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 [...] [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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, [Page 5] 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, [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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; [Page 13] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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, [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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, [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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, [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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.

MOunsieur de Rodon, did promise in his precedent Chapter, to prove in this, [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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; [Page 39] 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, [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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, [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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, [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 'tis 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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, [Page 61] 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 [Page 62] 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 [Page 63] 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 [Page 64] 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.

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 [Page 65] 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 [Page 66] 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 [Page 67] 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 [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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; [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] 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 [Page 75] 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, [Page 76] 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,

[Page 77]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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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, [Page 82] 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 [Page 83] 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. its 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 [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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 subject­like 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 [Page 86] 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 [Page 87] 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 [Page 88] 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 [Page 89] 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 [Page 90] 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, [Page 91] 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 communion­bread 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 communion­bread, 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 [Page 92] 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 communion­bread? 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 [Page 93] 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: [Page 94] 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 [Page 95] 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.

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 [Page 97] 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, [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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 [Page 102] 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, [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] 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 [Page 107] 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: [Page 108] 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, [Page 109] 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 [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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 [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] 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 [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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 [Page 119] 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 [Page 120] 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 [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] 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 [...] its 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 [Page 123] 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▪ [Page 124] 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 [Page 125] 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.

[Page 126]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 [Page 127] 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 [Page 128] 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 [Page 129] 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 [Page 130] 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 [Page 131] 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 [Page 132] 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 [Page 133] 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 [Page 134] 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 [Page 135] 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 [Page 136] 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 [Page 137] 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 'tis 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 [Page 138] 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 [Page 139] 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 [Page 140] 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 [Page 142] 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 [Page 143] 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 [Page 144] 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 [Page 145] 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. [Page 146] 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 [Page 147] 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 [Page 148] 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 [Page 149] 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 [Page 150] 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; [Page 151] 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 [Page 152] 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 [Page 153] 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 [Page 154] 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 [Page 155] 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) [Page 156] 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 [Page 157] 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: 'tis 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 [Page 158] 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 [Page 159] 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 [Page 160] 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 [Page 161] 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 tis 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, [Page 162] 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 sea­fight 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 [Page 163] 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 [Page 164] 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, [Page 165] 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 [Page 166] 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 [Page 167] 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 [Page 168] 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 [Page 169] 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 [Page 170] 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 [Page 171] 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.

[Page 172]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 [Page 173] 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 [Page 174] 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, [Page 175] 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 [Page 176] 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; [Page 177] 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 [Page 179] 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 [Page 180] 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, [Page 181] 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 twas 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 'twas 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 [Page 182] 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 [Page 183] 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 [Page 184] 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 [Page 185] 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 [Page 186] 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, [Page 187] 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 [Page 188] 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 [Page 189] 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 [Page 190] 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 [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] 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 [Page 193] 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 [Page 194] 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: [Page 195] 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 [Page 196] 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 [Page 197] 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 [Page 198] 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 [Page 199] 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.

MR. de Rodon not being able to keep Christs body out of the Sacrament, yet [Page 200] 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 [Page 201] 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 [...] [Page 202] 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 [Page 203] 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 [Page 204] 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, [Page 205] 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 [Page 206] 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 [Page 207] 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 [Page 208] 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 [Page 209] 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.

[Page 210]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, [Page 211] 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.

[Page 212]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 [Page 213] 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 [Page 214] 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 [Page 215] 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 [Page 216] 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 [Page 217] 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 [Page 218] 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 [Page 219] 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 [Page 220] 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 [Page 221] 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 [Page 222] 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 [Page 223] 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 [Page 224] 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 [Page 226] 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.

[Page 227]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 [Page 228] 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 [Page 229] 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 [Page 230] 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 [Page 231] 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, [Page 232] &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 [Page 233] 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 [Page 234] 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 [Page 235] 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 [Page 236] 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 [Page 237] 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 [Page 238] 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 [Page 239] 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 [Page 240] ( 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 [Page 241] 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, [Page 242] with his very considerable additio­nate, are fully and pathetically answered; and an end put to this chapter.

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 Lay­people, 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, [Page 243] 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 [Page 244] 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 [Page 245] 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 [Page 246] 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 [Page 247] 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 [Page 248] 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 [Page 249] 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 [Page 250] 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 [Page 251] 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 [Page 252] 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, [Page 253] 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▪ [Page 254] 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 [Page 255] 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 [...] [Page 256] 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 [Page 257] 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 free­will, &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, [Page 258] 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.

[Page 259]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 [Page 260] 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 [Page 261] 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 [Page 262] 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 [Page 263] 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.

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 [Page 264] 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 [Page 265] 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 [Page 266] 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 [Page 267] 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 [Page 268] 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 [Page 269] 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 [Page 270] 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 [Page 271] 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▪ [Page 272] 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 [Page 273] 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 [Page 274] 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 [Page 275] 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 above­mentioned) 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 [Page 276] 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 [Page 277] 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 [Page 278] 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 [Page 279] 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 [Page 280] 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 [Page 281] 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 'tis 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 [Page 282] 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▪ [Page 283] 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 [Page 284] 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 [Page 285] 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 'tis 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; [Page 286] 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, [Page 287] 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 [Page 288] 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 [Page 289] 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, [Page 290] 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 [Page 291] 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; thats 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 [Page 292] 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.

[Page 293] 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 [Page 294] 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) [Page 295] 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 [Page 296] 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 self­same 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 ▪tis 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 [Page 297] 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.

[Page 298] 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, [Page 299] 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 [Page 300] 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, [Page 301] 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 [Page 302] 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 [Page 303] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 304] 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 [Page 305] 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: [Page 306] 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. [Page 307] 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 [Page 308] 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 [Page 309] 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 once­bloudy sacrifice doth oppose or exclude the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass, which we [Page 310] 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 [Page 311] 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 [Page 312] 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 [Page 313] 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 [Page 314] 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 [Page 315] 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 tis 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 [Page 316] 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 [Page 317] 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 [Page 318] 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, [Page 319] 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 [Page 320] 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 [Page 321] 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 [...] [Page 322] 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 [Page 323] 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: [Page 324] 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 [Page 325] 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.

[Page 326] 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 [Page 327] 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 [Page 328] 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 [Page 329] different from that of the Cross in its na­tural entity or being; and being it is the self­same essence which is sacrificed in both; the distinction or difference cannot be in essen­do, thats 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.

[Page 330] 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 [Page 331] 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 [Page 332] 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 [Page 333] 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 [Page 334] 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 [Page 335] 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 [Page 336] 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, [Page 337] 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, [Page 338] 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 [Page 339] 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 [Page 340] 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 [Page 341] 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 [Page 316] 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 [Page 317] 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 [Page 344] 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 [Page 345] is father quite against them: for 'tis 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.

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 [Page 346] 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.