holy spirit of God , who promised to assist and direct his spouse the Church alwais ▪ And again , I finde it an insufferable piece of impudence in him who hath nothing to shew for the antiquity of his pretended Church , to contradict , and revile at the old mother Church , unto whom God gave power to alter things for the better , as his holy spirit should inspire her in due times , as is palpably demonstrated out of the passages of holy Scripture above-mentioned . Away , away then with Mr. de Rodons silly exclamations against Gods Church Representative , which serve for nothing but to scare crows with ; and not to startle or daunt any man of knowledg or belief . What matter is 't then if juggling Rodon alledg S Paul in his 1. Tim. 4. against us ; saying : that they who forbid to marry , and command to abstain from meats , do teach the doctrines of devils ? for these words cannot concern Roman Catholicks who allow not only of marriage ; but also own it to be a Sacrament to , which is more then Mr. de Rodon , or his party doth ; or is it because we allow not , that our Priests and Religious men should marry , who of their own free accord made a voluntary contract with Allmighty God , never to marry , that by observing a single life they may the easier , and with more freedom serve him ? or did our Church before they made their contract with God and her , ever forbid them marriage ? or Lastly , while a man is already married , is it the doctrine of the devil that he should not marry again ? if not , wherefore should it be his doctrine , to prohibite Priests and Religious Persons to marry ; whereas they are already contracted and married to Christ and to his Church ? if a contract , promise , or vow made to a woman doth oblige and tye a man to her ; sure a contract or vow made unto God must oblige him as much , according to the Royall Psalmists saying in his 49th . Psalm Immolate to God the sacrifice of Praise and pay thy vows to the Highest . The same thing we say again concerning meats , our Church ●…orbideth not the eating of any sort of meats ; for we ●…at of all sorts of meats Mr. de Rodon and his party eats of ; though not at all times ; because in obedience to our mother the Church , we abstain from several meats on certain days , being Christ commanded fasting ; but left the determination of the time when we are to fast , to his spouse the Church ; as is evidently collected out of S. Mark 2. where we read , that when the disciples of S. Iohn , and of the Pharisee●… came to our Saviour , and askt him , Why his Disciples did not fast , as they did ? our Saviour answered them thus : that so long as they have the Bridgroom with them , they cannot fast ; But the days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them , and then they shall fast in those days : and for this reason the Church commands no strict fast from Easter-day to Assention . But wherefore doth not the good Mounsieur shew , and make it out by Scripture , or any way else , that our fasting is against the Apostle , or according with the doctrine of devils : a splenative man may say of others what he li●…t ; but any rational or well setled brain may rather think , that Mr. de Rodon and his ●…arty , ( who never use to fast from any kinde of meats they can come at ) do contradict Gods commandment concerning fasting ; and consequently by disobeying him , and his Church , do at least practise , if not teach the doctrine of devils . What matter is it also , if honest de Rodon alledgeth against us these words of the said Apostles . Eph. 2. We are saved by Grace through faith , and that not of our selves ; it is the gift of God ; not of works , least any man should boast , for we humbly believe those words , and our Church never determined any thing to the contrary . Therefore de Rodon doth falsly belye us , when he says that we hold we are saved by works and faith , as coming from our selves , and from the strength of our free-will , &c. for we never held , or do hold any such thing ; neither do we say that we can have faith from our selves ; because we hold faith is a supernatural vertue insused into us , not acquired by our industry or diligence . That which we say , and maintain against all our adversaries is , that our good works done , while we are in the state of Grace , are meritorious : we say not that our works ( precisely as they are ours ) are of any merit ; but as they are supported by Gods Grace , which grace we cannot have without faith , and I pray , did not our Saviour himself say , whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name , because you are Christs : Amen I say to you , he shall not lose his reward : which sentence of his , we understand thus , viz. that if a man while he is in the state of Grace , doth bestow or give any thing for the love of God , be it never so little , or doth any good work for the love of God , be it never so inconsiderable , that such a man shall be hereafter ▪ rewarded by God for it ; and being rewards are the correlatives of merits ; we conclude , that a man for doing any good work while he is in the state of Grace , doth merit yet we attribute not the merit chiefly to the work but to Grace , which we hold to be the principal cause thereof . And we say moreover , that , be any mans work never so good in it self , if it be done while he is out of the state of Grace , such a work is not at all meritorious to him ; and consequently we hold that a penny given for Gods sake by him that is in the state of Grace , is more meritorious to him then if he or any body else should bestow a thousand pound , ( also for Gods sake ) while they are out of it . How then can this true doctrine of the Church disagree with the Apostles words , or agree with de Rodons false , and calumnious lye ? when he says , that the Romish Church hath determined that we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves , and from the strength of our own free-will , &c. a thing which she never dreamt of , and utterly detests as meer Pelagianism . But it is a common saying , that it is easier for a man to defend himself from a thief , then from a Lyar. Therefore we may well say with the Royal Psalmist in his 42. Psalm , from the unjust and deceitful tongue of Mr. de Rodon , O Lord deliver us . Now then M. de Rodons exclamations being proved frivolous and vain ; and he himself a calumnious Lyar ; the Romish doctors need not run for shelter to any place or thing : for whether it was a command or no , practised by the Primitive Church or no , to minister the Sacraments under both kinds ; it imports not , neither doth it contradict Christs commandment at all , to receive it now but under one kinde only ; for that commandment was but for a time , and until his holy spirit moved the Church for sundry grave reasons , to alter it ; as he did in other things of as great and greater moment , for the Salvation of mans soul , viz. the altering of the form of Baptism by the Apostles for a while , which Sacrament is of greater necessity for mans salvation , then the Eucharist is ; as I have already sufficiently shewn . Therefore being I fully answered the Mounsieurs argument a quite other way ; his replies against the Romish doctours answers ( which are very good ) need no farther answer by me here : however this ought to be well considered ; that whereas Christ instituted this Sacrament for our spiritual nourishment , and since his body which we receive in it , is a glorified body , & consequently as the Romish doctours well say , where his body is , there is his bloud also by concomitance ; It followeth evidently that by receiving the Sacrament under one species , we receive his body and bloud both together : or dare de Rodon say , that Christs body and bloud are now separated ? if he ▪ doth ; I dare say , he is a most impious heretick . But if they be not now separated ; then by receiving the one species , we equivalently receive both ; which is all we are commanded to do , according to the Institution of the Sacrament ; so that whether we eat the Sacrament , and drink it formally or virtually , is the same thing : for it nourisheth our souls all alike , and we observe Christs command as well by eating and drinking it virtually , as we do by eating and drinking it formally ; there being no more vertue or substance in the one eating then in the other , nor no more spiritual nourishment ( which is the cause why this Sacrament was instituted ) in the one more then in the other ; and all the Mystery and difference is only this ; that the Priests , by reason they represent , or act Christs person when he instituted this Sacrament , are commanded by reason of their ministery and function to compleat the Sacrament ; by consecrating under both species , as Christ himself did : and therefore he commanded his Apostles whom he then made Priests ( saying unto them , As often as you do this , do it in remembrance of me ) to consecrat under both kinds . And yet neither the Apostles did then , nor do the Priests now , receive more then the lay-man do when they receive but under one species only , because of the concomitance of Christs glorified body and bloud as they are in the Sacrament . To conclude this chapter , I say , that whether our Saviour laid his commands upon the Apostles and Priests only , or upon all the believers of the Primitive Church , both Priests and Lay-men together , to receive the Sacrament under both kindes or species ; all that can be deduced from thence is , that his commands were to be observed punctually as thereunto , during the time his commandement was in vigour and force , and no longer . But after by his holy spirit ( whose assistance he promised to his Church , for to guide and direct her in all her Canons and Laws ) this command was altered and changed otherwise ; we are firmly to believe and adhere to what she determineth concerning matters of saith , and Sacraments ; and to hold , that what is done by her orders is done by the orders and appointment of Christ , and not at all contrary to his commands or Law ; because amongst others of his commands , he commanded us to hear the Church ; and told us that by dispising her , we should dispise him . Therefore , it is a far surer and safer ground for any man of prudence and understanding , to rely upon the authority of the Church as to this high question we here treat of , and as to all other questions which are built upon divine faith ; then upon Mr. de Rodons bare frevolous exclamations and outcryes ; for Christ promised his Church , that she should be always guided by his holy spirit , which is a surer warrant for her Canons and Laws , then the hidious exclamations of the Mounsieur are , to whom no promise ( as we know of ) was by Christ ever made concerning this question or any other . To what is by me answered touching this point ; I also add Christs own practise to the contrary of what Mr. de Rodon exclaimeth against the Church Representative : for Christ himself did not alwaies give the Cup with the consecrated host ; as may be seen when he gave the host to his two disciples whom he accompanied going to the Castle of Emaus , and afterwards vanished immediatly out of their sight ; where the holy text makes no mention of his giving them the Cup. The like was also often done by the Apostles , as any man may easily see in their Acts ; and so I think I have sufficiently answered Mr. de Rodons sixth chapter . CHAP. VII . Against the Mass. NOw Madam Diana look very well to your self , for the Mounsieur is come up to your body , if you can escape him this time , sure you will live to the worlds end . Rodon . 1. The Mass , according to the Romish doctors , is a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ , propitiatory for the sinns of the living and dead ; and so it is defined by the Council of Trent sess . 22. Against such a Mass we might alledge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation , and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host ; for our adversaries confess , that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation , and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host ; do also destroy the Mass. But in this Chapter we shall only use such arguments as are directly against the Mass , and so utterly destroy it . Answ. The holy Councils definition of the Mass , we acknowledge , as also that the arguments which destroy Transubstantiation , and the real presence , do also destroy the Mass. And Mr. de Rodon doth very wisely ( we say ) for not reproducing his old shivered arrows or arguments , which we have already brok and shattered into small splinters when they were shot against Transubstantiation , and the real presence of Christs body in the host ; for to say the truth , those Buts are so hard and steel-proof , that the weak arme of the Mounsieurs understanding was not strong enough to bend his bow , to 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 Tr●…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 ●…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 eult●… feeminarum & corona militum . Origen . hom . 13. in Levit. S. Cypr ▪ epist. ad Cecilium . num ▪ 2. & de coena Domini . num . 13. and Euseb. demonstrat . Evangel . lib. 1. c. 10. Let us now compare all these holy Councils , Fathers , and Doctors unanimous authorities with M. de Rodons bare word , without any text of Scripture , contradicting them ; let us , I say , compare all their affirmative votes to his no mention , no foot step , and judge which of these two parties deserves to be counted hereticks : ( for they cannot be both counted orthodox , because they contradict one another in point of faith ; ) what man then ( unlesse he were willfully prodigall of his salvation ) would adhere to de Rodons crack-brain'd obstinate self-opinion , and forsake for him the whole torrent of General Councils , Fathers , and Doctors of Christs Church ? Neither are S. Gregory and Bellarmine for him too , but rather point-blank against him , as to the main point of this question , which is , that at the first Institution of this Sacrament , Christ offered and sacrificed his body and bloud to his father : for Bellarmine in the place alledged by the Mounsieur , viz. out of his first book of the Mass , chap. 27. speaks only thus ; that this sacrifice consists not precisely in the consummation of the host , nor in any other part of the Mass , but only in the words of consecration , because S. Gregory said , that the Apostles used no other ceremonies at the Mass , when they first practised it , but only the Lords prayer , and immediatly after , they consumed the consecrated host . But neither he , nor S. Gregory ever said , that Christ and his Apostles never offered sacrifice to God the father in the Mass , for Bellermine says positively in that very chapter , that Christ offered sacrifice to his heavenly father ; and that the Apostles and their successors do the like dayly . But he holds that the sacrifice consists precisely in the words of Consecration , and not in the oblations before or after , nor in the consumption of the host ; all which makes nothing for Mr. de Rodon ; who is not ashamed confidently to say , that S. Gregory and Bellarmine are of his side ; whereas there is no such thing to be seen in them , but the quite contrary , as may be evidently seen in the alledged chapter of Bellarmines said book . As for learned Salmeron the Jesuits commentary , and Cardinal Baronius his free confession concerning an unwritten Tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist ; any man of reason or belief would sconer believe the Traditions of the whole Church , then admire or stand in doubt of them ; and much less would they harken against them , to Mr. de Rodons bare word , or to his srivolous no mention , no footstep : for Gods Church had no other rule to follow from Adams time until Moses ( who was the first that ever writ of the old Testament ) concerning what she was to believe , but Tradition . And from the time of our Saviours Assension , untill some of the Apostles , and the Evangelists set their penns to paper , what else had the faithful to trust unto , but only unwritten Tradition ? what Scripture have we for changing the Sabaoth day ? or for the twelve articles of our Creed , made by the twelve Apostles , which be the Principles and foundation of our faith , without which none can be saved ? only Tradition : finally , doth not the Apostle in his 2. Epist. to the Thessal . 2. chap. command us to hold the Traditions which we have learned , whether it be by his word , or by his Epistle ? wherefore then should it be a strange thing that the Mass , which is the dayly practise and sacrifice of the whole Church , from the Apostles time , until ours , ( suppose there were nothing left written concerning it ) wherefore ( I say ) ought it not be held and believed , as well as the changing of the Sabaoth day , or as the twelve articles of the Apostles creed ? Moreover , being the Mass ( as we hold , and is evidently proved by the testimonies of the General Councils and holy fathers above-mentioned ) doth chiefly , and essentially consist in the words of consecration ; and that Christ himself was the first that ever consecrated ; we consequently hold , that he was the first and chief Priest that ever said Mass : And whereas we find , that after he consecrated ; he commanded his Apostles , that as often as they did this ( that 's to say , consecrated ) they should do it in remembrance of him : we find ( I say ) that the Mass was instituted and commanded expresly by Christ himself . Therefore in my opinion , it is a thing far more wonderful and strange , that any man of common reason or sense should join in opinion with Mr. de Rodon against the Mass ; which has the Tradition and practise of the whole Catholick Church from the Apostles time unto ours , of its side ; and the Mounsieur not a tittle out of Scripture , Council , or holy father that makes for him ; but his silly negative , no mention , no footstep . And as the Mounsieur is impudent and obstinate in opposing the universal Church ; so is he also shamless in believing of her ; for he says , that her doctours require nothing of the people , but that they should go to Mass ; which is an arrant lye ; for although it be true , that our holy Mother the Church , commands all her children , if they have no lawful impediment , viz. of sickness , or some other very urgent affayrs of consequence , to the contrary ; to be personally present , and assist at the oblation of this divine sacrifice , on sundays , and holy-days of obligation , ( for to hear Mass on workingdays , is only of counsel , not of precept or command ) yet she never taught them , that by only hearing Mass , they should be saved . But she rather teaches them the contrary , viz. that if they hear never so many Masses , while they are in mortal sin , they shall reap no benefit by them , in order as to any the least jott of merit or reward , unless they believe as the Church believes , go to confession , and do penance for their sinns , and firmly resolve to keep Gods commandments , and the commandments of his Church for the future , and finally do some satisfactory works for the transgressions of their ill life past . And far from truth is it also what de Rodon saith , viz. that if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist , hath offered unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud , propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead ; then there had been no need that he should be again sacrificed on the Cross : farr I say , is that from truth ; Because as all the sacrifices of the old Law were but types , and derived all their force and vertue from Christs bloody sacrifice upon the Cross ; so also this incruent or unbloudy sacrifice hath its reference or relation to the said bloudy sacrifice ; and the difference between the old sacrifices and this our sacrifice of the new Law is this : that they were but mediate types and meer shadows of the bloudy sacrifice ; But our sacrifice , is not only an immediate type , but also a true Idaea , and dayly express real commemoration of it : Nay ( as all the holy fathers do generally accord ) it is the very self same sacrifice as that of the Cross was , though not offered in the same manner , for that was bloudy , and this is unbloudy : and the reason is , because Christ ( as I said before ) having a desire to be amongst the children of men , and promising his Church to be with her alwaise , unto the consummation of the world ; since he is to be in heaven in his humane and glorious shape , until the time of the restitution of all things ; he found out , in the infinite abyss of his wisdom , this other admirable and ineffable way , of being really and personally present with his Church militant in the most blessed Sacrament , for to encourage , seed & strengthen her wirh the manifold graces that flow from his real presence in her , into the souls of his elect servants . To his farther addition out of S. Paul. Eph. 4. 11. & 1 Tim. being he inferrs all from negatives , he can never conclude . However since the Apostle makes mention unto Tymothy , of Presbyters ; that is to say Priests ; and since betwixt Priest , and sacrifice , there is a correlation ; it follows that the Apostle ( at least virtually ) made mention of sacrificers . Rodon . 3. The second argument is drawn from the definition of a sacrifice , as it is given us by our adversaries . Card. Bellarmine in Book . 1. of the Mass. chap. 2. defines it thus , sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity , and the divine Majesty , the lawful Minister consecrates by a mistical ceremony , & destroys something that is sensible & permanent : from those last words , viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible , I form 2. arguments , which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass. The first is this : In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses ; for our adversaries say it is a sensible thing : but the body and bloud of Christ , which are pretended to be sacrificed in the mass , under the accidents of the bread and wine , do not fall under our senses , as we finde by experience ; therefore the body and bloud of Christ , which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine , are not the thing Sacrificed . Answ. From these last words : ( viz. that the lawful minister destroys something that is sensible ) ; drawn out of Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice ; Mr. de Rodon forms two arguments , like two huge milstones that will crush and destroy the sacrifice of the Mass , & consequently poor Diana●…s head too . To his first crusher which begins thus : In every sacrifice , the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses . I grant its major , and its minor , which is this . But the body and bloud of Christ , which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of bread and wine , do not fall under our senses , as we finde by experience . I distinguish thus , but the body and bloud of Christ , &c. do not fall under our senses in their connatural and proper shape , I confess the minor ; do not fall under our senses , in a sacramental shape ▪ or in the form and shape of bread and wine , which by experience we know falls under our senses : I deny the minor , and consequence also , for we never say , that Christ is in the Sacrament , in his proper humane shape , but only sacramentally , that 's to say , in the shape of bread and wine ; and yet we hold that he is really and personally there ; because he himself said so , in most express terms . These sacramental species then being obvious to our senses , and Christ being really in them ; they being destroyed ; ( although Christs body according to its natural and human shape be not destroyed , for he is not reduplicatively so , in the Sacrament , but only specificatively ) his sacramental presence is also destroyed in them ; and consequently , we say , that by destroying the sacramental species , which are palpably obvious to our senses ; a true and proper sacrifice , though an unbloudy one , is offered to God the father , in remembrance of Christs once-bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross ▪ Rodon . 4. Against this answer , Mr. de Rodon hath these two replies . The first is , that Christs body is not visible by the species of bread ; because as his adversaries say ; that hides it from us , and hinders us from seeing it , and he says moreover , that although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizible by its accidents ; yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance ; and consequently ( he infers ) Iesus Christ may be said to be visible by his own accidents , but not by the accidents , of bread which are just alike both in the consecrated , and unconsecrated hosts . And 't is a ridiculous shift to say , that Christs body is visible under the species of the bread , because that species is visible ; for as we cannot see wine that is in a hogshead , because we see the hogshead : and we cannot see money that is in a Purse closed , because we see the purse ; so neither can we see the body under the species of bread , because we see the species ●…for ▪ as our adversaries say , that species hinders us from seeing 〈◊〉 . 5. Secondly , he says , that by the sacramental being is understood , only an accidental being of Iesus Christ ( for example , his presence in the Sacrament ) or else besides that , is understood his substantial being too . If his substantial being be also understood ( seeing the substantial being of a thing , is nothing else but its substance and nature ) then it will follow , that if Iesus Christ be destroyed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in respect of his substantial being ; he must also be destroyed in respect of his natural being , which is contrary to what the Apostle saith , Rom. 6. Jesus Christ dyeth no more . If an accidental being of Iesus Christ be only understood ( for example , his presence in the Sacrament ) then these absur●…ityes will follow , viz. First , that the sacrifice of the Mass will be the sacrifice of an accident only , and not of Iesus Christ ; because the Presence of Iesus Christ , is not Iesus Christ himself , but an accident of him . Secondly , it will follow , that the sacrifice of the Mass , and that of the Cross will not be the same sacrifice , in reference to the thing sacrificed ; because Iesus Christ , and his presence are not the same thing . Iesus Christ being a substance , and his presence an accident , which is contrary to the decision of the Council of Trent , which hath determined , that the sacrifice of the Mass , and that of the Cross , are the same in reference to the thing sacrificed . Thirdly , it will follow , that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrament , is not the same with that , which was produced there ; because there is only an accident destroyed , whereas a substance was produced by Transubstantiation ▪ which is a substantial conversion ; as hath been sufficiently proved . Fourthly , it will follow , that the sacrifice of the Mass , will be offered in the Priests stomach only ; because this presence is not destroyed , till the Priest hath eaten the host , and consequently , the sacrifice of the Mass , will be offered after the Mass ; for this presence is only destroyed by the destruction of the accidents ; and commonly these accidents are not destroyed till after Mass is said . Fifthly , it will follow , that the Iustice of God will cease to be the same ; for whereas heretofore it could not be satisfied but by the death of Christ , and by the destruction of his natural being ; now God is appeased , our sinns expiated , and Gods Iustice satisfied , by the destruction of his Sacramental being only ; for they will have it , that the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead . Answ. It is far more ridiculous and nonsensical ( good Mounsieur ) to measure objects of divine faith with our corporal senses , whereas it is impossible that any such object can fall under them . Therefore it is enough that a man hath a certain and sure knowledg by belief , grounded upon Christs attestation , of his personal presence in the Eucharist , and a visible sensible certainty of the Sacramental species wherein he is contained ; this is ( I say ) enough to offer it as a true sacrifice ; for this intelligible and credible certainty relying upon Christs true and effective word , is a far more firm and sure knowledge , then any visible or sensible knowledge is ; and where this intelligible and true credible sight is , the visible and sensible knowledge is quite unnecessary . If Christ should reveal unto the Mounsieur the wine that is in the hogshead , or the money that is in the closed purse ; would he not believe him , and be certain of their being there ; unless he saw the wine , and the money with his eyes ? he may choose ; but I am sure I would believe him , and so ought every other Christian to do , as well as if he saw these things with his eyes . So Christ said to bread ; this is my body ; wherefore then should I not believe , and be as certain it is so , as if I had seen him in his humane shape with my eyes ? Now then being I certainly believe the thing is as he said it is ; and having a visible knowledge of the Sacramental species wherein he says he is really present , wherefore by reason of this visible sight of the accidents or species , and of the intelligible or credible certainty of the object or thing which I believe is in the species ; wherefore I say may not this be called , and offered up to God as a true and rigorous sacrifice , being there is nothing in the definition of a rigorous sacrifice , which is not found here ? That a substance cannot be visible , or known to be in a place , but by its own accidents , I grant is true , naturally speaking ; But it implies not that a substance may be known to be in a place supernaturally , by the accidents of another substance ; and so 't is in our case , for Christ with his omnipotent effective word supplies the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament , and makes them exist , in , and by themselves without their connatural subjects , or any subject at all , and so the accidents of the bread and wine , which remain supernaturally undestroyed in the Sacrament , signify , and give us a certain knowledg of Christs real and personal presence there , without signifiing ( after the words of consecration ) the entities of the bread and wine . Thus we answer his first reply . To his second reply , I answer , that the Sacramental being of Christ , is no accidental , but a substantial being ; for though his Sacramental ubication be a predicable accident ; yet it is no Predicamental accident ; and consequently belongs not to any of the nine series or categories of the Accidental Predicaments . And the reason is , because his body is not circumscriptively there , in its univocal place ; and all Predicamental ubications or presences do result from an univocal place , and not from a Sacramental one : that Christs ubication or presence in the Sacrament is a Predicable accident , hinders not its being a substantial mode or manner of presence ; for subsistence , and existence are predicable accidents also , and but accidentally predicated or said of their first substances , or essences ; and yet there is no good Philosopher breathing will say , that subsistence or existence are essentially accidents , or do belong to any of the nine Cathegories of Accidents , but they all hold that they are substantial modes , and they all place them in the indirect line of the Predicament of substance . Therefore I answer his second reply in 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 appear thus . Rodon . In every true sacrifice , the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed , that is , it must be so changed , that it must cease to be what it was before ; as Bellarmine saith in express terms in the place above-cited : But in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass , Christs body and bloud are not destroyed ; for Jesus Christ dieth no more , Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended sacrifice of the Mass , the body and bloud of Christ , are not the thing sacrificed . Answ. In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be destroyed , that is , it must be so changed , that it must cease to be what it was bofore If by ceasing to be what it was before , he intends , ceasing to be in the manner as it was before ; I confess the major . If by ceasing to be , &c. he intends , ceasing to be the entitie or same thing it was before , I deny the major , And Bellarmins words in the place alledged , do express no more ; for these be his words in the same place ; And destroies something that is sensible and permanent : for by the word ( something ) a mode or manner may be as well understood , as an entitie or nature ; and so we say , it is in the Sacrament : we say , that the sensible accidents of bread and wine , with the substantial sacramental Presence of Christs body and bloud ( which is the only thing produced by the words of consecration ) are destroyed : But we say not that the entitie of Christs body and bloud , ( which is rather adduced then produced in the Sacrament , ) or that his body and bloud in their proper shape are destroyed in the Sacrament ; because the words of consecration doth not put them so into it . And so both Mr. de Rodons huge Milstones , with all their following absurdities are quite shattered and split ; Now then to his third Principal Argument drawn from the Apostles words ; Hebr. 9 which is this . Rodon . Hebr. 9. the Apostle saies : Allmost all things are by the law purged with bloud , and without shedding of bloud is no remission : it was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these : but the heavenly things themselves , with better sacrifices then these : from which words I form this argument : There is no propitiation or remission of sinns without shedding of bloud , as the Apostle saith ; But in the Mass there is no shedding of bloud , for it is called an unbloudy sacrifice ; Therefore in the Mass there is no propitiation or remission of sins , and consequently , no propitiatory sacrifice . This argument may be thus confirmed ; under the old Testament there was no propitiation or purification without shedding of bloud , and the types of heavenly things were so purified , as the Apostle saith , Heb. 9. Therefore under the new Testament also , there can be no propitiation or purification , without shedding hf bloud ; and heavenly things being represented by the legal Types must be purified by a more excellent sacrifice , viz. by the shedding of Christs bloud . And although the Apostle useth the word ( sacrifices ) in the plural number : yet we must understand the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross ; because when one thing is opposed to many , it is often expressed in the plural number ; as whem Baptism , which is but one , is called Baptismes . Heb. 6. 2. But the only sacrifice of the Cross of Christ , in the text above-cited , Heb. 9. 23. is opposed to the old sacrifices , which were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Cross. Answ. I grant that unless Christ had shed his bloud for us , there had been no propitation or remission of sins ; and consequently that there was no expiation or remission of sinns in any types or sacrifices of the old law , but only in relation and reference to Christs bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross : which is all the Apostle meant in the forementioned Passage : But all this concerns not the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass at all , which is not a bare type or shadow of Christs bloudy sacrifice , as all the sacrifices of the old Law were , and no more ; for the sacrifice of the Mass is not only an immediate type of that of the Cross ; but also a proper Idea , memorial , nay ( as the holy fathers say ) the self-same sacrifice of the Cross ; reiterated after another manner , viz. unbloudily ; because it is not convenient that Christs body being now glorious and impassible , should suffer again ; and by reason it is a perpetual memorial or repetition of the bloudy sacrifice , it hath a reference or relation to it ; from whence followeth evidently , that because it is the self-same sacrifice essentially with that of the Cross , and it hath an immediate relation to it , and remembrance of it ; It followeth , I say , evidently , that it is propitiatory for the living and the dead , as that of the Cross is : for if it be the same body and bloud that is now offered , and was offered upon the Cross ( as Christ himself says ▪ t is his body , and the fathers of the Church say it is the same sacrifice with that of the Cross ) it imports not at all as to the essence of the sacrifice , whether it be offered bloudily or unbloudily ; because to be bloudy or unbloudy , is not essential to a sacrifice ; there being some sacrifices offered in the old Law , whereof some were bloudy , and other strict sacrifices also offered which had no bloud in them . Therefore to make the Mass a proper and strict sacrifice , it is sufficient that in the Mass there be sensible symbols , viz. the accidents of bread and wine , containing Christs body and bloud , really , personally , and ●…bstantially present ; and that at the destruction of these symbols or signes , Christs body ceaseth to be substantially and personally present there any more ; though he ceaseth not ( because of the destruction of the species ) to be absolutely , and in his humane shape in heaven . Finally , I say , that God the father knows ▪ and accepts of the sacrifice of his sons body offered unto him by us , for our sinns , as our Mediatour ; whether the said body be offered to him bloudily or uubloudily . Rodon . The Apostle , Heb. 10. 16. saith ; this is the Covenant which I will make with them after these days , saith the Lord , I will put my Laws into their harts , and in their minds will I write them , and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more : Now where remission of these is , there is no more offering for sin : whence I form this argument ; where there is remission of sins , there is no need of an oblation , or propitiatory sacrifice for sin , as the Apostle faith : But in the Christian Church , by vertue of the new Testament or new Covenant , confirmed by the bloud of Christ , there is remission of sins , Heb. 10. 16. 17. Therefore in the Christian Church now adays , there is no need of an obligation , or propitiatory sacrifice , and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Answ. Mr. de Rodon , the better to draw his argument out of Scripture , salsifies the text in two places ; for where the text says ; This is the Testament , &c. he has : This is the Covenant , &c. the reason ( I believe ) why he puts Covenant instead of Testament is , because he denies the Eucharist to be a Testament of the new Law ; saying that it is only a figure or sign of it : and therefore being he could not handsomely translate the text thus , this is the sign of the Testament which I will make with them after those days : ( seeing the word , Testament , was more against him then for him ) he changed it into Covenant ; whether this corrupting the text be his own , or the translatours of his Bible , it matters not , so long as the corruption is evidently to be seen . In the second place by him falsisied , where the true text runs thus , and their sins and iniquities I will now remember no more , but where there is remission of these , now there is not an oblation for sins , instead of But where there is a remission of these ; &c. the Mounsieur has : Now where remission of these is , &c. and this changing of ( But ) into ( Now ) was that he may the easier inferr , that now , after the once bloudy sacrifice of the Cross , there is no more sacrifice offered , for he forms his argument thus : where there is remission of sins , there is no need of an oblation , or a propitiatory sacrifice for sin , as the Apostle saith ; But in the Christian Church , by vertue of the new Testament or new Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ , there is remission of sins , Heb. 10. 16. 17. therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an oblation , or propitiatory sacrifice ; and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass. Whatever his or the Translators reason was to change But , into Now , I will not stickle with them about it . Therefore I answer his argument , granting the major and distinguishing the minor thus : in the Christian Church by vertue of the bloudy sacrifice of Christs body upon the Cross , there is remission of sins without any repetition of the same bloudy sacrifice again , and without any other oblation or sacrifice essentially different from this bloudy Sacrifice ; I consess the minor . In the Christian Church , by vertue of the bloudy sacrifice of Christs body upon the Cross , there is remission of sins , without any repetition of the same unbloudy sacrifice , or of a sacrifice only accidentally different from his bloudy sacrifice upon the cross , I deny the minor : & the reason is this ; because Christ suffered and sacrificed himself bloudily for all men , and for the sins of all the world in general : Behold the lamb of God , behold him that takes away the sins of the world . S. Iohn . 1. for if Christ had not suffered for all mankind in general , but only for the elect ; besides that it would sound something of a personal acception ( which is not at all in God ) the reprobates may justly alledge that the chief cause of their damnation was , because Christ did not suffer , nor satisfy for their sins ; But if Christ suffered for the sinns of all mankind , ( as certainly he did , else how could he be called the Redeemer of the world ) then according to the Mounsieurs argument and Principles , by reason of this general satsfaction and bloudy sacrifice , all the sins of the world are remitted , and so by reason of this bloudy sacrifice once offered in general for all men without exception , all will be saved , be they Jews , Turks , heathens , believers or unbelievers , virtuous or vitious : why ? for there is no need of offering sacrifice or oblation to God any more , and the bloudy sacrifice is still in force ; if we believe the Mounsieur sure this is the shortest , openest , and easiest way to heaven that ever was heard of ; and yet Christ himself says : Regnum Caelorum vim patitur , that the kingdom of heaven doth suffer violence ; S. Matt. 11. Or can the Mounsieur say , that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not fatisfactory in rigour for all the sins of the world ? if he doth , I tell him another man for saying so , would be counted an arrant lyar and a most impious blasphemous heretick . Therefore we say , that although Christs Passion and bloudy sacrifice was in it self of force & vertue sufficient to take away all the sins of the world , and although he suffered for all mankinde in general without excepting one ; yet we say , that unless his Passion be applyed to every one in particular ( I mean to all those that fell into relapse of sin after Baptisme ) it will not avail them at all ; and his application we say , is made , by reiterating the same sacrifice unbloudily ; as Christ himself expresly commanded , when he said , unless you eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his bloud , you shall not have life in you . Iohn . 6. That Christs body was given him to be sacrificed not only upon the Cross , but upon the Altar also , S. Aug : affirms in his 17th book , de civit . Dei. 20. chap. The table ( quoth he ) which the Priest of the new Testament doth exhibit , is of his body and bloud ; for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all the sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come ; for the which also we acknowledge that voice of the same mediatour in the Psalm , But a body thou hast fitted to me , because in stead of all these sacrifices and oblations , his body is offered , and is ministred to the partakers and receivers . And again lib. 4. de Trinit . c. 14. Who so just and holy a Priest as the son of God ? what might be so conveniently offered for men , of men , as mans flesh ? and what so fit for this immolation or offering , as mortal flesh ? who so clean for cleansing the vices of mortal men , as the flesh born of the virgins wombe ? and what can be offered and received so gratefully , as the flesh of our sacrifice made by the body of our Priest ? Could the holy Doctor or any man breathing , have spoken more clearly and manifestly in the behalf of Transubstantiation , and of the sacrifice of the Mass , than this ? first , he calls it the table of the body and bloud of Christ , then he says , it is offered by men for men ; the holy Doctor meant not , by men , the Jews that killed our Saviour , but the Priests that sacrifice him unbloudily for men , or for the sins of men ; for all the world knows , that the Jews killed our Saviour out of meer hatred and spleen , and not with intention to sacrifice or offer him to God the Father , to satisfie for the sins of mankinde . Lastly , he says , nothing can be offered and received so gratefully as the flesh of our sacrifice , made by the body of our Priest , where calling it our sacrifice , he says it is a sacrifice , and not the bloudy one , which was rather for us then ours : and by saying , made by the body of our Priest , he expresly owneth Transubstantiation ; that is to say , he expresly owneth that very thing we understand by the word Transubstantiation ; or he owneth expresly the self-same thing we hold 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 ●…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 i●… 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 fa●…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. 34●… . 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 thous●…nd Austins , a thousand Cyprians , a thousand King-Harri●… - Churches stood against me : God cannot err , or deceiv●… . 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 Apostl●…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 answer , that as heat is proper to fire , and rational essential to man ; so is also to suffer a property to a patible living body sacrificed ; and not to suffer , a property to an impatible or glorious body , such as Christs body is sacrificed in the Mass : where is now then the Mounsieurs strong argument , out of clear and apparent scripture ? Rodon . Thirdly , these words , from the foundation of the world , are of great weight ; for t is as much , as if the Apostle had sayd ; if the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cr●…ss , be not sufficient to take away sins which shall be committed hereafter , it follows , that it was not sufficient to take away sins which have been committed heretofore ; from the creation of the world ; for it is very unsuitable , that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross , should have more vertue before it was offered , then since , but the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross , had the vertue to take away sins before it was , otherwise ( saith the Aposile ) he should often have suffered from the foundation of the world : Therefore it hath also vertue to take away sins committed since it was . And consequently there is no need that it should be reiterated in the Mass. Answ. Sure it is , and we confess it , th●… the foundation of the world , ( or to speak more properly ) the world upon its foundation , is a thing of very great poyse and weight in it self . But alas ! the argument which the Mounsieur draws from it , is of no weight at all ; it is as light as any fly or feather : for we grant , that the sacrifice of the Cross is sufficient to take away the sins committed not only before it , from the creation of the world but also that shall be committed hereafter ; and that his bloudy sacrifice was offered for all people in general : yet since ( as holy Primasius saith ) our sins do dayly increase , and all ages grow more and more corrupt ; it is not only convenient , but also necessary , that this bloudy sacrifice typified by all the Sacraments of the old Law , and virtually in its self , sufficient to destroy all the sins of the world , even from the foundation thereof until dooms-day ; should be reiterated , rememorated , and applyed by the Church , for the dayly sins of the faithful ; not bloudily , as it was upon the Cross , for that would be a cruel ●…nd Jewish action ; but unbloudily , as it is in the Mass ; for Christs body being now glorified , can suffer no more . Rodon . Fourthly , the Apostles comparison is c●…nsiderable , the sense whereof is this : as men suffer death but once , and after death appear n●… more till the d●…y of the Resurrection , and day of Iudgme●… ; s●… Christ hath offered himself to his father once for all on the Cross to take away sins , and will be n●… more upon earth , until he comes to judge the quick and the dead . This utterly destroyes the Mass , in which Iesus Christ is said to be offered and sacrificed continually by the ministery of Priests . Answ. Notwithstanding the Apostles considerable comparison , this argument of the Mounsieurs is as inconsiderable as his last was light : for we confess , that as men suffer death but once , and after death appear no more until the day of refurrection and judgement ; so Christ hath offered himself to his father once for all , on the Cross to take away sins , and will be no more in his humane shape upon earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead ; but we deny that he will not be really upon earth also in the Sacrament , until the consumation of the world , as he himself promised us he would be , and to his illative exclamation or out-cry , viz. This utterly destroys the Mass ; I answer as lowd as he ; that his consequence makes him an Ass ; for it follows not at all , that because Christ will appear no more upon earth in his humane shape , that he is not really in the Mass , or that the Mass is utterly destroyed : how does the Mounsieur infer this ? how does he prove it out of this Passage ? verily no better then an Ass would if he could speak . Rodon . Fifthly , sacrifices that take away sins , and sanctifie those that come thereunto , ought not to be reiterated ; for the only reason which the Apostle alledgeth why the old sacrifices of the law were reiterated , is because they could not take away sins , nor sanctify the comers thereunto , as appeare by the Text above cited ; But the sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross ▪ takes away sins , and sanctifies those that come thereunto ; therefore the sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross , onght not to be reiterated ; and consequently is not reiterated in the Mass. If Iesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever , and and purchase eternal redemption for us ; then it is evident that the fruit and efficacy of this sacrifice endures for ever , and that we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross ; But Iesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross , that he might sanctifie us for ever , and purchase eternal redemption for us as appears by the Texts afforesaid ; Therefore the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross endures for ever , and we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross. In a word , either we must confes that the sacrifice of the cross hath no vertue to take away sins , and to sanctify us for ever , ( which is contrary to what the Apostle saith ) or else if it hath this vertue and sufficiency , then Iesus Christ hath offered one only sacrifice once for all , and consequently is not offered dayly in the Mass , by the Ministery of Priests . Answ. These two pittifull illations deduced out of your fifth argument are chopt off in two words ; for as to the first , we consess again and again , that Christs bloudy sacrifice which takes away sins and sanctifies people , onght not be reiterated bloudily again , unbloudily , we deny ; and this we told the Mounsieur a hundred times over ▪ as to the second , we also deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is any other sacrifice distinct from that of the Cross ; as we also told him as many times over and over : which two principles of ours until he destroys , ( which he nor any of his , will ever be able to do , his Illations will remain pittyful , and never be worth a rush . Rodon . The Apostle almost throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebr. saith , that Jesus Christ was constituted and consecrated by his father high Priest for ever , and particularly Chap. 7. he saith : that many were made Priests , because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death ; But Jesus Christ because he continueth for ever , hath an unchangeable Priest-hood ; and that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him , seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them . And consequently ( infers the wise Mounsieur ) he hath no need of vicars or companions in his Priesthood . Answ. Why Mounsieur is 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 well●… let them ●…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 natural death of Iesus Christ , for , Jesus Christ dieth no more , Rom. 6. Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend that which is of the essence of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; and consequently differs from it essentially , and not in respect of the manner only . Answ. To this reply I answer first , that ( according to all Philosophers ) what is essential to any thing , if it be abstracted or taken away , the thing cannot be understood without it : for example ; if you take away animality or rationality from a man , man cannot be understood , because animality and rationality belong to his essence : for the essence of any thing , is the very first that 's conceived of it ; But a sacrifice , yea a rigorous sacrifice too , may be well understood without death ; for death enters not into the definition of a sacrifice , being there were many sacrifices of the old law of things that were not capable of dying ; viz. of oile , meal , bread , wine , &c. and yet they were rigorous sacrifices , for the things offered were sensible , and destroyed ; Therefore as what is not essential to man , is not essential to Peter or to Paul ; so what is not essential to sacrifice in its whole univocal latitude , cannot be essential to this sacrifice , or to that ; and being death is not essentiall to sacrifice ut sic , as Schoolmen call it ; that is , to sacrifice in its whole extent and latitude , it can make but an accidental difference between the same sacrifice offered bloudily and unbloudily , because all essential differences proceed from different forms , and therefore since all rigorous sacrifices agree univocally in the same reason or form of a sacrifice ; it followeth evidently , that to be sacrificed bloudily or unbloudily , is but a meer accidental difference of a sacrifice . Secondly I answer , distinguishing the minor viz. But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the natural death of Jesus Christ. The sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the death of Jesus Christ , actually and practically , I confess ; speculatively , significatively , commemoratively , and applicatively , I deny , and the consequence also : for Christ instituted this Sacrament , not only to be a signe or type of his bloudy sacrifice , but also to be a commemoration and daily application thereof ; and therefore he said to his Apostles , As often as you do this , do it in remembrance of me . Rodon . Secondly , because the representation of a thing differs essentially from the thing represented : for example , the Kings picture differs essentially from the King. Also the memorial of a thing differs essentially from the thing whereof it is a memorial : for example , the celebration of the Passover , which was a memorial of the Angels favorable passing over the houses of the Israelits , differs essentially from that passing over : and lastly , the application of a thing differs essentially from it : for example , the application of a Plaister differs essentially from the Plaister : But aceording to the determination of the Council of Trent , in sess . 22. the sacrifice of the Mass is representative , commemorative , and applicative of that of the Cross ; therefore the sacrifice of the Mass differs essentially from that of the Cross. Answ. To the second part of this reply , I say , that the representation of a thing need not always differ essentially from the thing represented , in essendo ( as Schoolmen call it ) in its natural essence or being ; but only in representando , in its representative or significative being ; for example , when an Angel understands himself , or represents his own being to himself ▪ sure it is that his being is not essentially different from himself in essendo ; although his being be essentially different in representando from the form or species wherewith he understands himself ; the same thing we say of the sacrifice of the Mass , that it differs from that of the Cross in its significative or representative being , and in its application also ; from whence follows not , that the sacrifice of the M●…ss is essentially different from that of the Cross in its natural entity or being ; and being it is the self-same essence which is sacrificed in both ; the distinction or difference cannot be in essendo , that 's to say , in the entities of both sacrifices ; but only in representando , vel applicando ; that 's to say , in their representation or application . Just as I said before , that a man in his old age , may well represent himself or his childish actions , when he was young ; and yet he differs not essentially in his old age , from himself while he was young ; for otherwise he would not be the same man : and so this consequence is also blown . Rodon . Thirdly because the sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value , and consequently ought not to be reiterated ; for its value being infinite , it is sufficient to take away all sins past , present , and to come ; as Bellarmin saith , Book . 1. of the Mass. chap. 4. But the sacrifice of the Mass is of a finite price and value , according to the same Bellarmin and other Romish doctors ; at which we may justly wonder , seeing as our adversaries say , it differs not from the sacrifice of the Cross , either in respect of the thing sacrificed , or in respect of the chief Priest , and yet from these the sacrifice hath all its price and value . Answ. To the third part of this reply , I say , that although the sacrifice of the Cross be of an infinite value , and sufficient to take away all sins past ; present and to come ; yet no inconvenience follows of its being reiterated unbloudily ; though it would follow if it were to be reiterated bloudily ; which we abhorr as much as to think of . I say also , that as the sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and price , so is also the sacrifice of the Mass , as to the thing which is sacrificed , viz. the body and bloud of Christ ; though it be but of a finite or limited value , as to the Priest or sacrificer : and Bellarmin with the rest of the Romish doctors says the like and no more . Therefore there is no just cause of wondring , that Christ who is both the high Priest and sacrifice too , should offer this sacrifice bloudily upon the Cross , and unbloudily upon the Altar , ( as he did when he first instituted it ) and that his sacrifice should be of an infinite price and value ; because of the dignity of his person ; though the same sacrifice , as it is offered by all other Priests , who are but his substitutes , be not of an infinite value ; their persons though never so holy , being infinitely unequal in worth and dignity to his : and yet as to the thing sacrificed by them , viz. the body and bloud of Christ , it is of as infinite a value and price , as that which Christ himself offered is , and no man of reason and belief wonders at it . Rodon . 19. Secondly , I say that an unbloudy propitiatory sacrifice , is a feigned and an imaginary thing , and thus the arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews do wholy destroy it . Answ. I say , this Proposition of 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 S●…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 r●…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 sinne●… 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 refu●…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 hea●… 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 d●…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 wi●…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 any body yet spoke more divinely of this grand Mistery of the B. Sacrament , then our famous Thomas Aquinas did : and so great was his devotion to this Sacrament , that he was the first who obtained of the Pope to institute a solenm holy-day throughout the whole Church in its honour : he himself composed the whole office which we use in this festivity , both in Church , and at Masse . In his Rithem upon the Masse of corpus Christi day , he says thus ; docti sacris institutis , panem , vinum , in salutis consecramus hostiam ; we are taught by holy statutes and ordinances , that we consecrate bread and wine into an host of health or safeguard : here he calls it an host , and consequently a sacrifice ; for an host and a sacrifice , are correlatives . Again , in the same Rythem , he says ; Dogma datur Christianis , quod in carnem transit Panis , & vinum in sanguinem ; a decree is left to all Christians , that the bread is changed into flesh , and the wine into bloud . And again , Caro cibus , senguis potus , manet tamen Christus totus sub utraque specie , The meat is flesh , the drink is bloud , and yet Christ remains entire under each species . In a word , there is nothing more clear and palpable , then famous S. Thomas of Aquins opinion is , in all this holy Rythem concerning the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist , and concerning his unbloudy sacrifice . Nay if the Mounsieur were pleased but to be so just as to prosecute the said doctors words , in the self sa●…e place where he cites him ; he may easily see , that this testimony is also quite against him ; for the holy doctor hath these ensuing words in that very place , viz. Quantum igitur ad primum modum , poterat dici Christu immo●…sri etiam in figuris veteris Testamenti , &c. sed quantum ad secundum modum , proprium est huic sacramento , quod in ejus celebratione Christus immoletur . As concerning the first acception of a sacrifice , Christ may be said to have been sacrificed in the types of the old Law also , &c. But as concerning the last acception of a sacrifice ; it is peculiar and proper to this Sacrament , that Christ is sacrificed in its celebration : where he clearly says , that although in the first acception of a sacrifice , viz. as the Sacrament is a signe , Image , or representation of Christs passion , it may be called a sacrifice , as the word sacrifice is common to the Sacrifices of bo●…h Laws : yet in the later acception of a Sacrifice , viz. as by this Sacrament we are made partakers of Christs passion ; in this later sense the holy Doctor says , it is proper and peculiar ▪ only to this our Sacrament in its celebration , to be called a sacrifice ; which is the self-sa●… thing we say ; for we hold that we are made partakers of Christs passion , and of his bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross , by receiving this our Sacrament offered unbloudily in its celebration of the Mass , for us . Therefore M. de Rodon , all other arguments failing him , if he were not mad , would never pitch upon our Thomas Aquinas of all men in the world ; and he , with his whole party subscribe to his Testimony here , which is father quite against them : for 't is very well known to all the world that our Venerable Lady . Diana never had a stouter Champion to de●…end her then Thomas Aquinas . However , while the Masse is sound and sa●… , and will be alive until the worlds end , ma●…gre all the devils of hell , as Christ promised it should be , We must give leave to malicious and mad hereticks to speak madly , and make 〈◊〉 Funerals ; as this of de Rodons concerning the Mass , is the maddest and most malicious that ever was written . CHAP. VIII . Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors . ALthoug when conbatants or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fight , they commonly before they go to the field , choose what arms they are to fight with , and foresee , l●…t there should be any inequality in their weapons ; ve●… it was never heard or seen , that the advers party should choose his enemies sword before they went to fight , weild it for him , while they are actually a fighting ; that he leaves to himself to make use of , as he pleaseth ; and much less ought he to blunt it . However ( prudent Reader ) I would have you take notice , that Mr. de Rodon observes not this common way with us , in this controversal conflict , which all duelists use , but chooses such arguments of ours as he please ; and puts them in such order or form as he likes best ; he mentions not our authors , that we may know whether the arguments be theirs , and set out in their manner or form ; this is the way to blunt our weapons , and to give us directions how we must fight him , but so , and so , make our blow or thrust at him but so and so ; what else is this , but that he weilds our sword for us , while we are actually fighting against him ; and blunts it while he sets out our arguments in his blunt manner or form : Sure any body may see that this is a very unjust and inequal manner of fighting with ones adversary . Nevertheless , being he has no other shift left him now , to oppose and annoy Diana , he shall be answered , and encountred this way also ; for although he chose the weapons both his and ours ; yet I am sure we stand upon the firmer and better ground . Behold him coming against us thus . Rodon . 1. In the two first chapters , we have answered the two principal objections of the Romish doctors , drawn from these words , This is my body , &c. and from these , he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my bloud , hath eternal life : &c. Now we must answer the rest . Answ. In the first two chapters of this book , these your answers are clearly refuted , shattered , and quasht ; therefore answer the rest better then you did these ; otherwise your labour will prove but ridiculous and vain ; and I question not but it will prove so at last . Objection 1. Romanists . 2. The first objection is this ; when the establishing of articles of faith , the Institution of Sacraments , and the making Testaments and covenants are in agitation , men speak plainly and properly , and not obscurely and figuratively : But in the celebration of the Eucharist , Iesus Christ established an article of faith , Instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist , and spake of a Testament , and a covenant : for it is said of the Cup , that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ ; yea he spake then to his disciples , to whom he spake in plain and proper terms , and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables , as he did to the people . Answer . Rodon . ●… . To this objection I answer , first . that it is false , that Articles of faith are always exprest in proper terms , in holy scripture as when it is said in the Creed , that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God , it is evident that this is a figure and a Metaphor , for God being a spirit , hath neither right hand nor left ; and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically , viz. for that Lordship both , of heaven and earth , which he hath received from God his father , as Earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name , to sit on the right side of them . Again when it is said S. Math. 16. upon this rock I will build my Church , and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it , and I will give thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven , and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven , &c. It is manifest , th●…t these are figures and Metaphors , as Bellarmine confesseth in Book . 1. of the Bishop of Rome , chap. 10. and yet it is chiefly by this Passage , that they endeavour to prove the Popes authority . Answ. If this be our weapon or objection , I pray Mounsieur ▪ give us leave to handle and order it our selves , and then the standers by , or arbiters may judge whether we thrust or push home with it or no ; for as you handle it , it is to blunt too pearce through . Therefore instead of saying : when the establishing of Articles of faith , the Institution of Sacraments , &c. men speake plainly and properly , and not obscurely or figuratively ; give us leave to say ; men ought as well as they can , and as farr as the subject they treat of bears it , to speak plainly and properly , and not obscurely or figuratively , and then perhaps our weapon may do some execution . As for example , at the Institution of this Sacrament , Christ first took bread in his hand , and said plainly without any figure : this is my body : and left it as a Testament with us ; so wee take it , and believe it to be . Afterwards he took wine in a cup , saying : This is the Chalice of my bloud . Certainly , if the consectated bread be his real body , the consecrated wine must needs be his real bloud , because ( as we suppose ) the words of consecration were uttered upon both in the same sense and meaning . Notwithstanding , the words spoken of the bread , were spoken plainly , and not figuratively ; but the words spoken of the wine were figurative ; why ? because he took not the wine immediatly in his hand as he took the bread ; but he took it in a cup , or chalice , and therefore to express the Testament of the bloud , it was necessary he should speak figuratively , and yet he exprest himself as plainly as could be . But in the Testament of his body , where there was no need of a Metonyn●…e or figure , he exprest himself plainly and down right ; from whence follows , that Sacraments , Testaments , and covenants ought to be made as plainly , clearly , and in as proper terms , as their subjects will permit them to be exprest . Sometimes also , a thing is better exprest , when one speaks figuratively then by the proper literal Phrase : for example , when I say : such a man is a Lyon , a Tygar , or a Nero. Such an expression , is as plain , and yet better and more energical to shew and express strength , cruelty , or tyrannie , then if one should say : such a man is mighty , strong , very cruel , and tyrannical . So was o●…r Saviours expression of S. Peter , Math. 16. where he calls him a rock ; because the word rock , is more significative and energical to shew the stability and firmness of Peter and his successours spiritual power , then if he had exprest himself in plain terms , thou art the head or chief Ruler of my Church . And yet I eonfess that Rock there , has but a figurative sense . Therefore I say , that when we have not a proper word to expresse a thing , or when we cannot expresse it so well , with its proper term as we can with a figure , then it is lawful in Sacraments , Testaments , and covenants to use figurative expressions , instead of plain and litteral ones . But in our present question or dispute , concerning the Eucharist , ( especially concerning the consecration of the Bread ) there is no need of any figure , either for to signify the thing consecrated , or to express it with more energy . Therefore being 't is left us for a Testament of the new Law ; we ought to take the words in their plain and litteral meaning , without having recourse to any needless figurative glossation or sense . Therefore although as Mr. de Rodon handles this weapon or objection , it be false , that Articles of faith , Testaments , and covenants are always exprest in proper terms , in holy scripture ; ( which word Always , he has in his answer , though he puts it not in the objection ) yet as I handle it , that is thus : when the establishing of Articles of faith , the Institution of Sacraments , &c. Men ought as well as they can , and as farr as the subject they treat of , ●…ears it , and when there is no necessity to the contrary , in making Testaments , covena●…ts , or Articles of faith , to speak plainly and properly , and not obscurely or figuratively . In this sense , I deny our major Proposition to be always or ever ●…lse . And being the minor is evident , clear , a●…d uncontro●… led by Mr. de Rodon ; with ▪ my good leave , I let the consequence follow . Rodon . 4. Secondly , I answer , that the holy scripture commonly speaks of Sacraments in figurative terms : Thus Circumcision is called Gods Covenant , Gen. 17. in these words , This is my Covenant , every male shall be circumcised , that is , this is the signe of the Coven●…nt as appears by the following verse ye ●…hall circumcise the fle●… of your fore-skin , and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you . So the Paschal lamb is called the Lords Passover , Exod. 12. because the bloud of this lamb sprinkled on the door-posts , was given as a signe of the Angels favorable passing over the houses of the Israelites ; ●…s appears by vers . 13. of the same chapter . So Baptism is called , the washing of Regeneration , because it is the Sacrament of it . In a word , the Eucharistical cup is called the New Testament , because it is the signe , seal , and Sacrament of it . Answ. Really Mounsieur these wily sophistical excuses or answers , will not serve your turn ; for we grant , that Circumcision , the Passover , and all the rest of the Sacraments of the old Law , were but meer speculative signes and tokens of what they signified ; and that they had no practical or operative vertue in them , of themselves , to sanctify or give grace to those that received them ; and God gave grace to the receivers of the old Sacraments , only by compact , viz. he promised Grace to such as received those Sacraments or signes , he then gave them , for their distinguishment from the unsaithfull ; not that those signes or Sacraments contained actually or practically any grace in themselves , or that they were immediate instrumental causes of Grace , as the Sacraments of the new Law are : for the former Sacraments were ( as divines call them ) but vasa vacua , empty vessels ; and the new ones are vasa plaena : full vessels , dipt in his Passion , and filled with his pretious bloud ; and consequently , vessels full of operative Grace ; for otherwise , the Sacraments of the old law , would be of as much value and worth as those of the new ; and so Christs new Sacraments would be instituted in vain ; which would be a great derogation to to his infinite wisdom ; and consequently Blasphemous to assert . Therefore , although circumcision , the Passover , and all the rest of the old Sacraments ; were but meer tokens or signes ; yet it follows not that Baptism , the rest of Christs Sacraments , and especially the Eucharist , which was particularised , and pointed at with the Pronoune demonstrative ( hoc ) are but meer signes : for as Baptism ( and so I say of all the rest of Christs Sacraments ) is not only a signe of the washing of Regeneration ( as the Mounsieur calls it ) but also the instrumental cause of Regeneration ; so the Eucharist ; or that which is in the Eucharistical cup , is not only a Sacrament or signe of Christ sacrificed ; but also his reall body and bloud , as he himself said it is ; in most plain and express terms without using any figurative expression , especially concerning the consecration of the bread , where there was no need of a figure ; and consequently the Mounsieurs sly and sophistical Illatives , viz. because it is the Sacrament of it ; and , because it is the signe , seal , and Sacrament of it , are sufficiently answered , and quasht ; for his becauses , are not the entire and adequate causes , that constitutes Sacraments of the new law : for besides their significations , or being signes , of Grace , they are also real causers of it ; and the Eucharist principally ; because it is both Sacramentum & res ; the Sacrament , and the thing it self . Rodon . 5. Thirdly , I answer , that in holy Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure ; for the Testament of Jacob , Gen. 49. and that of Moses , Deut. 33. are nothing else but a chain of Metaphors , and other figures : ●…nd civilians ▪ will have it , that in Testaments we should not regard the proper significati●…n of the words , but th●… inte●…ion of the Testator . To this I add , that Iesus Christ did not make the new Testament , and the new covenant , but only instituted the seal & Sacrament of them ; for the covenant w●… made with all mankind in the Person of Adam , after the fall ; when God promised him , that the seed of the woman should break the serpents head . This was afterwards renewe●… with Abraham , when God promised him that in his seed , all the nations of the earth should be blessed , viz. in Christ the blessed s●…ed , who hath destroyed the Kingdom of Sathan . After this , it was confirmed by the bloud of Chris●… shedd on the Cross ; then it was published through all the world , when the Apostles had recei●…ved the holy Ghost ; and lastly , Baptism and the Eucharist , are the signes , seals , and Sacraments of it . Answ. We grant , that for the better expression of things , in Testaments and covenants , figures may be used , and for that reason , they are sometimes , nay , often used in holy Scripture : yet to use Amphibologies and figures in Testaments , covenants or Sacraments , without necessity , and when they can be otherwise as clearly or better exprest in plain and proper words ; we hold neither convenient or lawfull : for else how can the Civilians themselves ( whose great Patron de Rodon is ) penetrate or dive into the Testators intention ? sure this were the high way to set all the world together by the ●…ars ; this is the way to wrong and undo poor widdows and orphans , the way to break and distract haman society , and to fill Mr. de Rodons favorits , the civilians pockets with ill-gott-gold . Gods laws and Testaments would be so enveloped and folded up in obscure figures and Tropes , that scarce any body could have a glimpse of them , even in our time of the Evangelical Law , which is called the Law of Grace : De Rodon then must of necessity make way for this weapon as I have ordered it , or else by enriching his dear Civilians , he will quite ruine and destroy , not only thousands of poor honest people , but also human society , and all Christian souls . But if neither he , nor the Translator , his surviver be able to break this thrust ( as I am sure they are not ) then will they be forced to submit to the Romish doctors mercy . As to the Mounsieurs additionate reason , viz. that Jesus Christ did not then make the new Testament , and the new covenant , but only instituted the seal and Sacrament of them ; for the covenant was made with all mankinde in the Person of Adam after the fall , when God promised , that the seed of the woman should break the serpents head , &c. to this additionate reason ( which is but one of Mr de Rodons start-holes to save himself ) I answer , that whatever the Testament or Covenant between God and Adam was , Christ himself called the Eucharist , Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine , this is the New Testament in my bloud : if it be a New Testament or Covenant , how can it be the Testament or Covenant made with Adam ? or did Christ make any Testament or Covenant with any body else before Adam , that his Covenant or Testament with Adam may be called the New Testament in Christs bloud : Christ said not , this is the signe or seal of my new Testament or covenant , as Mr. de Rodon glosseth him . But perhaps de Rodon the great Civilian , understood the Testators intention better then he was able to express himself ; for Christ , the Testatour spoke but plainly , and ordinarily ; and he understood him figuratively , elegantly , and Rhetorically , who then can say but that this grand Civilian received his fee ; I am sure he deserved it , and a good one too . Rodon . 6. Fourthly , I answer , that if by these words ▪ to speak clearly and plainly , be understood , to speak intelligibly ▪ s●… ▪ that the Apostles might and ought understand what he said to them ; then it is certain that Iesus Christ did speak clearly ; for to speak Sacramentally , and according to the stile used in all Sacraments , was to speak clearly , and not obscurely . But if by these words , to speak clearly ; be understood to speak without a figure ; then it is false , that he always sp●…ke to his disciples : wittness the calling his disciples to whom he said , Math. 4. follow me , and I will make you fishers of men . And when he saith elsewhere , ye are the salt of the earth , and the lights of the world ; &c. To this I add , the Apostles did ask Iesus Christ the meaning of Parables , and other things which they did not understand ; and therefore certainly they had much more reason to ask the meaning of so many strange things as follow from the Mass , from Transubstantiation , and from the pretended presence of Christs body in the host , viz. how a human body can be in a point and in divers places at once ? how the head of Iesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth ? how accidents can be without a subject . &c. Answ. I do not 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 , mak●…ng of Testaments and covenants , and not of ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…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 wi●…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 ask●… 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 represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist . Besides , the types and Sacraments of the old Testament , were instituted , that the faithful of those times , might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls : But the faithful under the old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal lamb , and though they had come to the knowledge of it , yet they had had no benefit thereby . In a word , seeing the Passeover and the Eacharist are types , Images , and signes , of Iesus Christ , 't is very impertinent to say , that the Passeover is the type of the Eucharist , because a type is not properly the type of another type , but only of the thing typified ; as the Image of Caesar , is not the Image of another Image of Caesar , but only of Caesar himself . Answ. Mr. de Rodon breaks this thrust , or objection , three manner of ways , all which I will answer in order : to his first , wherein he says , that the thing typified by the Paschal lamb , is Jesus Christ , and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist , as S. Paul shews clearly , 1. Cor. 5. when he calls Jesus Christ our Passeover in these words , Christ our Passeover was crucified for us : I answer , that this Passage of scripture , shews not clearly that the Paschal lamb is not also a type of the Eucharist ; Nay I say , that this text makes rather for us ; for whereas all the holy fathers and doctors of the Church , with all the general Councils , do unanimously hold , that the Sacrament of the Eucharist offered , is nothing else but Christ immolated unbloudily upon the Altar , in remembrance of his once bloudy Passion . If the same Christ ( we say ) then the same thing typified ; and the only difference is in the immolation or offering , viz. that the primary oblation of him was bloudy , the secondary incruent or unbloudy ; all which we grant , and for that reason do averr and maintain that the Paschal lamb was a type not only of Christ crucified , but also of Christ in the Eucharist . And we leave it to any Prudent and impartial Reader to consider and judge , whose authority and opinion is surer to be imbraced and followed in this debate , Iohn Calvins , Mr. de Rodons and a handful of new Phanatick opiniatours , or the General Councils of all ages that ever treated of this subject , all the holy fathers , and the universal Christian Church . But ( replyeth Mr. de Rodon ) such a lamb represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist ; I answer , that it represents that which is believed to be in it ; which is a surer and better sight or knowledge then what we see or know with our corporal eyes , which may be deceived by the illusions of the devil ; whereas our understanding supported by the light of saith cannot be ; because it relyes upon the testimony of Gods word , which testimony and word we have expressely in the 6th of S. Iohn of our side . But ( quoth he again ) besides , the types and Sacraments of the old Testament , were instituted that the faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things typified , and signified for the salvation of their souls ; But the faithful under the old Testament , never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal lamb ; and though they had come to the knowledge of it , yet they had not benefit thereby . I confess , that the types and Sacraments of the old Law , were instituted for the reason you alledge , and I distinguish your minor thus : But they never came to an explicite sormal knowledge of the Eucharist , I confess ; but they never came to an implicite vertual knowledge of ▪ the Eucharist ; I deny ; and deny also that they had not the vertual benefit of it : for the Eucharist and its immolation , being the self same thing with Christ , and his immolation upon the Cross ; although this being the primary immolation ( as is said before ) and including virtually the secundary which is that of the Altar ; yet because the very same thing is still offered ; it followeth , that this secondary , immolation , which is the Eucharist , was typified also vertually and implicitly , by the Paschal lamb ; and that those of the old Law reapt benefit by it , as they did explicitly by that of the Cross. In a word , seeing the Passeover and the Eucharist , are not Types alike ; but the one mediate , and the other immediate , the one but a bare type , and the other both type and the thing typified ; it is not at all impertinent , that the Passeover should be the type of the Eucharist : Neither is the Parity of Caesar with his own Image , to any purpose ; for Caesar and his Image are not the same thing , as Christ is the self-same thing with the Eucharist : There M. de Rodon ought to hold ●…is impertinent tongue , or speak better to the purpose . But he that is full of impertinencies , and hath nothing else in him , must of necessity burst out with some of them , or otherwise he would become quite dumb . Rodon 10. Secondly , I answer , that the excellency of one Sacrament above another , must be drawn from its form and efficacy , and not from its matter ; because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form : But the form of Sacraments depends on the words of Institution , because being signes of divine Institution , their form can only depend upon the will of God , who chooseth certain things to signifie other things ; and this will of God cannot he known but by revelation , which is the word ; so that it is properly said , that the word joyned with the element makes the Sacrament ▪ therefore although the Sacrament of the Passeover be more excellent then the Eucharist in respect of its matter , because the Paschal lamb and its bloud , are more excellent then the bread and the wine of the Eucharist ; and that the lamb and its bloud have a greater Analogy with Iesus Christ & his bloud shed on the cros , then the bread and wine of the Eucharist have ; yet the Sacrament of the Eucharist is much more excellent then that of the Passeover in respect of its form , which depends on the words of Institution ; because that at the institution of the Sacrament of the Passeover , God spake not the word of the principal end for which he did institute it , viz. to be the type of Iesus Christ and his death . But at the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist , Christ declared in expresse terms , that he did institute the eating of the bread broken , and the drinking of the wine poured into the Cup , to be commemorative signes of Christ himself , and his death . The Sacrament of the Eucharist is yet more excellent then that of the Passeover , in respect of its efficacy , which depends on two things , viz. on the form , which being more manifest in the Eucharist , doth operate with more efficacy ; and also because it represents a thing past , viz. the death of Christ : But the knowledge of things past , is more clear and perfect then the knowledge of things to come , and we are more toucht with the memory of things past , when some symbol brings them to our thoughts , then when we consider things to come through clowds and shaddows : To this I add , that the bread and wine of the Eucharist , have a greater Analogie with Iesus Christ , then the Paschal lamb had in one respect , viz. in regard of the spiritual nourishment which we receive by Christs death ; for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our spiritual birth , so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment : But this nourishment is much better represented by bread and wine , which are the ordinary nourishment of our bodies , then by a lamb . Answ. All that Mr. de Rodon says in this second answer , strengthens , and confirms our major above ; but it strikes at our minor , viz. But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not really contain the body and bloud of Christ , but was only the signe of it , then it would follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not be more excellent then that of the Passeover ; nay that of the Passeover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist , &c. That the excellence of one Sacrament a bove another , must be drawn from its form and efficacy , and not from its matter , because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form , as Sacraments are ; this doctrine , I confess , is very good and true ; and that the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist dependeth on the Institution of Christs words , is also very certain and true . But by what words ( forsooth ) did Christ institute this Sacrament ? doubtlesse by no other but these , viz. this is my body , this is my bloud : and immediately after consecrating he said ; as often as you do this , do it in remembrance of me . Now if you take away the first and immediate signification of the words of consecration , which is , that it is his body and bloud ; I ask Mr. de Rodon , how bread and wine can signifie the body and bloud of Christ , after the words of consecration , more then they did before ? or if Christs body be not really there , how can bread and wine be the signes of his body and bloud because they were consecrated , more then if they were not consecrated at all ? and ( to use the Mounsieurs one phrase ) we cannot see or discern with our eyes , any greater signs of Christs body and bloud , in the consecrated bread and wine , more then we do see in the unconsecrated . I confess indeed , that these words : as often as you do this , do it in remembrance of me , do signifie Christs bloudy Passion : But what that ( this ) is ; unlesse it be Christs body , ( for he said immediately before , this is my body ) I cannot understand ; for if by the word ( this ) Christ had meant the remembrance or signe of his body , and not his real body ; then the sense of his words would be this : as often as you do the remembrance of my body , do it in remembrance of me : which as any body may see , is a perfect Batalogy , or senselesse repetition of the self-same thing . But sure it is , and according to Mr. de Rodons own concession , that the Paschal lamb has a nobler natural entity ( because of its life ) then bread and wine have ; and that his bloud has a greater Analogy with Christ and his bloud shed on the Crosse , then they have ; Therefore not only according to the material entity ( which is the matter ) but also according to the representative or significative entity , ( which is the formal part of the Sacrament ) if Christs body be not there really present ; the Passeover is a more excellent signe or Sacrament of Christs bloudy Passion , then the Eucharist is ; which is a great absurdity , if not rather Blasphemy ( we say ) to assert . To this I add , that whereas according to M. de Rodons own saying , it is an impertinency to make a Type of a Type ; it follows that the Paschal lamb signifies the thing typified , viz. Christs bloudy sacrifice , better then the Eucharist doth ; if you take away the body of Christ from the Sacrament , or cut off the immediate signification of these words , This is my body : upon which words the signification of the Eucharist do wholy depend . Rodon . Lastly , I answer , that it is far les●… inconvenient to give some prerogative to the Passeover above the Eucharist , ( viz. to give it a more excellent matter and Anology ) then to assert the corporal Presence of Christ in the host , by an unheard of Transubstantiation , which destroys the nature of Sacraments , gives our Lord a monstrous body , includes notorious absurdities and contradictions , and gives the lye to sense , Reason , and holy Scripture , as hath been proved . Answ. This last answer of de Rodon is not only absurd , but also impious , and Blasphemous ; for it makes the Sacraments of the old Law , to be better , and more perfect , then those of the new ; which is a great derogation to Christs infinite wisdom , that he should institute Sacraments ( for all the Sacraments of the new Law are instituted by him ) of lesser worth and likenesse then those were which were used before his Incarnation : It puts the Law of Grace , beneath the Law of Moses ; It makes Christs words , Institutions , and Instruments of our Redemption ( which be his Sacraments ) imperfect and vain , if the Sacraments of the old Law be worthier and more significative then his are ; and consequently it lessens the price of our redemption , which is Symbolized perfectly in his Sacraments ; finally , according to this rate , we had better fall to circumcising our selves , become Jews , and forsake Baptism , and consequently our Christianity ; for if the Passeover may without offence excell the Eucharist in matter and Analogy or signification , why may not circumcision also excell Baptism ? away , away then with this blasphemous lyar , who vainly and falsly boasts of his non-sensical proofs , that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments , gives our Lord a monstrous new body , includs notorious absurdities and contradictions , &c. for all his silly proofs are already destroied , shattered , & quasht by me , in their due places . This is ( Reader ) that malepart Civilian I told you of a little before , who so well deserved his fee ; and I doubt not but he received it by this time . Objection 3. Romanists 11. The third Objection was proposed at Nismes , Anno 1657. by the Iesuit●… S. Rigaut thus . God doth communicate or can communicate to the creature in a finite degree , that which he possesseth in an infinite degree ; for example , God hath an infinite power , whereby ●…e can do all things at once , as appears in a man , for he can see , hear , talk , and walk at the same time : God hath also an infinite wisedom and knowledge , whereby he knows all things at once ; therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite knowledge , whereby it may know diverse things at once : And even so God hath a virtual infinite extent , which is called Immensity , whereby he sills all things and all places at once ; Therefore God communicates or c●…n communicate to the creature , viz. to a body , a finite extent , whereby it may sill divers places , and occupy several places o●… once ; whence it follows , that Christs body may be in divers pl●…ces at the same time , viz. in heaven , and in the host . Answer . Rodon 12. To this I answer . that as God cannot be in two places ( for example , in heaven and upon earth ) without being in all those places that are between both , ( for then he would be distant and separated from himself ) so Christs body cannot be in two distant places , viz. at Paris and at Rome , in heaven and upon earth in the host , without being in all those places that are between both ; for then it would be distant and separated from it self , which is impossible ; as hath been sufficiently proved . Therefore since Christs body is not in all places between Paris and Rome , and between heaven and earth ; it follows , that it is not in heaven and upon earth in the host , nor at Paris and Rome in consecrated hosts ; so that to make a creature ( for example the body of Christ ) partaker of Gods extent or immensity , it is sufficient , that as God by his infinite extent occupies all places ; so Christs body , should by its finite extent occupy some place . But if to make it partake in a finite degree of this divine Attribute of Immensity , it must be in divers places ; yet it is sufficient that it be in divers places successively , and not at once : Or if to make 〈◊〉 partake of this Attribute , it must be in divers places at once , yet it is sufficient , that it occupies them by its several parts ; f●…r example ; that the head be in one place and the feet in another , &c. In a word ; that it be without discontinuance or separation , as God is every where without discontinuance . Thus the learned Master Brugier , then answered , and much better , but I cannot remember his full and compleat answer . Answ. Mr. de Rodon , your learned Brugier , shews no learning in this answer , which is but very simple and false ; but if you think his answer to the question was full and compleat , you had better say , that you cannot remember one word of it , for if he and you rely upon this answer , and take it to be a compleat and satisfactory one ; you both shew that you are but a couple of very ignorant fellows that go against all Philosophers and learned men , which I demonstrate evidently thus : The reason you give , why God cannot be in two places together , without being in all those places that are between both , is because he would otherwise be different and separated from himself . But this reason is false , and stark naught , which I prove thus : God is a pure spirit , but betwixt pure spirits there can be no proper distance , or separation , by reason of the difference of material places ; for while Christ was upon earth , his diviniry which was also here , was not distant nor separated from the divinitie of the father and of the holy Ghost , which was at the same time in heaven also : Neither doth any Philosopher or learned man say that two Angels are properly distant or separated from one another , by reason of their material places : and the general reason is , because distance ( as I proved before ) is proper only to corporal things that are in their corporal and material places , by reason of their superfices , and of the superfices of their places ; so that pure spirits ( as Gods is a most pure one ) having no superfices , are consequently incapable of being circumscribed by any material place ; and consequently also incapable of any proper distance or separation ; for otherwise , since the measure of any thing , in the way or line of commensuration , is more perfect then the thing which is measured ; it would follow , that a material place , which is but a corporal thing , ( if it should measure or commensurate a spirit ) would be more perfect in the way or line of commensuration and regulation , then any spirit would be , which is both absurd , and impious to assert . Therefore if there be any reason why God cannot be in two places at once , without being in all those places that are between , it is not for the distance or difference of the places ; but rather because of his Immensity or infinite ubication ; for without his ubicacation , the other intermediate places would desist to be ; because their being doth wholy depend upon his ubication : But Christs body may be in a thousand , and ten thousand places together personally with his sacramental ubication without being in the intermediate places personally ; because all those intermediate places may be preserved in their being , by vertue of the common divine ubication or presence . And whereas a sacramental presence or ubication ( as I have formerly proved ) is a spiritual presence , or rather the real Presence of Christs glorified body spiritualized , according to the Apostles saying ; Cor. 15. It is sown a natural body , it shall rise a spiritual body : I say , because it is a spiritual or spiritualized body and presence , it has no dependance from corporal places , nor consequently from their distances , or differences . All the learned Master Bruguiers , and all profound Master de Rodons other petty answers to this objection , are frivolous , if not ridiculous ; for they grant no more to Gods being able to communicate his Attributes finitely to Christs glorified body , then what we see he doth communicate unto our lumpish mortal bodyes : for our bodies , do possess some place , and our bodies can be successively in two places ; and our bodies , though they be not in two places at once , yet we possess them by our several parts , viz. our head in one place , and our feet in another ; or if he meaneth , by possessing two several places at once , that our heads , feet , and our whole bodies , are at the same time in both several places ; then he gives us more then we ask : for we say not , that one body is circumscriptively , and according to its natural situation in two places together ; But that the same body may be circumscriptively in one place , viz. in heaven , and also at the same time sacramentally in another , viz. here upon earth : or that the same body may be sacramentally at once in divers places ; which is far easier , then for a body to be at the same time in two different places circumscriptively . But that God imparts and communicates his gifts and Attributes unto Christ , and to his body now glorified , more then he doth unto us , and to our corruptible lumpish bodies , is a thing most certain : for without doubt Christ partakes more of the divine wisdome , Power , Justice , mercy , goodness , bounty , &c. then we do ; and his body partakes now of the gifts or dowryes of subtillity , impassibility , Agility , and clarity , which ours do not : why then ( I pray ) cannot God make Christs body partake more of the Attribute of his Immensity , then ours doth ? questionless he doth ; and consequently it can be in more places at once , then our heavy lumpish bodies can be . Objection 4th . Roman . 13. The fourth objection is this ; If divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place , then it also follows that one body may miraculously be in divers places ; there being no more difficulty or impossibility in the one then in the other . But divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place ; sor Iesus Christ came into the room where his disciples were , the doors being shut , which he could not have done , if his body had not penetrated the do●…rs . Besides , it is said that Iesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary , and consequently Mary was a Virgin , both before and after his birth , which could not have been if Iesus Christ had not penetrated her belly , and come forth without fraction or overture . Lastly , Iesus Christ penetrated the stone that was laid on his sepulchre when he rose again , and it is said , that he penetrated the heavens when he Ascended . Answer . Rodon 14. To this I answer . First , That it is not said that Iesus Christ came in the doors being shut , for these are the words : The same day when it was Evening , and the doors having been shut for fear of the Jewes , Jesus came , &c. which words do indeed shew the time when Iesus came in unto his disciples , but not the manner of his entry by penetration ; But if the words be translated , the doors being shut , and that they do import that the doors were not opened by any body , yet they do not exclude the opening of them in the twinckling of an eye by the divine Power , sub we have examples of this in holy Scripture ; for Acts the 5th , we reade , that the Apostle went out of Prison , though the doors had been fast shut ; but it is said , that the Angel of God opned them . And Acts. 12. the door of the prison opened to S. Peter of its own accord ; that is , without being opened by any body . And so it is said that Christ entred , the doors being shut , or having been shut ; which excludes the opening of them by any body , but not the opening of them by a divine power in so short a time that it was undiscernable . Answ. Mr. de Rodon has many answers to this objection ; all which answers I will refute in order : his first is , that these words the doors being shut , are not the right words , but these : the doors having been shut , which words he confesseth , do indeed shew the time when Jesus came in unto his disciples ; but not the manner of his entry by Penetration . This answer I say , hath no resemblance of Truth , solidity , or reason ; not of Truth , because our vulgar Translation of the Scripture is far more ancient and authentical for the authors sanctity and learning , ( and consequently far more worthy to be believed ) , then de Rodon , and all his new Translatours are . It has no solidity or reason ; because Christs miraculous manner of entrance to his disciples , deserved as much , or more to be chronicled then the time when he entred did ; for the time of his entrance , whether it was in the morning or evening , or at noonday , imports not very much ; but the circumstance of the manner of his entrance ( the door being shut ) is of great weight , for it shews that he entred not after an ordinary manner . But if the Mounsieurs Translation were the right , then we may imagine , that when Jesus Christ came to the door , and finding it shut ( as we suppose it was for fear of the Jews ) he knockt at it , and that the porter coming to the door asked , who is there ? and Christ should answer him , I am Iesus Christ , I pray let me in ; all this may very well follow from the Mounsieurs right Translation ; for if Christ did not enter , the doors being shut , but the doors having been shut , and afterwards it was opened for him to let him in ; then by all likelyhood it was , as I say ; which if so , then doubtless when he knockt , he putt the poor disciples into a great terrour , fearing lest the Jews came to apprehend or massacre them in the place . But how ridiculous this translation is , and how void of credit or belief ; besides that holy text makes no mention of it , I let any rational Christian judge . Moreover , if the time of his entrance was of greater importance to be considered , then the manner of his entrance was ; 't is wonder the very hour was not set down too . But Mr. de Rodon has another string to his bow , and saves himself thus . But ( quoth he ) if the words be translated , the doors being shut , and that they do import that the doors were not opened by any body , yet they do not exclude the opening of them in the twinckling of an eye by the divine power , ●…ith we have examples of this in holy Scripture : for Acts the fifth , we reade , that the Apostle went out of Prison though the doors had been shut fast : for there we reade that the Angel of God opened them . And acts the 12th . the doors of the prison opened to S. Peter of its own accord , that is , without being opened by any body : And so it is said that Jesus Christ entered , the doors being shut , or having ●…een shut ; which excludes the opening of them by any body , but not the opening of them by divine power , in so short a time that it was undiscernable . Thus Mr. de Rodon very wittyly and wisely answereth us . But good sir , here you are to answer to these words : the doors being shut , and not to these , the doors having been shut . And what else ( forsooth ) meaneth the doors being shut , but , the doors not being open , or while the doors were not open ? If so , then whether the doors were opened by divine or humane power , it imports not , for our Saviour entred not but the doors being shut , or while they were shut : So that though the time be never so short , and the twinckling or instant never so imperciptible , while the doors were open , our Saviour did not enter ; or else the words of the text be not true ; because the text says ▪ he entred the doors being shut , or , while they were shut ; Therefore the Mounsieur by this answer commits three horrid faults ; first , he falsifies the text , by putting the doors having been shut , for the doors being shut ; secondly , for excluding the shutting of the doors by divine power , which is either his addition to the text , or glossing upon it ; which yet he ought not to do , because of the curse that accompanies those that diminish or add to Gods word , or expound and interpret it wrongfully . Thirdly , because whether the doors were opened by Gods power or by mans , although it were but in the least twinkling of an eye ( as he says ) he manifestly contradicts the Text , for if in that twinkling the doors were open , when our Saviour entred , he did not enter the doors being shut , but he entred the doors being open , or at that instant while the doors were open : Or could he enter the doors being open and shut at the same instant or twinkling ? Therefore whether you will or no Mounsieur you must confesse accoridng to this Text , that our Saviours glorified body did penetrate the doors of the room where his disciples were , or else say , that he entred while the doors were open and shut together , which is both non-sensical and contradictory . Neither do your clear passages out of Act. 5. and the 12. avail you a jot ; for first , there is a very great difference between Christs glorified body , and the Apostles patible body , as it was when he lay in prison : and therefore to let a patible body go out of prison , it was necessary the doors should be opened by an Angel , or some body : But Christs glorified body needed no such help . Secondly , because the Text says not , that Peter went out of prison the doors being shut , as it is said , that Christ entred to his disciples while the doors were shut , therefore these passages of Scripture are nothing to your purpose . Rodon . Secondly , I answer , that the Virgin Mary was a true Virgin both before and after her delivery , if by being a Virgin he meant not to have had the company of a man : but it is certain that Iesus Christ came out of the Virgins belly by opening her womb ; for it is said , Luke 2. that Joseph and Mary carried Iesus Christ to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord , as it is written in the Law ; Every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord. Answ. Concerning our B. Ladies virginity , your answer Mounsieur is also impious and false ▪ for strict and rigorous virginitie , ( such as the mother of Gods is ) consists in the integrity of a virginal inclosure . Therefore it is so far from being certain , that it is a false and an arrant lie , that Jesus Christ came out of the virgins womb by fraction or overture ; for that is contrary to virginal integrity . But most certain it is , and a thing questionlesse , that de Rodon deserves a double fee , one for vilifiing Christs Sacraments , and another remarkable brand upon his ungodly tongue or lips for speaking blasphemously against the B. virgins virginal integrity , which according to his impious doctrine , would not be as entire as that of ordinary young little maidens is . The Scripture which you alledge for it , helps you not out also ; for although Ioseph and Mary carryed Iesus to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord , as it is written in the Law , Every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord : yet it follows not , nor proves at all , that Christ at his birth , did open his virgin-Mothers womb ; for when Iesus and Mary came to the Temple , and he was to be presented there to the Lord , it was not for any obligation he or she had to the Law , for as they were both most free from sin ; so were they exempted from the Law also , which was made only against sinners . But he was pleased to be presented at the Temple like a sinner , because all other males , but he that openeth the womb , were really sinners , and consequently subject to the Law. But he , as he said of himself , came not into the world to destroy the Law , but to fullfill it ; and therefore for to give no occasion of scandal unto others , he was pleased to be presented to the Lord , like unto a sinner , although both himself and his most blessed mother were clear from all sorts of sins , and consequently not subject to the Law : he was also perhaps pleased to be presented in the Temple to the Lord , the better to conceal himself from the devil ; for the same reason as Martyr Ignations gives , why he chose rather to be born of a Married woman then of a virgin unmarried , because the devil only suspected and guest who he was , and was not quite certain of it , as it evidently appears by these words of S. Math. 4. If thou art the son of God , command that these stones be made bread : where as one may clearly see the devil spoke doubtfully . So that as Jesus Christ was exempted from the Law , and yet fulfilled the Law ; even so he came out of his mothers belly without opening her virginal womb as all other males when they are born , do open their mothers wombs , Certain it is therefore , and most certain too , that as Jesus Christ was conceived in the virgins womb without any detriment to her virginal integrity ; so he also came out of her womb leaving her as pure and entire a virgin as she was before his birth ; and consequently as entire as any little mayden virgin ; and this susliceth to refute de Rodons blasphemous answer against the B. virgins Integrety . Rodon . Thirdly I answer , that Iesus Christ did not penetrate the stone that was layd on his sepulchre , for it is said , S. Math. 28. that the Angel of God rolled it back from the door of the sepulchre . Answ. Neither will this text serve your turn Mounsieur for the stone was not rolled by the Angel , to make way for Christs body to come out of the sepulchre , as de Rodon falsely glosseth it , and heaps curses more and more upon his own head by so doing . But the stone was rolled for the Maries who came to visit our Lords sepulchre , and he rose before they came ; for when they came with oyntments to anoynt his body , they found the sepulchre shut ; and S. Mary Magdalene said , quis revolvet nobis l●…pidem ? who will roll the stone for us ? S. Mark. 16. Therefore the stone was rolled for them , and not for Christ to come out of his sepulcher , because he could , and did make way for himself by his own proper might and vertue , without needing the help or administry of his Angels , as he assended into heaven without their aid or help . Rodon . 14. fourthly , I answer , that when it is said , Heb. 4. that Iesus Christ penetrated the heavens , we must understand it improperly , in the same manner as it is commonly said , that an Arrow penetrates the Air , that is , the Air gives way to the Arrow that Passeth through the Air ; and so Iesus Christ penetrated the heavens , because the heavens gave way to his body , and not that the heavens and his body wère in one and the same place . But why Mr. de Rodon ? when the Apostle says plainly and exnresly , that Jesus Christ penetrated the heavens , why ( I say ) must we understand his words improperly ? do you think that Penetration is an impossible thing to God ? have you an Augustine , a Hierome , an Ambrose , a Gregory , a Chrysostome , or any of the ancient Fathers to second you ? or have you any Text of Scripture or General Council that backs you in it ? if you have , produce them , in the name of God ; if you have not , ( as I am sure you have not ) is it not a very great presumption and audacity in you to offer to interpret clear passages of Scripture , and turn them to what sense you please , upon your own bare word and authority ? or finally , do you not see your own heretical Pride , in offering to perswade the world to believe your bare word against the Apostles clear meaning ? for certainly the Apo●…le purposely mentioned the word ( Penetrated ) to let us know that Penetrability is a property that belongs to a glorified body : he●…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 glo●…ious body ( as Chri●…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 Chri●…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 world then must follow Mr. de Rodons bare word , and leave the plain sense of the words of Gods Prophet , although we are sure he was inspired by God. The Prophet says expresly , that in every place they shall offer Incense to Gods name : Incense is the signe of a strict and rigorous sacrifice , not of a sacrifice improperly taken ; for in all the proper sacrifices of the old Law , the ceremony of Incensing the sacrifice was commonly used , though not at the offering of improper sacrifices ; such as are Prayers , Alms , and other good works . Therefore the Prophet meant hear , a strict and proper sacrifice whereat Incense is used . supposing then for certain , that , the Prophet spoke of a rigorous and proper sacrifice ; I see no reason to the contrary , why Mr. de Rodon should not be held to Bellarmines definition of a strict sacrifice ; as well as he holds us to it , until he gives us as good or a better of his own ; holding him then to the same words he held us to , viz. and destroys something that is sensible and permanent ; whereas his answer is , that by the offering whereof Malachy speaks , must be understood that spiritual worship and service which believers should perform unto God under the New Testament , which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their Persons and Religious actions . I ask the Mounsicur when he , or any of his brethren , do offer their Persons , or their Religious actions to God , whether they de●…troy their own Persons and actions , or not ? if they do , then they destroy their own bodies and works ; if not , how is it a strict and proper sacrifice they offer ? for such a sac●…fice cannot be offered wit●…out destroying something that is sensible and permanent . But we seldom see , or hear that any of the R●…formed Church destroy themselves through an excessive zeal to Gods service ; but on the contrary , we often see that they are very curious and careful both of their diet and apparel , and do mortifie their bodies with fa●…ting and other penal exercises , for Gods sake , but very little : yet true it is , that we hear sometimes of some Phanaticks or Quakers ( derived from the Reformed Church ) who now and then , out of meer zeal do hang themselves , or throw themselves out of windows or high places , and so sacrifice their persons to the devil . Neither doth these words of the Apostles , Rom. 12. I beseech you therefore , brethren , by the mercys of God , that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice , holy , acceptable to God , which is your reasonable service , favour you , o●… hurt us ; for the Apostle speaketh there , of a sacrifice taken not strictly , but in its common acception : for he bids us not destroy our bodies , nor our actions ; and yet according to our definition of a proper and strict sacrifice , some sensible and permanent thing must be destroyed . And though he had meant a strict sacrifice , yet it makes nothing against us : for his Passage is very well understood in this sense , viz. that we ought to be always ready , and prepared in minde , to offer up all we have to the honour and service of God , nay to sacrifice , and make victimes of our selves , and our whole estates , and lose all , rather then to swa●…ve from God , or deny our Religion : this manner of Sacrificing unto God ( which is very acceptable unto him ) the poor Catholicks of England , I am sure , do practise a thousand times more , then those of the Reformed Church do : for they , upon the only score of their Religion , are hunted after , from house to house , their names taken up , they are presented , indighted , convicted , their estates taken away , they are banished , imprisoned , and persecuted a thousand manner of wayes ; they are incapable of bearing any manner of office by sea or land , and all ways for them to live in their own native Countrey , to maintain their poor wives and families are obstructed ; a Turk , a Jew , a heathen , nay any body , so he be not a Roman Catholick , has his freedome , and may live as he please , without lett or molestation . And in the sense of an improper sacrifice , must these words also of his 5th . chap. be understood , viz. that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable ; for otherwise , if by offering up the Gentiles , a proper and strict sacrifice were meant ; then it would be acceptable to God , that the Apostle should kill or destroy those Gentiles he was to offer unto God ; and so according to Mr. de Rodons answer , the Apostle was to go up and down the world amongst the Gentiles or heathens , and after he had preached Christ unto them , those of them that believed and were converted by him , the Apostle was to take a knife , or some other weapon , & to cut their throats , or knock them on the head , to make them proper victimes or sacrifices for Christ , for without destruction of a sensible permanent thing ( according to the definition of a strict sacrifice , and we will stand to this definition untill de Rodon shews us a better ) there can be no strict or proper sacrifice . And this may be ( for ought we know ) Mr. de Rodon and his parties true sense or understanding of these words ; for they do as farr as they are able , destroy not only the estates , but also the Persons of the Romish doctors , and all the Romish Catholicks too ; and who knows but they think they offer an acceptable sacrifice to God by doing it ? for if they think otherwise , sure they offer these sort of sacrifices with a guilty conscience , and consequently if they offer them so , they cannot be at all acceptable to God , but to the devil . Rodon . 18. Secondly , I answer , that in the whole Passage of Malachy above-cited , the words New offering ; are not to be found , but only clean offering . And though a new offering had been there spoken of , yet I say , that things may be said to be new , when being spoiled and corrupted , they are restored and made sound again . But the service of God which had been corrupted under the Law , was reestablished by Iesus Christ and his Apostles under the Gospel , so that all things were made new : a new time , viz. the time of the preaching of the Gospel : a new people , viz. the Christian people : a new place , viz. all parts of the world , and not at Jerusalem only a new Prayer , viz. the Lords Prayer : new Sacraments , viz. Baptism , and the Lords supper : and new Preaching , viz. the preaching of salvation by Iesus Christ. Answ. Mr. de Rodon , we will not stand with you here about the difference of these two words , New and clean , for the one serves our turn as well as the other ; and whether you forged the New upon us , instead of the word clean , I know not , for you cite no author for it of ours ; and I finde the words clean offering , in our Bible also , as you have . But this imports nothing at all to our question : therefore , if you will not have it to be a New sacrifice , at least shew us which is that clean one the Prophet spoke of ? If it be a strict sacrifice , a sacrifice with Incense ( as the Prophet sayes it is ) it must be destroyed . Is the new time , ( you speak of ) that sacrifice ? a great deal of that time I confess , is past , and spent ; but when was it incenst ? were the new people , the Christians , this sacrifice ? 't is true , many of them are dead and gone ; but were they all thurified an Incenst at their departure out of the world ? or is the new place ( the world ) your new or clean sacrifice ? that is neither quite destroyed as yet , nor in most places Incenst : No more are the Lords Prayer , the new sacraments , viz. Baptism and the Lords supper , ( as they are celebrated by you ) nor your new preaching , ( if they be your sacrifices ) I say , they are not offered with Incensation , or thurification ; But the Prophet promised that at the new or clean offering or sacrifice of the new Law , which sacrifice is to be offered every where , or in every country or dominion , it shall be offered with Incense and thurification to the honour and glory of Gods name : and so ( I am sure ) do the Roman Catholicks through the whole world , when they celebrate or offer the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass solemnly to the honour and glory of Gods name , they offer it with Incense and thurification . And this sacrifice ( as we believe it is the real body and bloud of Christ ) is infinitly cleaner then your bare bread and wine , and then all the rest of the sacrifices you mentioned are . Therefore since the Prophet says , there must be a new or clean sacrifice ; and that this sacrifice must be offered in every place with Incense to the name of God ; it followeth according to the Prophets words , that the sacrifice of the Mass , whereat Incense is dayly offered , is that new and clean sacrifice , since that of the Cross cannot be it , it having not been Incenst , nor offered in every place ; and the Mounsieur nor any of his party , can shew us any other clean or new sacrifice of theirs where at Incense is used . Moreover , God not only changed and multiplied his people , but also changed and bettered his sacrifice ; for in place of sacrificing Cattle , birds , and other weak and poor creatures , which were not able to purge sins , and were also often polluted by the sins of the offerers . God in this place promised a most effectuall , pure and excellent dayly sacrifice to continue perpetually in all places of his Church , that cannot be polluted ; which accordingly our blessed Redeemer and Saviour instituted of his own body and bloud , in the forms of bread and wine , as all ancient fathers prove . So Iustinus Martyr teacheth , in dialogo cum Trpihone . S. Cyprian , lib 1. cap. 18. adversus 〈◊〉 5. Damasc●…n . lib. 4. c. 14. de fide orthedoxa . S. Ierom. S. Theodoret , and S. Cyril , in their comentaries upon this place . S Augustine lib. 18 c. 15. de civit . S. Chrysost. in Ps. 95. & oratione conara Iudaeos ; shewing plainly , and urging the Jews , and all oppugners of this Catholick belief and doctrine , that this Prophecy is not otherwise fulfilled , but in the daily sacrifice of the Church ; for that here is proph●…sied another sacrifice distinct and different from the Jewish sacrifices , neither were sacrifices offered in all the world , neither could be ordinarily offered out of Ierusalem . But of this most sacred Mistery , and particularly that this is here prophesied , there is so much published by ancient and late writers , that more need not to be here added . And yet Mr. de Rodon with his bare word , or exposition , thinks to carry away the prize from all these ; so great is his opinion of himself , and of his illuminated spirit , a thing common to all hereticks . Rodon 19. Thirdly , I answer , that the oblation which is offered to God under the Gospel is pure and clean , the service which performed unto him , according to his word , is pure , th●… preaching of the Gospel is pure . In a word , the Christian Religion is pure , though there be many failings in those that profess it . And although the faithfull that present their bodies a living sacrifice , holy , acceptable to God , be compassed about with many infermities , and that their Religious actions be accompanied with diverse failings ; yet their persons and words may be said to be pure and clean in Iesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God ; so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfy God ; yet as they are members of Christ , they are reputed holy b●…fore God : for it is these S. Peter speaks of , in Ep. 1. chap. 2. Who as living stones , are built up a spiritual house , a holy Priesthood , to offer up spiritual sacrifices , acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. And so our sacrifices are a pure and clean offering , but it is through Iesus Christ , who covers them with his purity and holyness ; so that the defects of them are not imputed to us . To this I add , that besides the perfect purity which we have by the imputation of Christs rigteousness , we have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost , of which S. Paul speaks , Rom. 15. in these words : that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable , being sanctified by the holy Ghost : for that which God hath decreed , Iesus Christ hath purchased , and the holy Ghost hath begun , is reputed by God perfect and compleat . And S. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1. Tym. 2. 8. in these words . I will that men pray every where , lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting . And Ephes. 5. Jesus Christ loved the Church , and gave himself for it , that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word , that he might present it to himself , a glorious Church , not having spot or wrinckle , or any such thing , but that it should be holy and without blemish . Answ. Your third answer is , that the oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel , is pure and clean , the service which is performed unto him according to his word is pure , the preaching of his Gospel pure . In a word the Christian Religion is pure , though there be many failings in those that profess it . All this I confess is true , but what is it to your purpose ? I think ( if all the holy fathers above-cited , ought to be more believed then you ; and I know not why they should not ) I think I say , and I am sure on 't too , that you rather accuse and condemn your self , and your whole party by this answer , then save or excuse your selves ; for by that pure oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel , all the holy fathers did understand the body & bloud of Christ , as they are daily offered & sacrificed upon the Altar , in the Mass , then which nothing can be offered and sacrificed more clean and pure ; but they never made any mention of your bare bread and wine . By the pure service which is performed unto him according to his word , cannot be understood your service ; for you contradict his word ; his plain express word is , that Bread and wine ( after the words of consecration ) are converted into his real body and bloud : for his express words upon the bread and wine he took in his hand , be these , this is my body , this is my bloud : And you say no : it is not his body but the signe or Sacrament of his body only , and you have no more reason to misbelieve this , then you have to misbelieve the Mysteries of his Incarnation , and of the Blessed Trinity ; because his word or Testimony for this , is as clear , if not clearer , then for any of the other two grand Mysteries of our Belief : and Gods word or Testimony is the only ground and motive of our faith : and as you misbelieve his word in this point , so you misbelieve his Church in many things more ; notwithstanding his express word commands you the contrary ; as in S. Math. 18. he bids you hear the Church . And in S. Luke the 10th . speaking to his Church representative , he sayes , he that heareth you , heareth me , he that despiseth you , despiseth me : a lesson which every good Christian ought to heed very well . It is also one of the Articles of our Creed , to believe in the Catholick Church : In a word , because you believe not him , nor obey his Church ; your preaching the Gospel , and your unchristian Religion , whereof you so much boast , and wherein ( as in your selves ) be many failings and absurdities ; are very far from being pure and clean : and consequently the sacrifices you here mention ; ( though as they are offered by the orthodox people , while they are in the state of grace ) be pure and acceptable to God ; yet your schismatical , or rather heretical sacrifices , are neither pure , nor pleasing to him : for you like rotten or withered branches , are excommunicated , and quite cut off from his Church ; and so will still remain , until you be reconciled unto her , according to Christs command . That your doctrine and preaching , and consequently your sacrifice and service to God , are not clean and pure , but rather putrid and stinking , appears manifestly by these your own words , which be these . And although the faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice , holy , acceptable to God , be compassed with many infirmities , and that their Religious actions be accompanied with divers failings ; yet their persons and works , may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ , in whose name they are presented to God ; so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God ; yet as they are members of Christ , they are reputed holy before God ; for it is these S. Peter speaks of in Ep. 1. c. 2. who as living stones , are built up a spiritual house , a holy Priesthood , to offer up spiritual sacrifices , acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And so you say , your sacrifices are a pure and clean offering ; but it is through Jesus Christ , who covers them with his purity , and holyness , so that the defects of them are not imputed to you . This ( I say ) is very impure and stinking doctrine ; for it contradicts Gods word , who Proverb . 15. sayes the victims of the impious are abominable to our Lord. God is no acceptor of persons ; if a drunkard , a whoremaster , a murderer or a thief , offer him never so many sacrifices , while he is out of the state of Grace , although he offers them in Christs name , they are not pleasing or acceptable to God , but rather odious and abhominable ; and much less are the sacrifices of disobedient and stubborn heretical spirits pleasing unto him , for Obedience , is with him better then victims ; and consequently , to be obedient to his Church , is more acceptable unto him , then any victims or sacrifices we can offer him in whose name soever . Therefore until Mr. de Rodon can prove , that his is the only universal Church of Ood , ( which he will never be able to accomplish ) he ought not to brag or boast of his sacrifices : for all the sacrifices that are offered to God out of his Church ( as the Jewes , offer him sacrifices too ) are odious and abhominable unto him . Certain then it is , Mr. de Rodon , that you , nor any of your party , are those persons the Apostle meant in the fore-alledged passage : and certain also it is , that Christ never covers or hides your , or any bodies else , his nasty sins and abominable sacrifices , which be always more loathsom to him , then any cloose-stool or carrion is to us : and much less ( whatever you presume your selves to be ) are you his members , being now ( as dead branches lopt of from a tree ) cut off from his Mistical body the Church : for no soul can be a living member of Christ , before she be renst and washt by vertue of his pretious bloud , which boiles in his Sacraments , that are the spiritual salves , which must be applied unto her ; to wash and take away all the filth of her sins . Then , when she is throughly cleansed and purged from sin , Christ enters and inhabits her , afterwards he beautifies and adorns her with a bright ray of inherent Justice ; and finally after well seasoning and sweetning her with the fragrant odour of divine Grace , he incorporates her unto himself , and makes her his mystical member . Therefore Mr. de Rodon , you grosly wrong Christ , by saying that he covers or hids your filthiness and sins , because you are his members ; for Christ hath no commerce with dirt , he is no patron ▪ protectour or coverer of iniquity or sin , he hates it from his very heart , and there is nothing that causes a separation or divorcement between him and his creatures but only sin ; therefore if he does but only cover the sins of his mystical members , and not quite wash them , and take them away ; it follows that the dirt of their sins will stick to them also when they are in heaven ( for Mr. de Rodon says their sins are but covered by Christ ) and consequently that their sins will follow them into heaven ; although holy writt says that no dofiled thing shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven : by this discourse the Reader may well see , how stinking and impure this doctrine of the Mounsieur is as also that neither he , nor his party , with their confessed failings , are those the Apostle spoke of ; and much less that they are members of Christ ; and consequently that their sacrifices are not acceptable to God : Therefore the Apostle meant only the orthodox Catholicks that offer sacrifice unto God while they are in the state of Grace ; and yet the sacrifice the Apostle speaks of here , is not a strict and proper sacrifice , but an improper one ; for otherwise something must have been destroyed . To what you farther answer , viz. that besides the perfect purity which you have by the imputation of Christs rightiousness , you have also a purity begun by the holy Ghost ; of which S. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words : that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost . I answer that you are far deceived in this your proud fancy of your selues , for as Christ covers not your impurities , nor imputes his righteousness unto you , but rather esteems you for no better then heathens and publicans , because you hear not his Church ; so the holy Ghost has nothing to do with you ; for Christs holy spirit never contradicts Christ. True it is what you say , that that which God hath decreed , Jesus Christ hath purchased , and the holy Ghost hath begun , that that is reputed by God perfect and compleat . But this only concerns orthodox people , and not you ; for them be these the Apostle speaks of , 1 Tym. 2. 8. in these words you aledge ; I will that men pray every where , lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting . And Ephes. 5. Iesus Christ loved the Church , and gave himself for it , that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word , that he might present it to himself , a glorious Church , not having spot or wrinkle , or any such thing , but that it should be holy and without blemish . Very farr ( alass ) are you from such people : for you pray but very little or nothing , in comparison of others who pray both day and night , and you pray not every where ; for if you were compared with the rest of the world who profess Christ , you are but a handful of people in little corners or Islands , and there too , but for a very short time in comparison of former ages , how holy your hands are , ( set aside your own private conceits of your selves ) the rest of the world can easily judge , how void of wrath , ( especially against us ) we very well know ; how undoubting you are in points of Religion , no body breathing can tell ; for no two of you could ever as yet fully agree as to that point ; and every one of you is always seeking , but never finding what can quiet and content his conscience in that matter : you run from the luke-warm Protestant to the precise Puritan or Presbyterian , who hates and rayles at the Protestant Bishops and Clergy , as much as they do at us : others of you from being Presbyterians , turn Independents and viceversa ; from Independents , and Presbyterians , you turn Anabaptists , from Anabaptists you become Quakers ; from Quakers Fanaticks , and from Phanaticks , at last you become Atheists : your union consists only in this ; that to preserve your worldly Interest , you retain the common notion or name of Protestant , and band all against the Roman Catholick ; whereas on the contrary , the Roman Catholick or Papist , holds still to his old Lady Dinna , to his Invocation of saints , to his praying for the souls departed , to the Indulgences which are ( as he believes ) bequeathed by Christ unto his Church : to Pur gatory ; all which ( they say ) are included in these two articles of our belief , viz. I believe in the holy Catholick Church ; and in the communion of saints . In a word , all the Roman Catholicks do unanimously agree in all the tenents and points of their whole Religion , and are perfectly satisfied and contented in their consciences as to all matters of faith , without running here and there , from one sect to another , to search and seek after new opinions , as the Protestants do ; How then can you be the Church , the Congregation of the faithful , whom the Apostle sayes , Ephes. 5. Christ loved , and gave himself for ? how can you be a glorious Church ? a Church without spot or wrinckle , or any such thing ? a holy one and without blemish ? Objection 6th . Roman . 20. The sixth objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words ; And Melchisedeck king of salem bringing forth bread and wine ( for he was a Priest ) blessed him : and from Ps. 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said , thou art a Priest for ever , after the order of Melchisedeck : from which words they argue thus : Iesus Christ is a Priest , not after the order of Aaron , but after the order of Melchisedeck ; the difference between Aaron and Melchisedeck consisting in this , viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests , offered bloudy sacrifices , killing and shedding the bloud of beasts , which they sacrificed to God , as a signe and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross ; But Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice ; for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings , he offered to God bread and wine . And seeing this bread and wine offered to God by Melchisedeck , were signs and types of Christs body and bloud , Iesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice , viz. his body and bloud , under the species of bread and wine , which he did at the Institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist , that so the reality of the thing typified , might answer to the shaddows and types . Secondly , that although Melchisedeck had brought all his bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham , and his Army●… that returned from the slaughter of the kings , yet he first offered it to God , and then gave it to them , that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine , and the reason of this is , because the scripture saith , that Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils , amongst which , there was bread and drink enough for the refreshment of himself , and of his people . Also it saith expresly , that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedeck met them ; and consequently , they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought , except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered . Thirdly , they say , this is strongly proved by the following words , for he was a Priest of the most high God , which show the reason why Melchisedeck brought bread and wine , viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God ; for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people , the scripture would have said , that he brought this bread and wine , because that Abraham and his army being faint and tired , had need of meat and drink , but it speaks nothing of this : on the contrary it saith , that he brought bread and wine for he was a Priest : fourthly , they say , that Jesus Christ is a Priest forever , after the order of Melchisedek ; and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice , there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice . But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once , and cannot be reiterated , for Jesus Christ dieth no more , Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church , which Iesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests , which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Masse , viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud , under the species of bread and wine , typified by the sacrifice of broad and wine of Melchisedeck . Answer . Rodon . 21. To this I answer , first , that the hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought , drew out , caused to be brought , &c. But our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus , to make way for another falsification , viz. to put these words in a Parenthesis ( for he was Priest ) instead of putting them without a Parenthesis , And he was Priest : so that we may say in these few words , they have made three falsifications , first , when they translate it . Proferens , bringing , instead of Protulit , brought , or drew out . Secondly , when they translate it , erat enim sacerdos , for he was a Priest , instead of translating it , & erat sacerdos , and he was a Priest. Thirdly when they translate it , benedixit ei , blessed him , instead of translating it , & benedixit ei , and he blessed him : and so of three different propositions , viz. Melchisedeck brought bread and wine , and he was a Priest , and he blessed him ; they have made but one , with a Parenthesis thus : Melchisedeck bringing bread and wine , ( for he was Priest ) blessed him . Answ. When one tells a notorious and impudent lye indeed , and provokes another too much with his lye ; sometimes he is answered no better then thus ; The devil take the Lyar. S. Ierom or you , must needs be the lyar in this Translation , for the Romish doctors do follow S. Ieroms Translation ; and we know no modern Romish doctors , Translators of our Bible : we all hold to S. Ieroms Translation , which goes by the name of the vulgar Translation among us . If he be your adversary ; then we have one champion of our side , worth ten thousand de Rodons , and all those of his party . But I pray tell me , Mr. de Rodon , where were you , your Bible , and your Translators , when S. Ierom translated his Bible , which we all follow ? or did any of yours oppose or contradict his Translation for so many hundred years that past betwixt him and Luther , Calvin , and de Rodon ? Tell me again ( I pray ) whether you and yours , translated your Bible by inspiration from God , or whether you had your Original from us ? If you had yours by Gods inspiration , then doubtless yours is the true and right one , and we must acquiesce to it . But how shall we know it ? or what warrant can you give us for it ? only your bare word ? pardon us good sir ; that suffices us not , for we have no reason to believe your bare word against the testimonyes of ten thousand authors better then your self , who tell us the contrary . But if you had our Bible for your original ( as you your selves confess you had ) how can your coppies correct their original , but by your adding or diminishing something to it ? by doing whereof , you infallibly purchase to your selves a heavy curse . Of. S. Ieroms soul to be in heaven , I make no doubt , and consequently out of the devils clutches and reach : But as for Mr. de Rodon who strikes at S. Ierom through the Romish doctors sides , who accuses him of corrupting and falsifiing the text , and consequently who presumes to blaspheme against so glorious a saint , and eminent doctor of Christs Church , I dare not swear , but the devil holds him very fast for an arrant Lyar , and makes him sit next to himself , who is the father of Lyes . Therefore I do not think Mr. de Rodon that the Romish doctors , or any man of reason and sense , will easily leave Saint Ieroms vulgar translation , approved of for so many ages by the whole Church , to adhere to your simple bare word , or to any of your parties , whose dictator the devil was , that filled both your Bible and brains with falshood and lyes . But suppose Mr. de Rodon , the right Translation were as you say , and that of the words must be made 3 different propositions , viz. thus : Melchisedeck also brought bread and wine , and he was a Priest , & he blessed him ; suppose I say the true Text runs so ; since holy writt makes no mention of any other kind of sacrifice that Melchisedeck ever offered unto God , and since he was a Priest , and since he blessed Abraham , and finally since the holy fathers ( as I shall hereafter produce ) agree with us as to the principal and main point of this question , viz. that the bread and wine which Melchisedeck brought or offered , was a type of the Eucharist ; there is no reason why the words of the text , whether made into three propositions without a Parenthesis , as he translates it , or made into one proposition with a Parenthesis , as S. Ierom or the Romish doctors ( as he says ) translated it ; I say , there is no reason why the whole text should not be understood in our meaning and sense : for the word , brought ; which he translates for the word bringing , may be well understood , brought to offer or to sacrifice . And these words : And he was a Priest , which he translates instead of these for he was a priest , do signify that Melchisedeck was a priest , and we may well think that holy Scripture did not make mention of his Priesthood in this place , but in order and reference to some sacrifice ; as Priest and sacrifice are always correlatives . And finally , these words , and he Blessed him , which the Mounsieur translates instead of ours Blessed him ; may be as well applyed unto Abraham , as to God , whatever Mr. de Rodon says to the contrary ; for the Romish doctors do take themselves to be as good grammarians and dialecti●…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 no●…e but to God. Answ. Certainly the Mounsieur would make a better dictionarist , then Philosopher or divine , for he is mighty copious in expounding of words as you see , though none of them can help him out of his straights or necessities , in a Philosophical or theological sense ; nay nor in a gramatical also : for I granted him brought instead of bringing ; and let him make three several propositions of our one ; and yet all cannot serve his turn , as I shewed immediatly before . But he , to recompense our bounty , regratifies us , and says , that although this hebrew word should signifie brought to offer , and that it should be taken for offered , yet we would gain nothing by it ; for it is not said in the Text , that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God , but to be offered and presented unto Abraham ; for so he will have it understood . But good Mounsieur the text makes express mention of Melchisedecks being a Priest , And he was a Priest , thus you translate it your self ; but why does the text make mention of his Priesthood , but in order to a sacrifice ? if in order to a sacrifice , ( because Priest and sacrifice are allways correlatives ) then the sacrifice was offered to God and not to Abraham , for otherwise Melchisedeck would be an Idolater . Therefore if the word brought , signifies brought to offer , and if the offering was done by a Priest , why may not this offering be thought a sacrifice ; and if a sacrifice , then being offered by such a Priest as Melchisedeck was ; it is most certain he offered it to God , and not to Abraham . As to your proofs of Scripture to strengthen your reason that Melchisedeck offered bread and wine to Abraham , and blessed him ; we agree with you as to the later part , viz. that it was Abraham that was blest by Melchisedeck . But we deny that if Melchisedeck had sacrificed bread and wine unto God , that the Pronoun Relative , him , could not relate to Abraham , but to God , against the exposition of the Apostle : for we say , ( and so doth our famous grammarian Lilie also ) that the relative him , may relate either to the former or to the later thing mentioned be-fore in the precedent sent●…e . Rodon . 23. Thirdly , I answer , that Melchisedeck brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God. Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 6. confesseth , that Melchisedeck brought br●…d and wine to Abraham to refresh him , and his people ; who returned faint and feeble from the slaughter of the kings , which is true ; but he adds that Iesus Christ had offered it to God before , which is false , and cannot be proved . Jerome in his Epistle to Evagrius writes , that the Iews understood it that Melchisedeck meeting Abraham after his victory , brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people . Josephus writing this history , saith , that Melchisedeck presented bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his Army . Damascen , Book 4. of the orthodox faith , saith that Melchisedeck treated Abraham with bread and wine . Answ. Doubtless this Mounsieur must needs be some great Rabbin in his own , or in his parties opinion ; for he speaks so confidently and masterlike , as if all his sentences were oracles ; he thinks all the world is bound to believe what he says , without giving any reason why , or wherefore , he says , that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people , and not to offer unto God : we must believe him , because he sayes it ; though he gives no reason nor authority of any body of note why : he sayes Bellarmin in his 1. book of the Masse , chap. 6. confesseth ; that Melchisedeck brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people , who returned faint and tired from the slaughter of the kings : so we say too ; he says , that S. Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius , writes , that the Jews understood it that Melchisedeck meeting Abraham after his victory , brought bread and wine to refresh him , and his people : what if they did understand it so ? might he not have refresht them with his bread and wine , after offering it to God before ? or might he not have refresht them with his consecrated bread and wine ? the same I say concerning Iosephus , and concerning Damascens words . But why does not the Mounsieur ( as he ought ) prove that Melchisedeck did not offer his bread and wine to God , before he brought it , drew it out , caused to be brought , caused it to come , &c. ( for these be his words ) before Abraham , and his people ? The Mounsieur is here the oppugner , he is to destroy our Objection , wherefore then doth he not prove it ? certainly , if his Translatour were not a very partial man , he could never have said in his Preface , that de Rodon hath by way of Prevention , destroyed all the Arguments made use of by the Romish Doctors for the restoring and re-establishing of our Diana or Mass ; for I am sure all his preventions hitherto are by me sufficiently retorted upon himself , in this Treatise ; and if his Translatour has a minde to second or vindicate him , I trust so much in the goodness of our cause , that I doubt not with Gods help , but to give him a full and sufficient answer also . Rodon . 24. Fourthly ; the reasons of our adversaries , mentioned in the objections to prove that Malchisedeck brought bread and wine to Abraham that he might partake of the sacrifice which he had offered , are not considerable ; viz. because Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils ; and so there was meat and drink enough for him and his people ; and that they had taken their repast before Melchisedeck met them , &c. These reasons , I say , are inconsiderable ; because although Abraham had great spoils , yet he restored all to the king of Sodom , and though his people had eaten and drunk of such as they found amongst the spoils , yet it is not said that Abraham did eat and drink ; and though both he and his people had eaten and drunk , yet it is not said how long it was since , and that they had no need of more provision ; and though they had no need of more , yet Melchisedek not knowing that they had eaten and drank , did that which prudent men are wont to do , viz. provide all that may be needful in case of necessity . Ans. Although these reasons ( Mounsieur ) in themselves ; are not to me ( I confesse ) demonstrative , and evidently convincing , because it is very hard to demonstrate things so long past with all their circumstances , yet they are in themselves as considerable as the reasons you give to destroy them , which are not also demonstrative or convincing , unless your bare word must be taken for a demonstration or oracle ; and that we have no reason to do , considering your so manifold former lyes , blasphemies and absurdities ; yet if these reasons be backt and seconded by the unanimous Testimonies of the holy fathers , ( as I shall hereafter shew they be ) then I dare say , your answer is of no more consideration or weight to counterpoise them , then a feather is to a wain load of lead : therefore I pray ( good sir , ) untill you produce better proofs out of Scripture or fathers to over-ballance them , give us leave to hold them for probable and considerable in themselves ; and for demonstrative by reason of the holy fathers Testimonies . Rodon . 25. Fifthly , I answer , that the principal reason which our Adversaries bring to prove that Melchisedeck offered unto God bread and wine , viz. because it is in the hebrew text , for he was Priest , is a manifest falsification ; for it is in the hebrew text , and he was Priest : Also the old latine Interpreter , and the Greek Septuagint translate it as we do ; viz. and he was Priest. And it is very probable that this Passage hath been corrupted in S. Jeroms latine translation , because in his hebrew Questions , and in his epistle to Evagrius , he translates it , and he was Priest. S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Caecilius , and S. Augustine Book 4. of Christian doctrine , chap. 21. and elswhere , translate it , and he was Priest. So that although the hebrew particle used by Moses do sometimes signifie ( for ) yet seeing that both its proper and common signification is ( and ) and that for one place where it signifies ( for ) there are a thousand at least where it signifies ( and ) and that there is nothing that obligeth us to translate it ( for ) it is evident that the argument of our Adversaries is of no force at all : Therefore it is more pertinent to refer these words , and he was a Priest , to what follows , viz. and blessed him , then to what goes before , viz. brought bread and wine : for as Melchisedeck being a liberal King , brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people ; so as he was a Priest much more excellent then Abraham , he blessed him . And though it should be translated , for he was a Priest , yet it would not follow that Melchisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine unto God ; for it might be said that Moses would shew the reason of the good will of Melchisedeck towards Abraham , viz. it was very fit that he that was Priest of the most high God , should testify his kindness to so eminent a servant of God , as was Abraham , by presenting bread and wine to him ; whereof he thought there was need . Answ. It is more then you can do , Mounsieur , to make this a manifest falsification , or a probable falsification either ; for S. Ierome was ever counted for a better latinist then you or I are , and yet this is not the first , and only place of Scripture , where ( for his elegancy in the latine tongue ) he translated and into for . In the 20th . of Gen. where the hebrew text hath , Lo thou shalt die , for the woman that thou hast , and she hath a husband . S. Ierome translates it thus : for she hath a husband : and in Gen. 30. where the hebrew text hath , I have learned by experience , and God hath blessed me : he translates it thus , I have learned by experience , that , he hath blessed me ; which is as much as to say , for he hath blessed me : and again , in Isai. 64. the hebrew text hath , Behold , thou art angrie , and we have sinned : he translates it , Behold , thou art angrie , because we have sinned : which because signifies the same thing as for doth , so that S. Ierome in his latine translation for the elegancy of the latin Phrase , doth often use for for and : for he attends not to the meaning of every word verbatim in his translation , ( as no man else ought to do , when he translates a book into another language ) but he attends to the sense and meaning of the whole sentence , Therefore it is not probable that this passage hath been corrupted in S. Ieroms latin Translation , as Mr. de Rodon says , because S. Ierome attending to these words that went before , viz. bringing forth bread and wine , he purposely changed and into for because he understood that the word for , related to the antecedent words , viz. bread and wine ; and not to the subsequent , viz. blessed him , or and he blessed him , as Mr. de Rodon would have it to be . And for the better confirmation of what is here said , it is to be noted , that not only in the hebrew text , but also in the Caldean , Greek , and latine texts , immediatly after these words , viz. and he was a Priest , there is set a full stop or point , which sort of stop , the hebrews call soph pasuch : and it perfectly ends the whole sentence ; which termination proves evidently , that these words for he was a Priest relate only to the precedent words , viz. bread , & wine & not to the subsequent , viz. and he blessed him . But what need I stickle with Mr. de Rodon about these two words for & and , whereas I have already referred our main question to his own translation ? and yet ( as I have shewed before ) he benefits nothing by it . Rodon . 26. Sixthly , I answer , that from what is said , ps . 110. and Heb. 7. viz. that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever , it will not follow that he must offer himself every day in the Masse , under the species of bread and wine , by the ministry of Priests ; for the Apostle writing to the hebrews , placeth the perpetuity of the Priesthood partly in this , viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more , seeing by one oblation he hath consecrated for ever those that are sanctified ; and partly in this , viz. that being exalted far above the heavens he intercedes continually for us ; for the Priesthood consists in certain functions , and in the vertue and efficacy of them . And seeing there are two parts of Christs Priesthood , whereof one relates to the oblation of himself , which he offered on the Cross ; and the other to his Intercession ; it is certain that the vertue and efficacy of the oblation is eternal , and that the Intercession will co●… unto the end of the world . Answ. Do no●… you know ( Mounsieur ) that the Royal 〈◊〉 sayes that Christ is not only a Priest after the order of Meichisedec , but also that he is a Priest for ever after that order ; that is to say , until the worlds end ? And do not you know that if he be a Priest for ever , there must be an everlasting sacrifice answerable to his Priesthood , and corresponding with the order of his Priesthood ? because Priest and sacrifice are correlatives , and convertible terms . If Christ then be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec , it must necessarily follow that a sacrifice is to be offered for ever after the same order ; but that sacrifice cannot be his bloudy one ; for although its effect will last for ever , yet the sacrifice it self was offered but once ; and besides , it was a bloudy sacrifice , and so not after the order of Melchisedec ; therefore the everlasting sacrifice must be unbloudy , and since we know of no other sacrifice bloudy or unbloudy , that Melchisedec offered , but bread and wine ; nor of any other kind of sacrifice that is offered in Gods Church , but that of the Mass , under the species of bread and wine ; we conclude that this is the sacrifice whereof the Royal psalmist , and the Apostle 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 ●…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 tea●…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 ●…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 no difference of their manner of sacrificing , and consequently touches not their Priesthood , at least reduplicatively , as it ought to do , to make the Mounsieurs consequence slawless , your words out of the Apostle ( viz. Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God , abideth a Priest for ever ) to make your third consequence follow smoothly , are quite for us , and against you ▪ for if the son of God abideth a Priest for ever , then it will follow that he will sacrifice for ever , or that there must be a perpetual sacrifice ; but the perpetual sacrifice cannot be that of the cross , for though its effect be perpetual yet the sacrifice it self is not so , for it is past and gone : and a new other bloudy sacrifice he cannot offer any more ; because Christ can die no more . Rom. 6. Therefore it must be an unbloudy sacrifice , which is offered by his ministers ; his mistical members , that must correspond with Christs everlasting Priesthood ; and that is the holy sacrifice of the Mass , offered under the species of bread and wine , symbolized by the bread and wine sacrificed to God by Melchisedeck ; and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass ( out of these words of the Apostle ) is a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedeck . And Christs continual intercession for us in heaven , ( as Mr. de Rodon surmizes ) is not a sacrifice , at least , not a strict one ; ( yet if Christ be a strict Priest for ever , there must be a strict sacrifice answerable to hisstrict Priesthood for ever ; ) first , because his Priesthood doth not totally consist in his intercession , as Mr. de Rodon himself confesses ; secondly , because his intercession , unless it be median●…e victima , through the mediation of a victime , is no more sacrifice , then the prayers of other people are ; and if it be through the mediation of a victime , then Christ offers new victimes continually , which our adversaries will not admitt of . Thirdly , the inconveniences I spoke of before , would follow , if Christs continual intercession for us in heaven were a strict and rigorous sacrifice , viz. there would be no Christian Religion nor Law here upon earth ; nor no naked and pure truth in heaven , but only shadows and types of truth ; for the reasons there shewn . But the Mounsieur says , that Aaron , and the high Priests , all died ; and that the Popes , Bishops , and Priests , die daylie , therefore ( he concludes ) our sacrifice is not after the order of Melehisedeck , which is to last for ever . Aaron ( we confess ) and all the Priests of the old Law died , and their Priesthood is also quite destroyed ; But although our Popes , Bishops , and Priests die daily , we deny that our Priesthood dies , or is destroied ; no more then the Kingship of a kingdom dies or is destroied , when the King dies and leaves a successor behinde him to succeed ; where is now your brave consequence Mounsieur ? He will fetch it out smoothly with his fourth reason , which is , because Melchisedeck took Tithes from Abraham , and the Levitical Priests who descended from him ; and consequently Melchisedeck was a type of Jesus Christ , who was infinitely more excellent then Abraham and all his successors ; because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled , must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only : all this we grant : Then replyes the Mounsieur strongly ; But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold a●… to prefer themselves before Abraham , the father of the faithful , in whose seed all the Nations of the earth are blessed ; No more do I also , and I am sure on 't too , that none of the Romish Priests , nay , nor the Pope himself , dares prefer his own person before the person of Abraham , or of any of the least Saints in heaven ; But for his Priesthood or Priestly function , I am sure both the Pope & all his Priests , will prefer theirs before Abrahams priesthood , and all the priestly functions of the old Law. But all this will not fetch out the consequence you aim at . Lastly , both holy Scripture and the Apostle make mention that Melchisedeck brought or offered bread and wine ; and they say he was a priest , without mentioning any other thing , that he ever brought or offered to be sacrificed , but bread and wine ; and they say also that Aarons offering or sacrifices were beasts , soul , &c. and all the holy Fathers ( as I shall presently shew ) do compare and collect out of these different sort of sacrifices , the difference betwixt Melchisedeck and Aarons priesthood ; therefore if it be true , that Christ promised his spirit to his Church until the consummation of the world ( as we believe he did ) therefore ( I say ) if this be but a humane invention , I dare maintain it is a very good and solid one , and a hundred thousand times of more firmity and weight then Mr de Rodons divine inspirations ( as he may think them to be ) or rather diabolical illusions ( as I take them to be ) with his own silly bare word , without any kinde of proof for the contrary . Rodon 29. To conclude my answer with this argument , Iesus Christ hath offered no sacrifice but after the order whereof he was established a Priest , but he was established a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck only , as the Apostle observes ; Therefore he hath offered no sacrifice but after the order of Melchisedeck : but ( accocding to the Romish Doctors ) there is no other sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck but that of the masse ; therefore ( according to the Romish Doctors ) Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice but that of the masse ; and seeing ( according to them ) the sacrifice of the masse is an unbloudy sacrifice , it follows that Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice ; and consequently he hath not offered a bloudy sacrifice on the Cross , which is blasphemy . Answ. Mounsieur , as I followed and hunted you all along this Treatise , be sure this captious and sophistical argument shall not save you ; Therefore I answer , that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of Aaron either ; but the proto-type of both ; for both Melchisedeck and Aarons sacrifices were but types of Christs bloudy sacrifice ; Therefore since Christs bloudy sacrifice cannot be a type of its own self , it cannot be a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck or of Aaron , which were but meer types : and consequently since Aarons Priesthood and sacrifices are quite abolisht and destroyed ; it is necessary for to uphold and maintain Christs everlasting Priesthood , that a sacrifice should be instituted after the order of Melchisedeck , which is to remain for ever ; and since this sacrifice cannot be a bloudy one , it must needs be an unbloudy one ; which we say , ( and have hitherto defended ) is no other then that of the Mass : and so we say , that although Christ offered a bloudy sacrifice ( which we confess were blasphemy to deny ) yet his bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck , nor of the order of Aaron ; but the primitive , principal , and prototype sacrifice of both ; But at the In●…itution of 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 ●…terated unto the worlds end ; when he said to the Apostles , ( and consequently to their successors ) as often as y●…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 obstina●…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 s●…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 ●…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 ●…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 ●…ipum Eucharistiae : Melchisedec king of Salem , Priest of the most high God , who gave wine and bread sanctified , a●…●…ypes of the E●…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 D●…o patri obtulit , & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtule●… , id est panem & vinum , suum scilicet c●…rpus & sanguin●…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 c●…vitatis , qui jam tuno in typo Christi panem & vinum obtulit , & misterium Christianum in salvatori●… sanguine & corpore dedic●…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. Caesari●…nsis lib. 5. demonstrat . Evangelica cap. 3. S. Aug. Ep. 95. ad Innocentium Papam . S. A●…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 Pontific●…t . Euseb. E●…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. Re●…ig . Antisiod . and Euthimius Zigabenus upon the same psalm . Damascenus . lib. 4. de side . c. 14. O●…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 Languedo●… 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 ●…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 n●…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 smar●…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 funeral of the Mass ; and consequently , the funeral of Romish heresies and Idolatries , as the Author well observes . For the truth is , the Masse and the Romish Religion , are almost convertible terms , so that if the former be destroyed , the latter must vanish to its first nothing ; and therefore our Author having destroyed the Masse , hath destroyed the thing called Popery too . As for the monstrous absurdities and blasphemies which flow from this one Romish doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass , they would fill whole volumes : but I shall contem my self to say that the Masse consists of more gross and abominable superstitions , Phanaticismes , and Idolatries , then ever have been believed or practised by the most ignorant Pagans . What the tenets of the Romanists are , and what their practises have been in reference to Protestant Magistrates and people , woful and sad experience hath sufficiently taught the world ; I only add , that they are as pernicious to our bodies , and estates , as their heretical doctrines , and Idolatrous services are to our souls . And consequently , to imtroduce Popery into this kingdom , would be an act as unpolitick as Anti-Christian , as hath been demonstrated in that incomparable piece , entituled The established Religion in opposition to Popery . But because ( I know not by what strange infatuation or inchantment , or rather by what wonderful judgment of God ) this monstrous , absurd , and destructive ( shall I call it ? Religion prevails amongst us , I thought good to English and print this small Treatise , as the best Antidote against Popery ( the holy scripture excepted ) that ever I read : and for ought I know , it is not inferiour to the best of this kind , that ever was yet extant : to which opinion the harsh usage it hath had from our Adversaries , as aforesaid , doth certainly give no small testimony . But I know that the holy scripture it self cannot profit except God be pleased to give his blessing , much less can this book : and therefore , I earnestly beseech him that he would make it prosperous and successful for the good of souls ; and if any shall receive benefit by it , I desire them to give him all the glory , and then I shall think my self infinitely recompenced for my pains in translating it . AN ANSWER to the PREFACE , AND An Appendix to this book . THe excellency of this famous Philosophy-Professors masterpiece , whom his Translator doth so highly extol and commend ( gentle Reader ) when it is punctually compared with my answer , will evidently shew you of what great validity , depth and piety it consists ; for I faithfully cited him word by word ; I did not cut or clip one tittle of his whole Tract ; you have him whole and entire in my book ; nay , you have him in the full formal vigour or career of his piercing philosophical shafts ▪ therefore I leave the arbitration of our cause to your own prudent and impartial judgment : his country , quality , or profession is related to you by his translator , to render him the more famous ; that is not the thing we are to look upon here , but his doctrine . The traslator complains of the great severity and hard usage his authors book received from his adversaries . I answer him , that it is not harder nor more severe then the usage our books have from his party ; and the gentleman himself ( if he had been taken with his book ) could not be more harshly used , by his adversarys , then our Romish doctors are , when they are taken with , or without their books , by theirs : so that as to this point the good translator has no more reason to complain then we have ; the severity on both sides being ▪ sufficiently repayed with a quid pro quo . If what the inge●…ious french gentleman told the translator , viz. ( that his Authors small tract more nettled our party then any one piece that ever was extant in France since the reformation of religion there ) be true , or whether he told an inge●…ious lie , I know not ; but supposing it was true ; I dare say , it more netled them for its blasphemy , then for any solidity , piety , or semblance of veracity contained in it ; as my answer doth clearly demonstrate . As to what the translator dares affirm , viz. that though many famous men of that kingdom , have in the memorie of this Age , written very smartly against the Romish heresies , yet there is not one , &c. I dare affirm , that the translator speaks very impertinently and improperly , when he calls our Religion the Roman heresie , because he speaks contrary to the usage of all nations , who generally by the Roman Religion , understand the Catholick Religion ; and Catholick is a word opposite to heresie : but what care we for his scolding , barking , and playing the dog , at us , while we are sure he cannot bite , hurt , nor produce one tittle of sound doctrine against our sacred and orthodox Religion ? That none else of your party , had such hard measure in their persons and writings as his authors had from those of ours ; shews rather the lenity and great patience of our people towards you then it doth evince , ( we our selves being judges , as you inconsequently infer ) that he hath made good what he undertook , viz. that he hath destroyed that great Diana the Masse , and hath also by way of prevention , &c. for all these puff-past words and darings of yours , are evidently allayed and asswaged by my answer to his tract , as any man of learning and judgment may easily perceive : so that if your party shewed any more harshness to your authors writings then they used to do to any of the rest of your ( as you term them ) famous wtiters works ; it must eirher be because of its open blasphemous contents against the most blessed Sacrament : or because of its wily sophistical formal method , to inveagle poor ignorant illiterate souls ; and not for any great depth or profundity of learning they could see in it ; for God knows that amongst good philosophers and eminent schollars , this great master-piece is not worth the reading , or to be answered ; though some weak brains , ( especially being destitute of the light of faith ) may perhaps applaude and admire it . As for the title of his tract or book , which ( you say ) may be very fitly termed , the Funeral of the Masse ; it brings unto my memory , what we reade in the history or book of Hester , viz. how graceles and wicked Haman , prepared and reared a high Gallows for innocent Mardochaeus to hang on ; but before he could bring his ungodly atchievement to pass , he himself was set up , and Mardochaeus came off with glorie and renown : the self-same is our Diana and de Redons case : he prepared a funeral and grave for her , without any hopes of reviving or recovery ; but her cause , and his , being throughly scanned and examined in this treatise ; he himself is laid flat upon his back in his grave , to the view of all judicious and impartial readers , without any hopes of recovery : for I took him not by the arm or leg , I luggd him not by the ear , nor pulled him by the nose ; I gave him not a cuff or a kick ; but griped him by the whole body of his funesteous and false treatise , and so shook dis-jointed , and dismembred his whole body , that there is now no more hopes left of his recovery or reviviscence ; but flat he must lie upon his back in his stinking grave of heresie , which he prepared for our excellent and most vertuous Lady Diana , when he made her funeral , while she remains still alive , as fresh , brisk , and vigorous as ever she was ; and so will be , inaugre de Rodon and all his parties funesteous machinations , funerals , and wicked contrivements against her , unto the worlds end . But now I think it high time ( gentle Reader ) to let you know who , and what she is : know then sir , that this Diana about whom Mr. de Rodon and I have so long contested , is the Mass , by his translatour in derision , call'd our great Diana ; and in his opinion , his author hath shewed himself so gallant ▪ and stout a corypheus against her , that with his keen Philosophical arguments and darts ▪ he transfixt her heart through and through ▪ so that to their thinking , she is quite destroyed , and slain down-right , without any hopes of recovery , and with her , they say , is fallen Popery too ; whereupon in a triumphing way , they intituled their treatise , The funeral of the Masse : yet I think I have sufficiently vindicated and cleared her from their false calumnies , and black aspersions ▪ and fully answered Mr de Rodo●…s sophistical and funestuous treatise from point to point , paying him in his own Philosophical coin , and retorting his calumnies upon ●…is own head . But as neither they no●… I , ought to be judges in our own cause , so we ought to leave the decision of the matter to our impartial Readers ; the which for my part ▪ I willingly assent unto . The motive of my Appendix is this ; because as ( I hope ) I have defended and secured this unparalel'd venerable Lady from the cruel bloudy-minded authors fury and force ; so by informing my countrey-men ( for most of them know ●…ot who , or what s●…e is ) of her noble extraction , vertues , and worth ; I should likewise wipe away the ●…oathsome and n●…ufeous spots or blu●…s of superstition , Phanaticism , and Idolatry , wherewith his bitter Translator in the false scolding Preface of his translation , most injuriously bespatters her ; for I doubt not , if they knew her as well as their pious Ancestors did , for many ages , since England was converted to the Christian faith , until the dismal reign of king Henry the Eighth , who was the first that 〈◊〉 schism and subverted Catholick Religion here in England , I doubt not ( I say ) but they would be en●…moured of her , and give her , her due veneration and respect ▪ Know the●… again ( gentle Reader ) that the Masse , ( as we take it to be ) ●…s nothing else , but the lyturgy which hath be●…n used by all Christians , since Christ and his Apostles times in the Church ; as to its essential parts , which consists in the words of 〈◊〉 ; it is the self-same Chrst himself and his Apostles used ; being commanded by him to do as he did ▪ viz. to consec●…ate bread and wine into his body and bloud ; by vertue of which words he made them also Priests , and Bishops : and gave them power to conse●…rate other Bishops and Priests who should s●…cceed them ; as Paul did Tymothy , Titus , and many others , and all the other Apo●…tles did the like ; so that all Priestly power is derived from them ▪ As to the ceremonial parts of this Lyturgy , they were not all instituted at once , but grew by succession of time , according as the Church grew to be more and more in splendour ; and especially since Constantine the Greats time , who was the first Christian Monarch that enlarged ●…nd propagated the Christian faith : ye●… some words and ceremonies that are this day in the Masse , were used by the orthodox ministers of this Sacrament , before his time also ▪ as ancient aut●…entick , and venerable authors do testifie . But whatever the ceremonies be , the essential parts of the Mass is always the self-same , viz. the words of consecration , so that the Masse consists essentially , only in this , vi●… . th●…t in it , the body and bloud of Christ are offered and sacrificed unbloudily to God the father , in remembrance of the once bloudy sacrifice of the Cross ; which is nothing el●…e , but the same Christ offered now unbloudily , ( because he can suffer no more again , his body being glorified ; and being t is the same Christ , it is still the same sacrifice , though not 〈◊〉 after the same ma●…ner ; & being it is offer●…d under the species of bread and wine ▪ with command to reiterate it in remembrance of his bloudy sacrifice , we firmly believe , that it is a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedec , who ( as the holy fathers unanimously assert ) sacrificed bread and wine unto God. That Christs body and bloud is really in the Eucharist , and consequently in the Masse , is so clearly and plainly exprest in diverse places of the new Testament , and especially in S. Iohn . 6. that it is wonder any man that bears the name of a Christian , should be so bold and impudent as to deny it ; after Christ himself said in most plain and manifest terms it is so ; for when Christ said of the bread he took in his hand , this is my body , either it was his real body , or it was not ▪ for betwixt it is , and it is not , when spoken of the same thing in the present tense , and demonstrated with the Pronoun this , and it relates to the absolute being of the thing whereof ●…t is said , and not to its manner of being ; there can be no medium , but a mee●… contradiction ; if it was his real body , then it was as we say ; and it could not be , the signe only or representation of his body ; for the meer signe of any thing is alwaies different from the thing signified , at least in representando , in its significative being : if it was not his real body , as our adversaries hold it was not , but only its signe ; how can Christs words be verified ? since it is , and it is not , in the sense I just now spoke of , be contradictions ; and all divines and Philosophers do unanimously concurr in this , viz. that contradictories cannot be at once true , or verified , also by the power of God : what is it then to say , ( after Christ said this is my body it is but the signe of his body , but to contradict Christs word ? which is as much as to give him the lye in his teeth . Suppose then the●…e were no other passage in scripture to prove the real presence of Christs body in the host , ( as there can be no clearer ) this alone would convince any Christian breath ▪ ing , unless he would wilfully fight against common sense and reason ; for all those that maintain that two contradictory propositions can be verified at once , do manife●…tly oppose and destroy reason . Al●… when Christ said , Panis quem ego dabo , 〈◊〉 est pro mundi vita : the bread which I will give , is my slesh , for the life of the world ; he said expre●…ly , that this bread is his s●…h , he said no●… , this bread is the bar●… 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 lif●… of the world ; therefore this bread is ●…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 therefor●… murmured and g●…umbled among themselves , saying : is not this the son of Joseph whose father and Mother we know ? and again ; how c●…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 Mani●…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 pepe●…cit , &c. he hath spared not also his own son , but for us all delivered him , spoke not of a b●…re type or figure , but of his ●…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. Qui●…unque mandu●…averit panem , vel biberit calicem domini indigne , reus ●…rit corporis & sang●…is domini . Therefore whosoever shall ●…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 mee●… signe , or for tearing and destroying the meer ●…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 ho●…t ; and how improperly and wrongfully our advers●…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 b●…dy and bloud of our Lord ? S. Greg. Nyssene also ●…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 sus●…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 s●…i ; Goodness , is communicative of its own self ; and to say the truth , we know not a good or liberal man from a niggard but by imparting of his goodness and liberality to others . If then it be the nature of goodness to impart it self to others ; it must be the nature of the highest and chiefest goodness , to impart and communicate it self to others in the highest degree ; as we see Christ imparted himself to our humane nature in the highest degree , by the mystery of his Incarnation , suppositating our nature substantially , and covering it under his divine Personality . But it is a far higher degree of communication , to impart himself to the rest of mankinde , really and corporally , for to make them his mystical members ; then to impart himself to them figuratively only , or typically ; therefore this real communication in the Sacrament , is more agreeable to Christs infinite goodness , then a typical or figurative communication is : and also his real body is of more vertue and efficacy to incorporate us mystically , and make us his members , then the type or signe of his body is . The second reason is this . God the father , and God the son , are of equal power and verity ; therefore when God the father and God the son do express themselves in the self-same manner of speaking ; their words ought to be understood in the same meaning and sense ; But when God the father in the second of S. Matthew said . This is my son , every one that heard him , understood that Christ was his true and real son ; and to understand his words otherwise , would be open blasphemy . Therefore it is open blasphemy to deny , ( when Christ said , This is my body ) that it is not his true real body , but the figure or signe of his body only . The words were uttered alike ; the power and verity of the u●…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 proof●… 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 e●…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 & longo temporum spatio propter simulatam Religionem mystice . communicare Christo r●…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 . Quo●… 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 e●…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 , ●…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 deba●…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 ●…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 of their livelyhood , cast them into Prison , or banish them , &c. ) against the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament ; whereas the thing in it self , is not impossible to God , nor the verity of this oath revealed by him , to any of them . But that which aggravates the sin the more , is , that in the thing wherein God most obliged , and demonstrated his love to mankind , in that very thing they disown and contradict his word : Christ sayes , by way of intermination or oath : Amen , Amen , I say unto you , unless you eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his bloud , you shall not have life in you : And they swear point blank against him , saying , it is not his flesh and bloud , but bread and wine , or at the best , nothing else but the signe of his flesh and bloud . But how , forsooth , is it possible for us to eat and drink the flesh and bloud of the son of man in the Sacrament , unless his flesh and bloud be in it ? what perjury is , how grevious a sin , how distructive to human society , how infamous , and how it may be committed , and what penalties are due to open perjurers ; I need not set down here ; the laws of all Nations do sufficiently set it down . But to be so ungrateful for a benefit of so high a nature as this is , and to disown it flatly by confirmation of an oath , against Christs express words , and against so many clear testimonies of scripture , and all the holy fathers ; must needs in my opinion astonish any Christian of common reason and sense : yet from whom God withdraws his grace , and the light of faith , he will fall ( I must confess ) into these , and such like inconveniencies and absurdities , and greater too , if they can be possibly ; for heresy is a bottomless gulf of darkness and ignorance , that conveys those miserable reprobates that fall into it , into the other bottomless pit or gulf of hell , out of which there is no redemption : and so is the Psalmists words verified in these two gulfs , where he sayes , that Abyssus Abysum invocat : one pit leads or draws a man to another . As to all the rest of the Translators raylings against Popery , and its tenents , against its practises in reference to Protestant Magistrates or civil government , that as it is pernicious to their souls by its heretical doctrines and Idolatrous services ; so it is to their persons and estates , and consequently , that to introduce it into this kingdom would be an act as unpolitick as Antichristian ; as hath been demonstrated in that incomparable piece intituled ; The established Religion in opposition to Popery . All this old fustian stuff is but to vent his bitterness , whereof he is so full , that unless he gave it some passage , he must needs burst or crack ; for until he shewes this established Religion , we will never own its demonstration : where no two are of the same opinion concerning faith , how can there be a Religion established ? therefore I refer all his scolding-stuff to the oyster-women of Billings-gate to be answered , and I say that if our Religion be the only true Religion ( as we doubt not but she is , for she has all the marks of it , and there is but one Religion that is good ) certainly she cannot be pernicious to civil Government ; for Christs Religion commands us to honour our king , and obey our superiour Powers : but all the world knows that whe Popery is most in vigour and force , and where it is in greatest ●…lourish ; it never int●…enches or encroaches upon their Monarchs temporal power , nor upon any of their Magistrates : It was never read or heard of yet , that the Roman Catho●…icks ever took up arms , against their Catholick Princes , or any Catholick Prince against another upon the score of Religion only : when they are at civill or forreign wars , it is never about Religion , unless it be against the Turk , the common enemy of Christendom . But the l●…st civill warrs of England , all men know , was commenced upon the pretext of Religion , and upon a pretended score of defending the Gospel ; a most virtuous king was innocently murdered by his own subjects in this quarrel ; the Roman Catholicks ( allthough he was of a different Profession ) had no hand in his innocent bloud ; they abhominated , and detested so horrid a sacriledge from the bottom of their hearts ; they stuck to him , defended him , spent their lives and estates for him , as long as they were able , and there was any hopes of his safegard ; he was never betrayed by any of them , in any charge they bore under him ; his welfare and safety was their chief aym ; and every one of them was ready to sacrifice himself , his fortune , and estate for his sake . After they saw , all was lost , that he was taken from them , and there was no resisting the divine fate ; as many of them as could , followed their Liege soveraigne that now is , ( whom God long preserve ) but then banished , ( not by his Roman-Catholick subjects ) and in forraign countries , they cleaved to him there , they , fought for him ; and many of them quitted their good employments , and honourable places they had under forreign Princes , whereupon their whole livelyhood and fortunes depended , only for to follow and serve him , and hazard their lives for his sake , in hopes to rei●…throne him in his fathers ( of happy mememory ) royal throne . Afterwards , they accompanied and wayted on him home at his Restauration , and ever sines served him as Loyally and faithfully all along , as any subjects can their Prince ; and others of them that without evident danger of ruining themselves for ever , could not follow and wayt upon him beyond Sea , helpt him with their hest Intelligences , and some of them under-hand with their means also . All these are fresh demonstrations of their Loyalty ; and things that happened in our own age ; how can such people then be justly impeached with di●…loyalty ? or how can their practises be pernicious in reference to his sacred Majesty , and to his Protestant Magistrates and people ? whereas they all live in Peace and tranquility with their fellow-subjects , and never raised the least commotion or mutiny against the government , though never so much provoked thereunto . That England was so glorious and happy a kingdom in it self , for many ages ▪ and was a terrour to its neighbours that invaded it , and often conquered them and their kingdomes , under Popish kings and their Papist subjects needs no proof ; for the very chronicles of England made by Protestant Authors themselves , do su●…ciently shew that ; as also many memorable worthy things done by them , and many of their happy governments ; we see also that all our neighbouring Popish kings , and absolute Princes do live and govern peacably and quietly over their Papist subjects ; which demonstrats evidently that Popery is not incompatible or inconsistent with k●…ngship , or civil government and consequently , ( if it be the only true Religion ) as for matter of government or state , it is neither unpolitick or Antichristian , ●…o introduce it into any kingdome or country whatsoever . But O England , England , in former times 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 ( Bake●… sayes ) king E●…helbert gave his chief city of ●…anterbury , and his own Royal Palace there , made sinc●… 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. Pa●…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 sepul●…hres . But in regard of S. Austin the procurer , both Pan●…ras , Pet●…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 festi●…al tymes , viz. of Christ-Masse , Candle-Mass , Lamb-Mass , Mi●…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 , a●…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 , c●…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 o●… 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 cl●…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 ) doub●…less they would have done tooth and nail ; and would never have suffered it to have ●…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 pe●…ple the Apostle spoke of ; for , it is a thing not only improbable , but incredible also , that S. Peter , ( or if not he , as our adversaries will have it ) or any else of the Apostles , or all of them together ( if they had a hand in it ) should institute a Bishop of Rome ( which all the world for ever after , called the Pope , for his distinction from all other Bishops ) who introduced this Liturgy , which is convertible with his name , if the Lyturgy were at all disson●…te from that of the Apostles themselves . It is also both improbable and incredible , but that S. Iohn , who was both an Apostle , and Evangelist and a most eminent divine withall ; and who outlived S. Peter , and all the rest of the Apostles . It is , I say a strange thing , that he should not take this first Roman Bishop or Pope in hand , confute , quash , and trample down himself and his Lyturgy , if it was not the selfsame , with his own , and the rest of the Apostles . But we see not a word or syllable in S. Iohn , or in any of the Apostles or Evangel●…s ( who were contemporaneans of of this first Bishop or Pope of Rome with whom the Mass is convertible ) against the Lyturgy of the Mass. From whence we cannot but conclude , that the Mass is the selfsame Lyturgy , that was practised and used by the Apostles themselves . Therefore let all the opposers of the Masse take good ●…d , they are not the people the Apostle Prophecied of to Titus his disciple ; and consequently , let them take good heed , that by oppugning the incruent sacrifice of the Masse ; they turn not their backs to God , by rejecting and vilisiing the universal Lyturgy of his Church , celebrated , and practised by his Apostle . Let them ( I say ) take good heed they hearken not too much to the unsound doctrines of their new masters , their Ministers ; whose eares do itch after new opinions ; certes they will and do dayly avert their hearing from God and the truth . And yet few of them agree in all points of their new opinions ; which is an evident signe their doctrine is false . Not to apprehend the dreadful hour of death , and the terrible and strict Judgment of God that follows it ; and not to fear the great power of the severe Judge , who is able to cast both body and soul headlong into everlasting helfire , to band against him , and to contemn his Lyturgy , his Sacraments ; and his Church , after he told us , that unless we hear her , he will count us but as heathens and Publicans ; is th●… greatest s●…upidity and madness imaginable : and yet the opposers and enemies of our ' Diana ▪ for swerving from Antiquity , from all the General Councils , and holy ●…thers , whose authorities are so clear and manifest for ▪ her ; cannot but be at least highly suspected to be in the wrong . They themselves , for the most part , say that we can be saved ▪ in our way ; and yet they perse●…te us more then they do the Turks , Jewes , and Pagans , who are open enemies to Christ ▪ we hold they cannot be saved in their way , because we would not have them be deluded , for we believe none can be saved out of the Church , and there is but only one Church of God : why then do not they follow the surest way , wherein both we and they agree a man may be saved ; and renounce that suspected way , which we who are the far greater number ( and not inferiour to them for antiquity and learning ) do hold to be unsafe ? or can the way to heaven be too to sure ? Were it so secure an estate or great parcel of mony , no-care and diligence would be wanting , great heed would be taken that no slaw , scruple , or doubt should be ●…found in the Patent or Indenture ; wherefore is it not so also in this case or state of our souls safety , which ought to be the dearest , and of greatest con●…ernment to us of all things ? why I say , do we not walk in the common and sure Catholick road approved of by both parties ? oh craftiness and guile of Sathan ! oh vanity of worldly Pompe ! oh sensuality of flesh and bloud ! But in plain and open truth , our adversaries are clearly convicted concerning the sacrifice of the Mass , and of the real presence of Christs body in it : for how ( forsooth ) is it possible to convince any Christian ma●… more , then by plain and express texts of scripture , backt and seconded by the clear authorities and testimonies of all General Councils ; by the unanimous consent of all the holy fathers : and by sound and irrefragable reasons deduced from clear Philosophical Principles ? by all these Mediums , is the sacrifice of the Masse , and the real presence of Christs body in the host proved in this Appendix , and for to convince a Christian , no other medium or argument can be more forcible or convincing . Therefore whosoever yeelds and acquiesces not to these mediums has nothing to plead for himself but meer obstinacy ; and consequently , he wilfully turns his back to God and his Church , and runs directly to his own infallible da●…nation ; he misprises our saviours pretious bloud and Passion ; and vilifies him and all his heavenly treasure and riches , with the promises Christ made unto him of them . In a word , he hath no more belief then a meer Athiest . As for Mr. de Rodons sophistical and false treatise , I suppose , ( and perhaps I am not deceived ) that his wily arguments did so work upon his zealous translator , and totally convince him with his apparent Philosophical reasons , that he took every one of them to be a palpable demonstration ; and consequently in his own judgment thinking his cause to be very clear , out of ●… pure zeal to Religion ; and taking ours to be but meer Idolat●…y ; that made him fall so bitterly upon our bones . But now when he reads this treatise , after he hath seen my full answer to his author , and how I have followed him through his whole tract , from point to point , and refuted him manifestly every where , paying him also in his one Philosophical coine : after ( I say ) the translatot hath perused this book , and examined the case better with himself , pondering well upon the arguments of both sides , pro , and con : I hope he will become milde ; and have a better opinion and esteem for our Diana and Religion , then he had before . I hope also , that his understanding being clarified and enlightned by my solutions , whereby all de Rodons fallacious sophisms are detected , and made minifest to all men of any learning or judgment , he finding him to be but an Impo●…tor , and deluder of weak ignorant souls ; will soon disown both him and his damnable tract ; finally ; I hope that no worldly interest ( as alass it doth thoufands of our adverse party ) will so blinde and intoxicate him , as to make him lose the interest of his soul , and refuse to be an incorporate mistical member of Christ ; which without the help of our Diana ( as I have sufficiently proved already ) is impossible for him , or any man else to be . As de Rodons weak arguments were not of force enough to pearce or annoy our Diana in any thing the lea●…t ; so likewise his Translators rayling and s●…olding at her , can do her no more harm , then a doggs barking can do to the Moon ; therefore he had better follow the good counsel of grave Gamaliel to the Jewes concerning how they should deal with the Apostles , whose words be these : And now therefore I say unto you , depart from these men , and let them al●…ne ; for if this counsel or work be of men , it will be diss●…lved ; but if it be of God , you are not able to diss●…lve them , lest perhaps you be found to ●…esist God also , Act , 5. Even so ( in my poor judgement ) had the Translator best do to the Masse ; for with railing and scolding at it , he will never be able to hurt it : It hath stood from all ages since Christs time untill now ; and if it be of God , it is not the Translator or I that shall be able to put it down ; alas both he and I shall be dead and rotten , while noble Diana will be as brisk , merry and fresh as she was the very first day she came into this world . However I cannot but ex●…use the good Translator because of his great zeal , if his bitterness towards us proceeded onely from ignorance and not from malice or interest●… ; for S. Paul himself out of his ardent zeal to the Synagogue ( wherein he was born and bred ) was once a severe enemy , and violent Persecutor of Gods Church . But after he was illuminated by Christ , and knew better things , who ever after was more zealous for her honour and glory then he ? and yet he himself doth confess , that God shewed him his great mercy , quia ignorans feci : because I did it ( quoth he ) ignorantly : so I beg God heartily , that this small book of mine , by his blessing , may illuminate the minds of those that are plunged ●…n the Abyss of heresy and Ignorance , through the means of Mr de Rodon , and such like Phanatick hereticks , who by their false interpretations and applications of holy scripture , set out , and garnished with their sophistical arguments do deceive and mislead many thousands of poor ignorant souls to their utter ruine , and everlasting damnation , for leaving their true Mother the Church , out of which there is no salvation for any : And amongst the rest of the illuminated , I wish the Translator were one . To conclude this Appendix ; I exhort all the Catholicks of England ▪ and I earnestly beg and beseech them , for the love of our sweet saviour Jesus Christ , and the tender bowells of his infinite mercy towards them : to stick closly , and cleave constantly to their pretious Diana ; and for her sake to be always ready , and prepared to undergoe all manner of persecutions , tribulations , and losses , rather then forsake her : for whatever damage , or ill-entreatment they suffer upon her account , they may be sure , she will requite them a hundred-fold double for it with full interest . Our saviour himself did ●…id us , Not fear them that kill the body , and after this have no more to do ; but I will shew you ( quoth he ) whom ye shall fear : fear him who after he hath killed , hath power to cast into hell Luke 12. for your momentary sufferings in this life , for his sake , your crown and reward will be everlasting hereafter . More then eye can see , ear can hear , or understanding can comprehend : 1. Cor. 2. verity himself doth promise it , and his promise he can , and will perform . Expect him but a little while with patience , and in your patience ye shall possess your souls : S. Luke . 21. It is far better for you to suffer a little and short famine , cold , want , misery , imprisonment , nay death it self for her sakes then to live plentifully , and abundantly here for a moment , and for ever after ( for denying her ) to be in everlasting famine , imprisonment , torment misery and want : for unless we be Christs fellow sufferers in this life , we shall not be his copartners in glory as the Apostle tells Timothy 2. If we shall sustain we shall also reign together . In a word , I conclude my book with the ●…ame prayer , the Translator ends his preface with , viz. I earnestly beseech my Lord and God he would make it prosperous and successfull for the good of souls ; and if any shall receive benefit by it , I desire them to give him all the glory , and I shall think my self infinitely recompensed , for my pains in composing it , yet if there be any thing in it that is not orthodox and sound , I humbly submit my poor judgment to the censure of our holy mother the Church . Errata . PAge ▪ 13. line ult . for it is not repugnant , r. is not repugnant . p. 37. for Iohn . he that , r. is mentioned in S. Iohn 6. he that . p. 67. l. 19. for the wine was destroyed , r. the water was destroyod ▪ p. 85. l. 25. for charity sake , r. clarity sake . p. 87. l. 21. for neither , r. either . p. 115. l ▪ 5. for place , r. places . p. 118. l. 8. for would , r. could . p. 130. l. 14. for between corporal things , r. but between corporal things . p. 168. l. 27. for that charity , r. that clarity . p. 171. l. 9. for therein , r. their . p. 175. l. 11. for consure , r. censure . p. 192. l. 21. for next under the holy writt , r. next unto holy writt . p. 204. l. 14. for in this glory , r. in his glory . In the Appendix p. 3. l. 27. for your r. our . p. 24. l. 23. r. metal ●…iery . p. 25. l. ●… . r. corporis & cordis . FINIS . AN INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS Contained in this Book . Chap. I CO●…cerning the Exposition of these words , This is my Body . p. 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Exposition of these wo●…ds , He that eate●…h my Flesh , and drinketh my Blood , hath Everlasting Life . My Flesh is Meat indeed . p. 36. Chap. III. Against Transubstantiation ▪ p. 64. Chap. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host , or Consecrated Wafer . p. 96. Chap. V. Against the Adoration or Worshipping of the Host. p. 199. Chap. VI. Against taking away of the Cup. p. 242. Chap. VII . Against the Mass. p , 293. Chap. VIII . Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors . p. 345. The Pre●…ace of Monsieur d●… Rodons Translator . p. 461. An Answer to the Preface , and an Appendix to the Book . p. 1. An INDEX of the chief things contained in this Book . CHrists word is Creative , productive and effective . pag. 4 ▪ Transubstantiation cannot be plainlier exprest , than by these wo●…ds ▪ This is my Body ▪ p. 6. Christs words are practical Signs and causes of what they signifie , other mens words are but speculative signs only of things signi●…fied by them . p. 12. An Image hath always an Essential relation to its Prototype . p. 11. Transubstantiation both a Sacrament , and the thing signified . p. 13. It is not repugnant that the same thing should signifie its own self . p. Ibid. The Bread and Wine were not made the Body and Blood of Christ by a bare Blessing or Thanksgiving . p. 14. The words of Consecration ought to be understood according to their immediate sense . p. 17. The B. Sacrament is the New Testament in Christs Blood , & not only of his Blood , p. 22. These words , This is my Body , signifie a substantial being , and not a Sacramental only . p. 23. The Protestant Communion exhibits not Christs Body & Blood to the Believers . p. 27. The Sacramental Species receive●… worthily , makes the receiver a Mystical Member of Christ. p. 30. Faith alone insufficient for this Sacrament . Ib. Faith is no mouth literally or metapho●…ically . p. 31. Christs glorified Body never damnified by the receiver of the B. Sacramen●… . p. 32. To verifie a proposition , it sufficeth the thing be as the proposition says it is , p. 35. I●… is the Sacrament that is the chief and whole cause of our spiritual refreshment , and the thing which the Soul principally hungers and thirsts after : Faith is only a con●…ition requisite ▪ so is Hope and Charity also , for to receive worthily , p. 38. Christs Body worthily received , works spiritually upon the Soul , p. 40. These words of St. Aug. To eat the ●…lesh of Christ is a Figure , &c. which De Rodon alledges against us , expounded ▪ p. 43. Cardinal Cajetans ▪ Authority alledged against us expounded , p. 45. The action whereby we obtain remission of sins , an●… sanctification ending in glo●…ification , consists not in the spiritual eating or drinking by Faith only , p. 5●… . In these words , My Flesh ▪ is mea●… indeed , no Figure falls upon the word ( Meat . ) p. 55. Christs Flesh is a corporal food that nourishes spiritually only , p. 57. Objects of Divine Faith not to he levelled by our reason and sense , p. 59. Christ come●… into the Sacrament by an adductive power , p. 66. He is not produced there entitatively , but modally only , p. Ibid. Certain passages of Scripture alledged a●…ainst us by De Rodon , viz. That there is ●…reaking , givin●… , ea●…ing and drinking after Consecra●…ion , answered , p. 68. When Christ said , Drink ye all this , Mat. 26. he meant his Blood. p. 71. Why the e●…ects of the Sacramental Species ●…emain after Transubstantiation . p. 73. Transubstantiation is a total substantial conversion , and not a formal substantial conversion only , p. 75. The Sac●…amental Species are something Sub●…ect ▪ li●…e , p. 77. Transubstantiation destroys not the nature of Acci●…ents , p. 79. Transubstantiation destroys not the Nature o●… Sac●…aments , p. 84. Corporal nourishment in the Sacramental S●…ecies , n●…t requisite . p. 85. The Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be adored with a Latria . p. 88. If our adversaries give not a Latriacal adoration to their Communion Bread , it may be lawfully given to Dogs . p. 89. If they adore their Communion , they are greater Idolaters than we . p. 91. Christ gave power to Priests to Consecrate . p. 97. Christs Body is in the Sacrament immediately by reason of its substance , p. 99. It s quantity is also there , though not with its quantitative dimensions , p. 100. The definition of a proper place , and how many manner of ways both Christian Divines and Philosophers hold a thing may be in a place , p. 103. A glorious Body may be in its equivocal place , p. 109. The Iacobins , and the Jesuits opinion concerning Christs Body to be brought , or produced in the Sacrament , saved , p. 112. Christs Body is in all things subject to his Soul , as his Soul is subject to his Divinity , p. 117. Why the local extension of Christs Body in the Sacrament is hindred , p. 119. De Rodons Argument of to move , and not to move at the same time &c. answered . p. 121. Wherein a formal contradiction consists . p. 123 De Rodons ridiculous quibbles and Unphilosophical illations , answered , p. 129. Distance is only betwixt corporal things , whilst they are in their univocal places . p. 130 A Sacramental place , is properly no place at all . p. 133. De Rodons Dropsical Argument , of a drop of water that drowned many thousands &c. mouldred . p. 136. Division is only between corporal things in their proper places . p. 138. God , and Nature , are not obliged to do , what they can do . p. 140. De Rodon shoots at Christ through Diana's side , p. 143. Christ is seen in the Sacrament by the Spiritual Eye of our understanding , supported by the light of Faith , p. 146. It is not convenient we should see Christ visibly with our Corporal Eyes in the Blessed Sacrament , p. 148. Substances possess no place , p. 151. Christs Body in the Sacrament , whether taken substantially or quantitatively , has no posture or scituation in it , p. 154. His Body appears not more or less , for dividing or sub-dividing the Host , p. 156. Christ is as glorious and happy in the Host , as he is in Heaven , p. 161. What these terms Reduplicatively and specificatively , what sensus compositus , and divisus , mean , p. Ibid. As Christ comes into the Host without local 〈◊〉 so he leaves it without local ●…e ▪ 〈◊〉 , p. 165. De Rodon gives the Apostle the lie , p. 167. Christ , Diana , and the Apostle , saved from De Rodons keen Arrow , p. 168. De Rodon jumps with the Iews against Christ , p. 170. His Thunderbolt or Coelestial Arrow shivered , p. 172. According to De Rodons Principles , there ought to be no Sacrament of our Lords Supper at all , p. 174. Cl●…ud de Xaintes defended against De Rodon , p. Ibid. Exorcismes , p. 176. De Rodons miraculous Arrow put by , p. 179. Christ really in Heaven , and really in the Blessed Sacrament at the same time ▪ p. 182. He is not in the Sacrament impanated , p. Ibid. He gave himself to Iudas also , p. 18●… . Bellormine and Peron defende●… . p. 186. The Sacraments of the old Testament had a relation to those of the new , p. 187. The Mo●…sieurs Scripturistical Arrows shat●…ered , p. 190. The marks of the Roman Church , p. 193. The Seven Sacraments expounded , p. 195. Why we keep the Eucharist in our Pixes and 〈◊〉 , p. 197. Monsieur and his Party , the false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of , p. Illid ▪ God many manner of ways in his Creatures , p. 202. External Adoration due to Christ , where he is known to be personally present , p. 203. Hereticks uncivil both to God and Man , p. 206. According to De Rodons Principles , we may adore the Devil instead of Christ , p. 209. VVhy External adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament , more than in the VVater of Baptism , p. 210. Heaven and Hell destroyed by the Monsieurs Principles , p. 211. The Monsieurs third Foundation built upon Quick-sands , p. 215. De Rodons very considerable Argument , pernicious to all mankind , p. 218. Destructive to Go●…s Providence , p. 222. A moral certitude of being Christned , sufficient , p. 223. Pope Adrian defended against De Rodon , p. 226. Apostate Priests and Monks in credit and spiritual jurisdiction with De Rodon and his Party , p. 228. The P●…imitive Church adored the Host , p. 233. Proved by the Testimonies of sundry Holy Fathers , p. Ibid. Our Diana , or Mass , holds it out from all Ages maugre De Rodon , and all Hereticks , p. 237. Diana vindicated against Idolatry , p. 238. The Church makes no new Articles of Faith , but only declare what belongs to those made by the Apostles , p. 245. That the Constantian Canon or Statute concerning the taking away of the Cup , contradicts not Christ or his Apostle , demonstrated , p. 247. De Rodon proved a jugler , p. 254. De Rodon proved a calumnions Lyer , p. 256. What the Catholicks do hold concerning Merit , p. 257. Communion under one or both Species , of the same value , p. 260. Christ gave the Sacrament under one Species , p. 262. De Rodons negative Proofs against the Sacrifice of the Mass , answered , p. 266. De Rodon proved an Heretick , p. 268. The Holy Fathers against De Rodon , p. Ibid. St. Gregory and Bellarmine not for him , but quite against him , p. 272. Tradition vindicated , p. 273. Christ the first that eve●… said Mass , p. 275. The Monsieur belyes the Church , p. 276. The Sacrifices of the old Law , Types of Christs bloody Sacrifice , 277. The Sacrifice of the Mass hath a Relation to that of the Cross , and yet essentially both one , Ibid. The Monsieurs first crusher , or Mill-stone shattered , 279. Christs word surer than any visible or sensible knowledge , 284. Christ can supernaturally put his substance in the accidents of another Subject or substance , 285. Christs Sacramental ubication , a Predicable , not a Predicamental Accident , 286. The Sacramental Species being destroyed , Christs Entity or Substance is not therefore destroyed . 288 Christs Entity depends not upon the Sacramental Species , 289. De Rodons rushing absurdities , which he saith would ensue from the Doctrine of the Mass ; all obstructed , 290. The Sacrifice of the Mass , propitiatory for the living and the dead , 292. The Monsieurs second Mill-stone crush'd in pieces , 293. The Monsieurs Objection out of Heb. 9. answered ▪ 295 ▪ To be offered bloody or unbloody , is only an accidental of a strict Sacrifice . p. 296. De Rodon falsifies Scripture . p. 298. Christs Passion applied unto us , by receiving the Blessed Sacrament . p. 301. Christs Body given to him , not only to be Sacrificed upon the Cross , but also upon the Altar , proved by sundry express Testimonies of the Holy Fathers . p. Ibid. De Rodons Objection out of Heb. 9. answered . p. 307. The Holy Fathers , De Rodons Adversaries . p. 310. De Rodon , Luthers true follower . p. Ibid. Christs unbloody Sacrifice may be o●…ered without su●…ering . p. 314. De Rodons weighty Argument as light as a Feather . p. 315. De Rodons illative exclamation makes him an A●…e . p. 317. His other Consequences not worth a Rush. p. 3●…9 . No Priests , Ministers or Pastor●… according to De Rodon . p. 320. Rigorous Sacrifices without death . p. 326. The representation of a thing need not always differ from the thing represented , in its Entitative Being . p. 328. The Sacrifice of the Mass is of an infinite value , as to the thing offered . p. 330. The nature of Gods Justice not altered by the Sacrifice of the Mass. p. 334. De Rodon found some good thing in the Mass. p. 337. St. Thomas Aquinas , Diana's 〈◊〉 Champion . p. 345. De Rodon an unequal Duellist . p. 346. These wor●…s , This is my Body , spoken by Christ without any Figure ▪ p. 349. De Rodons Wiles Sophistical , second Answer to the Romanists , insufficient . p. 353. His third Answer to them , noxious to huma●…e Society . p. 356. The Monsieur deserved his Fee. p. 357. The formal words of all Christs Sacraments not figurative , but plain . p. 360. If De Rodon had lived in Christs time , he would dispute with him . p. 362. De Rodon must drink the Cup molten or unmolten himself . p. 363. The Pa●…eover a Type of the Eucharist also . p. 366. Those of the old Law had the benefit of the Eucharist . p. 368. If by the words of Consec●…ation Christs Body be not signi●… , the bread is no Sacrament after 〈◊〉 more than ▪ t was before . p. 372. De Rodons last Answer to the Romanists , both impious and blasphemous . p. 374. Mr. De Rodon , and his learned Mr. Brugier , a couple of Ignoramus's in Divinity and Philosophy . p 377. Spirits never properly distant from one another , 378. Gods general ubication fills all places , 379. Christs Sacramental ubication in many places together , Ibid. A glorified Body depends not of a place , 380. The Monsieurs , and his learned Brugiers other Answers , all ridiculous , Ibid. Scripture falsified by De Rodon again , 384. He manifestly contradicts the Text , 387. He deserves a double Fee for vilifying Christs Sacraments , and blaspheming against the Virginal Integrity of our Blessed Lady , 389 , He incurs Gods Curse for glossing upon Scripuure falsely , 391. Penetrability , a Dowry of a glorious Body , 393. De Rodon little vers'd in the Romish Doctors Philosophy , 394. Incensation at a strict Sacrifice , 399. The Reformists careful of Back and Belly , 400. The Catholicks of England more persecuted by the Reformists , than Turks , Iews or Pagans . 402. St. Paul , according to De Rodons Principles , was to kill those Gentiles he converted to Christ , Ibid. In a strict Sacrifice some sensible thing must be destroyed , and offered with Incense , 404. De Rodon and his Parties Sacrifice , not pure , but put●…id and stinking . 412. Justification by inherent Justice : 414. Christ no coverer of sin . Ibid. No union among the Reformists , but in banding against the Catholicks . 417. St. Ierom , De Rodons adversary . 422. De Rodon seated next to the Devil , the Father of Lies . 423. De Rodon convinced in his own Interpretation of the Text also . 424. De Rodon a better Dictionarist , than Philosopher or Divine . 425. Melchizedech offered the Bread and Wine to God , which he brought to refresh Abraham and his Soldiers . 429. The Holy Fathers siding with us herein , do over-ballance De Rodon , and his Parties Reasons to the contrary . 432. De Rodons manifest Falsification-Argument against us , answered . 434. Because Christ is a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedech , there must be a perpetual Sacrifice corresponding with his Priesthood . 437. De Rodons assertions destroy Christian Religion here upon Earth . 439. Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A34012-e130 * Like to li●… quoth the Devill to the Colier . * A notorious turne-coot .