AN ANSWER To Monsieur DE RODON'S Funeral of the MASS.  
IHS NOMEN DOMINI LAUDABILE  
By N. N.  
At DOVAY in Flanders, 1681.   

To the Honourable, SIR, JOHN SETON OF GARLETON, Son to Lord GEORGE, Late Earl of WINTON.  
SIR,  
THE great Obligations, I had to your Honour afore I parted from Scotland, claim with much reason to some Fruit of my Labour. Be pleased then to accept of a little work of mine from Flanders.  
I am confident the Subject will please you, because it is suitable to your Devotion, and to the piety of your most Noble and ancient Family.  
Our Saviour by the occasion of the Jews seeking him for Bread, spoke to them of the Bread of Life, and I, by the occasion of three sheaves of Corn, I find in your Scutcheon, or in the Honours of your House, will speak to you, in reference to the Subject of this little Book, of the Bread, termed by the Church, the Bread of the strong, I mean of the most Holy Sacrifice, and Sacrament of the Altar.  
Ligor ne dispergar saycs your motto, I am bound lest I scatter, your glorious ancestors being united and tied together in the Faith of this Sacrament, were not scattered by the Enemies of their Souveraign, when helped by the miraculous valour in a Child of the house of Douglas, they gallantly brought Queen Mary out of the Bondage of Lockleven, and lodged Her safely the first night in my Lord SETON'S own House at Netheree in West Lothian. They keeping still Faith to God and their Sovereigns, after this action spread even under Persecution, as Camamoile trodden down, both to more Wealth and Honour.  
'Twas for the Virtue of the SETON'S, that Noble Motto invia virtuti via nulla, no way hard or unpassible to Virtue, was given them. And where, I pray, in their persuasion then, and still in yours is the seat of Virtue but in this Bread of the strong?  
If the Prophet Elias refreshed with that Bread, which was only a Figure of our Sacrament, walked forty days and as many nights, wonder you that those great Men, of whom you have the Honour to descend, receiving it often were quickened to generosity, and Christian Duty to King and Country?  
Sir CHRISTOFER SETON by ROBERT A BRUCE, sutnamed the Good, merited for his Devotion to the Sacrifice of the Mass, to have after his Death the daily Sacrifice offered for him, and this was performed by the same King ROBERT, whose Sister he had Married, for he founded a Chapel near Dumfrice, called Christel Chappel, and a Priest to offer Sacrifice in it for the Soul of Good Sir Christofer, as he out of a loving respect was pleased to call him. This renowned Champion died at London as Honourably as Cruelly by the hands of the English, whom he had often stoutly opposed and pestured in the service of his Country.  
But why was Christofer the first his Predecessor called more Devout than Worly? But because his Heart was powerully, though sweetly, drawn to this Sacracrament, as Iron to a Loadstone? Hoc specialiter, says Thomas a Kempis l 4. de imit. Ch. c. 1. Devotorum corda trahit, this Sacrament draws by a special way the hearts of Devout People; and thus from a special respect to this Sacracrament a Man worthily obtains the tittle of Devout.  
Lord George the third a Prudent Man, and very Familiar with King James the third, divided his Devotion to the Altar with his Lady Dame Jeane Hepburn, called by the History a Noble and Wise Lady Daughter to the Earl of Bothuel.  
O Lord, said, the Royal Prophet, I have loved the beauty of thy House, Psal. 25. Were not those two great Souls inflamed with the same Zeal, when striving as it were who might do best, they set themselves to decore the Colledg-Church of SETON?  
The Lord paved and seiled the choir; and the Lady ●aised an I'll on the North-side, and having taken down that on the the South side, Built by the Devotion of Dame Catherine Sinclar, rebuilded it again with proportion to make a perfect Cross, and founded two prebend's to serve the Altars. The Lord, not to speak of other Ornaments, gave it a complete Suit of Cloth of Gold: And the Lady complete Suits of all the Colours of the Church, for Advent, Lent, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins; for all the solemn Feasts of the Year of Purple and Crimson Velvet richly flowered with Gold, white Damask, etc. Not forgetting a Suit of black Vestments for the Dead with other fine Chasubels. Also a great Silver Cross, a Silver Eucharist Ciborium or Remonstrance for the B. Sacrament with a fair Chalice Silver and Gilt, all for the Majesty and Decorement of the Altar.  
Some may think I had done better in a Dedicatory, to busy my Pen in describing the Courage of a Governor of Barwick of the House of SETON, who in cold Blood choosed rather to see his Son violently put to Death, than to fail in his trust to King and Country, and in such like signal actions admired by Men, than in rehearsing these liberalities made to the Altar, which are but petty things in the Eyes of worlings.  
But my aim is not so much to show the worly grandeur of your Family, as the Devotion to this Mystery, (which makes the Subject of my Book) of the great ones in it. This their Devotion made them truly great. Take from a Man the sense and respect he has for God, and for what relates to him, and what is he with all he has, or may possess? little, a nothing an object of contempt. As God dismaly at last slights them who slight him, and what regards his Honour, so he stupendiously glorifies them, who have made it their work to seek his Glory. 1 Samuel 2. v. 30. Live then for ever Souls nobly affected to contribute to the Majesty of this daily Sacrifice, which is upon Earth God's greatest Glory.  
O change of times and manners! where is he or she in Scotland now a days, who make it their study to imitate those forementioned Noble Persons? What a loss is the want of such for the House of God How many poor Families, monasteries Churches, and Altars mourned at the Death, especially of that pious Lady?  
If the monastery of Seins in Burromure nigh Edinburgh were standing, it would tell you 'twas hither she retired herself after the decease of her Lord; to attend in solitude with more freedom to God. I am now defaced, she is Dead, who having chief founded me; while she lived, conserved me, and decored me.  
SIR, can you forget, or not respect the memory of so much piety? To which they were powerfully moved by the belief they had of the adorable Sacrifice of the Altar. As often as you see the three Crescents in your Arms, remember that you must increase or grow as they did in a lively Faith of this Mystery, which is the seed of Divine Love and Charity to your Neighbour. I know you have hazarded something already for your Faith, but if an other occasion be given you, mindful of one of the Noble Mottoes of your House, hazard yet further, in what is prudently acknowledged to be the Service of God, there is no danger to be redoubted, or so much as apprehended. Your very name SET-ON minds you of generosity in what you act for God, or may undertake for the Service of his Vicegerent upon Earth, the King.  
God and you know best what hope you have laid up in Heaven, as the Apostle speaks to the Colos. 1. v. 5, But much of Your Charity the World has seen. I am the Subject of a notable part of it, and Witness of your sheltering poor Strangers, considering distressed Tenants, clothing the naked, feeding orphelins, visiting the imprisoned in Person, the sick by alms, entering some forlorn into the number of your domestics, and honestly burying the Dead, that had no Friend or Relation, able to do that Duty. Such actions done in the Spirit of Christ, make savour at present in the Eucharist, the sweetness of the hidden Manna there, and will Crown hereafter the Christian in the solemn day of the general Resurrection.  
Infin, Since the Treassures of your Arms being Flower Delucies', as good as tell you, you must flourish, strive to flourish in the Faith of your ancestors. Ambulo in fide, says the Author of the Imitation of Christ, l. 4, C. 11. exemplis confortatus Sanctorum, I walk in the Faith of the Real Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist: comfortably held in it by the example of the Saints, this Faith gives Men a Victory over the World making them fear, esteem and Love only this God of Love, (a Love surprising in this Mystery) And being fully satisfied, with the expected possession of him, breath now after the Loveliness of his Eternity. This flourishing condition, I cordially wish you as I am  
SIR, Your most humble and obliged Servant, N. N.   

THE PREFACE.  
NO wonder our Ghostly Enemy is so earnest to persuade men that there is no true Sacrifice in the Mass. He knows that it is the very Centre of Christian Religion, the Arsenal of arms against him, the Storehouse of all perfection, and the great means the Church has to pacify God in his Wrath, and draw down from Heaven blessings upon her Children. He knows it is the permanent succeeding Sacrifice to all the Sacrifices of the Old Law; a most perfect holocaust, in which JESUS is Sacramentally consumed in the fire of his Love, in acknowledgement of the grandour of his Father; An Eucharistical, because in thanksgiving for the daily benefits we receive from above we can offer nothing more pleasing; A Sacrifice of Satisfaction, because the hatred, which God carries to the sins of the World, is not so great, as the Love he bears to his Son, whose merits far exceed the enormity of our offences; A Sacrifice of Impetration, because the Father cannot refuse any thing to a Son who in all his life and death upon Earth, has so highly obliged him. Wherefore the Priest, though in contemplation of his own sinful condition, is always bound to say, O Lord, I am not worthy; yet having at the Altar Christ in his hands, he may also say with an humble confidence Respice in faciem Christi tui; Eternal Father; tho' I am not worthy to petition either for myself or others, yet be pleased to grant us what we in humility demand for the Love of him, who vouchsafed to die for the Love of us, since as our offering is the offering of Christ, so our request is his, and he ordained us to mind thus Your Majesty by this commemoration of his Death.  
The Son of God finding his Father not content withal the oblations which pure men could offer him for their sins, Sacrificium & oblationem noluisti. Hosts and oblations and holocausts and for Sin thou wouldst not, neither did they please thee, then said I (the Son of God) behold I come that I may do thy will. Hebr. 10. v. 5, 6, 7. Out of his Love to men resolved to be both our Priest & Victim, a Body thou hast fited to me, behold I come. So sacrificing himself in a bloody way upon mount Calvarie, he laid into the Treasury of the Church an inexhaustible ransom for all mankind; having provided before by the Sacrifice he made at the last Supper (commanding his Disciples to offer in like manner in remembrance of him) for our daily necessity of a daily Sacrifice, (daily Sacrifice of a Lamb commanded, Exo. 29.38.) daily to acknowledge God's supreme being; to give him daily thanks for his daily benefits; and to obtain new helps in our daily infirmities; where he instituted his Body and Blood to be offered daily under the Forms of Bread and Wine, according to the Order of Melchisedech; commanding (hoc facite, do this. Luc. 22. v. 10.) his Apostles and their Successors in that function to make the Sacrament in it for the spiritual food of the Faithful.  
To prove this truth efficaciously as I undertake by the help of God to do in this Book, in which I answer Chapter for Chapter Monsieur Rodon's funeral of the Mass.  
I prove first of all the Catholic tenet, both for the Reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with other Doctrines relating to it; and that in our Liturgy or Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice, (every one in their proper place) by proofs, which either did not come into Monsieur Rodon's mind, or if they did, he thought good to take no notice of them. Next I solve his objections, some of which, if the Catholic Reader find set out by me in a more convincing way then by Monsieur Rodon himself, let him not censure me for that, but remember that sometimes a Surgeon makes the wound the wider to cure it the better.  
Moreover let the Protestant Reader be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon's arguments are drawn from our senses, which are plausible to men of Flesh and Blood, whereas many of our answers in this Mystery of Faith, are drawn from Faith, or Reasons grounded upon Faith, which are above the reach of Flesh and Blood, and must mount to a higher story than that of our senses, to be applauded. Math. 16. v. 17.  
If he who has not been acquainted with Philosophy, much less with Divinity, think my expressions to be harsh, not to say Barbarous, when I repeat Monsieur de Rodon's terms A quo and Ad quem, and use others of that nature common in the School. I answer for us both, that we cannot discourse properly on School matters but in School terms; as he who speaks pertinently of Heraldry, uses terms, which are no more understood than Hebrew by him, who is ignorant of that Court and noble Knowledge: Nevertheless, here and there I render them in English, or give an English explication of them.  
For my Greek and Hebrew quotations I was advised to put them in Characters common to our Language; so they who are ignorant of those Tongues may have the satisfaction to pronounce the words to themselves, and take notice of them, when they hear them pronounced by others.  
Courteous Reader, if in my Proofs and Solution of Mr. Rodon's greater objections,) or in my remarks here and there, and notes which are the seed of Answers, forerunning and short Solutions of difficulties, you yourself see the Solution of many of his petty instances, don't wonder that for brevity's sake I pass them when I come to them as equivalently answered already.   

An answer to Monsieur de Rhodon's FUNERAL of the MASS.  

The first Chapter  
Concerning the exposition of these words, THIS IS MY BODY.  
WE say these words This is my Body prove clearly the real presence of Christ's Body in the Host. Because they ought to be taken in their proper sense, in which they would prove it clearly by the grant of our adversaries, who therefore say, they are to be taken figuratively. Now that they ought to be taken here in their proper sense I prove 1. positively.  

SECTION I. Positive Proofs.  
1. WHen in a speech a word is indifferent of itself, to be taken in the literal or figurative sense, you must look to the words that follow in the same speech: if they express the property of a figure, the word is to be taken figuratively; if the property of the real thing, than the word is to be taken in the literal sense.  
For example, when one tells me I have seen the King, I know not yet what he means; whether his person or picture; but when he adds, set in a frame of Gold, I know he means his picture, because 'tis the property of a picture to be set in a frame. If he adds, speaking with the Chancellor, I know he means the King's person, because 'tis the property of a person to speak with another. Just so when Christ says Luk. 22. v. 19 This is my Body: I know not yet what he means, whether his Real Body, or only a figure of it. But when he adds, which is given for you, I know he means of his true Body, because 'tis the property of a true Body to be sacrificed for us.  
2. I prove again that these words of Christ, This is my Body, are to be taken in the literal sense, by the protestant principle, which is this. When two passages relate to, or speak of the same matter in Scripture, the obscurer passage is to be explained by the clearer.  
But these two passages relating to our Lord's Supper This is my Body; and, Do this in remembrance of me; This latter is the obscurer, and that former the clearer; then this latter aught to be explained by that former, that is to say, to the sense of that former viz. Christ having changed a piece of Bread into his Body by his almighty word, says there to his disciples Do ye for the food of others souls, what ye have seen me do for the food of yours: Change ye lykewayes, by pronouncing the words I have ordained for that end, Bread into my Body: but do it with such circumstances that people standing by may be mindful of my death and passion.  
But the clear proposition ought not to be explained by the obscure one, thus: This is my Body, that is to say, this is a figure only or a remembrance of my body, because he said after do this in remembrance of me; for the thing was now done, and he had told them what it was in clear words afore he said Do this in remembrance of me; He did not say, this is a remembrance of me, no, but Do this in remembrance of me; He did not speak of the substance of the thing but only of the manner of doing it. By these words then in remembrance of me, he only intimated, that they should make at that same time a sensible expression of his passion to the people, as is seen done in the sacrifice of the Mass. If by, This, he understood a figure or remembrance, than he had said, do or make a remembrance of me in remembrance of me, or remember me to remember me, which is ridiculous.  
Now, let any indifferent and judicious man be judge, if these words do this in remembrance of me, be as clear to prove, that in the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper is only a Figure of Christ's Body; as these words This is my Body, are clear to prove, that the Eucharist is his true Body.  
If you instance, that as Christ said This is my Body, so he said also I am a vine, and consequently as the latter proposition must be taken figuratively, so must also the former. I answer it doth not follow, there being a great disparity. For we all, protestants as well as Catholics, avow that propositions in the Holy Scripture cannot be taken in the literal sense, if so taken they imply or intimate something contrary to faith, as this proposition I am a vine literally taken would do. For protestants as well as Catholics believe that the Divine word hath assumed no nature but that of man; then he hath not assumed that of a Vine, and consequently 'tis against faith to say in the literal sense Christ is a Vine.  
But these words This is my Body taken in the literal sense imply nothing against faith; no more than he, who showing you a knife, says This is a knife; for the term This and the term Knife suppose for the same thing, and not for different natures; so in Christ's proposition This is my Body, This, and Body, suppose for the same thing, not This for Bread, but for The Body of Christ; as well as the word body supposes for it, though in a different way of signifying, This obscurely and Body clearly and distinctly.  
Here I humbly entreat the protestant reader to reflect, that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding 2. Cor. 10. v. 5. (that is to say; suspend it from asserting what it might judge, had it nothing to rely upon, but the sole relation of our senses) to obey Christ.  
God will have, as an homage due to him and his veracity, this proud faculty of man, which is earnest to judge of all, submit to his word. The assent of my understanding by which I judge a thing to be, because I see it with my eyes, is an assent of science, which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of faith. In the mean time we Christians, as Christians are called, not philosophers the Reasoners, but the faithful. fides est, as we say, credere quod non vides, Faith is to believe that which thou dost not see. This is the praise of faith, sayeth St. Aug. tract. 29. in Io. If that, which is believed, be not seen. Blessed are they, said Christ Io. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have believed. Faith is an argument, (or persuasion) saith S. Paul, of things not appearing. If they appear, and I assent that they are because I see them, my faith ceases, Science coming in with faith's destruction.  
If you say I believe that the Son of God became Man, because God hath revealed it, and my senses do not control it: your faith is lame, not able to stand alone, and consequently is an unworthy sacrifice of your understanding to the word of God.  
What would the King say to that Noble man, who should distrust his relation made in presence of all his courtiers, of a thing done by his Majesty upon his Royal word; who should, (I say), distrust it, because he heard it controlled by a footboy or some such mean person of as little credit?  
As humane faith requires I rely upon the sole testimony of a man, so does divine faith require I rely upon the sole testimony of God. shall I trust the word of a man sometimes contrary to sensible appearance, as when I trust upon the word of a Doctor or a Surgeon that that which I feel hurts me, will do me good, and shall not I trust the word of God because my senses seem to control it?  
But be not mistaken, neither sense nor reason controls the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. For, sense after the consecration finds its whole object, colour, taste etc. Just as before the consecration unchanged, and meddles not to judge whether the Body of Christ or the substance of bread be under the accidents, as a thing belonging to the understanding, and not within the compass of its object. And reason tells us that although all the accidents of a substance be present, nevertheless their substance is not there, if the author of nature has revealed that he hinders its presence to them; and therefore does not control our saying that the substance of Bread is not in the Eucharist after the consecration, because the author of Nature hath revealed the contrary. No more than it controls Protestant's saying that those three, who appeared to Abraham Genes. 18 with all the accidents of men, were not men but Angels, because God has revealed it was so.  
3. Christ by his almighty power could change Bread into his flesh, and he tells us Math. 26. in these words This is my Body, that he hath done it; why shall not I believe it? O but it seems strange to our apprehension! must God then in that thing in which he will make to all men a memorial of his wonders Psal. 110. v. 4. do nothing but what is within the reach of meaner wits, and falls under their senses? this claim is too proud therefore in humility, which gives light I answer, (which is a negative way of proving) Monsieur de Rhodon's objections.   

SECTION II. Negative Proofs.  
Ob. 1. IF Christ had meant the real presence of his Body in the Host he had spoken to the contrary usage of the world.  
Answer 1. What then although he had done so when he was giving man a testimony of his prodigious love and mercy to him. If the action itself was an expression orlove infinitely exceeding the common usage of the world, why might there not be something extraordinary in the way of expression?  
Answer 2. Speaking so, he spoke not contrary to the usage of the world in practical or factive propositions which make their objects. Such as these are This is my Body, Math, 26. Let there be light. Genes. 1. Thy Son lives. Io. 4. v. 50 This ring is yours. The first turns Bread into Flesh. The second changes Darkness into light. The third the noble-man's Son's sickness into health The fourth makes the Ring which was not yours, yours, to wit, when I gift a person with a Ring in those words.  
Reflect then well upon the difference between a purely Enunciative and a practical proposition, that presupposes the whole existence of its object; this does not presuppose it, but makes it.  
Mr. Ro. Urges. Words are Images of Conceptions and Conceptions the Images of Things. Therefore things must be such before we can conceive them to be such, or say, they are such.  
I answer, dist. the consequent. Things must be always actually a fore words and conceptions, which are Images of them, I deny, for my idea of a thing, which I invent, supposes the thing never to have been, and by this idea of it I am moved to try to make it and give it a being. Things must be possible before we can conceive them, I grant. Also the thing which is made by words as the object of factive propositions can not be actually before the words, because an effect can not be before its cause. And consequently that which our Saviour gave his discipels, saying This etc. was not there before these words This is my Body were pronounced; because it was made to be there by them. Neot, In a factive proposition a thing must not be such the whole time the proposition is pronuncing, as it will be at the end of the proposition, because the whole proposition makes it and gives it its being.  
Mr. Ro. Urges farther. A proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question: but when Christ taking bread in his hand said This is my Body, the thing in question was bread: therefore the proposition ought to be expounded according to the nature of bread, the nature of which is to be, not the real body, but only the figure of the Body of Christ.  
Answer. I deny the minor proposition, that the thing in question was bread, and say that the thing in question was that which Christ meant by This, and that which he meant by this was that which he intended to make by his whole proposition, which was his true body; as we gather out of the following words Which is given for you.  
It's another thing when a man in a painter's shop pointing at the King's picture, says this is the King; the thing in question there or signified and meant by This, is the picture, because we know he cannot mean otherwise, unless he were distracted, his words not being of power to change the picture into the King's person, as the almighty words of Christ were of power to change bread into his body.  
Note, the article, This, alone signifies nothing present, because to signify present, past, or to come is the property of Verbs. So when I pointing to a book say, This is, you know not yet what I mean, till I say English; Good paper, a witty book. Also when Christ said to his disciples, Jo. 15. v. 11. This is my Commandment, they knew not what he meant, till he added, That you love one another.  
Wherefore This in Christ's proposition, before he added is my Body, signifying nothing present, did not signify the Bread which was then in his hand: but joined to the rest of the proposition signified his true Body.  
Obj. 2. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body, than it is not his true Body.  
I answer 1. dist. the antecedent. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christ's Body Intransitively, i. e, without passing from the Sacrament to the Body of Christ as to a different thing, or so that the Sacrament and Christ's Body be one and the same substance, I grant. Transitively, i. e. passing, and so making them two divers substances, I deny the antecedent. The Eucharist than is the Sacrament of Christ's Body, i. e, the Sacrament which is Christ's Body: or Christ's body under the outward form or accidents of Bread is a Sacrament, or a sensible sign by the Species of Grace, which it work's in us.  
Answer 2. The Eucharist taken inadequately, or partially for the Species, is a Sacrament or sign of Christ's Body, the Consecration being made, I grant. Adequatelie and Totally taken for the whole Eucharist, I deny. For so it includes both Christ's body, and the Species, afore of Bread, now of his Body.  
Thus the Eucharist may be called a figure or representation, viz. the Species of Bread and Wine separated from one another, a representation of Christ's death; The Species of Bread alone (the consecration being made) a figure of the Body contained under it.  
Note. An Image, sign or Sacrament may have within it the substance or essence of the thing by it signified or represented in another manner. God the son is the Image of his father, and has his father's substance, yea the father all within him by circumincession, i. e, a mutual being of the divine people in each other. So Christ's flesh invisible and spiritual in the Eucharist, is the sacrament or sign of the same flesh palpable and visible crucified. In the Sacrament it represents itself as on the Cross, not different in substance, but in quality and manner. As when God 1. Reg. 10. v. 9 is said to have given to Saul another heart, viz. in quality not in substance: So it's said 1. Cor. 15. v. 50. Flesh and blood shall not possess the Kingdom of Heaven, and again it's certain flesh and blood shall possess the Kingdom of Heaven, viz. When it has put on Incorruption. The same in substance in both propositions, but not the same in quality.  
Obj. 3. In these two propositions This is my Body. This Cup is the new testament in my Blood. The word, is, must be taken in the same sense, because they are alike having been pronounced on the same matter viz. the one upon the one part of the Sacrament and the other on the other part of it, and because of like things we give alike judgement. But in this proposition This Cup is the new Testament, the word is, is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being, but for a Sacramental and significative being &c Therefore in this proposition lykwayes This is my Body, the word, is, is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being, but for a Sacramental and significative being.  
Answer. If the two propositions be set down as S. Math. (who was present and heard them out of the mouth of Christ) relates them Chap. 14. v. 22. and v. 24 This is my Body. This is my Blood, granting the Major I deny the Minor proposition.  
If the one as S Matthew sets it down, and the other as S. Paul who was not present, and sets only down the sense of Christ's words in a figurative way: I let pass the Minor, and deny the consequence, because the two propositions so taken are not alike as to their expression, and I say that the H. Ghost might have had a particular reason to move S. Paul to rehearse the sense of what had been related by S. Matthew This is my Blood, in these words, This is the new testament in my Blood to give us another sensible impression of the mystery viz. This Cup is the new testament in my Blood, as if he should say, This cup is an authentic instrument, or, as it were paper, in which my new testament and last will of giving you eternal life, if you believe and obey me, is written, not with Ink, but with my owned Blood, which this Cup contains, as the Paper the writing of the Testament. So Alapide.  
Now in this proposition the word, is, cannot be taken in the proper sense of the words as in the other This is my Body, because there would follow an absurdity, viz. a real Identity between the Cup, or what is contained in it, and the testament signifying or the outward expr sion of his will, which is absurd and evidently false. And in that sense above I let pass the Minor, for if by Testament you understand the Testament signified, not the Testament signifying, the word is may be, and is taken for a real and transubstantiated being, because the Blood contained in the Cup is that which he left by his last will to the faithful. So, that, which is in the Cup is changed into a Testament, being by the whole proposition as the cause, transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ, and consequently this proposition This Cup is the New Testament, must not be expounded thus, the wine that is in the Cup is the sing and Sacrament of of the new Testament, but thus: The consecrated wine that is in the Cup is the real Blood of Christ and new Testament. That he made then his new Testament I shall prove in my 8 Chap. When I say that all that Christ said, when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literally and without a figure, I mean as the institution of the Eucharist is related to us by S. Matthew who was present at it, and heard the words out of the mouth of Christ in the very institution itself.  
Since Mr Rodon contends so much for the figurative sense of the words in the Consecration, I avow that in the consecration as related by S. Luke in these words Touto to potéèr●on heè kainéè diathèkee en to haimatí-mou to huper humon ekkunòmenon. This Cup is the new testament in my Blood, which is shed for you. The word Cup is taken figuratively for the thing contained in it; because from it taken in the proper sense would follow an absurdity, viz. That the Cup itself wood or metal was shed for us, because the Relative Which and the participle Shed is referred by S. Luke. to Cup (as he who understands Greek sees in the forementioned words) not properly taken, then Metaphorically or figuratively taken for the thing contained in the Cup, or Blood of Christ which is said to be shed for us.  
Obj. 4. When a man saith a thing is such, if it be not such during the whole time, which he employs in saying it is such he makes a false proposition, than Christ according to Romanists made a false proposition, when he said This is my Body because his Body was not under the form of Bread the whole time he was pronouncing the proposition.  
Answer. I dist: the antecedent. If the proposition be purely Enunciative or speculative, its true, because such a proposition presupposes its object; If it be a factive or practical proposition such as the proposition of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist was, it's false; because a factive proposition makes its object and consequently supposes it not to be afore the whole proposition is utered, which whole proposition taken all together, and not any part of it taken alone, causes the object.  
I end this chapter with two reflections. The first, That Mr. Rodon and other protestants to impose upon men their word for the word of God use violence to the words of Christ; when they explain these his words This is my Body, thus: This Bread signifies my Body, or thus: This Bread is a sign of my Body; especially since Christ prevented all such interpretations by his following words, Which is given for you Luke. 22. v. 19 This is my blood Which is shed for you. Was Bread sacrificed for us? or wine shed for us?  
The second. Since God speaking by the scripture is their only judge of Controversy, why will not they understand his words in their proper signification? How shall a judge do the duty of a judge, if he give his sentence darkly and enigmatically, so that the two parties go still by the ears after they have heard his sentence, neither they, nor any other who was present seeing clearly in whose favour he hath given it.    

The second Chapter.  
Concerning the exposition of these words He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood hath eternal life. My flesh is meat indeed. Jo. 6.  

SECTION. I.  
Some remarkes for the intelligence of the 6. Chap of S. Io. In order to the precept given there, v. 52. of eating and drinking the body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally.  
Remark. 1. That Christ by the occasion of the Jews seeking him for Bread called himself Bread, and told them that they did not seek him for the miracles he had done, by which viz. he intended to move them to believe in him, but for the loaves sake, with which he had filled them. Then he bade them work (or earnestly sack) not the meat which perishes but which dures until life everlasting, and told morover that this work was to believe in him.  
Rem. 2. That this mere spiritual eating of him, or believing in him he then at that time exacted of them, to wit That they should believe that he was the son of God, and therefore he checked them for not believing in him saying v. 36. You have seen me (viz. In the miracle of giving them miraculously bread, and his crossing the water without a boat) and you do not believe. (to wit, some of you.)  
Rem. 3. After some believed that he was the son of God, as S. Peter for himself and some other Apostles testified. v. 69. And consequently were disposed to believe whatsoever he should propose to them, than v. 51. he told them plainly that he would give them his flesh to eat, saying The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the World at which proposition when he saw some stumble, than he repeated it again in stronger terms with a threatening Amen Amen I say unto you Unless you eat the flesh of the soon of man and drink his Blood (to wit when I will give it to ye) You shall not have life in you. 53.  
Rem. 4. here, That this eating is different from that mere spiritual eating of which he spoke in the beginning of the Chapter, when he aimed only to make them first believe that he was the son of God. That he required at that present time, and therefore checked them then for not believing. This he required only after he had given them his flesh to eat, which he then promised, and performed only a year after, to wit when he instituted the Sacriment, and after gave it to his Disciples. for we cannot eat a thing afore we get it to eat, and Christ did not say then. v. 52. The bread which I give but which I will give is my flesh. Which, as I said, he performed only at the nixt passover or Easter. Hence gather that that eating was a Sacramental or sensible eating by the mouth of the Body, and not a mere spiritual eating by the mouth of Faith. Which he exacted v. 36. and which some had performed already.  
Rem. 5. That 'twas our Saviour's custom to warn his Disciples afore hand of things he was to do, or suffer after, when he foresaw that they would be very surprising. And this for two reasons. First that they might not be scandalised when they fell out. So he says Io. 16. v. 1. I have said those things that you be not scandalised, viz. When for my sake you shall be yourselves cast out of the Synagoges: but rather, that you have a ground of comfort and saith in me who foretell you of it. 2. That when they ●ell out they might not be starteled, but to re confirm▪ in the belief of them by reason they h●● been foretell by him. So he said Io. 14. v. 29. And now I have told you afore that when it will be fulfilled, you believe.  
Thus he foretell that persecution of his Disciples; Io, 16.11. His own ignominious death. Math. 20. v. 18. That he w●uld be scourged etc. He foretell that he w uld institute Baptism, and solved Nicodemas his difficulty Io 3. v. 5. He foretell his sending of the H: Gh st. Io 14. v. 16.  
Now shall n t we also believe, That he foretell this great mystery of giving his Body and his Blood at the last supper to his disciples since they were not surprised, when he said Take eat This is my Body? which had it not been foretell might have seemed very strange, and a subject of ask him with submission what he meant by those words, as they asked him the meaning of the parable of the tares of the field. Math. 13. v. 36. But he foretell this mystery no where, if not in this 6. Chap. of S. Io.; then those words Unless you eat the flesh of the son of etc. were meant of the sacramental eating by the mouth or the Body (as the Disciples did eat it at the Last supper) and not only by the mouth of Faith.  
If Protestants to justify their eating by faith only bring this passage of S. Austim. tract 25. in Io. Quid paras denies & ventrem crede & manducast●. Wherefore do you prepare your teeth and stomach believe and you have eaten. I answer believe and you have eaten mere y spiritually of which Christ was speaking in the beginning of that 6. Chap. of S. Io, I grant. sacramentally, of which we are speaking in our controversy with protestants, and of which our Saviour spoke when he said, Take eat, This is my Body, I deny. For the sacramental eating must be a sensible eating by the mouth of the body. That S. Austin did not mean there a sacramental manducation or eating, is clear, because he admitted Infant communion, or the sacramental communion of Infants, who could not receive the Body of Christ by faith, or eat it by faith when they received it sacramentally. See S. Aust lib. 1. De pec Meritis & Remis. Chap. 20 where to prove to the Pelagians That there is a necessity to baptise Children D●minum, says he audiamus non quidem hoc de sacramento S. lav●eri dicentem, sed de sacramento ●rensae suae quo nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit ●isi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis etc. non habebitis vitam in vobis. quid ad hoc responderi potest? etc. An ve●●ò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quòd ad parvulos haec senten i● non pertineat, possintqùe sine participatione Corporis hujus & sanguinis in se habere vitam? i. e. Let us hear, says he, our Lord not indeed speaking of the sacrament of the holy layer (Baptism) but of the sacrament of his table, to which no man comes lawfully unless he be baptised Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man &c: You shall not have life in you. What can be answered to this etc. Dare an●e say that this sentence does not belong to Children and that they may have life in them without the participation of this Body and Blood?  
Rem o. That it is not likely that S. Io. whose desing in his Gospel was to speak of the greatest mysteries of the life of Christ would have omitted that of the Eucharist or of his giving his Body and Blood to his Disciples at the last supper, which the three other Evangelists so accurately set down, as if one would not omit to confirm what the other said of this mystery: but if he did not mean of it when he relates what Christ in his 6. Chap. said of giving his body and his Blood, threatening them if they did not eat it and drink it; he has omited it   

SECTION II.  
We must eat the real flesh of Christ and drink his Blood sacramentally i. e. sensibly by the mouth of the body and not by the mouth of faith only.  
TO prove this Catholic truth we bring these two passages. Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you shall have no life in you. Io. 6. v. 54. and v. 56. For my Flesh is meat indeed &c:  
To prove that this eating and drinking is to be understood only of an eating and drinking by faith, protestants, according to the principle of comparing scripture with scripture, the obscurer passage with the clearer to know the true sense of both, bring two passages, which follow relating to the same matter, to be compared with ours. viz. 'Tis the spirit that quickness, the flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken are spirit and truth. v. 64.  
We say that these latter passages are the obscurer, and do not prove so clearly that we must eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ only by faith: as ours prove that we must eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body. 1. Because these two passages do not speak of faith, but only of spirit and life, there are other acts of spirit and life than acts of faith, the acts of love &. The zeal of thy house hath eaten me. says David. Psal. 69. v. .9 in the protestant Bible, in ours 68 v. 10. How prove you that Christ means here an act of faith? 2. We know there is no other proper mouth in man but that of the body, wherefore when Christ says unless you eat the f esh and drink the blood of the son of man etc. We understand he means with the mouth of the body.  
Again since to eat and drink are the proper acts of the mouth, till you prove to us that we cannot receive the body of Christ spiritualised or having the property of a spirit, into our mouths, why shall not we believe that Christ meant we should eat his flesh with the mouth of our Body, since a term sine addito, if you add nothing, is alwise taken for the thing for which it supposes properly. So Homo a man, if you add nothing supposes for a true man, and not a painted man wherefore Christ saying Unless you eat the body of the son of man, without adding, by faith, that eateing he speaks of, is to be understood by the mouth of the body, this being that which we understand properly by the term eating. Nor doth it's not nourishing the body hinder it to be eaten by the mouth of the body, no more than poison, though it nourish not, hinders to believe that many have drunk poison Since then these two latter passages are the obscurer, they ought to be explained to the sense of the former two passages brought by us, or so that they do not contradict them, which are clear. Wherefore I explain them thus.  
'Tis the spirit that quickness etc. i. e, 'Tis my divine spirit or my Divinity that quickness the receiver of my Body to a supernatural life, as the soul quickness the body to actiones of a natural life; and as the body could not be quickened to hear or see without the soul so could not the receiver of my Body or he who eats it sacramentally be quickened to a supernatural life were it not united to my divinity. Of which divine spirit quickening or giving life, to wit, supernatural, the words I have spoken are to be understood. 2. My words are spirit and life. i e. They are to be understood spiritually, or that you are to eat my flesh being in the sacrament after a spiritual way with the property of a spirit for the nourishment of your soul; not being there in a carnal way like a piece of dead flesh to be divided with your teeth for the nourishment of your body. 3. My words are spirit and life. i e. My words intimated v. 54. Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man. &c Obeyed will give you my spirit and by it a supernatural life, or grace which leads to eternal life. Christ adds presently v. 65, There are some of you which do not believe, as if he should say the reason wherefore you stumble at my promise of giving you my flesh to eat is because you do not believe really that I am the son of God, and so able to do all things howsoever strange they may seem to be.  
By what I have said in this section you see proven that these words of Christ He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life. Io. 6. v. 55. and, my flesh is meat indeed etc. v. 56. are to be understood of a corporal eating by the mouth of the body and not of a mere spiritual eating and drinking by faith.  
I say not a mere spiritual eating, because we hold we must add an act of faith to our sensible, eating of his Body, nay this Corporal eating may be called a spiritual eating in a good sense, in as much as we believe That the Body of Christ in the sacrament as it is really there, so it is spiritualiy, I mean with the property of a spirit. As S. Paul. 1. Cor. 15. v. 44. says, Our bodies shall rise spiritual, i. e. spiritualised- viz. in glory they shall have the properties of a spirit.  
Note, as Heat is called the property of Fire because the nature of Fire has a claim to Heat and an exigence or a natural appetite of it, though actual Heat (not the exigence or natural appetite of it) might be given to water; so to be all in all and all in every part of an improper place is called the property of a spirit, because the nature of a spirit has an exigence of it, though this way of existing (not the exigence of it) may by the almighty power of God be communicated to a body. If then a glorious body has this property of a spirit to enter through a wall without making a breach, why may not the whole body of Christ be in the whole, and least part of the host? So our way of eating him there is conform to his way of being there, which is spiritual with the property of a spirit, his whole Body being in the least particle of the host: not carnal as if we divided his body with our teeth. Spiritual again in as much as we believe That his real Body so received in that spiritual manner as he commands under the accidents of bread by the mouth of the Body, feeds the soul or spirit by the grace it produces there. And this eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood that way satisfies the hunger and thirst we had of his grace.  
Another proof that Christ meant the real manducation of his true Body when he said Take eat etc. For this is my Body, is, what he said to the jews. Io. 6. v. 51. The Bread which I will give you. (is), viz. at present, my Flesh. Where I remark the word, is, the sacrament not being yet made, could not import Signifies my flesh; but because the Bread, only as a sacrament could signify his flesh) imports an identity or samety of that bread, he spoke of, with his flesh. Hence the sacrament he made after, and which we now receive under the form of Bread being that bread he promised to give, it follows that it is his real Flesh, and therefore our eating of it is a real and corporal manducation of his Body,  
Add to all I have said, that Christ's flesh is not meat really and indeed to him who belieus only, no more than the King's picture is to him that sees it, the King indeed or truly the King. For things that are said to be such indeed according to our common way of speaking are understood to be such properly and not figuratively.   

SECTION. III.  
Mr. Rodon's objections against our understanding of those words of Christ He that eats my Flesh etc. of a corporal eating by the mouth of the Body and not only by Faith, answered.  
Ob. 1. Christ says Io, 6. v. 35. He that comes to me (to wit by faith) shall never hunger, and he that believes in me shall never thirst. Then the eating of Christ's flesh is spiritual by Faith and not corporal.  
I answer denying the consequence. And say that who believes in Christ shall neither hunger nor thirst, because to the believer Christ will give his Body and Blood to be eaten and drunken corporally which will satisfy the Believer's hunger and thirst of him, and more over hinder in him the hunger and thirst of perishing things. 'Tis not then a bare believing, which is only a beginning and disposition to the satisfying of the hunger and thirst of the soul, but the worthy eating the body and blood of Christ which gives that satisfaction Who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Io. 6 v. 57 Belief alone does not do the turn, Not every one that says to me Lord, Lord, (and consequently believes) shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Ma. 7. v. 21.  
Obj. 2. Christ says Io. 6. v. 55. Who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal life. But a reprobate according to the Romanist may eat the Body and drink the blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body, then it's the eating and drinking by faith that gives eternal life.  
Answer. I deny the censequence and say that the reason why the reprobate receiving the Blood of Christ by the mouth of the Body has not eternal life, is because he presumes to receive it being in mortal sin, and so eats and drinks unworthily, and consequently eats and drinks his damnation according to S. Paul. 1 Cor. 11. v. 27.  
And here I remark that according to protestants Christ's body cannot be eaten unworthily. For according to Mr. Rodon in this chapter, and other protestants Christ's body cannot be eaten but by faith (viz. a saving faith, for historical faith or the faith of miracles is not a manducation or eating of the Body of Christ) but who eats the Body of Christ with a saving faith doth not eat it unworthily (for I cannot save and damn myself both at once by the same act, but the eating with a saving faith saves me, and the eating unworthily damns me, then if I Can eat the Body of Christ unworthily I could save and damn myself by the same act) than a protestant cannot eat the Body of Christ unworthily which is flat against S. Paul and consequently heretical.  
Obj 3. S. Aug. lib. 3. de. Doct ch. cap. 16. speaks thus. To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure etc.  
Answer 1. S. Aug. does not say simply To eat the Flesh of Christ is a figure but bringing the words of Christ Io. 6. Unless you eat my flesh etc. says, Christ seems to command a wicked act or heinous offence, Figuraest ergò it is then a figure. I subsume, but Christ does not seem to Ro: Catholics, who believe he spesaks in that place only of a sacramental manducation, to command there a heinous offence, then according to S. Austin. we have no need to take his words figuratively. But for Capharnaites, to whom he seems to command a heinous offence, they ought to take them figuratively, that they may not censure him. To understand then this passage in the apprehension of the Capharnaites; you must reflect that as we are wont to kill those beasts, whose flesh we eat, afore we eat them: So the Jews out of Christ's words had apprehended that they ought first to kill Christ, and after to eat his flesh cut in pieces boiled or rested.  
This without doubt was a wicked or heinous offence. He means then saith S. Augustin a figure of his death, not his true death, and that they ought not to kill Christ truly, but by taking the sacrament of the Eucharist represent his slaughter, and by their manners express his death, that they ought not to kill Christ but to mortify themselves, and do what S. Paul said he had done Colos. 1. v. 24. I fulfil those things which are wanting of the passions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is the Church. So Maldonat upon the 6 Chap. of S. Io. v. 53,  
Answer. 2. We hearty acknowledge that the Eucharist and the Preist's eating of it, is a figure or representative of the passion of Christ, Teaching us (continues S. Austin) viz. preist's, such as he was, to partake of Christ's passion, to wit, when it represents it to them by their eating the Body under the form of Bread separate from the species of Wine, and after drinking the Blood under the species of Wine which was consecrated separate from the species of Bread; And to imprint, adds S. Aug, in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us. For can it be but delightful to a man to think of his salvation purchased to him by the death of Christ, if he pleases, and profitable to encourage him to live a good life in order to make it sure?  
Having answered this objection by which he would have S. Augustin seem to deny the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist Let me bring him a passage from the same S. Austin by which he clearly asserts it.  
It is. conc. 1 in Psal. 33. where he speaks thus. Et ferebatur in manibus suis, says he speaking of Christ, hoc, says he, quomodo possii fieri in homine quis intelligat? Quis enim portatur manibus suis? Manibus aliorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David secundùm literam non invenimus, in Christo autem invenimus, ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum Corpus suum ait Hoc est Corpus meum, ferebat enim illud Corpus in manibus suis. And he (viz. Christ) was carried in his hands: who can understand, says he how this could be done if a Man? A man may be carried in the hands of others, in his own hands no man is carried. We do not understand how this may be understood in David himself literally or according to the letter, but we find it in Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when commending that same Body of his, he said, This is my Body, for he did carry that Body in his own hands.  
Calvin lib. 4. just. Chap. 17. Answers.  
and explanes this passage thus: Christ carried himself in his own hands, but improperly and figuratively, to wit because he carried the sacrament of his Body. Answer. I could also carry a sign or picture of myself in my own hands, and that is not hard to be understood, but S. Austin says ' Tuas impossible to other men to carry their Bodies in their own hands as Christ did his.  
S. Aug. again lib. 2, cap. 9 cont. adver: Legis & proph. says We receive with faithful heart and mouth the mediator of God and Man, Man Christ jesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk though it seem more horrible to eat man's flesh then to kill, and to drink man's blood then to shed it. And again Epist. 162. Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam diabolum furem & proditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod fideles norunt Pretium Nostrum. Our Lord himself suffers Judas a Devil a thief and his betrayer, he lets him receive among the innocent disciples, that which is known to the faithful, Our price i. e. (ransom)  
Be pleased now to reflect out of these passages. 1. That Judas his eating our price, to wit, Christ, was a Corporal eating by the mouth, of the Body for he did not eat him by faith. 2, That our receiving our mediator with faithful heart and mouth, as S. Austin speaks, cannot stand, if we exclude our corporal eating Christ's Body in that spiritual manner I explained in the second section of this Chapter.  
Obj. 4. Cardinal Cajetan in his Com: on S. john. 6. sayeth To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his Blood is faith in Christ's death etc.  
I answer that 'tis faith in Christ's death that makes us eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, so that if I cease to fulfil this his commandment of eating his flesh and drinking his blood I show I have no faith in his death without which there is no life of the spirit. Moreover when we eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ we ought, not flightly to reflect, but as we chew our meat and let down our drink by little and little, ruminate, and consider maturely the death of Christ represented to us in our communion.  
Christ saith not, says the Cardinal, he that eats worthily or drinks worthily, hath, to wit, eternal life, but he that eats and drinks. Hence Mr. Rodon infers this eating and drinking is to be understood not of the sacrament but of an eating and drinking, viz. by faith, the death of Christ.  
Answer. Tho Christ did not say, who eats or drinks worthily, he meant so, as may be gathered from the following words, hath eternal life, for none, I suppose, will ascribe eternal life to an unworthy eating as to its cause and condition. But how does Mr. Rodon from eats or drinks solitarily put, without by the mouth of the body or by the mouth of faith, gather that the Cardinal, and Christ before him meant of an eating by saith or an eating of the death of Christ, since when we hear mention of eating and drinking without any addition, we presently understand by the mouth of the body. as when we hear named a man, we understand a rational sensible creature, not a painted man or that which improperly is called a man.  
Obj. 5. The action whereby Jesus Christ is applied to us for Righteousness and sanctification is nothing else but faith, therefore the spiritual eateing and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth. is the action whereby we have that life which jesus Christ has purchased to us by his death.  
Answer. I deny the Antecedent, and say we are justified also partially by good works jac. 2. One of which is to obey Christ's command in taking by our corporal mouth his Body under the form of Bread And so S Paul Rom. 5. is to be understood, when he says we are justified by faith. As the other passages Act. 15. and Io. 6. That God purifies our hearts by faith, but not by faith only but also by goodworks. Was not St. Marry Magdalen justified when her sins were pardoned her, because she loved much. And is not her love here alleged by Christ for the cause of her justification? I do not deny but that she had faith also as a disposition to the same justification.  
Does not S. Paul say 1 Cor. 13. v. 2. Had I faith to remove a mountain, Si Charitatem autem non habeam Nihil sum? And have no charity I am nothing?  
I grant again that eating and drinking by saith, (as Protestants speak) to wit Faith while we eat with our corporal mouth our Saviour's real Body obtains remission of sins etc. but not, if we condemn or neglect the eating of it by the mouth of the Body.  
Take notice when Mr. Rodon quotes S. john 3. v. 3. Except a man be born again (he leavs out, by water and the Holy Ghost. Why? was it not that he had not a mind to avow that Baptism has a force to justify and that it is necessary for the salvation also of Children? as you may clearly see in these following passages of S. Paul and S. Peter. You were given to lust, drink, covetous but you are washed, but you are sanctified (to wit, by that washing or Baptism) but you are justified in the spirit of God. 1 Cor. 6. v. 11. S. Cyprian. lib. 2. ad Donat: confesses what he was afore Baptism, and what he presently became after Baptism, and what Christianity gave to him, calling Christianismus, his Christening Mors criminum & vita Virtutum. The death of Crimes and life of Virtues.  
And Peter. 1 Cap. 3. v. 21. Quod & nos nunc similis formae salvos facit Baptisma The like figure whereunto, even Baptism doth also now save us, as if he should say. As the Waters of the deluge raising the Ark, and with it Noë and his people, did not only declare, but saved them really from death, so Baptism saves us, makes us just and holy, and does not only declare us to be such; as Luther with other Heretics would have it understood.  
Also ad Ephes. 5. v. 26. He loved his Church Purifying her with the Laver of water and in the word of life. Where you see the word of Life added to the matter, viz. of waeter sanctifies and purifies the Church from sin.  
Obj. 6. The flesh, of which Christ speaks, when he says, My flesh is meat indeed; is a spiritual food, but the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a spiritual food but only his body on the Cross, than he meant of his Body on the Cross and not his Body in the Eucharist when he said My flesh is meat indeed.  
Answer. I deny the minor proposition, and say that the flesh or body of Christ in the Eucharist is a spiritual food called so without a figure; because producing by a supernatural operation (which force it hath from its union with the divine nature) grace, or sanctification in us, it is realy food, and meat indeed to the soul without a figure. So that FOOD is Genus to corporal and spiritual food. To strengthen or increase Life is Genus, or the more universal term: to strengthen by changing into the thing strenghtened, and to strengthen, not by changing, but by Producing grace, by which we are strenghtened are the two differences or the less universal terms. The first makes Corperal food, the second Spiritual. The bare sign is no meat, because not it, but the act of Faith only btings forth Sanctification (as Protestants hold) in them.  
Moreover I say that Christ's Flesh broken, and his blood shed on the Cross was not spiritual food indeed, because they were never to coëxist actually with our spiritual feeding, as Christ's flesh in the Eucharist does, and therefore is meat indeed. The food, to be food indeed to one, and the feeding must be joined together, but when we now believe Christ's death, it is not present, but past, and therefore is not food to the believer; but when we believe and take by the mouth of our Body Christ's flesh, it is there joined with our spiritual eating, producing Grace, strengthening and increasing our spiritual life, and therefore is meat indeed.  
Obj. 7. That doctrine which opposes sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions is to be rejected, if a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages which seem to prove it.  
I Answer 1. What if the Sabellians not conceiving how the Paternity should not be communicated to God the Son as well as the Divine Essence, since the paternity and the Divine Essence are one and the same thing, should have said its a more suitable and rational sense of passages which seem in scripture to say there are three distinct persons in the Divine nature, that there is only one person having three different functions, called Father as he creates, Son as he redeems, and Holy Ghost as he sanctifies. Would this pretty doctrine please Mr. de Rodon? No, neither can his conceit in the matter of the Eucharist be applauded by Romanists.  
Answer. 2. Our doctrine in the Eucharist neither opposes sense nor reason, as I have shown Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Nor seems so much to imply contradiction, as the Mystery of the B. Trinity, which will be seen better in the next chapter. Nor is the way he and other Protestants have found out rational to explain the passages we bring for our Doctrine, as, I hope, will appear to the impartial and serious considerer of our proofs in the first Chapter.  
To end this Chapter remember again that Christ by the occasion of the Jews seeking him more for bread to eat then for his miracles. Io. 6. v. 26. by which miracles he laboured to persuade them to believe in him, or that he was the Son of God, called himself bread that doth not perish, and spoke first of spiritual eating by faith that he might advance his hearers by little and little to this mystery of a Real eating of his Flesh, teaching them first what they ought to do to merit this true and heavenly Bread, saying Work (or seek earnestly) not the food that perishes, but which remains to eternal life etc. Adding This is the work, of God that ye believe, as if he should say This is the work of God That ye believe that I am come from Heaven, and that I am the Son of God, which if you once believe, you will not stumble at what I shall say to you hereafter concerning the real eating of my flesh and drinking of my Blood, nor be at all amazed (as appeared in the Apostles) when actually, viz. at the last supper, I shall give it you.    

CHAPTER. III. Of Transubstantiation.  

SECTION. I. Transubstantiation is proved.  
IS it not pretty to hear Mr. Rodon with some other Protestants speak of one of the darkest mysteries of our faith as of a natural thing, and when their weak reason looking only to nature cannot reach it, conclude as it were with triumph, in the Eucharist there's no transubstantiation. Would that man be thought a good Christian, who, because it thwarts his gross understanding to conceive a father to beget a son by speaking, should conclude that the divine word is not the son of the eternal Father? or a good divine, who, because it's true to say in the B. Trinity that the essence is communicated to the son, and the peternitie is not communicated to the Son; should conclude, that the essence and the paternity are not the same thing.  
Here I remark in passing that Mr. Rodon's Philosophy unwarilie touches the mystery of the most B. Trinity in his 4. chap. where numb. 12. for an example of a plurality of things really different he assigns the three Divine people and concludes from thence, that a real difference of things does not infer Division. But he should have taken notice that the Sacred Science teaches us that though there be three different People in God there are not three different things, because A different thing signifies a different essence. Hence S. Aug. lib. de Fide ad petrum chap. 1. says, Una est patris & Filii & Spiritus Sti. essentia, in qua non est aliud Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus Sanctus; quamvis personaliter sit alius Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus. The essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the H. Ghost another; although, as to Person the Father be one, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another. If he was rash in touching the B. Trinity we must not wonder to see him stray also in this Mystery, following only the strain of his human Philosophy. Mr. Rodon then was not content merely to believe, but would see, that he might believe, though S. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 13. v. 12. That such a sight is reserved for the next Life, and that now we see only through a Glass darkly. But I desire him who is so earnest to have a clear account of Divine Mysteries, to clear me first in some natural things.  
How is it possible to cover the whole Heavens with the Wing of a Fly? Yet this can be done if it be divided in as many parts as God can divide it. For after every division, the least part will still have its three dimensions, length, breadth, and thickness, by all which it may be still divided.  
Now if he deny this, saying the Wing is composed of Indivisibles, he runs himself into as great difficulties, as to avow that a snail makes as much way in an hour as the sleetest Race-Horse; for the Race-Horse cannot make an Indivisible of space or way without some part of time, and that cannot be less than an Indivisible of time, and in the same Indivisible of time the Snail moving cannot make less than an Indivisible of space, and so go along with the Race-Horse the rest of the Indiusiibles of the hour, and consequently the Snail will have made as much way as the Race-Horse at the hours end, which is absurd.  
Neither tell me the Horse can run over a hundred points or parts of space in an instant, for his motion is also divisible in points, one part must begin afore the other, and so comes in again my argument: As for the swelled points maintained by some, they confound a Body with a Spirit and therefore are to be rejected.  
How is it possible, that, since three Men cannot get in at once at a narrow Door, the pictures or species (which are not Spirits but material things) of a whole Army should all at once enter without confusion into the apple of the Eye of a Man, who from an eminence regards it?  
If all Philosopher's Wits are drowned in a drop of water not being able to fallen with satisfaction what is the matter or the Form of it, and whither it be compounded of divisible or indivisible parts, must we claim to a full satisfaction of our reason afore we will believe this Mysterious Transubstantiation, and thus banish Faith out of the Church of Christ? Let us not soar to high, nor dive to deep in this matter, since a searcher of the Divine Majesty will be oppressed by Glory. Having premitted this discourse to raise Men above their senses when they come to consider mysteries of Faith. I now prove the mystery of Transubstantiation, thus.  
As God can create, so he can Transubstantiate: And as he hath revealed, Genes. 1. That he hath created Heaven and Earth, so he hath revealed, Math. 26. v. 27. That he hath made a Transubstantiation of Bread into his Body in the Eucharist.  
If you wonder at the strange things that follow from this Transubstantiation, consider that creation made something of nothing, which seemed so strange to the ancient Philosophers, that they tell us flatly, Ex nihilo nihil fit, of nothing nothing is made. Had they had Faith, they would have acknowledged Creation; submit you your Judgement to Faith, and you'll acknowledge in the Eucharist Transubstantiation.   

SECTION II. Mr. Rodon's objections answered,  
Object. IN every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwise newly produced, as when Christ turned the Water into Wine was the Wine was newly produced. But the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Eucharist.  
Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  
Answer 1. I distinguish the Major. In every substantial conversion, that thing etc. Is alwise newly produced Entitatively, or modally, I grant: alwise Entitatively, I deny; that is, in every substantial conversion there is alwise the production at least of a new manner of being. So the Body of Christ in the Eucharist has a new manner of being, viz. a Sacramental being, which it has not out of the Eucharist. But there is not alwise in every substantial conversion a production of a new substance.  
Answer. 2. I dislinguish the Major again. Naturally, be it so. Supernaturally, and when the question is about the almighty Power of God, I deny it, and say that it is sufficient that the whole substance of Bread be destroyed and the Body of Christ put in its place; something remaining common to both, viz. the accidents of Bread, which now by the consecration become the accidents of the Body of Christ morally, in as much as they show to all the faithful, the consecration being made, that the Body of Christ is now there; and receives a new being, not as to the substance, which it had already, but as to the manner of being, a sacramental being, under the form of Bread.  
If you ask how the Body of Christ can begin to be there without leaving the place where it was before. I answer, when a child grows by the nutrition or feeding, does the reasonable soul leave the rest of the Child's body to come to the added part of matter, or is there a new reasonable Soul produced in it? If not, but the same Soul acquires only a new presence of relation to the added part of matter, reason the same way concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.  
Ob. 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed; but the Bread is not destroyed in the Eucharist, because after Consecration it is said to be Broken, Divided &c. therefore it is not destroyed.  
Answer. I distinguish the Minor. The Bread is not destroyed as to the substance (which is only required) I deny; as to the accidents, I grant, and say that by reason of these remaining the Host is said to be broken, divided etc. and is still called Bread Per distractionem as we speak in Philosophy. So our Saviour said to the Disciples of john. Math. 11. v. 5. The blind see, because they, who then did see, were afore blind. They were still called Blind by that way of speaking.  
If you ask me what he invited them to drink when he said to his Disciples. Math. 26. Drink ye all of this? I answer be invited them to drink a cup of Blood, for the Wine was converted into Blood afore they drunk the cup, for the cup's being the cup of his blood was the reason he brought to move them to drink it, now we do not bring the reason to move a man to do a thing after he has done it, but before.  
Also the demonstrative particle This as it does not demonstrate a thing that is not yet, neither does it demonstrate a thing that is past, but joined to a verb of the present tense with a full sense, it demonstrates a thing present. If Chrict had meant of what they had drunk afore, he would have said That was, and not, Tkis is, so you may suppose he did not give them the Cup afore he had ended his speech.  
But why does S. Mark, chap. 14. Set the consecration after the drinking? Answer, it's a figurative speech we call Histerologia, when we relate first that which was done last As when S. Math. in the 27 chap. relates the Resurrection of the bodies of the Saints afore the Resurrection of Christ, who nevertheless risen first. Again by the same figure S. Math. Chap. 11. from the 2 verse to the 20 relates concerning john Bap. the things that fell out afore the mission of the Apostles, which mission he had related before in the 10. Chap. Nay I hope Mr. Rodon will not have our Saviour to have consecrated or blissed the wine by saying this is my blood when it was in the disciples stomaches.  
Mr. Ro. urges. When a thing is converted into another we cannot see the property of the thing converted, but only that into which it is converted. Answer. In a natural conversion which is not a Sacrament, I grant; in a supernatural, which makes a Sacrament, I deny; for the Eucharist being a sign of our spiritual nourishment it is such by the species of Bread which nourishes the body. Also the property of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, which is to nourish the soul by Grace, being an object of saith is seen by the understanding, but not by the eye of the Body, so Abraham saw by faith that those who appeared to him Gen. 18. like men, were Angels.  
For brevity's sake to his saying In every substanstial conversion, etc. Answer in every substantial conversion which is not of the whole substance there must be a subject to pass from on substance to another, I grant; if it be of the whole, as Transubstantiation, I deny; for God's almighty power is able to change the matter as well as the form of a thing, when it pleases him. Neither is it a Creation, because the accidents are something common to both, and the Body of Christ was before existent.  
To his saying that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Accidents; this I deny, because the nature of an accident is not to inhere actually, but to have an exigency or an innate appetite of inhering which a substance hath not: because naturally a human nature demands a human subsistence, would Mr. Rodon have said that there is a human person in Christ?  
To his saying that Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments; that I also deny, and show the contrary. Because the Body of Christ as it is united to the species of Bread is the Sacrament, which hath not only an absolute being, but also a relative, Sacramental, and significative being, as Mr, Ro. requires, for as the species of Bread represent and signify to us bread which nourishes the Body, so do the same species by the Consecration of the Host represent to us the Body of Christ, which nourishes the soul by the grace it produces in it.  
Thus you see  
1. In the species. an Analogy or relation to the thing signified viz. Nourishment.  
2. A double being of the Sacrament; the absolute being in the Body of Christ, and the Relative being in the Species. And so you see that Transubstantiation does not any wise destroy the being of a Sacrament are Sign.  
Note that the substances of Bread alone or Wine alone are not signs, for substances do not fall under, or affect our senses, but by their accidents, so the whole force of signifying is in the species which move our senses, and consequently 'tis not required that the formal signs be such that they may nourish our Bodies to save the likeness between the Sacrament and nourishment signified by it. It's enough that the species signify nourishment in the Eucharist, as they did afore in the Bread: in the Bread, nourishment of the Body by Bread; in the Eucharist nourishment of the Soul by the Body of Christ. If you say the Body of Christ under the species cannot nourish the Soul. I answer. Materially and corporally, I grant; Effectively and Spiritually producing grace in it, I deny.  
To Mr. Ro. saying, The Council of Trent commands the adoration of the Eucharist. And therefore the accidents of Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
Answer. The accidents are not a part of the Sacrament, I deny, they are not the whole Sacrament, I grant. The Sacrament is said to be adored when the chief part of it, the Body of Christ united to the Divinity is adored, for the species, they are only adored per accidens as the garment of Christ by him who adored his person.  
To his saying a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace. But in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ are not visible. Therefore in the Eucharist they are not the Sacrament. Answer I distinguish the mino● They are not a visible sign alone, I grant; joined to the species I deny. Neither do we say That the Body and Blood alone are the Sacrament, nor the species alone but the Body and Blood joined to the species are the Sacrament, and that whole is a visible sign.  
To his saying that nothing can be both the sign and thing signified. Answer. Nothing can be the sign and the thing signified in the same manner in which it is the sign I grant, in an other manner I deny. Did not the Angel give the shepherds for a sign of our Saviour Born that they should find a Child in a manger, who was the Saviour himself? He in the quality of a Child in a manger is a sign of himself as the Born Saviour, So Christ in the Eucharist may be a sign of himself on the Cross. Also a loaf of Bread exposed in a window is a sign of itself to be sold.  
But to give you more, the Body united to the accidents of Bread is a visible sign, not of Christ's Body, but of the invisible grace which this Sacrament produces in the Soul, so the sign and the thing signified are different.    

CHAPTER IU.  
Against the real presence of Christ's Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer.  

SECTION. I. A Preamble.  
HERE Mr. Rodon brings a number of Philosophical arguments so often objected, and so often answered by Philosophers in that question, whether the same Body may be at the same time in divers places. Afore I go farther I desire my Reader to be pleased to reflect that to prove the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, 'tis not necessary to admit a Body to be in two places. Because to be in a place properly, or in an univocal place is to have situal or local extension which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist; as a soul is not in a place but by reason of its Body, which is in a place, so Christ's Body in the Eucharist is only in a place by reason of the species which are in a place.  
Again since to walk, to meet, to be distant, to be wounded, etc. are affections of a Body, which is circumscriptively in a place, that is, having its parts answering to the parts of the uppermost superficies of the Body that contains it, all Mr. Rodon's arguments of that nature are of no force against the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, it being thereafter the manner of a spirit. Yet when they are looked upon with an unlearned eye, Mr. de Rodon seems to triumph.  
Just as if I speaking with a country cloun of the motion of the Sun should strive to persuade him that at the most it makes only twenty miles an hour, while another should undertake to prove it makes twenty thousand. My opinion would be received with more applause by the Cloun, than that of the other: but if both spoke t● an Astronomer he would laugh at my opinion in respect of the other's.  
What makes so different a sentiment in these two Men? The Cloun is led by sense, and the Astronomer by reason.  
This is my case with Mr. Rodon treating this Question. If we speak to vulgar People, or to those who have no Faith, Mr. Rodon will be applauded. If to Men of Faith and reason I'll have the better of him. Why? because the vulgar, especially if they want Faith, will believe nothing that mounts above their senses: But the wise Christian not measuring supernatural things by his Eye, or as they appear in his weak Imagination, but by Faith, and seeing by his reason there is no contradiction in all Mr. Rodon brings against this Mystery, more than against that of the Incarnation or of the most B. Trinity, hath no difficulty to submit the judgement of his senses often deceived in natural things to the word of God proposed to him by the Church.  
This preamble being made I now prove our tenet. Christ's Body has been circumscriptively, that is, locally in its shape in two places both at once, than it may be in Heaven locally, and in the Host or consecrated Wafer Sacramentally both at once. I prove the antecedent. Christ standing by Paul; as S. Luke relates, Act. 23. v. 11. in these words The Lord stood by him and said be of good cheer, Paul, was circumscriptively or locally in that place, and at the same time he was in the Heavens, which shall retain him till the general Resurrection, Act. 3. v. 21. therefore he was circumscriptively or locally in two places both at once.  
If yond say 'twas an Angel standing by him that spoke to him from Christ, as one spoke to the jews from God on mount Sinai; Then the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 15. v. 8. saying, he, viz. Christ, was seen of me also. Were of no force to prove Christ's Resurrection which he was proving there. For to see an Angel was not to see Christ. Yet he would persuade them that he was risen, because he had seen him.  
This is confirmed out of Io. 6. v. 9 and 13. Where 'tis said our Saviour fed 5000 Men with five Loaves and two Fishes. I suppose these Loaves were not bushel Loaves for the Boy who had them, could not have carried them, but ordinary Loaves.  
Now I say, that these five Loaves might feed 5000 Men, the same piece of Bread must have been in divers mouths at once, it being probable that Christ gave to each a competent piece: for if he Created other Loaves he did not then feed them all with five Loaves which is against Scripture.   

SECTION II.  
A part of Mr. Rodon's Objections against the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Host are answered.  
Object. 1. CHrist's Body cannot be produced in the Host. 1. Bacause that cannot be produced which is produced already. 2. Because terminus aqu● and terminus ad quem are distinct, or there must be a distinction between the term of departure, and the term of arriving. 3. In all substantial conversions a new substance must be produced.  
Answer. I deny the antecedent, and as to its first probation I distinguish; That which is produced already cannot be produced as to its Essential being I grant, as to its manner of being, or as to a Sacramental being I deny. The second probation I grant, and say that the term Aquo or of departure is the Body without the second presence, or relation, viz. to the species; the term Ad quem or of arriving, the Body with the second presence to the species in the Eucharist and these two terms are different. For the third probation, I denied it in my answer to the 1. Ob. Section 2. Chap. 3. and gave there the reason of my denial.  
Mr. Rodon urges. If a Man would go from Paris to Rome, he must leave Paris; therefore Christ's Body which does not leave Heaven, neither comes nor is brought to the Host.  
Answer. 1. In the opinion of those who explain the being of Christ's Body in the Host by adduction, do not say that it's brought or comes thither Circumscriptively by a proper Local motion, because this motion supposes a Body to have its parts answering to the parts of a place, which Christ's Body has not in its adduction to the Host, and consequently it does not leave Heaven, because we do not leave the place in which we were, to go to another, but by a proper local and continued motion. The equivocal and severed motion by which Christ's Body is adduced to all its Sacramental places is improperly called a motion.  
Answer. 2. I deny the antecedent, because to put a Body in two places suffices the production of a second ubication, for ubication is the formal reason making a thing to be in a place.  
You'll say supposing that the Body existing at Paris, be put also at Rome, now either this Roman ubication is produced in the Body existing at Paris or existing at Rome; neither can be said, not the first, because the Roman ubication cannot be at Paris; not the second, because the Body would be at Rome before it had the Roman ubication: therefore the Body which is at Paris cannot be at the same time at Rome.  
Answer. I deny the major, and say that this Roman ubication is produced neither in the Body existing at Rome nor existing at Paris, but is produced in the Body spectato secumdum se considered in itself, which indeed materially was afore at Paris, but by a new ubication is also at Rome. If you say the Roman ubication must be produced at Rome; but it cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome: therefore the Body must be at Rome before it be at Rome, which is absurd.  
Answer. I distinguish the minor. It cannot be produced at Rome unless it be produced in the Body existing at Rome consecutively, I grant; antecedently, I deny. And therefore I also deny the consequence. The Roman ubication is then produced in the Body existing at Rome ut quo in as much as it is the Form, which makes the Body or the subject to be at Rome.  
Ob. 2. In a true human Body such as Christ's Body is the Head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders, but this cannot be in a Point; then Christ's Body cannot be in every least part of the Host.  
Answer. I distinguish the major. In a true human Body, etc. naturally existing the Head is above the neck, its true: supernaturally existing, being Spiritualised or having the quality of a Spirit by which it is all in all and all in every part of the improper place in which it is, I deny the major.  
Mr. Rodon confounds here Entitative quantity which is to have a number of parts, with Situal quantity or Extent which is to have all its parts one without another. The Body of Christ hath its Entitative quantity, but not its situal quantity in the Eucharist this Extent or Situal quantity is an accident which the Entitative quantity can want.  
Ob. 3. To move and not to move, etc. in the same time are contradictory things.  
Answer. Considered under the same respect its true; under a different respect its false. For example, my Soul moves in my hand at the same time that it is stock still in my head. The same way the Body of Christ may be moved as it is in Heaven and not be moved as it is in the Host.  
Ob. 4. Two relatives are alwise different as the Father and Son.  
Answer. I grant it, and tell you that a Body in two places is not two Bodies; so the relation of distance of which we speak here, is between the two places, not between two Bodies.  
Mr. Rodon urges. It is only the distance of places that makes the distance of things existing in them.  
I Answer once again, we are not speaking here of things but of one thing. But let us speak of two other things existing in two different places. I say that the distance of place is only the partial Cause of their distance, and that the total Cause is the dlstance of places and the existing of things in them. Otherwise things which are now together might be said to be distant, because the places in which they were before, are still distant.  
Mr. Rodon presses further. Peter at Rome might draw nigher to himself as he exists at Paris.  
Answer. Neigher to himself I deny, neigher to his ubication at Paris, I grant; that is, he might have an ubication nigher to that he has at Paris, but he would never come so close that the same parts of his Body would meet with the same, but the right hand with the left, or the palm of the hand with the back of the hand: And so as there is a difference between those different parts there may rise a relation of meeting; and as there is no repugnance that I touch myself making one hand touch the other; so there is none, that I meet with myself, different parts of my Body meeting with different parts of the same. And if I will have my right hand, which meets with my left, press forward, I must also will to put back or aside my left, they being both solid parts.  
Let my Reader take these answers to divert himself a little with the humour of Mr. de Rodon; but let him not think that his objection presses us, for as distance supposes proper places, so meeting supposes a proper motion. And the Body of Christ is neither in a proper place, nor properly moved in the Eucharist as I said afore. But were it Circumscriptively there, these foresaid answers and the following in this matter blow-up all his objections.  
Ob. 5. It's a perfect contradiction that a Body should be one, and not one; but if Christ's Body should be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host upon Earth 'twould be one, and not one: then it can not be in Heaven and in the Host both at once. 'Twould be one as is supposed, and not one as is proven, because it would be divided from itself.  
Answer. I deny the minor, and as to its probation I distinguish, 'Twould be divided from itself Extrinsecally, that is, as to place, I grant. Intrinsically, as to itself, or Essential principles of which it's composed, I deny. For nothing of its Essential principles would be in one place, which were not in the other. The Body of a man, for example, bilocated would not be in one place where the Soul were not, nor the Soul in another where the Body were not with it. The sole Ubications of the same Body are divided. Now since two Bodies may be in one place by penetration, as when Christ entered into the Caenacle of the Apostles the Doors being shut, and came out of his B. Mother's womb she still remaining a Virgin, why may not one Body be by a like miracle in two places? since the thing placed relates to the place, just as the place relates to the thing placed in it. As one thing naturally requires to be in one place at once, so one place naturally requires to have only one thing in it at once, why then may not one thing supernaturally by the almighty power of God be in two places at once?  
Mr. Rodon urges 1. The division is true, when between two there be Bodies of divers natures.  
Answer. This I grant, and say That our supposition is not of two, but of one Body which is the same in Heaven and in the Host.  
He urges 2. Things that are divided locally are also divided Entitatively: Therefore the Body of Christ being in divided places, must be divided Entitatively. He proves the antecedent thus, else no reason can be given why two glasses of Water taken from the same Fountain are really different, since these Waters are like in all things except in reference to place.  
Answer 1. Our supposition is not of things, but of one thing or Body as I said afore.  
Answer. 2. I grant that local division infers alwise Entitative division if we look only to the ordinary course of nature; but not in cases, in which God will show his almighty Power; we know then that the Body of Christ being only one, is now sacramentally in different places by the almighty power of God, because he hath revealed it, as we know the same Body was Circumscriptively in different places, when being in Heaven he stood beside Paul at the same time upon Earth. Act. 23. v. 11.  
A reason also is easily given why the Ocean is not one single drop of Water, to wit, because one drop is not naturally in innumerable places, but only by a miracle, which God does not ordinarily and for nothing. Neither is God and Nature to be said to do in vain when they do according to the natural exigence of a drop of Water, which is to be only in one place at once. Is God bound to do all he can do?  
Neither might one man replicated in 10000 places beget in one night 10000 Children, because his force is limited to the power of one man; the second and third Ubication giving him no new force, but only a new place.  
Add to all this that God is in places divided from one another, viz. in France and England both at once.  
You'll say he is a Spirit; but I reply the reason that makes seem impossible for a Body to be together in divers places, is not so much its bulk as its Unity: But the Spirit is as much one Spirit, as one Body is one Body.  
You'll say again that God, at the same time that he is in France and England, is in all places between.  
I Answer. What if God by his almighty power should annihilate or destroy both as to matter, and form Sea, Earth, and Aër, between France and England, would he cease to be in both? If not he would be in two divide● places. The same may be said of a reasonable Soul remaining in a member separated from the rest of the Body, if God by his almighty power conserve it there.   

SECTION III.  
More of Mr: Rodon's Objections against the Real presence answered.  
Object. 6. JESUS CHRIST cannot be in divers places at once if another Man cannot be so too. But Peter cannot be at Paris and Rome at the same time; for it is impossible that Peter should be a man and not a man at the same time; but this might fall out if he were at Paris and Rome at the same time; because he might be wounded and die at Paris, and live at the same time at Rome: And so at the same time be a live and not a live, which is to be a man and not a man.  
Answer. In that supposition that Peter ceases to live at Paris while he lives at Rome he could not be said absolutely not to live, and consequently not to be a man but a Carcase; for 'tis not enough not to live at Paris, where the Ubication of the Union between the Body and Soul ceased by a wound, if he live at Rome, as is supposed, to say absolutely he doth not live: Because a particula negativa restricta, as summolists speak, ad non restrictam, From a negative particle restrained to the same not restrained it does not follow. For example, Peter is not an Englishman, than he is not a man: So he doth not live at Paris, it doth not follow, than he doth not live. Although it follow A particula affirmativa restricta ad non restrictam, from an affirmative particle restrained to the same not restrained.  
For example Peter is an Englishman, than he is a man. So it follows he lives at Rome, than he lives. And consequently he is not to be called dead, simply, when the Parisian Ubication of the union between his Body and his Soul ceases to be, if the Roman Ubication of the same union remains; because to be dead at Paris 'tis not enough that the Ubication of the Union cease to be at Paris; but moreover 'tis required that the Union itself, which was at Paris cease absolutely to be between the Body and the Soul: but if he live, yet at Rome the Union does not cease to be between the Body and the Soul (though not at Paris) therefore he is not to be called simply dead. Apply this principle of a particle restrained to itself not restrained to his other instances of that nature. In the mean time all this discourse of Mr. Rodon supposes Peter, of whom he speaks, to have both at Paris and at Rome Situal quantity or Extent, which Christ's Body has not in the Eucharist, and therefore I give him the foresaid answer without necessity.  
To his Army made of one man replicated or put in a thousand places all at once.  
I Answer. 'Twould appear many men, but would be only one with the limited force of one man, (unless God should give him a supernatural force) whom two men in that case might overcome. Say the same of a candle as to light, and a drop of water replicated in order, to carry or bear up a Boat, which it could not do having the limited force, in order to bearing of one drop. For Ubication gives to a Body merely to be in a place, and nothing else.  
Obj. 7. Christ's Body is not seen in the Host; therefore it is not there.  
Answer. 'Tis not seen with the eye of our understanding elevated by Faith; I deny. With our corporal eye, I grant, and the reason is, because it is not there in a way proportioned to our corporal sight, or in its own shape; and it is so for the exercise of our Faith, which would cease if we saw it in Glory. Was not Christ's Body glorious after his resurrection, and yet did the Disciples see its Glory the forty days he conversed with them afore his Ascension?  
The reason why Christ's Body is not seen in the Eucharist by our Corporal eye is, because it has there no Extent, and is all in a point; not because it's under the accidents, which hid it, or in another place then the accidents, they being above and it below, nor do Philosophers mean any such thing when they say that substances are under their accidents, because pure substances have no proper places, they mean only that the substances sustentate or support the accidents, in as much as the accident naturally depends of its proper subject, which support from the substance of Bread, or Body of Christ in its place is supplied to the accidents in the Eucharist by the almighty power of God. Just then as substances possess no place but by reason of their accidents, so the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is in no place but by reason of the species which are in a place. And as substances which are under their accidents according to this way of speaking of Philosophers, are not seen, so neither the Body of Christ in the Eucharist under the species, is seen.  
Mr. Rodon asks how can Christ's Body be without posture and without external form seeing (as we say) it is whole and entire in the whole host, and in every part of it?  
Answer. Because, although Christ's Body hath in the Eucharist all its essential extension, or all its parts in order to themselves in the whole host, and in every part of the host (which we call to be whole and entire in the whole host and in every part of the host as our Soul is all in every part of the Body, and only all in the whole Body. Yet it hath not local extension in order to place which is a separable property of essential extension, as actual heat is a separable property of fire, as was seen by the almighty power of God in the furnace of Babylon; where, as he suspended the operation of that element to manifest his glory, so he hinders the local extension of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the light of its glory to exercise our faith.  
And this answer's all Mr. Rodon's whimsical questions of the postures of Christ's Body in a whole or divided host, since division as well as the posture of a Body depends of Local Extension. For if God put all the parts of a Body after a spiritual manner (as the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist) in a point, and a point cannot be divided, in that case how will you divide that Body? and without deviding it you cannot make it appear less, how much so ever you divide the host, In a word a visible Body of a man is a man's Body in its shape, which the Body of Christ has not in the Eucharist, for want of Local Extension, and therefore is not visible there.  
Obj. 8. Christ in the Host can act, or not?  
Answer. He can act, know and love, although he hath not there the disposition of Organs fit for those operations, which require Local extension. We gratefully to him avow that his Body in the H. Host is Modo mortuo after the fashion of one dead, and this is the change the Priest makes of this victim in his oblation of it to the eternal Father in the daily Sacrifice of the Mass.  
And as Christ does not exercise there the operations, which depend of situal Extension, neither would the World reduced to a point or the parts of it, the Sun and Moon, etc. act as they do now, for want of situal disposition to such operations.  
Neither do we say that Christ's Body is as big and as tall in the H. Host as on the Cross, as Mr. Rodon inconsiderately alleadges, for that bigness on the Cross comes from the situal extension he had there and wants in the H. Host.  
Obj. 9 A Body can not cease to be in a place without being destroyed or going to some other place: but the species being consumed, Christ's Body is neither destroyed nor goes to another place, therefore it was not in the Eucharist.  
Answer. I deny the major universally speaking, and ask when a man's Leg is cut off, does the soul go to another place or is it destroyed? yet it ceases to be there. Reason the same way of the Body of Christ which is in the Eucharist with the property of a Spirit, and as it came thither by the sole production of a new presence, so it ceases to be there by the sole destruction of the same.  
Obj. 10. The properties of one species or of one nature are incommunicable to every other species or nature: but 'tis the property of a spirit to be all in all and every part of a place; therefore the Body of Christ can not be all in all and in every part of the Host.  
Answer. I grant the major and distinguish the minor. 'Tis the property of a spirit to be all in all, etc. by Exigence, I grant, by accident I deny. For example water has heat by accident, which Fire alone has by exigence, and therefore the exigence of heat is the property of Fire: and not the actual having of it, which is communicable to water. The claim and exigence of seeing God as he is in himself is the property of God flowing from his Essence in communicable to a creature; but the actual only seeing of God as he is in himself will be favourably communicated by him to happy men in the other world 1. Io. 3.2. And therefore rigidly speaking is not his property. So than what a spirit has by exigenbe. the Body of Christ without confounding different species, may have by accident in the Eucharist. Quaeres wherefor to be actually all in all, and all in every part of an improper place is called the property of a spirit and not of a Body largely speaking? Answer. Because a spirit has a natural appetite of that way of existing, which a Body has not, also because a spirit is indivisible, and has no parts.  
Answer .. 2. I distinguish the major. The property of a species, that is, the exigence of one species is incommunicable to an other, I grant; the act of the exigence is incommunicable, I deny. For example, Heat is the act of the exigence of Fire, and is communicated to water.  
Hence I grant that naturally Bodies are in places circumscriptively, that is the parts of the Body are in the parts of the place and not the whole Body in every part. But not so if it please the author of nature to put them by his almighty power in places definitively or Sacramentally, that is, in an equivocal or improper place (which in rigour is no place) without local extension.  
I said definitively, or Sacramentally because the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not limitated according to a rigid definitive way of existing, as the soul is in the Body, bounded with a certain continued place, but is without limitation in as many discontinued sacramental places, as the Consecration is made in.   

SECTION. iv  
The rest of Mr. Rodon's objections against the real presence answered.  
Object. 11 IF the Body of Christ were in the Eucharist 'twould be subject to many ignominies; to be eaten with mice, burned, stolen, etc. thererefore it is not there.  
Answer. I retort his argument thus. If he, whom we call Christ, was God, God was subject to many ignominies to be called a Seducer, a Blasphemer, a Drinker of Wine, a Glutton, to be scourged at a post like a rogue and hanged like a thief; therefore he was not God. Is this a good inferrence? No. Neither the other.  
Monsr. Rodon. speaking of the Eucharist, says; as it is a God that cannot keep himself from being stolen, so neither can he keep himself from being burned.  
Answer. 1. did not the Jews deride Christ the same way upon the Cross? Save thyself, If thou art the Son of God come down from the Cross. Math. 27. v. 40.  
I Answer. 2. then he could have come down from the Cross, and can hinder also the Host from being profaned. But the first he suffered for the love of man, the second he suffers for the exercise of our faith.  
Note, the Body of Christ ceases to be in the stomach when the species are altered there, but, did it join with the excrements they could not annoy or hurt him no more than a dunghill defiles the beams of the Sun. Nay the Body of Christ now impassable were not worse in Hell itself, than at the right hand of his father.  
To Claude de Xainte's, saying we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lord's flesh in the Sacrament let him be Turk, Atheist, yea though he should be the Devil himself incarnate.  
I Answer. That is to be understood if his unworthiness be unknown to the Priest, or known only by Confession. For of this he cannot make use to diffame him: Did not Christ give the Communion to Judas?  
Ob. 12. God makes no miracles without necessity, but what necessity is there for the miracles we avow to be made in the Eucharist? Then they are not made there, and so Christ's Body is not there.  
Answer. I distinguish the major, without an absolute necessity, I deny. Without a certain consequential necessity supposing that he will make an extraordinary show of his power or goodness, I grant. And this was the reason wherefore he made so many miracles, which were not absolutely necessary in the bringing the Children of Israël out of Egypt, to wit, to give an extraordinary show of his power. And in the Eucharist he makes some, where he would also give an extraordinary show of his singular goodness and love to man, foretell by the Royal Prophet. Psal. 110. v. 4. He hath made a memory of his marvellous works, to wit, in giving his Body and Blood to be a spiritual Food to these who fear him.  
Mr. Rodon asks here if it can be said that the Eucharist is for the Salvation of the Soul of him that eats it, since the reprobate eats it too, and the Faithful under the Old Testament and Infants in the New do not eat it.  
Answer. Yes it can be said, because 'tis the reprobate's fault that it does not save him. Neither that the Faithful of the Old Law and Infants in the New are not saved by an eating of it, makes any thing against it, because it was not instituted for them.  
Mr. Rodon asks again, if it can be said with Bellarmine and Perron, that the Host being eaten serves as an incorruptable Food for a glorious resurrection, since the Faithful of the Old Testament and Infants in the New rise again gloriously without it.  
Answer, Yes, it can be said, because Christ says, Io. 6. v. 54. Who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day. And the Council of Nice calls the Eucharist Symbolum resurrectionis a token of the Resurrection, and S. Ignatius M. Epist. 14. to the Ephes. terms it Pharmacum immortalitatis, a medicine of immortality.  
Now if you ask the manner how it serves as an Incorruptible Food for a glorious Resurrection?  
I Answer, the species being altered by the heat of the stomach, the Body of Christ ceases to be there, but his Deity remains after a special manner in the Soul (as the virtue of Wheat remains in the corrupted Grain to raise it again at Spring) feeding it with grace, and at set times affording it new infusions of actual Grace, divine lights and heavenly affections: And in the Resurrection raises again the Body and unites it to this Soul. But this proposition being affirmative does not exclude from Glory, those of the Old Testament and Infants of the New, who have not for want of Capacity the Participation of this Sacrament. Who says that a Ship serves to go from Leith to London does not say that a man cannot go without it, viz. by Horse. Neither is S. Paul against us but for us, when he says Rom. 8. If the Spirit of him who raised up JESUS from the dead dwell in you, he shall also quicken your mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you, viz. as the efficient and the immediate cause, this Spirit being the seed and virtue left by the Eucharist, the eating of which was a remote cause conveiging in a particular manner by way of disposition this Spirit to us.  
Mr. Rodon's last Objection is, The Heavens must contain Christ until the time of restitution of all things, Act. 3. v. 21. And he himself said I leave the World, etc. Io. 16. Therefore he is not in the Eucharist.  
Answer. We don't say he leaves Heaven to come to the Host, or that he hath not left the World as to his visible presence; but we say he is and will be with us even to the consummation of the World, Math. 28. in an invisible way, viz. in the Eucharist.  
Mr. Ro. adds, that Christ Math. 24. warns us, not to believe, when false Prophets in the last day shall say, he is in the Desert, he is in the secret Chambers, and remarks that the Greek for secret Chambers has en Tameiois, that is, in the Cup-boards, which is to be understood of our Cabinets on our Altars according to Mr. Rodon's explication.  
Answer. I remark that where the Greek has Tameiois which signifies an Excheker, (which relates to secrecy) as well as Cupboard, the Syriach has In Bed Chambers, that is, as A Lapide explains, a most inward room; and that the vulgar Latin has In penetralibus to the meaning of Christ. The Greek word is of no force more than the Latin or Syriack, that Gospel having been written in Hebrew of which we have not the Authentic Copy.  
Here I may say with S. Aug. Lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. Cap. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas. Behold with what arguments human infirmity possessed with vanity opposes the almighty power of God.    

CHAPTER V.  
Against the Adoration and Worshipping of the Host.  

SECTION. I.  
That we ought to adore Christ in the H. Host is proven.  
A Blind Servant thinks himself obliged to take off his hat when he is told his Lord is in the Room. Then I am bound to adore Christ when my faith tells me, that Christ is present in the Host. I prove the Consequence. I am as much bound to adore Christ present my Lord and my Redeemer, as the blind servant is bound to the taking off his hat in the presence of his Lord and Master.  
Mr. Rodon remarks that Moses, Exod. 3. was commanded to approach with reverence and adoration the Bush that burned and was not consumed, because God did manifest some what of his power and glory in that place. I subsume, but Christ doth manifest some what of his power and glory in the H. Host: Therefore we ought not to approach it, but with reverence and adoration.  
I prove my subsumption. Christ gives there to the purer Souls surprising delights, and works admirable changes in them, which is a manifestation of his power, and a ray of his glory there, this is known to the faithful, which made the heavenly enlightened Author of the following of Christ, lib. 4. cap. 1. say, O admirahle and hidden grace of the Sacrament, which the faithful only of Christ know! If you say this is not sensible to the imperfiter Souls amongst Romanists. I answer that does not make it not to be true. God shown much of his power and glory in the Manna to the perfect ones of the Children of Israel, when it relished to them all they could covet of delightful; although this was not sensible to the wicked.  
If S. Paul will have every knee to bend at the hearing only of the Name of JESUS Phil. 2. v. 10. to wit because it puts us in mind of our Redeemer; why should not we adore our present Redeemer himself in the sign or Sacrament of his excessive Love to us? I see there as well by Faith that ray of his glory, to wit his manhood personally united to the Godhead; As the show God makes of his Majesty to the Angels in Heaven: for which, though it be not sensible to me, Mr. Rodon will have me bound to adore God in Heaven, by those words of Christ when we pray, Our Father which art in Heaven, and these words of the Apostles Sursum corda Lift up your hearts. Where I remark Mr. Ro. avows this command Lift up your hearts to have been given by his Apostles (chap. 5. Numb. 11) I add in no other place but in their Liturgy or Sacrifice of the Mass, than they had the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
A fourth probation I take from S. Austin in his Commentary upon the Psal. 98. where explaining these words Adore the Footstool of his feet, he says, the Footstool of the feet of our Lord is the Earth, according to the Prophet Isaiah. 66. Terra autem scabellum pedum meorum, and he inquires how it is lawful to adore the Earth without impiety. Fluctuans, says he, wavering I turn myself to Christ, and I find how without impiety the Earth is adored he (Christ) took Earth of Earth because Flesh is of Earth and of the Flesh of Marie he took Flesh: & ipsam Carnem manducandam nobis ad salutem dedit, nemo aeutem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, inventum est quemadmodum tale Scabellum Domini ut non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non Adorando. That is to say, And he gave that same Flesh to us for our Salvation, but none eats it unless he first adore. We have found how such a Footstool of our Lord may be adored, so that we not only, not sin by adoring, but we sin if we do not adore.  
And in his Epist. 120. Adducti sunt ad mensam Dominè & accipiunt de Corpore & sanguine ejus, sed adorant tantum, non etiam ●●turantur, quia non imitantur. They are brought to th● Table of the Lord, and they receive of his Body and Blood, but they adore only. they are not filled because they do not imitate. By these passages you see how they adored the H. Host in primitive times, but of primitive times you shall see more in my seventh Chapter.   

SECTION II.  
Monsieur Rodon's Objections against the Adoration of Christ in the H. Host Answered.  
Object. 1. WE do not adore God in a Stone, or a Tree, nor Christ in the Water of Baptism, although God be in the Stone, and the Tree, and what is adorable in Christ, is in the Water of Baptism: therefore, although Christ were in the Host, we should not adore him there.  
Answer. I deny the consequence and give the disparity. A Stone, a Tree, and Water are complete beings, so because men have adored such things, he, who bends his knee to adore God in them may be thought to adore them, as well as God in them. But in the Eucharist Christ being only the complete Being, and the Species only an accident never considered as Adorable by men; when we see a man adore the Eucharist, we presently conceive he Adores Christ there. An other disparity is that the Divinity is Hypostatically, (i. e. personally) united to the Body of Christ, not to a Stone, a Tree, or the Water in Baptism.  
Ob. 2. We are only obliged to adore God in all places in which he appears in his glorious Majesty. Therefore Christ or God is not to be adored in the Eucharist, although he be really there.  
Answer. I deny the antecedent. For Mr. Rodon in this fift Chapter numb. 7. Will have  Beams of Glory, which oblige us to Adoration, to be sensible in that place, in which the Adoration is made, and consequently thousands may have lived according to his Doctrine forty or fifty Years, and died without having been ever obliged to adore God: because all that time the Beams of Glory which God shows to his Angels in Heaven were never sensible to them, (they knowing it only by Faith) neither was his Glory sensible to them upon Earth, as to Moses, by any miraculous Beam.  
Quaeres 1. What meant Christ commanding his Apostles when they Prayed, to say Our Father who art in Heaven?  
Answer. Not that they should only adore God in Heaven, or where he makes appear, as there, a Beam of his glorious Majesty, but that they should wean their affections from the Earth, by an apprehension of the Glorious sight which he shows to his Saints in Heaven.  
Quaeres 2. What meant the Apostles commanding in the Preface of the Liturgy or Christian sacrifice to say sursum corda, Lift up your hearts?  
Answer. Not that when we are present at the Sacrifice We lift up our corporal Eyes to Heaven to adore God only there; but to raise our minds above our senses, and our thoughts above nature to believe this supernatural work done in the Sacrifice, and so become partakers of its Fruit.  
Ob. 3. We do not adore Christ in that Host which the Priest has newly eaten.  
Answer. Because it is not then morally present to us.  
Note, I take no notice of Mr. Rodon's speaking of Christ's appearing in the Host sometimes in Form of a Child, because as he does not credit such stories, neither do I look upon them as matters of Faith, nor have I any need for my purpose to allege them.  
Ob. 4. In lawful Adoration we must be assured that what we adore is the true God.  
Answer. This I grant and say that the Essential part of Adoration (honour est in honorante) is in my mind, which being directed to Christ, if he be not there, rests not upon the piece of Bread, but goes to him in Heaven: So we know what we Worship and are sure 'tis God. And to move me to adore 'tis enough that I am morally assured of the presence of Christ's Body in the Host. For we have no more than moral assurance to oblige us under the pain of breaking the commandment of God to honour and obey such or such a man for my Father: And to use his comparisen, as the Woman who doubts if such a man be her Husband ought not to admit him as a Husband; no more ought a Catholic to adore an Host if he prudently doubt of its consecration.  
But it is not prudent to doubt if any Host be consecrated, when it is proposed to be adored, because some have counterfited the Priest, who were not, or being really, may have maliciously (though to their own damnation) omitted the intention. As it were not prudent in me to doubt if such a man were my Father, for no other reason, but because many have thought him to be their Father, who really was not.  
To Mr. Rodon's saying, That Heathens might have retorted the Catholic arguments made against them by S. Chrysos. etc. If the Church had then believed that Christ's Body was in the Eucharist: As when S. Chrisos. said, they bring their gods into base Images of Wood and Stone, and shut them up there as in Prison. And Arnobius Lib. 6. Your Gods dwells in Plaster, etc. and they suffer themselves to be shut up and remain hid, and detained in an obscure Prison.  
Answer 1. No, they might not, because our mysteries were not known then to them as they are now to Protestants. Nay they were keep secret from the very Catechumen. Hence that famous saying in primitive times, speaking of his Mystery norunt Fideles, The Faithful know, to wit what we believe there.  
Quaeres, Why was this Mystery concealed from the cathecumen, or those who beware not yet Baptised?  
Answer. Because they had not yet the Eye of Faith, by which they might see it, Hence don't wonder if you find some Fathers to have wrote some what obscurely of this Mystery in the Birth of the Church.  
Answer 2. No, the Heathens might not equally retort, etc. because 1. Christ is in the H, Host, and was in his Mother's Womb; so that his Godhead is and was else where. 2. We do not say, That Christ leaves Heaven to come to the H. Host as the false Gods one place to come to another. 3. Their Consecration was the mere word of Man, ours the words of Christ commanding Do this, and speaking by the mouth of the Priest This is my Body. 4. They adored the Metal after its dedication as God; We do not adore so the species.  
Answer 3. If the Church did then believe that Christ had remained hid, and shut up in his Mother's Womb as in an obscure Prison▪ might not the Heathens have retorted what Arnob. Lib. 6. said against their Gods detained in an obscure Prison, And for their Retortion in this particular, would Mr. Rodon have denied that Christ remained nine months in his B. Mother's Womb?  
I end this Chapter with this,  
Quaere. Wherefore do we adore Christ more particularly in the B. Sacrament than his Godhead every where?  
Answer. Because God the Father will have God the Son specially honoured by men for his special Love to them in their Redemption, of which we are particularly minded by the presence of his Body in the Eucharist. 2. Because the humanity of Christ represented to us by the Eucharist is personally united to the Divinity.  
And God the H. Ghost, who guides the Church, inspired her in her invocations of the three Divine Persons in the beginning of the Mass, to invoce the first and third Person under the common name of LORD, Lord have mercy on us. But God the Son under the Name of his Manhood saying thrice, Christ have Mercy on us, so honoured will God have, and dear to us this Manhood of Christ, the instrument of our Redemption.    

CHAPTER VI.  
Against the taking away of the Cup, or the Communion under one kind.  

SECTION. I.  
The lawfulness of Communicating under one kind, is proven.  
1. THE precept of Communicating, or of taking the Body and Blood of Christ, is only Io. 6. v. 53. in these words, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you. But with those words stands the lawfulness of Communicating under one kind: Therefore 'tis lawful to Communicate under one kind.  
I prove the minor. 1. Because there is only commanded the sumption, or receiving of both Body and Blood as to the substance, not the manner of receiving them under both kinds. 2. If you think the manner is commanded also, giving, not granting you that; we answer that the Particle, And, may be taken for, Or, as in many other places of Scripture, for example when Solomon speaking to God says, mendicitatem & divitias ne dederis mihi, Poverty and Riches give me not. Prov. 30. v. 8. Where, And, is taken for Or, he desiring of God, neither to be Rich nor Poor. And Act. 3. v. 8. Argentum & Aurum non est mihi Silver, 2. And Gold I have not, for Silver, Or Gold I have not.  
If with the Hussits you will not relish this solution, than we answer.  
3. That this command was given by Christ not to every particular man but to the community of Christians, by which it is fulfilled, some, viz. Priests, taking it under both kinds to represent & announce to the People the death of Christ, according to the command laid upon them Math. 26. In these words Do this in remembrance of me (there also was the command to the Priests of making the Sacrament for the People.) So Exod. 12. v. 3. 'tis commanded that The whole multitude of the Children of Israel shall Sacrifice, viz. the Paschal Lamb. Did every one in particular sacrifice? No, but only the heads of families in their families. Also Genes. 9 v. 1. Increase and multiply. Doth not oblige every particular man to marry. Again when our Saviour said, Math. 28. Teach all nations baptising them, he laid that command on the Church, not on every particular man to teach.  
Now to make appear that this answer is not brought without ground from Scripture: take notice that when Christ would signify that every one, or every individual person should be baptised, he expressed himself in the singular number Io. 3. v. 5. Nisi quis, etc. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Whereas Io. 6. v. 53. he says in the plural number Nis● manducaveritis, Unless ye eat, etc. which is fulfilled by the community, if some of them receive under both kinds, although all do not. And a little after when he turns his speech into the singular he speaks indifferently of both or one kind, He that eats my Flesh and drink my Blood hath life everlasting v. 45. and v. 58. He that eats this Bread shall live for ever. Which passages signify that one kind suffices, for if by an impossible supposition Christ could contradict himself, yet our opinion would stand; since in jure if what is said last, contradict what was said afore, jura posteriora corrigunt priora, The latter Law corrects the former.  
That the precept of receiving this Sacrament was here, Io. 6. v, 53. I prove again. The command of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, or Baptism Sacramentally was Io. 3. v. 4. For in no other place is mentioned Water, which Protestants acknowledge to be necessary in Baptism as well as Catholics, Therefore the command of receiving the Sacrament of Christ's Body & Blood Sacramentally, viz. in a sensible way by the mouth of the Body is here, Io. 6. v. 53, I prove the consequence, because a like expression to the same people caries a like command, but Io. 3. He commanded Baptism. saying, Except a man be born of Water, etc. Then he commands the receiving of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, saying, Except ye eat, etc.  
Obj. The command of receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was Math. 26. in these words, Take eat this is my Body, Drink ye all of it this is my Blood But there both kinds are particularly commanded, therefore 'tis not sufficient to receive under one kind.  
Answer 1. I deny the major, and say that those words were not a precept but an invitation only made to the Apostles alone, as a Friend does to his Friends invited to Dine with him. For when S. Mark Chap. 14. says They all drunk of it. All those who drunk were all those, or comprehended all those, who were bid drink, but all those, who drunk, were only the Apostles, than all those who were bid drink, were only the Apostles; and consequently if you make it a command, 'twas a command only obliging the Apostles.  
Answer. 2. The washing of the Feet to one an other, Io. 13. v. 14. was not a precept, therefore far less these words, Take eat: for there he says positively, Debetis alter alterius, etc. Ye ought to wash one another's Feet, for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.  
Out of my answer to the Objection,  
Remark that the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. from the v. 23, to 27. relates only what Christ did to the Apostles, and what he commanded them, viz. as they were Priests, to wit to make this Sacrifice in remembrance of his death, telling them that as often as they eat that Bread, and drink that Cup, they should announce his Death, viz. by their separate taking of the species of Bread from that of Wine. Then S. Paul of himself adds. Whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink the Cup of our Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. As if he had said, although you eat the Body of our Lord in a good estate, if you drink the Cup after, having conceived in your heart afore the drinking a grievous sin you are guilty of both unworthily received. Why? but because under each kind both are contained; And thus on the contrary, we receive the essential good effect of both under one kind, as we incur the guilt of both profaning both by an unworthy receiving under one. I know some Protestant Bible's have Whosoever shall eat this Bread And drink this Cup. etc. 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. AND for OR but that is a corruption as you may see in the Greek Printed at London the year 1653. by Roger Daniel which has, OR, with the Latin version.  
By this essential effect of the Sacrament we distinguish what belongs to the substance of the Sacrament, from what belongs not to it. For example because in Baptism by aspersion is had the same effect of the Sacrament as by a triple mersion, we conclude the triple mersion is not of the Essence. Say the same of one kind in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For I hope Protestants will not say that when Christ gave the Sacrament in the time of Supper, Math. 26. v. 26. Under the form of Bread, the effect of the Sacrament was suspended till he gave the Cup after supper, Luke. 22. v. 20. If not, than the giving of the Cup was not necessary for receiving the Grace of the Sacrament. This Mr. Rodon seems to avow in his 12 number of this Chapter, when he says Drinking of Wine is a corporal action, and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it. I infer than they who cannot drink it, may have the effect of the Sacrament without the Cup. And this the Calvenists must say in France when they give the Eucharist under the kind of Bread only to those who cannot taste wine, as you may see in their 7 Art. of the 12 Chap. of their discipline which is of our Lord's Supper. And Mr. Jurieux a Minister in France confirms this custom in his book entitled Le Preservatif, etc. Pag. 267. When speaking of the Person who has received only under one kind. This, says he.  
N'est pas un veritable sacrament quant au sign, mais c'est un veritable sacrament quant a la chose signifieé, puisque le fidele recoit J. Christ, signify par le sacrament, & rccoit tout autant de graces que ceux qui communient au Sacrament meme, & que le Sacrement luy est presente tout entier de voeu & de caeur. That is, This, says he, is not a true Sacrament as to the sign, but 'tis a true Sacrament as to the thing signified: since the faithful receives J. Christ signified by the Sacrament, and receives as much grace as those who receive the Srcrament itself, and that the whole Sacrament is represented to him to his sight and heart.  
Also since Protestants believe they receive not only the figure, but also the proper substance of JESUS CHRIST at least by saith. I ask, when they have received the Bread of our Lord's Supper before the Cup, have they received the whole substance of Christ? or not? If they have received the whole, than they have received the whole Grace of the Sacrament, and consequently the Cup is not necessary. If not. I ask again is the substance of Christ divided? of which one part is received with the Bread, the other with the Cup?  
Note. when S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. says Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. he does not give a command. 'Twas Christ only who gave the command of eating his Body and drinking his Blood as to the substance of the Sacrament, but not as to the manner, which certainly is not of the Essence of the Sacrament, the Sacrament being a permanent thing (for Christ having said This is my Body, 'twas now a Sacrament before the eating, according to that of S. Aug. tract. 80. in Io. Accedit verbum ad Elementum & fit Sacramentum) And the use of every permanent thing being posteriour to it, and consequently not Essential.   

SECTION II. Other objections, answered.  
Obj. 2. A Broken body by wonds is void of blood, and has not blood by concomitance, but Christ's Body was broken, therefore it had not Blood by concomitance, and so we ought to take the Blood a part.  
Answer. I distinguish the minor Christ's Body was broken on the Cross, and there void of Blood, be it so; when he offered it up for us at the last Supper, and after his Resurrection, I deny. And consequently when we receive it in the Sacrament, it has Blood by coneomitance, and therefore we need not receive the Blood a part. It's true also that Christ's Body at the last Supper or in the sacrifice is daily broken as to the species, but not in itself, and therefore being a living Body it hath Blood by concomitance, and for this reason we need not take the Blood a part.  
Obj. 3. We go from the practice of the primitive Church.  
Answer. As to the essence of the Sacrament, I deny, as to the manner of administration of it, upon some considerable circumstances, be it so. So the Protestants go from the practice of primitive times in Baptism, by using now the sprinkling of water on the Child, whereas a triple dipping was used in primitive times. I said, be it so, because in primitive times they gave it also sometimes under one kind.  
If you ask me why Christ gave it to his Apostles under both kinds?  
I answer he both foresaw Heretics, as the Manicheans who would deny the thing in itself to be lawful (which is an error) and different circumstances in which the Church should think good to give it under the species of Wine, as to infants: which action of his justified the Church in that, and the like circumstances. We avow then that the Sacrament was given some times under both kinds, and in particular to discover the Manicheans in the time of S. Leo Pope. But we deny that there was a command from Christ of giving it so.  
Obj. 4. To take Christ's Blood in taking the Host, is not to drink it.  
Answer. 'Tis not to drink it cannally, that is, to be carnally refressed with it, I grant, Spiritually, that is, to be Spiritually refressed with it, I deny. So S. Cypr. says in the beginning of the Sermon of the Lords Supper, manducaverunt & biberunt de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem, that is, they eat and drunk of the same Bread, according to the vibsile form. Remark, he says, They drunk of the same Bread, and makes no mention of Wine.  
Also Tertul. lib. de Resur. Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur, that is, The Flesh feeds of the Body and Blood of Christ that the Soul may be full of God  
And S. Augustin lib. quaest. in Levit. q. 57 speaking of this Sacrament, says, A cujus Sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo non solum, etc. that is, from the Blood of which Sacrifice to be taken for aliment, etc. Where you see the Blood is called food or aliment.  
By which passages you may take notice that the Holy Fathers put the force of their words in the thing, and not in the way of taking it, because whither taken by way of food, or of drink it has the same effect.  
Ob. 5. He that eats Bread dipped in Wine, although he hath Wine in his mouth, doth not drink. Therefore he who receives only under the form of Bread, doth not drink.  
Answer. 1. I distinguish the antecedent. He who eats Bread dipped; etc. doth not drink it, in the strict acception of drinking, I grant. In the less rigid acception of drinking, I deny. (did you never hear say of him who drinks a heavy thick Wine, he eats and drinks both at once?)  
Answer. 2. He doth not drink as to the substance of drinking, which is to take a liquid matter by the mouth, I deny. As to the whole corporal manner and effect of Drinking, I grant. So Pascasius lib. de Corp. Christ speaks thus. Hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem & per manus Ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite & bibite ex hoc omnes, that is, It's he alone who breaks this Bread, and by the hands of the Ministers distributes it to the faithful, saying Take and drink all of this. to wit Bread, where he makes no mention of Wine.  
But much less do Protestants drink Christ's Blood by an act of faith that Christ died for them, in which the eating and drinking is one and the same.  
Ob. 5. The sacramental words operate what they signify, but they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood; therefore they operate the separation of the Body from the Blood, and consequently we ought to receive under both kinds to receive both.  
Answer. I distinguish the Major. The Sacramental words operate what they signify formally, I grant; what they signify occasionally, I deny. And say that these words This is my Body and these This is my Blood signify formally and primarly the Body and Blood of Christ, although occasionally and secundarily they signify the separation of the Body from the Blood of Christ, in as much as they are an occasion to me hearing them pronounced apart and knowing that (the force of these words only attended) the Body would be under one species, and the Blood under the other, though by concomitance both are in each; to represent to myself the death of Christ or his Body separated from his Blood.  
Ob. 6. As much as is taken away of the Sacrament, as much is diminished of the persuasion of the certainty of God's promise.  
Answer. As much as is taken away of that part of the Sacrament which causes Grace, be it so; Of that which does not cause grace, but only completes it in the being of a representation of the death of Christ I deny.  
I said be it so, because the Sacraments were chiefly instituted to signify and cause in us sanctifying grace which is both signified and caused by the Body and Blood of Christ under on kind as much as under both: Yet the other kind is necessary in the Priest, not to confirm more God's promise, as Mr. Rodon would have it, but to represent the death of Christ. And since he thinks two Sacraments better than one, why does not he take in the Sacrament of Penance so signally set down Io. 20. as a sensible sign of sanctifying Grace brought forth in a penitent Soul by the absolution of the Priest, signified by these words Whose sins ye remit are remitted to them. Since three Sacraments are as much better than two, than two are better than one. Or how proves he the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrament, & the Priests absolving a sorrowful penitent from his sin to be none?  
Ob. 7. Christ foresaw the inconvenences of taking under both kinds for Lay-people as well as we, and yet he commanded it to them, as S. Paul to the Corinthians after him.  
Answer. I deny that either Christ or S. Paul commanded the lay people to take the Eucharist under both kinds, more than Christ commanded that the Ministers should wash the Communicants feet by his example of Washing them to those to whom he gave the Sacrament. See the ground of this my denial in the 1. Sect. of the 6. chap. nay Christ signified abundantly one kind to suffice when he said, Who eats this Bread shall live for ever.  
Ob. 8. God's word should not be taken from all, because some are deaf: therefore the Cup should not be taken from all lay people, because some cannot drink Wine.  
Answer. The Cup is not taken from all lay people for that reason, but because that, and other reasons being on one side, and on the other side it not being necessary to give it the lay people for the proofs I have brought above, the Church doth not think good to give it at this time, which she may change (it not being a matter of Faith or Command of God) when she pleases. But the word of God is necessary to those who hear, because Faith comes by hearing, and is always supplied to the deaf by outward signs, and stronger inward inspirations from God.  
Be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon, who inveighes against the Roman Church for taking away the Cup to avoid scandals or inconveniences; for one of the same allows in this 6. Chap. numb. 13. to substitute rather the ordinary drink of a Country instead of Wine, notwithstanding that Christ instituded it to be given in Wine.   

SECTION III.  
The discovery of Mr. Rodon's disingenuous representation of the Decree of the Council of Constance. Sess. 13.  
THe taking away, says Mr. Rodon, of the Eucharistical Cup, was established as an Article of Faith by the Roman Church, representative assembled in the Council of Constance, in the Year 1414. Sess. 13. in a Canon.  
Answer. That's a Calumny, as shall appear in the discussion of his quotation. It is indeed an Article of Faith, to believe that under the species of Bread is both Christ's Body and his Blood, because his Body is a living Body; He dies no more, Rom. 6. v. 9 Wherefore the Council of Constance finding the Church to have been in a long custom of giving the Sacrament under one kind for good reasons; to show that the former Church had not erred in that custom, thought good to order them to be punished as Heretics, who should presume to say that that custom was erroneous, sacrilegious and unlawful. But why punished as Heretics? Because they seem to doubt if the Blood be under the Form of Bread.  
Yet she did not define to be believed as an Article of Faith, and of divine right for Lay-people to take it only under one kind, for it's only of Church right, for some particular reasons, which were not at the time the Apostles gave it. One of which is this same which moved the Council: Another, the Church being now extended to Countries, where 'tis hard to get so much Wine, and many being found in the great body of the Church, who have an antipathy to Wine, since there's no necessity, it's better in the way of taking, to keep an uniformity in the sick (to whom it could not be kept or conveniently carried, nor was carried in primitive times) and in those who are in health; and so avoid scruples which might arise in weak heads: not to speak of the danger of irreverence in spilling, the Commons of Christians being not now so fervent as they were in the first age. Yet we do not hold it unlawful jure divino, by divine right, for Lay-people to receive under both kinds more than 'tis unlawful jure divino, to eat Flesh on Frydays. Since it is at present the practice of the Greek Church at Rome, to give the Communion to the Lay-people once a Year, under both kinds.  
Now to show the infidelity of Mr. Rodon's quotation of the Council's decree. The Council says, Praesens Concilium, etc. definite quod licè: Christus instituerit & dederit Sacramentum hoc post cocnam sub utraque specie Discipulis, hoc non obstante approbata consuetudo ecclesiae servarit & servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post cocnam, neque a fidelibus recipi non jejwis (Here the Council should have added neque sub utraque specie, to make out what Mr. Rodon says, which it hath not) nisi in casu infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel Ecclesiae concesso. That is, The present Council defines; etc. That although Christ instituted and gave this Sacrament AFTER SUPPER (these Words Mr. Rodon leaves out) under both kinds to his Disciples, notwithstanding this the approved custom of the Church has observed, and observes that this Sacrament ought not to be made AFTER SUPPER nor to be received by the Faithful who are not fasting (these words again, which alone relate to the Council's saying, NON OBSTANTE, he leaves out) unless in case of Infirmity, or other necessity, etc. allowed by the Law of the Church. Where the Council does not speak at all of both kinds, when it says, This notwithstanding but only of the time of Communicating, whither AFORE or AFTER SUPPER. Viz. Although our Saviour, instituted it after Supper, that does not hinder the Church's now ordaining it to be taken only by those, who are fasting unless in case of necessity.  
Note, as the Council learned from the H. Ghost that Christ's giving it after Supper did not hinder to take it fasting in another circumstance of time; so it also learned from the same that the Primitive Church's giving it under both kinds (she giving it also sometimes under one as to the sick, see Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 44. Edit. val. in the Hist. of Serapion: also see Tertul: de orat. cap. 14. and to Infants, see S. Cypr. sract. de Laps.) did not hinder to make a Law at that time to give it to the laiety only under one or special reasons; one of which is this, Since this custom (saith the Council in the same place) hath been reasonably brought in by the Church and Holy Fathers, it ought to stand for a Law which it is not lawful to disapprove or change at pleasure without the authority of the Church.  
Neither does the Council say not withstanding Christ's command, but only not withstanding his Example. Now Christ had a particular reason why he gave it after Supper, viz. that the Typical Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb might go afore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, which was figured by it. Also to conform himself to the custom of those times which was to sacrifice after meat in thanksgiving: and the Church an other particular reason to give it since to none but fasting, because Christians falling from the primitive fervour eat and drunk intemperately, of which S. Paul complains 1. Cor. 11. v. 22. and so rendered themselves unworthy, not having that purity of Soul, which our Lord gave to understand as a thing required by washing his Disciples Feet afore he gave them the Srcrament.  
Christ then commanded the substance of the Sacrament to be given, but left the manner of giving it to the Church, changeable in a different circumstance of Times and Persons. That particle then of the Council notwithstanding imports only, that Christ's giving the Sacrament AFTER SUPPER does not hinder it to be given to those who are Fasting. And indeed if that were a breach of his will, do not Protestants break it as well as we? do not they take their Communion before Supper, and for the most part Fasting? If the Example of Christ were to be followed in the Ceremony of giving it, the Priest or Minister should afore wash the Feet of those to whom he gives it.  
To what Mr. Rodon says, at the beginning of this Chapter of the Churches forbidding Marriage and certain Meats.  
After Mr. Rodon had unadvisedly said that we freely confess, that the Decree of the Council of Constance is contrary to the institution and command of Christ, which we are so far from confessing that we have proven the contrary.  
He adds, If we allege that S. Paul Timot. 4. saith, That they who forbidden to marry, and command to ●ob. slain from Meats, do teach the Doctrines of Devils: Romanists need only answer that although S. Paul doth say so, yet they must not believe it, because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise.  
Again, if we allege (says he,) that the same Apostle Ephesians 2. saith, That we are saved by Grace through Faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of GOD, not of works, lest any man should boast. Romanists need only Answer that, although this was written by the Apostle, yet they must not believe it, because the Romish CHURCH hath determined, that we are Saved by Works and Faith, as coming from ourselves, and from the strength of our own free will.  
Answer. We know the general approved Councils being guided by the H. Ghost cannot determine against S. Paul, We avow 'tis a Doctrine of Devils, to forbid absolutely to marry, as if marriage were ill in itself and of Satan, as the Ebionites taught, see S. Irereus, Lib. 1: Cap. 22. And to command to abstain from certain Meats, believing they were of the Devil with the Manicheans. See S. Aug. Haeres. Manich. 46. But we do not hold it to be a Doctrine of Devils to forbid Priests to marry, who cannot use their marriage without breaking their vow made to God. If a man be bound to keep his promise of fidelity or conjugal chastity to a Wife, is not he as much bound to keep his promise of perpetual Continency made to God?  
The Church I say does not determine against S. Paul, 1 Timot. 4. nor against what he says, Ephes. 2. But hearty believes with him that we are saved by Grace through Faith, and that this Faith is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God, not of works done by the force of nature, or of the Old Law, of which the Jews boasting, thought themselves more worthy of Salvation, than the Gentiles. Yet she determines, against Mr. Rodon, that S. Paul here by Works, doth not exclude Works that flow from Faith, as acts of Hope, Repentance, and Charity, for S. Mary Magdalen was justified because she loved much.  
Obj. They do not celebrate the memory of Christ's Death as they ought, who do not partake of the Cup, whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christ's Blood: therefore all aught to partake of the Cup.  
Answer. I distinguish the antecedent, they who do not partake of the Cup, do not as they ought, celebrate the Death of Christ, Passively, that is, they have not an occasion of receiving, and do not receive a representation or a memory of the Death of Christ, I deny. They do not celebrate the memory of the Death of Christ, Actively, I subdistinguish, within themselves, producing in their mind a thought of the Death of Christ, I deny; without themselves, putting the Body of Christ under the species of Wine, I grant; but all are not bound to do so, or celebrate a memory of his Death so, but only the Priests to whom he gave that command, saying, Do this in remembrance of me, and as often as you sball eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you shall show the Death of the (your) Lord until he come. And that Protestants understand this to be said to the Ministers only, they show, when they say that this Sacrament cannot be rightly ministered without a Sermon of the Death of CHRIST. I ask do the Lay-people Preach then?    

CHAPTER VII.  
The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Reason. by the notion of a true Sacrifice. By Scripture. By the tradition of our Country. By the Authority of the Holy Fathers and the Church.  

SECTION. I. Proofs.  

SUBSECTION I. Proofs from Reason.  

I. REASON.  
WE must not refuse to Christians that, which all other People have had by an instinct of nature, viz. to offer a true Sacrifice to the Supreme Being. God in the 1. Chapter of Leviticus v. 2. does not say by way of command, ye shall offer. But supposing what they knew to be done by the light of Nature, he only prescribes there the manner of Sacrificing.  
S. Paul having cured with a word of his month a Lame man at Lystra, the People thinking him for that to be God, presently found themselves naturally moved to bring Oxen to Sacrifice to him, Act. 14.  
Men Sacrificed in the Law of Nature, in the written Law, the Pagan infidel as well as the Faithful Soul all led by this innate light, he is to be honoured in a singular manner who is above all.  
The chief end of a Sacrifice is to acknowledge by it God's supreme Dominion over us his Creatures as Author of Life and Death, and shall Christians, who have been by divine favour enlightened above other People, be ignorant of this, or less sensible, than others of their duty to him, from whom they have received more Grace? No. Then Christians have a true Sacrifice, but no other, than that of the Mass, then that of the Mass is a true Sacrifice.  
I prove the minor proposition, because, beside the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christians have now no Sacrifice but their offerings of Prayers or other Acts of virtue, which are only Sacrifices improperly; nay God himself distinguishes them from a true Sacrifice, saying by the Prophet Samuel, 1 Reg. 15. v. 22. Obedience is better than Sacrifice, and Math. 9 v. 13. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice.  
You'll say we have the Sacrifice of the Cross.  
Answer. That is past. People in succeeding Ages could not be present at that, to do their due homage to God. That was made, and was sufficient to Redeem all men from their Sin's past, present, and to come, as much as was required of Christ, or on his side as Redeemer, but it was not made to Redeem them from their first Duty to God, which is still, and ever to acknowledge him as Supreme Lord, as well in all other times, as in that, at which the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered.  
If that Sacrifice sufficed for all Duty's, what need have we now of Sacraments, Faith repentance & c.? If we have moreover need of Faith for ourselves, why have we not need of a true Sacrifice, as a testimony of our Faith in God, to others?  
The holy patriarchs had Faith in their Hearts, but did not think themselves to do sufficiently by that, their Duty to God, without a Sacrifice as a public profession to men of this their Faith in him.  
You must distinguish the condign, or fully satisfying Sacrifice for Sin, from other Sacrifices: That the eternal Father required, and accepted from his Son alone, in Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices for Sin thou hast no pleasure, than said I (God the Son) lo I come, etc. Hebr. 10. to do thy Will, O God: a Body thou hast prepared to me. v. 5. to wit, in which he might Sacrifice himself.  
Sacrifices for other ends God required, and accepted from mere men showing the pleasure he had in them; as in that of Abel and Elias, which he consumed with fire from Heaven, 3 Reg. 18. in the Protestant Bible, 1 Reg. 18. and that of Noë, for which he promised not to drowned the Earth again. Genes. 8. v. 21.   

II. REASON.  
REligion according to the common opinion of Divines is a virtue inclining man to give to God his due Honour. And shall those men claim to have any Religion, (let Protestants be pleased to reflect) who find in themselves no inclination to give to GOD a true and proper Sacrifice, which is the Honour due to Him?   

III. REASON.  
A True Sacrifice is the Worship only due to God; all other Worship may be given to men. If Kings will not want the Worship due to them above their Subjects, should we deprive GOD for whole Ages of the Worship due to him above his Creatures? No. In the mean time all must acknowledge this to have been done, and to be still done, who do not acknowledge the Sacrifice of the Mass.   

iv REASON.  
SAcrifice is the chief Act of Religion or Divine Worship, and shall the Church of Christ come short of the Synagogue in this? In the Synagogue they Sacrificed daily, Exod. 29. v. 38.  
God having as S. Paul speaks, Hebr. 11. v. 40. provided something better to the Spouse of Christ than to the hand made, hath not he more loving to her, furnished her with a more noble means to obtain it? Yes. And this is the Sacrifice of the Mass. in which the Priest destroying in the Host the substance of Bread, and offering to God what is now there by the force of his words, both acknowledges him as Supreme Master of Life and Death, and offers him a Sacrifice worthy of himself.  
The Synagogue was with us participant of the Sacrifice of the Cross, as general to all, but Christians alone have an application of it more powerful, then by any other way, in the Sacrifice of the Mass:   

V REASON.  
IF the Preist-hood being translated, it is necessary according to S. Paul. Hebr. 7. v. 12. that the Law be translated: Then the Preist-hood ceasing, it is necessary that the Law cease, which was under that Preist-hood. Hence;  
I infer, since the Law of the New Testament doth not cease, the Preist-hood of the New Testament doth not cease, and under it there are still Sacrifices, no other but those of the Mass, therefore that of the Mass is a true Sacrifice.  
Quoeres. May not the Sacrifice of the Cross be called the Sacrifice of the New Testament in this sense, that CHRIST made his Testament there?  
Answer. No. For I shall prove in the next Chapter that he made it at the unbloody Sacrifice, he offered after the eating of the Paschal Lamb.    

SUBSECTION II.  
The Sacrifice of the Mass, proved by the notion of a true and proper Sacrifice.  
A True and proper Sacrifice, is an oblation of a sensible thing made to God by a Priest, in acknowledgement of his Supreme Dominion over all with some change of the Host or Victim.  
But the Sacrifice of the Mass is such; then 'tis a true and proper Sacrifice.  
1. The Sactifice of the Mass is an oblation 2. Made to God, viz. alone. 3. Of a semble thing, whether you consider the Bread, the substitutive Host, about which (in imitation of the Old Law preparing the victim, as by washing the Sheep in the probatick Pond afore they were Sacrificed, etc.) instead of the Body of Christ, it not being there till the Consecration, the Ceremonies of preparing the Host are made by laying the Preist's hands over it, etc. Exod. 29. v. 15.  
Or whether you consider the Body of Christ under the species, or Forms of Bread and Wine, the principal Host of this Sacrifice, which also, the Consecration being made, is sensibly known by the species to be there.  
4: 'Tis made by a Priest, viz. a man called by God or his Church, lawfully ordained, and anointed for that function. Exod. 30. v. 30. And having his hands consecrated for that end, Exod. 29. v. 9 Clothed with sacred and mysterious vestments, (as Aron, Exod. 18.) significative, and relating to the action he is going about.  
5. In acknowledgement of God's Supreme Dominion over Life and Death with some change of the Host or Victim, signifying that Dominion, or making you mind it. This is done by the destruction of the substance of the Bread, and by Christ's being there mystically immolated, or by his being there by the force of the Sacred words, modo mortuo, after a Dead manner.  
If; because we call the Sacrifice of the Mass a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, you will acknowledge no other Host in it, but the principal Host, to wit, the Body and Blood of Christ, which the Priest seems to insinuat when offering the Bread, he says to the B. Trinity, suscipe Sancte Pater, receive Holy Father, (where Father is taken Essentially for the whole Trinity, not for the first Person.) This immaculate Host, and offerrimus, etc. We offer to thee O Lord the chalice of Salvation, etc. Those terms supposing properly for the Body of Christ and his Blood, not for mere Bread and Wine; if, I say, you will not have this Bread and Wine to be any ways the Host, but only the Body and Blood of Christ, in place of which this Bread and Wine are offered. And then you begin to quibble about the real change of the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice, denying any real mutation of them to be made in it.  
I answer then with Vasquez. That there is no necessity of a real mutation in the thing which is offered in this Sacrifice, Because the mutation in the thing offered, is only necessary in as much as God is signified by it Author of Life and Death; therefore if there be any oblation by which without the real immutation of the thing offered God may be denotated, or signified Author of Life and Death, 'twill be a true Sacrifice: Such is the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ, than it is a true Sacrifice.  
For, the immutation is not the formal reason of a Sacrifice, but only some thing required, Ex parte signi, in the Sign, that it may be fit to signify the formal term of the Sacrifice, to whom tends, and in whom ends the Sacrifice, which is God as Author of Life and Death: Now in the consecration, the Death of Christ is represented in this same, that by the force of such an action, the Body is made separate from the Blood and consequently ut sic, as so, or as such an action, it signifies, God Author of Life and Death.  
I know, Amicus says, that this signification of the Almighty power of God over Life and Death, fundari debet in aliqua real mutatione rei quae significatur, that it, aught to be founded in some real mutation of the thing which is Sacrificed. To whom my answer is, In other Sacrifices which have not the force to signify God Author of Life and Death without their own Destruction, 'tis true; in the Eucharist, I deny it for the reason I gave afore. But if this my answer does not satisfy you, know that the Sacrament is destroyed, or ceases to be what it was by the Preist's consuming of it. In which consumption, you see a real change of the Victim, which is not only Christ's Body and Blood, but Christ's Body and Blood joined to the species, which whole is destroyed by the alteration of the species in the Stomach.   

SUBSECTION III.  
The Mass proved by the Tradition of our Country.  
WIll we condemn the Piety of our Ancestors, marking the chief terms of the Year by a singular devotion above all other Nations to this Mystery, with the name of Mass or Oblation, (Missah in Hebrew signifies Oblation or Offering,) as to mind us to offer up then a Mass of Thanksgiving either for special Spiritual favours, bestowed upon mankind on those days, or for Rents or Fruits of the Earth coming in at those times. We have upon record, that all the tenants that held Lands of the Cathedral Church of York, which is dedicated to S. Peter, ad vincula, which is the first of August, were bound by their Tenure to bring a Lamb alive into the Church at high Mass on that day, hence they called, and likely we from them, the first of August, Lammas-day.  
Since we are speaking of Lambs, I mind that in the written Law the Children of Israël were commanded, Exod. 29. v. 38. to Sacrifice every day a Lamb in the morning and another at night. Why? (supposing the general reasons of a Sacrifice,) but moreover to foresignify by the offering of a Lamb the daily offering of the Lamb of God in the Law of Grace, which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass.   

SUBSECTION IU.  
The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Scripture.  

PROOF I.  
THe Evangelical Prophet, Isaiah c. 61. v. 6. Prophesied that there would be Priests in the New Law, who would be called the Ministers of our GOD, and consequently he Prophesied that there would be Sacrifices, no other (beside that of the Cross) but the Sacrifice of the Mass; therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true Sacrifice.  
Quaeres Why are Protestant Churchmen, called Ministers, and not Priests.  
Answer. Because they have no Sacrifice to which Preist-hood relates. Every High Priest, says S. Paul,. is ornained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices. Hebrews 8 v. 3.  
Note, the difference between the high Priest and low Priest, is not in their offering of Sacrifice (which is common to both,) for the low Priests in the Old Law offered Sacrifice as well as the High Priest; but in this, that the High Priest has a superiority over the Low Priests, and a special assistance of the Holy Ghost to judge in matter of religion. Sacerdotes (says Guliel. Whitaker contra Grego. Martin.) two verè & propriè sunt qui Sacrificia faciunt, qualis fuit Aaron & Aaronis filii & Melchisedech, & quem illi adumbrabant: that is, Priests truly and properly are they that offer Sacrifices such as was Aaron, and the Sons of Aaron, and Melchisedeck, and Christ whom they prefigured .. So that Protestant Doctor.   

PROOF II.  
The Mass was also foretell by the Prophet Malachi, c. 1. v. 11. where having reprehended the ancient Priests for their offering polluted Sacrifices; God promises that a pure Sacrifice shall be offered among the Gentiles, in these words, from the rising of the Sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering. Which cannot be understood but of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, which for the Sanctity of the Victim, is called pure, and for the universality of the offerers is said to be offered in all places from the rising to the going down of the Sun. Again it's called pure, says the Council of Trent. Sess. 22. cap. 1. because it cannot be defiled either by the malice or unworthiness of the Offerers.  
Mr. Rodon's interpreting Malachi by what S. Paul says, Rom. 12. v. 1. and 15. v. 16. is of no force, since S. Paul's offering the repenting Gentiles, and they their repentance, and the Romans the like, or other acts of virtue by which their bodies became living Hosts breathing the service of God, are only Metaphorical Sacrifices: Whereas the Prophet foretells a true Sacrifice like to that of the jews; and such is that of the Eucharist of which S. Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 10. v. 20. and 21. The things which the Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God, And I would not that you should have Fellowship with them. (Viz. eating a part of what they Sacrifice and so becoming Participant of their Altar.) For, Are not they who eat the Hosts partakers of the Altar, v. 18. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table (that is Altar) and of the Table of Devils to wit eat the Body of Christ which we sacrifice on our Altar and a part of the beast which they sacrifice on theirs. Don't wonder that S. Paul calls the Altar Table, because on the Altar, on which we Sacrifice, is set down to the faithful the Bread of Life and the food of our Souls: so the Prophet Malachi called also the Altar Table chap. 1. v. 12. having said before (to the wicked Priests) v. 7. Ye offer polluted Bread upon my Altar.  
Be pleased to read this chapter from the 14 verse to the 22. where the Apostle dehorts and fears the Christians from eating of meats offered to Idols, because, who eats of the sacrifice offered to Idols is partaker of the Altar of Idols or a worshipper of Idols; as who eats of the altar of Chrst, and is partaker of the altar of Christians, or a worshipper of Christ; and, as who eats of the altar of the Jews is partaker of the altar of the Jews, or a follower of the Mosaik law. And consequently since the Christians would not be, nor be thought Idolaters, they ought not to eat of meats offered to Idols.  
But here take notice, he mentions three tables or altars; one, upon which the Gentiles sacrifice to Idols; a second on which the Jews offered victims of beasts to God; and a third on which Christians offer the Body and Blood of Christ, and consequently this oblation of the Eucharist in S. Paul's opinion is a true sacrifice, as that of the Jews, and that of the Gentiles. But, were offering of the Prayers, and other such acts of virtue Sacrifices; yet they are not the Sacrifice of which Malachy speaks, because the youare not pure: not in themseleves, as Protestants avow, nor pure because they are accepted as pure, for, say I, their impurity hinders them to be accepted, it being as much as to offer God polluted Bread upon his Altar, which was rejected Malach. 1. v. 7.   

PROOF III.  
What the prophet Malachy foretell, our Saviour insinuated after, Io. 4. v. 19 to the Samaritan Woman: She finding that he was a prophet, proposed to him the Schism which was then between the Samaritans and the Jews about the place of Sacrifice. The Samaritans held they ought to Sacrifice upon mount Garazim; the Jews, that they ought all to Sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem. Our Lord gave her a twofold answer; the first as to the place of Sacrifice; the second as to the manner of it. The hour or time is come, (that is, will be immediately after my death) says he, when ye shall neither adore (that is, Sacrifice) on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. (to wit, only) As if he had said hereafter the true adorers, viz. Christians shall not only offer Sacrifice on this montain or in the temple of Jerusalem, but they shall build Churches in every place to Sacrifice in, as Malachy foretold.  
Note, by the word Adore, is here meant Sacrifice for the Jews did not deny, but that they might adore simply and pray God every where; but they held it was not lawful to Sacrifice but in the Temple of Jerusalem: therefore they came far and near to Jerusalem, as the Eunuch to adore, that is to Sacrifice Act. 8. v. 27. And some Gentiles Io. 12. v. 20. had gone up, viz. to Jerusalem, to adore, that is to Sacrifice on a festival day, because there only was the place of Sacrifice. As to the manner; the true adorers shall adore, that is Sacrifice in spirit and truth. In truth contrary to the samaritans, who sacrificed to a false God; and in Spirit otherwise then those Jews of whom God complained that they honoured him with their mouths, but that their hearts were far from him. The true adorers than shall accompany their outward offering to the true God with an inward devotion of mind.   

PROOF IU.  
The sacrifice of the Eucharist foretell by Malachy and insinuated by Christ to the Samaritan woman, S. Paul. declares by a particular circumstance of the Christian's partaking of it to the exclusion of the Jews, who serving the tabernacle were debarred from sharing in the Host, which came of the altar of the Christians. We, (viz. Christians) have an altar, says he, Hebr. 13. of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle. Note; Altar (or as the Greek text hath thusiasteerion, that is, That place on which the sacrifice is made or put; from the verb histeemi I put, and thusia an Host from the verb thuoo I Sacrifice) and a sacrifice, are relatives, one of which cannot be conceived without the other: Quid est altar (says Opt. mil. lib. 6.) nisi sedes & sanguinis & corporis Christi? That is. What is an Altar but the seat of the Blood and Body of Christ? If then the Christians in S. Paul's time had an Altar, they had also a true sacrifice: no other but that of the Eucharist: then the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a true sacrifice.   

PROOF V.  
Infin; What Malachy foretold, our Saviour insinuated to the Samaritan woman, and S. Paul declares 1. Cor. 10. S. Luke stronly confirms relating to us, Acts. 13. v. 2. the practice of this sacrifice; in the Apostles, leitourguntoon de auton, they (as Erasmus himself explanes) sacrificing to the Lord and fasting; which Fasting is premitted by apostolical tradition to the ordination of Priests. See S. Chrysost. on this place. 'Tis also to be remarked that S. Luke describing the sacrifice of Zacharie Luc. 1. v. 23. makes use of the word leitourgias to signify his sacrifice or ministry. And again the same S. Luke hath This Cup the New Testament in my Blood, which Cup IS poured out for you. Note 1. he says, The Cup is poured out; that was not done at the Cross, for the Vessel, out of which the Blood of Christ was poured there, was his Body; here the CUP. 2. The present time IS poured out declares, the pouring out at the last Supper, not on the Cross. 3. FOR YOU and not TO YOU, signifies an Oblation or Sacrifice. 4. The pouring out was a Libation or Sacrifice.    

SUBSECTION V.  
The Sacrifice of the Mass, proved by the Authority of the Holy Fathers.  
AFter I have proved by Reason, the Notion of a True Sacrifice, the Tradition of our Country, and Scripture the Sacrifice of the Mass, I ask: Is not that to be believed which was believed by Christians in primitive times, or the first five Centuries? I ask again: Who can tell us best what they believed? Men, who are living now with us, or tho●●, who lived in the same times renowned both for Piety and Learning? If you grant those ancients can best tell us what, they and the People of their time believed, consult their works left to posterity, and you'll find  

In the first age.  
1. ST. Paul, We have an Altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle. Hebr. 13. v. 10. And 1 Cor. 9 v. 13. They that serve the Altar, participate with the Altar. Note, the English Bible 1562. hath here for Altar, Temple, though Norton's of 1625. hath Altar.  
2. St. Andrew, who said to the Tyrant Aegaeas, I daily Sacrifice to the Almighty GOD the Immaculate Lamb, who persevers living and entire. although he be truly Sacrificed and his Flesh truly eaten by the People. This is related in the Book of his Passion, written by his Disciples, who little dreamt then that Protestants in these days should question this truth.  
3. St. Denis, speaking of the Eucharist Eccl. Hier. cap. 3. says, O Divine and Holy Sacrifice. And again in the same Chapter, Hence the Divine Priest standing at the Divine Altar. I know Calvin denies that Book to be St. Denis his, but I preser the Authority of St. john Damas'. Lib. 1. de Fide orth. cap. 12. Of the second general Council of Nice approved, anno 787. under Hadrian the first: Citing in Can. 2. a Testimony out of the Eccl. Hier. under the name of St. Denis, whom the Council calls Magnum, Great, and of others to his, vide Gual. 1. Saec. pag. 40.  
4, St. Ignatius Martyr. I do not delight in the nourishment of Corruption, nor the pleasures of this Life; I will the Bread of God the Heavenly Bread which is the Flesh of Christ the Son of God. Epist. ad Rom. beyond the middle. This passage is not for the sacrifice but proves strongly that the sacrament is the true Body of Christ.   

In the second age.  
1. ST. justin Martyr in his Dial. with Tryph. post medium. Neither doth God receive Hosts from any but from his Priests: All than who in his Name (offer) the Sacrifices which Jesus left or signified to be made, that is, in the Eucharist, of Bread and Wine which are made in every place of the Earth by Christians, etc.  
2. S. Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. speaking of Christ, says, Giving council to his Disciples to offer to God the first Fruits of his Creatures, he took created Bread and gave thanks, saying, This is my Body, and likewise the Cup, etc. he confessed to be his Blood, and he taught a new OBLATION of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles Offers to God through the whole World.  
3. Tertullian lib. ad Scap. Cap. 2. We Sacrifice for the safety of the Emperor but to our God and his. Item. lib. de Ora. cap. 14. he makes mention of standing at the Altar and Sacrifice.  
4. Again: What meant the Pagans objecting to Christians their murdering of a Child in their divine Worship and eating of its Flesh. Dicimur sceleratissimi (says Tertul. apolog. advers. Gen. cap. 7.) the Sacramento infanticidii & pabulo inde. We are called most wicked for murdering a Child in our Sacrament and eating of its Flesh. Would we have been called most wicked for eating a piece of Bread and drinking a Cup of Wine in Remembrance that Christ died for us? Or was this a Mystery to be concealed from the Cathecumen?   

In the third age.  
1. ORigines speaking of the Eucharist, lib. 8. contra Celsum. Says, We set forth with thanksgiving for the benefits received Bread made the Body, viz. of Christ. And Hom. 23. in Num. he says, It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the continual Sacrifice who hath dedicated himself to a continual and perpetual chastity.  
2. S. Cyprian Epist. 66. ad Clerum & Plebem Furnitanorum, speaking of the Duty of Priests, says, all honoured with Divine Preist-hood ought only to serve the Altar and the Sacrifices and attend to Prayer. And in Caena Domini post med. speaking of the Eucharist, says, This Sacrifice is a perpetual and ever remaining Holocaust.  
3. St. Hippolytus Episcop. & Martyr. in his speech of the end of the World and Antichrist, says, The Churches will grievously mourn (viz. then,) because neither Oblation nor Incense will be offered, and the Liturgy (that is, the Mass) will be extinguished.  
Note, The Greek Fathers by the word Liturgy understand Sacrifice. So St. Paul, Hebr. 9 v. 21. speaking of the Vessels of the Mosaic Sacrifice, calls them ta scevee tees leitourgias, The Vessels of the Liturgy. And Hebr. 10. v. 11. The Priest stood daily leitourgoon, that is, Ministering. See S. Luk's Greek Evang. cap. 1. v. 8.9.23. Note, Liturgy is composed of leeitoes and ergon, that is, public service.   

In the fourth age.  
1. I begin the fourth age with the Testimony of the first general Council of Nice, which Calvin himself lib. 4. Inst. cap. 2. §. 8. professes to embrace and reverence as Holy. The Council can 4. edit. lat. but 18. of the Greek edition, speaks thus, Hoc neque regula neque consuetudo tradidit, etc. Neither rule nor custom has allowed that those who have not power to offer Sacrifice, give the Body of Christ to those who offer.  
2. St. Basil in his 19 hom. which is a speech upon St. Gordius Martyr; beyond the middle inveighs against the profanations of his time, thus, The House of Prayer was cast down by the hands of profane Men, the Altars were overthrown, neither was there Oblation nor Incense.  
3. St. cyril of Hier. Cathec. 4. Mystag. nigh the beginning, Knowing says he, and having for certain that the Bread which is seen by us is not Bread, although the taste feels it to be Bread, but to be the Body of Christ: And that the Wine which is seen by us, although it appear to the sense of the taste to be Wine, is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ.  
4. St. Ambrose lib. 5. Epist. 33. vel 13. ad Marcel. says, This morning fell out a disturbance in the Church, I continued my Office, I begun to say Mass.  
5. St. Optatus Mileu. initio lib. 6. contra Parmes. Donat. says, What is so Sacrilegious as to break and raze the Altars of GOD on which you yourselves Sacrificed afore.   

In the fifth age.  
1. ST. john Chrisost. hom. 83. in Math. beyond the middle, says, Let us therefore believe God every where, nor mutter against him, although what he says seem absurd to our sense and thought etc. Since than he said, This is my Body, let us not doubt at all but believe. And a little after, O how many say, I would see his form and shap! (he answers) behold you see him, you touch him, and eat him. And in the beginning of his Liturgy which is in his fifth tome, he brings in the Priest praying thus, O Lord, &c, Strengthen me that inculpably assisting at thy Altar I may end the unbloody Sacrifice.  
2. S. Austin. Conc. 3. in Psal. 33. He (Christ) in's ituted of his Body and Blood a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech. And in the 11. ch. of his Manual he prays thus, Most sweet JESUS, etc. I pray that while, though unworthy, I assist at your Altars desiring to offer to you that admirable and Heavenly Sacrifiee worthy of all reverence and devotion, etc. S. Aug. con. 1. in Psal. 33. Nondum erat Sacrificium Corporis & sangu. nis Domini, quod Fideles norunt & qui Evangelium legerunt; quod Sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe Terrarum. The Sacrifi- of the Body and Blood of our Lord which is known to the faithful and to those who have read the Scriptures was not yet, which Sacrifice is now spread over the whole World.  
3. S. Cyril of Alexan. expounding those words of Malachi, In every place is Sacrificed and offered to my name a pure offering, Malach. 1. v. 8. says, He (viz. God) fortel●s that his name shall be great and Illustrious among all mortals through the World, and that in every place and Nation, a pure and unbloody Sacrifice shall be offered to his Name.  
Now hear S. Augustin speaking of the Holy Fathers who were the chief members of the Church of Christ in their time Tom. 7. contrr Jul. Pelag. l. 2. cap. ult. What they found in the Church, they held: what they learned, they taught: what they received from their fathers, this they delivered to their Children, etc. Nondum vobiscum certabamus, says he & eye pronunciantibus vicimus. We did not as yet then debate with you, but yet by what they said then, we now win the cause.  
Let a sober judgement remember that Calvin one of our greatest Enemies, calls lib. 4. inst. cap. 7. 22. Gregory Pepe and S. Bernard Holy men. I infer if they were Holy men in his judgement, than their faith was Holy, because without Faith, (viz. true Faith) 'tis impossible to please God: yet they believed the Sacrifice of the Mass: witness what S. Greg. says Hom. 8. on the Evang. Because we are to celebrate three Masses to day, (viz. on Christmas day) my discourse on the Gospel will be short. And S. Bernard in his second Sermon of all saints. Now, saith he, I must end because High Mass which is not yet said, calls us. And if Calvin judged their faith Holy, can he judiciously challenge us for embracing it, nay is it not best to follow the footsteps of Holy men?    

SUBSECTION VI.  
The Authority of the Church, grounded on her infallibility is a strong argument to believe what she asserts.  
MY last Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass is this. The infallible Church of Christ hath always believed, and still believes that in the Eucharist is the true real Body and Blood of Christ, and that in her Liturgy or Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice; and therefore I believe it.  
That the teaching Church of Christ is infallible in what she teaches, as matter of Faith, is clear out of the 4. Chapter to the Ephesians, where S. Paul says that Christ made some Pastors and Doctors, v. 11. Why? That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine. Hence we Infer,  
Then they are infallible in what they teach us as matter of Faith. For if I thought them fallible, I might still waver, fear and be ready to be carried away with the Wind of another man or Angel's Doctrine, which would make void the aim of Christ, in giving us those Pastors and Teachers, that we might not waver.  
Thus it is made manifest from Scripture that the teaching Church of Christ is infallible; and also clear from reason, grounded on the same Scripture, that this teaching Church is the Roman. For since no other teaching Church than the Roman so much as claims to this infallibility in teaching; and infallibility in teaching, must be found in some Church to make good the words of St. Paul, and of the Scripture in many other places, it follows by a necessary consequence that it is to be found in the Roman. And so that in the Mass is made a true Sacrifice, because she has ever; and still asserts it.  
That the taught Church is also infallible in her assent, to what she is taught by those Pastors in matter of Faith, or in her receiving their Doctrine is also gathered from these words of Christ speaking to the Church, he that hears you, hears me, Luc. 10. v. 16. for, by that promise, if I infallibly assent to the Doctrine of Christ, I also infallibly assent to the Doctrine of his Church.  
If a Protestant think he can give such a turn to these passages that they appear to have no force to prove the Church's infallibility.  
I ask him, if he be infallibly sure that the Protestant Church is the true Church of Christ, or not? If not, than what he believes may be false, and consequently it may be false that Christ is God; in a word he has no Divine Faith, which is an assent to what we believe, for the Testimony of God above all, that is, an assent so farm, that it stands  against all the arguments of Men or Angels, ad Gal. 1. v. 8. But the Protestant's assent is not such, then 'tis not an assent of Divine Faith. When Protestants say they have an objective infallibility, but not subjective, that is, that the object of their Faith, viz. God, and other Evangelical Truths are in themselves infallible, while they the Subjects or Receivers of these Truths are fallible; they seem to say something in words, but in reality they say nothing, as to the controversy in question. For the question is whether a Christian is subjectively infallible, that is, whether or no his understanding be the Subject of an infallible assent in matters of Faith, or whether it produces in itself in matter of Faith an assent infallible, or which stands  against what an Angel, not from Hell, but from Heaven, (if that were possible) might oppose to the contrary; by reason of which assurance the Christian is denominated infallible in his assent. S. Paul says, yes, saying although an Angel from Heaven Evangelize to you beside that which we have Evangelized to you, he be Cursed. This not standing with Protestant principles they must either leave them, or avow they are not of S. Paul's Religion.  
If he says he is infallibly sure that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion, I ask from whence he has that infallibility? Not from the Church, as he avows; not from the Scripture, as I prove.  
1. Because he can't so much as Read Scripture in order to know infallibly that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion, afore he is infallibly sure that the Spirit, that Guides him in Reading it, is the true Spirit, (for if it be a false Spirit, he will make that appear white, which is black, and black, which is white,) and again he can't know infallibly that 'tis the true Spirit that Guides him, afore he has tried it by Scripture, Io. 4. v. 1.  
Thus he must know the Scripture by his Spirit, and his Spirit by the Scripture, which is to make a manifest Circle, and prove idem per idem, the same by the same, while he proves ultimately that his Spirit is a good Spirit, because it is a good Spirit. It's a good Spirit, says he, because its approved by the Scripture taken in the true sense; and it is the true sense he takes it in, says he again, because his Spirit tells him so, which is equivalently to say, my Spirit is a good Spirit, since none but a good Spirit can assure us of the true sense of Scripture. So a 1. ad ultimum, from the first to the last he proves it to be a good Spirit, because its a good Spirit, which is ridiculous.  
2. You can't be infallibly sure from Scripture, that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion, afore you are infallibly sure that the sense in which you understand it, is the true sense; but of this you can never be infallibly sure; than you can never be infallibly sure from Scriptrue, that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion.  
I prove the minor. A Body of Men, (I mean the Roman Catholic Doctors,) using the same means that you use, to know the true sense of Scripture, and understanding it (as we Romanists) in a sense quite contrary to you, are not according to you infallibly sure that we have the true sense. Then neither you using only the same means we use, are infallibly sure that you have the true sense, when you udderstand it in a sense quite contrary to us.  
Or tell me what it is, that makes you hit infallibly upon the true sense more than we. If you say 'tis this, that you are of the Elect, and the Elect are guided by the Spirit of God, which makes you see the Truth.  
1. Who told you that you are of the Elect? If you say, the Spirit which you have received, gives Testimony to your Spirit that ye are the Sons of God, Rom. 8. v. 16.  
I Answer from Io. c. 4. v. 1. you ought to try that Spirit, afore ye trust it, and so ye return into your former Circle.  
2. Suppose you are of the Elect, some of the Elect have not been always guided by the Spirit of God, as St. Paul: Nay after he had received the Spirit of God, he was feared to lose it again, saying, I chastise my Body and bring it under servitude, lest after I have Preached to others I become a reprobate myself, 1 Cor. 9 v. 27. How know you then that at this time you are guided by the Spirit of God, especially if it be true that a man knows not whether he be worthy of Love, or hatred? Eccl. 9.1.  
S. john, if you would hear him, would tell you a better way to try your Spirit, to wit, by the Church's approbation of it; Io. 4. v. 6. We (viz. Governors of the Church) are of God, he that knows God hears us, (viz. Governors of the Church) he that is not of God hears us not, in this we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error. To wit, those who are led by the Spirit of Truth, submit themselves to the Church; whereas those who let themselves be guided by the Spirit of Error, will not this submission, but rest in their own Judgement, and by this wedding themselves to their own Judgement, they become Heretics, being condemned of themselves, as S. Paul speaks, Tit. 3. v. 11. Other great Sinners are cast out of the Church by the Governors of the same, but the Heretic he retires or withdraws himself by his singular and self Judgement, contrary to the Judgement and Sentiment of the Catholic Church.  
If you ask me what gives a man so much security in addressing himself to the Church, as we are advised by S. john c. 4. v. 6?  
Answer. 'Tis, that she shows herself by her marks to be the Oracle of God to Men, and as it were his mouth by which he speaks sensibly to Men. 1 Thes. 2.12. Her marks are these.  
1. Her perpetual visibility, Math. 5. v. 14. 2. Her antiquity, jerem. 6. v. 16. 3. Her easy way to Heaven, for the Ignorant as well as the Learned by following only Her Direction, Isa. 35.8. 4. Her having converted all Nations (which now acknowledge Christ) from Paganism to the Christian Religion, Isa. c. 2. v. 2. and chap. 60. v. 1. 5. 11. 5. Her working of Miracles, Mark. 16. v. 17. Note, 'tis not necessary that every one to believe, see Her Miracles, 'tis enough they be very credibly related to them. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed, Io. 20. v. 29. and Mark. 16. v. 14. Our Saviour blamed his Disciples for their not believing the relation of Mary Magdalen, and others of his Resurrection. 6. Her unity, and having an efficacious means to conserve unity among Her Children by their submission to Her in matter of Faith, and by Her Authority given Her by God to condemn all Heretics, Isa. 54. v. 17. 7. Her being Holy in Her Doctrine which breads People up to Saintity, 1 Petr. 2. v. 9 And who by their lives, show the force of the Grace of the Passion of Christ, (as is seen in many of our Religious Persons,) Ephes. 5. v. 25. and 26. 8. Her being Catholic or universal, spreading through all times, and sending of Her Children to all places to Convert Souls, Math. 28. v. 19 Note, the Roman Church would not justly be called Catholic, if she had not had in all ages from Christ to this present time, a Body of Men; believing all the same Articles of Faith which she believes now. For if they had only believed some of Her Articles, they had not been the same Church with Her. And by this mark all other Congregations pretending to the name of Catholic, are excluded from it. 9 Her having a Succession of infallible Pastors, lawfully descending from S. Peter to this present Pope Innocent the 11. Ephes. 4. v. 11.12.13. 10. Her having a true and proper Sacrifice, foretold Malach. 1. v. 11. All which marks taken together, you will find in no Church, but the Roman, and therefore she is the Church God will have us hear. Math. 18. v. 17.  
For brevity's sake I send you to other Controvertists for a larger explication of those marks.  
I am of opinion that this sole Argument, which proves that the Protestants cannot be infallibly sure, that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion, (not to speak of what I have said beside to the same purpose in this 6. Subsection,) being well weighed in all its parts, and set together in the consideration of a serious well meaning Man, free from Passion and Interest, may make in his understanding (to use Mr. Rodon's expression) the Funeral of the whole Protestant Religion.    

SECTION II.  
The Solution of Objections. Mr. Rodon's Objections against the Sacrifice of the Mass, answered.  
TO his first Argument, saying, that Christ in the institution of the Eucharist, did not Sacrifice nor offer his Body and Blood to his Father, and that in the three Evangelists and St. Paul, there is not the least Foot-step to be seen of a Sacrifice, or Oblation of Christ's Body and Blood.  
Answer. Christ was a Priest, and in acknoledgment of his Father's Supreme Dominion over Life and Death, he put his Body under one Form, viz. of Bread, and his Blood under an other separate Form, viz. of Wine, upon the Altar, having by Consecration destroyed the Substance of Bread and Wine, and so offered them to his Father, for them and others, or the Remission of Sins, if we may believe him, saying to his Disciples, Luke 22. This is my Body which is given Greek didomenon, for you: Which is broken kloomenon, for you: viz. quoad speciem Sacramenti: This is my Blood which IS poured out, Ekkunomenon for you. Neither for you only, but for many; was not this an unbloody Sacrifice?  
Is not there a Foot-step of a Sacrrifice, Hebr. 13. where St. Paul speaks of an Altar; which is a correlative of a Sacrifice?  
He Objects that Bellar: lib. 1. of the Mass chap. 27, confesses that the Oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament (Bellar. hath Sacrifice) but is not of its essence.  
Answer. And so do I too: but telling you withal that the oblation which is made in the Consecration; is of the essence of the Sacrifice: Deo offertur (viz. Christus) says Bellar. That sacred thing (viz. the Holy Host) is offered to God when it is put on the Altar of God, and this one suffices for that part of the essence. lib. 1. de Missa. c. 27. towards the end.  
For Salmeron and Baronius his putting the Sacrifice of the Eucharist among unwritten traditions. Answer. They do not deny it to be written also. Some things the Apostles have delivered to us by writ, word, and practise, as the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Baptism adultorum of adults that is, of those who are come to a full age: others only by word and practice, as the Baptism of Infants.  
The belief of three persons in the H. Trinity is it only an unwritten tradition? If so, and you believe it, why may not you as well believe the unwritten tradition of the Sacrifice of the Mass? If you say 'tis also written. I answer. And so is the Sacrifice of the Mass in clearer terms, for which I attest your own Conscience.  
A strange thing, says Mr. Rodon, that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church (for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass.  
Answer. that's false we require moreover they live a good life, and if they fall in Sins they confess them &c.) cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ  
Answer. If an Arian should say to him, It's a strange thing that the Godhead of Christ who is the foundation of the Church cannot be found in all the Scriptures: Mr. Rodon would answer; you are deceived, it is found there, but your pride in wedding yourself to your own judgement hinders you to see it. So say I to him: the sacrifice of the Mass is found in scripture to have been instituted, and practised by Christ himself and his Apostles, Luc. 22. This is my Body which is given for you. That is, offered to my eternal Father for you, and commanded by Christ to his Apostles, Do this in remembrance of me; which they did, Act. 13. As they ministered to the Lord: the Greek word leitourgountoon is turned by Erasmus himself Sacrificing Remark the Apostles ministered to our Lord when they Sacrificed and ministered to the People when they gave them the Sacrament. And Heb. 13. v. 10. St. Paul says, We have an Altar whereof they have no right to Eat who serve the Tabernacle. Now an Altar relates to a Sacrifice as I said, so since Christians had Altars in S. Paul's time they had also a Sacrifice: no other but that of the Eucahrist: then the oblation of it to the eternal Father is a true Sacrifice, since a Sacrifice is a visible offering of a sensible thing to God by a Priest, And to eat relates to the Fucharist, not to the Sacrifice of the Cross. All had right if they pleased, to eat, that is, to believe and participate of Christ's death: but Christians only have right to eat of the Altar of the Eucharist, not the Jews.  
Thus you see the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be found in scripture though Mr. Rodon merited, for his vanishing away in his own thoughts refusing to submit them to the Church, to have his heart obseured Rom. 1. v. 21. and to have this Mystery (which is revealed only to little ones, or the Humble) hid from him. Math. 11. v- 25.  
From the Testimony of the H. Scripture, the Council of Trent hath declared to all Christians that it is an arrticle of our faith. Sess. 22. de sacrif. Miss. can. 1. 2. 3. We have also the unanimous consent of all the Holy Fathers.  
Is then that to be called only an unwritten tradition, which a General Council, and all the Holy Fatthers and Scripture itself attests?  
Object 1. St. Paul, Eph. 4. mentioning the offices, which Christ left his Church, makes no mention of Sacrificers.  
Answer. When St. Paul, Eph. 4. v. 11. says that Christ made some Apostles, he mentioned Sacrificers sufficiently, because to Sacrifice is one of the frunctions of an Apostle. Neither doth he mention Baptisers in that place it being sufficiently understood by his making some Pastors, of whom one duty is to Baptise. Neither had the same Apostle writing to Timothee and Titus about the duty of a Bishop, need to instruct them to Sacrifice since they had been newly instructed as to that, when he made them Bishops, and were now in a daily exercise of that function. Moreover Non valet consequentia ab authoritate negata, no good tonsequence is drawn from a negative or denied authority,  
Obj. 2. The thing Sacrificed must fall under our senses.  
Answer. I grant it; and tell him, That the thing Sacrificed is the Sacrament, or Christ's Body with the Species of Bread, and not Christ's Body alone: Which Sacrament is not hid, but is visible by its Species, though a part of it, viz. Christ's Body, be not seen; just as the Substance of Bread visible by its species, is not seen.  
Note, then that though the Body of Christ is not cognizable (afore the Consecration) by this visible Species of Bread; yet the Consecration being made, the Sacrament is cognizable to the Faithful by it, because this Species belongs now as much to the Sacrament, being a part of it, as afore it belonged, and was a part of the visible Bread.  
Hence it is clear, that the destruction or change of the Species suffices for the verifying of this proposition, The thing Sacrificed is changed or destroyed: For if it were necessary to have the whole thing destroyed, the Material part as well as the formal part of a thing, there had never been a true Sacrifice: Which to say is absurd. It suffices that the whole, or the totum, which was before cease to be, by the change which the Priest makes of it.  
You'll say: the Council of Trent says the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that of the Cross are the same.  
Answer. As to the substance of the Victim, I grant: As to the manner of Sacrificing or Sacrification I deny.  
The action by which Christ was offered on the Cross differs effentially from the action by which he is offered in the Sacrament: since that was a real destruction of the union between the Body and the Soul; this, but a Sacramental one: but a Sacrifice if you regard the thing signifying consists chief in the Immolating action Sacrificium exparte rei significantis ex actione immolativa maximè constat. Then if this Immolating action be of a different kind in the Sacrifice of the Cross, and that of the Altar; the Sacrifices also will be of a different kind, as to the sacrificing action, though the same, as to the thing offered, and the last term signified, which is God as author of Life and Death.  
Note in the adductive or productive action of Christ's Body and Blood is pointed out that two fold dominion of God? of Death, by the destruction of the Bread and Wine: Of Life, by the production of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
Note 2. Though bloody or unbloody are accidents to the Body of Christ, they are not accidents to a Bloody or Unbloody Sacrifice, as although Colour be an accident to the Wall, 'tis not an accident to a coloured Wall; so that if you destroy colour in it, you destroy the Essence of that whole which was before. viz. a coloured Wall.  
Hence it follows, first that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of an Accident, but of a whole Sacramental being rising out of Christ's Body and the Species of Bread, and that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrifice, is the same with that which was produced or made by the Consecration, viz. the Sacrament of the Body of Christ under the species of Bread.  
Secondly, it does not follow that the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offered in the Priest's stomach only, for the putting of it on the Altar is the offering of it; which is done by the Consecration, by which also the chief part of the thing Sacrificed, viz. Christ, is Mysteriously deprived of Life, while his Body and Blood (if we regard the force of the words only) are put separately under the species of Bread and Wine, which Mystical separation, and putting of him there after a Dead manner; is made sensible to us by our hearing the words, or the Priest's adoration of the Host, and his laying it on the Altar which is an offering of it.  
Thus you have the offering and sensible change of the thing offered, which are of the Essence of the Sacrifice, afore the consumption of the Host in the Preist's stomach; ac in the pacific Sacrifices of the Old Law, the Victim was offered and killed afore a part of it was consumed by the Priest, and a part by the Person who offered.  
But if you think the sensible change of the thing offered in the Eucharist, is not sufficiently made afore the communion of the Priest, than I say this change also is sufficiently made afore he parts from the Altar; for 'tis not required that the species be quite destroyed, no more then in Libations or Sacrifices of Liquid things. For example, in the effusion of Wine on the ground, the thing did not presently cease to be what it was, but ceased to be capable of the use men make of it, and so was looked upon as morally destroyed; the same I say of the species of the H. Host.  

SUBSECTION I.  
Mr. Rodon's passages out of S. Paul to the Heb. answered.  
YOu'll Object: Hebr. 9 v. 22. almost all things are by the Law purged with Blood, and without shedding of Blood there is no Remission. Note: He doth not say of Sins, for the Remission which was made in the Old Law, by the Blood of Beasts, was only Remission of a Legal uncleanness and temporal Pain, but not of Sin; for 'tis impossible, says St. Paul, for Sins to be taken away by the Blood of Bulls and Goats, Hebr. 10. v. 4. It was therefore necessary that the Paterus (viz. the Tabernacle or Old Testament and People and Priests living under them,) of things in the Heavens, (that is, of the New Testament or the Church of Christ, as is clear out of the 8. chap. v. 5.) should be purified with these, viz. Sacrifices of the Old Law, but the Heavenly things themselves, viz. the People of Christ, with better Sacrifices, (viz. that of the Cross and that of the Mass, for that on the Cross was only one) than these.  
Answer. From this passage nothing is brought against the Mass, although the Sins of the Church of Christ figured by the Synagogue be said to be purged by Blood, for the Sacrifice of the Mass affords not a total and complete Remission, but presupposes the merits of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross, of which it is only an application; and so it is true that without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission: And thus Heavenly things, viz. the Church of Christ, is purified with more excellent or better Sacrifices, viz. that of the Cross meriting the Remission of all the Sins of Men, and that of the Mass, applying this Ransom of Christ to Men. And this is the force of that word Sacrifices in the plural number. And don't tell me that the Sacrifice of the Cross is called Sacrifices in the plural number as Baptism, which is but one, is called Baptisms in the plural number, Hebr. 6. v. 2. For the Baptisms there mentioned are the three Baptisms, viz. of Water, of Blood, and of the Holy Ghost, of which the Catechumen were instructed in their Catechism, or first Lessons of Christian Doctrine: And these are different as to their manner, and remote matter.  
You Object: Hebr. 10. v. 16. I will put my Laws into their Hearts and in their minds will I write them, and their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more, and where Remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin, and consequently there is no need of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
Answer. I explain the words of St. Paul, that is, in the New Law, I shall pour such abundant Graces into the Hearts of some, that they shall so abhor their former Sins, that I shall remember them no more; as those of a Magdalen, an Austin, etc. to punish them with eternal fire, and that for the merits of my Son. Now where Remission of those is, there is no more offering for Sin. That is, as a new Ransom, or an other Ransom than that Christ hath given, its true: As an application of that Ransom given, I deny.  
I ask doth not God still remember so far the Sins of some Elect Protestants that he punishes them with a temporal Pain? How often do they avow in their Preaching, that they have sinned, and that the Lord scourges them for their Sins? And do not they offer up their fasts and Prayers to God on their days of Humiliation, to pacific the Lord's Wrath against them? And do not they think that they must believe and repent that the merits of Christ may be applied to them? Why then do they stumble at our Sacrifice or offering in the Mass not as a new price for our Sins, but as an application of the price given, Christ in his Passion not having actually applied it to all, who after have by Faith and other conditions required by him, applied it to themselves, and some in a greater measure than others: Unless they will not have it true, that, as a Star differs from a Star in Light, Saints differ from Saints in Sanctity, 1 Cor. 15. v. 14. and 42.  
From the passages of St. Paul, Hebr. 9 v. 27. and Hebr. 10. v. 1. Mr. Rodon Forms these Arguments. First, the Sacrifice of jesus Christ must not be reiterated; for St. Paul says, that jesus Christ offereth not himself often.  
Answer. jesus Christ offereth not himself often as the price of the Redemption of Mankind, I grant. As the application of that price to men, I deny. Therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, is not the Sacrifice of the Cross reiterated formally as to the manner and end of it, as such, which was to be the Ransom for mankind, I grant: It is not the same materially as to the Host offered, I deny. Now the reiteration which St. Paul denies, is only of the Sacrifice in a Bloody manner which God would have once, (si posuerit pro peccato animam suam, Isa. 53. v. 10.) for the Redemption of man, and no more, because it was sufficient not only for the Redemption of the men of one age, but all ages past and to come: And in this the Sacrifice of Christ excels those of Aaron, which being weak and unsufficient, one was offered for one Sin, and an other for an other, neither could they altogether give a worthy satisfaction for one Sin: so they were not a Remission, but a commemoration, Hebr. 10. v. 3. that men might remember of their Sins, and know that they were not remitted by the Sacrifices they had offered, but that they ought to recur to the Cross and Sacrifice of Christ by Faith and hope in him.  
Secondly: The Apostle adding else he (viz. Christ) should often have suffered from the foundation of the World, makes it appear that Christ cannot be offered without suffering.  
Answer. Cannot be offered in that manner that S. Paul means there, viz. as the Price for the Redemption of mankind without suffering; its true; because the eternal Father would have that offering in a Bloody way: Cannot be offered by way of application of that Redemption, I deny. Hence, when the Apostle says, that jesus Christ offered not himself often, (understand, as the Redemption for Sin;) otherwise he should often have suffered, which is true; because, as I said afore, God would have that offering in a Bloody way.  
Thirdly. These words From the foundation of the World, says Mr. Rodon, are of great weight; for 'tis as much as if the Apostle had said, if the only Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross be not sufficient to take away sins committed after, neither was it sufficient for sins committed before, and so Christ should have suffered From the Foundation of the World.  
I answer. That the Sacrifice of the Cross was all sufficient to take away all Sins past, present, and to come, in as much as was, required on Christ's side, but not in as much as was, and is required on our side, as Protestants must grant; because he required our application of those his merits to ourselves, which Protestants make by Faith and Repentance: We by Faith, receiving the Sacraments, Oblation of the Eucharist commanded by Christ, Do this in remembrance of me, and other good works, S. Paul Colos 1. v. 24. says, I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, etc. He filled up what was wanting, not of Ransom, but of application of it.   

SUBSECTION II. His other Instances answered.  
TO his fourth Instance: I answer the sense of the Apostle's comparison is not that, he feigns to himself, that Christ having died on the Cross, will be no more upon Earth till he come to Judge the Quick and the Dead; but this: As it is decreed in Heaven for the Sin of the first man, that all man Dye and after Death come to Judgement; so Christ having taken upon him the Sins of all men, would once Die, offering himself as a Ransom for them, and after come to Judgement, but not with the burden of Sin or as an Host to be offered for them, but as Judge to call them to an account of the Favour he had done them, by dying for them, to reward, or punish. And thus the Hebrews had no reason to be scandalised that their Messiah died, neither does the Mass infer that he will come in human shape afore the day of Judgement. But what will Mr. Rodon say, to what is said, Act. 23. v. 11. The night following, the Lord stood by him and said be of good cheer, Paul. Was not that in human shape upon Earth, since the Ascension, and afore the day of Judment? And did not St. Paul by his appearing so to him, prove his Resurrection?  
To his fifth Instance: I answer. sacrifices that take away all sins by way of ransom for them ought not to be reiterated, as that of the Cross, I grant. Sacrifices which only take away Sins by way of Application of ransom given for them in the Sacrifice of the Cross, ought not to be reiterated, as that of the Mass, I deny. And in this those two Sacrifices differ the one being by way of Ransom in a Bloody manner; the other by way of commemoration for an application of what was purchased to us by the Sacrifices of the Cross: as if a Child who, to move the King to give him something promised for his father's sake, should show the King his Father's Corselet through which he was shot defending his Majesty's person. Hence gather that the fruit and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Cross dures for ever, affording us for ever the ransom of which more or less is applied to men by every Mass; but the Sacrifice of the Cross alone without any thing done by men is not sufficient for our complete and actual Sanctification: as appears in the Elect who are not Sanctified at least afore they make an act of Faith.  
So when St. Paul says Hebr. 10. v. 14. without one oblation he consummated for ever them that are sanctified, is to be understood as much as was required of him as redeamour, or on his side, that is, in actu primo, in a readiness for application to be made by us, but not inactu secundo, actually applying his merits, which is done by Baptism, the Sacraments, of Penance and Eucharist, and (in the Protestants mind) by Faith.  
To his last instance or 16 Numb. Saying That Christ was constituted high Priest for ever.  
I Answer. 1. Where there is a High Priest there is also a Low Priest, for High and Low are correlatives and a Low Priest must have his Sacrifice: No other but that of the Mass then 'tis a Sacrifice.  
Answer. 2. That Christ hath an unchangeable Preisthood, that he is able to save etc. and that Peter did not succeed to him as Eleazarus succeeded to Aaron, viz. in an equal degree of dignity of Preist-hood, Nay St. Peter was not his successor, yet he was his Vicar supplying his place upon earth, as a Lieutenant does that of his Captain being absent, which does not hinder Christ to be at the same time High-Preist, and High Priest for ever.  
To his reply to our distinctions and saying that the Sacrifice of the Mass differs essentially from the Sacrifice of the Cross, because the natural death of Christ is of the essence of this.  
Answer. That if he takes the Sacrifice of the Mass reduplicatively as the Sacrifice of the Mass, it differs essentially from the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, though Christ, who is the dignifying part in both the Sacrifices be offered in both.  
So Album as Album formally and reduplicatively taken differs essentially from the wall which is white; because white enters necessarily into the conception of a white thing & not into the conception of the wall. So a Sacrifice offered only by way of application, differs essentially from the same thing offered by way of ransom; because Ransom enters the conception of the one, and Application the conception of the other. But the Council of Trent doth not take it so, but that the same Christ is offered in both: neither will the Council have it a mere representation of the Sacrifice of the Crosss, as a picture represents the King; for, the same Christ is really offered in the Mass who was offered on the Cross, though not in the same manner, nor precisely for the same end: neither is it a mere application for the same reason.  
Does a young Prince representing unto his Father upon a stage how he fought in the field differ as to his essence or natural being from himself in the field? No, but only in the manner of being or representative being. And so what is offered in the Mass differs not essentially from what was offered on the Cross.  
You'll say: the Sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and hath force to take away all sins, and therefore there is no need to reiterate it in the Mass.  
I Answer. distinguishing the antecedent in actu primo, that is, in a power appliable, I grant, in actu secundo, that is, in a power applied, I deny. I hope Mr. Rodon will not say the Sacrifice of the Cross takes away all Sin in actu secundo, that is, actually applies Christ's merits to all men: for so there would be no reprobate, none damned. I pass over things answered afore. Note. 1. we bring no more water from the Well then our vessel will hold, though there be more in the well, so the Mass is of more or less profit fit to the Priest according to his disposition and capacity.  
Note. 2. Sins remitted by the Sacrifice of the Mass were expiated by the Sacrifice of the Cross in actu primo, but the expiation was not yet applied in actu secundo, and this is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass A number of such objections you may easily solve by what I have said before in this chapter.  
Mr. Rodon says the application of the Cross may be considered on God's part and Man's part: on God's part when he offers Jesus Christ to us withal his benefits both in his words and Sacraments: on Man's part, when by a true lively faith working by love we embrace Jesus Christ with all his merits offered to us both in his word and Sacraments.  
Answer. First, we find Christ offered for us. Luke. 22. and that was the first Sacrifice of the Mass.  
Secondly. On God's part all was done by Jesus Christ's offering; on our part, our application is indeed by faith operating by good works, one of which is our assistance and offering with the Priests in the Sacrifice of the Mass: The Plaster indeed for our Spiritual wounds is Christ's Body and Blood, the application is made by saith joined to good works, of which the chief is the Sacrifice of the Mass. but to believe only, as I have said so often, is not a sufficient recourse or application of our Spiritual Plaster, or a sufficient laying of it on our wound. Not every on who says Lord Lord etc. Math. 7. v. 21. Faith is only a condition requisite with the works.  
Mr. Rhodon remarks that S. john chap. 3. doth not say whosoever sacrifices him viz. Christ, in the Mass, but whosoever believes, etc. shall have life everlasting.  
Answer. Whosoever belieus as he should do, I grant; for such an one will also do what Christ commanded to be done; if he be a Priest he will offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. If he precisely belieus and no more, which may be done, I deny: he who only cries upon Christ Lord, Lord, believes Christ died for him, otherwise he would not call him Lord; yet he will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, because he doth not add to his belief good works, or do the will of the Eternal Father. Math. 7. v. 21. I also hearty bold with St. Paul that God hath set forth jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood, and that saith in the Blood of Christ is the beginning and disposition to propitiation to our Sins, Snitium substantiae, as he terms it Hebr. 3. v. 14. The beginning of our spiritual subsisting, but it alone will not do the turn; so this does not exclude the Sacrifice of the mass so much spoken of in other places.  
To S. Thomas his authority p. 3. quest. 83. art. 1. I Answer. 1. We are sure St. Thomas of Aquin believed that i●● he Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice since in his Rhyme upon the Mass on Corpus Christi day he speaks thus Docti sacris institutis panem Vinum in Salutis cansecramus Hostiam. that is, being taught by sacred institutions we consecrate Bread and Wine into an Host of Salvation. It's known that an Host relates to sacrifice.) Again in the same he says Dogma datur Christianis quod in Carnem transit Panis & Vinum in sanguinem, that is, 'Tis a decree received among Christians that the Bread is changed into Flesh and the Wine into Blood.  
2. In the conclusion of his tenth article, P. 3. quest. 82. he tells Priests, they must celebrate on the chief feasts principally in order to God, to whom Sacrifice is offered in the Celebration of the Eucharist, warning them of what is said to Priests. 2. Machab. 4. v. 14. Ita ut sacerdotes etc. So that Priests did not apply themselves now to their duty about the Altar but flighting the Temple and neglecting the Sacrifices etc.  
3. St. Thomas in the conclusion of the cited article by Mr. Rodon assigns two ways by which the Mass may be called a Sacrifice. The first, because it represents the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the Picture of Cicero. The second, because by this Sacrament we are made participant of the fruit of our Lord's Passion. As to the first, says he, Christ was Sacrificed in the Figures of the old Law, for example, in the slaughter of Abel, (viz. representatively only.) But as to the second 'tis proper to the Sacrament quoth in ejus celebratione Christus immoletur, because in its celebration Christ is immolated. Note, he was immolated improperly in the first, then, that the second may be distinguished from the first, in it he is Sacrificed properly. And ad 2. in the same article he says we must say, that as the celebration of this Sacrament is a representative Image of the passion of Christ, so the Altar is a representative of the Cross t In which Christ in his own form was immolated. Note that Altar in the Mass relates to a Sacrifice. So if Mr. Rodon will subscribe to St. Thoma's Doctrine touching the Mass he will acknowledge both that in it Bread and Wine are changed into the Flesh and Blood, (viz. of Christ) and that it is a true Sacrifice in which he is Sacrificed in an other's shape or the Form of Bread.  
Quaeres 1. Ought not a living thing, when it is Sacrificed, to be killed?  
Answer. Yes, if it be Sacrificed in its own Form, not if in an other Form, as Christ in the Form of Bread.  
Quaeres 2. Why the Church in the Latin Translation of these words of St. Luke, This is the Cup in my Blood, which is shed for you, putteth, shall be shed for you?  
Answer. To comply with the Intention of Christ, who so offered his Blood at the last Supper, that he would have it daily offered, thenceforth as a commemorative Sacrifice of his Passion, to keep us in mind of his precious Death, Do this in remembrance of me. Item, because we have it so in the Form of Consecration of that Sacrament instituted by our Saviour, and conveyed by Apostolical tradition down to us. So, is shed, and, shall be shed, are both true. Our Saviour who conversed with, and instructed his Apostles forty days, between his Resurrection and Ascension, of things belonging to his Church, could best tell them his mind.  

An OBJECTION, Omitted in the TWO Section of the 7. Chap.  
Object. IF God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the destruction of Christ's Sacramental being only, whereas afore it was not satisfied for sin without the Destruction of his natural being, his Justice will not be always the same: Therefore the Justice of God is not now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being, and consequently the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead.  
Answer. If God's Justice be now satisfied for sin by the Destruction of Christ's Sacramental being as a Ransom for sin, I grant that his Justice will not be the same, if he be satisfied with it; not as with a Ransom, but as an application of the Ransom for sin, I deny that his Justice will not be always the same.  
And as Protestants think that God's Justice is always the same, although they Judge, that it is satisfied with their Faith and Repentance as an application of the Ransom given for them by the Death of Christ, and that it would not be satisfied without them on their side, (for they don't hold that the Sacrifice of the Cross, without any more a do suffices for the actual Remission of all the sins of the Elect, but moreover they require Faith and Repentance in them,) so we think also that it is always the same, although we Judge that it is satisfied with our Faith and Repentance, and other good works, and especially by the Sacrifice of the Mass, as an application of the Ransom given for us on the Cross.      

CHAPTER VIII.  
A reply to Mr. Rodon's answers to some of our Proofs, both for the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass.  

SECTION. I. For the Real Presence. Our first Proof.  
OUr Proof that these words, This is my Body: This is my Blood, should be taken in their proper sense, and not figuratively is this, because men, (viz. wise men, such as eminently Christ was,) making their Testament, speak plain.  
Mr. Rodon, to usher in more smoothly his answer, says first, That Articles of Faith and Sacraments, are not always expressed in proper terms, and busies himself to answer that which is not so much as thought upon to be denied, much less Objected. Then he says: I answer, that in H. Scripture, Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure; for the Testament of jacob, Gen. 49. and Moses, Deut. 33. are nothing but a chain of Metaphors and other figures; and Civilians will have, that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words, but the intention of the Testator.  
I reply: What he brings for Testaments in those places are Prophecies of jacob and Moses, not Testaments: Nay, after jacob had foretell all, the text adds he blessed every one with their proper blessings, of which in particular the Scripture is silent, and ordered them to bury him in the Field of Ephon.  
Secondly, suppose they had been Testaments there was a special reason for speaking in covered terms; first, because they were at least also Prophecies, which the Holy Ghost would not have yet clearly understood by every one, but that they should have their recourse to the Priests for the understanding of them; thus keeping the People in humility, and the Governors of the Church in Authority. Next, there was no danger of any one's losing his right by others misunderstanding of the words, because jacob and Moses were infallibly sure of God's promise. But in Christ's Testament there was a reason of making the words clear, to encourage men to be earnest to get what he had left them.  
As to the saying of Civilians, That in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words, but the Intention of the Testator.  
I Answer, the reason is, because it falls out sometimes, that Testaments conceived in proper words are ambiguous; for example; suppose a man who hath two Nephews, one the Son of a Poor man, to whom he always testified Love above the other, who was the Son of a Rich man, should Test thus: I leave 100 lib. to my Nephew: Here the Intention of the Testator is to be attended, and by this adjudged to the poor Nephew by reason of his singular affection to him; although the proper signification of the word pleads as much for the other.  
If you ask me, how in the best conceived Testaments there may be some thing ambiguous?  
I answer with Aristotle, because, Res sunt innumerae & pauca verba, that is, Things are without number but words are few, and so by one word we must signify many things.  
He urges: Christ did not then make the new Testament, but only the sign of it, for the Covenant was made with all mankind in the Person of Adam after the fall, when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpent's Head; and was after renewned in Abraham.  
Answer. First. Whatsoever was made in the Old Law, is not that which our Saviour in the Gospel calls the New Testament, for all that was Old, when he spoke: Nay, the New Testament was not the same Covenant made in the Person of Adam, for if the New Testament was made with Adam, and renewed with Abraham, I ask who was that afore Adam with whom the Old Testament was made? Item, different conditions make a different Covenant. Now, to believe in CHRIST COME and TO USE HIS SACRAMENTS are conditions which were not in the former.  
Secondly, I deny that he did not make at the last Supper his New Testament, because, as by God, Exod. 24. the Old Testament was made, or his will of giving to the Jews the Land of Canaan, if they kept his commandments and ceremonies prescribed by him; was made, I say, and signed with the Blood of Beasts, Hic est sanguis faederis quod pepigit vohiscum Deus: This is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you. Said Moses: so Christ by the effusion of his Blood in a Sacrifice, (for Liquid things are offered by Effusion) made and signed his New Testament of giving us spiritual things and a heavenly inheritance, if we keep his Commandments, and use the Sacraments instituted by him.  
And now I prove that he made it here and no where else: Because here, and no where else he fulfilled the conditions required in a Testator making his Testament.  
First, he signified that he was making his Testament in these words, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, Luke 22.  
Secondly, he promised and left some thing to his Inheritors, he promised Remission of Sins to his Apostles, and many, or to the Jews in the word vobis, and to the Gentiles in the word multis, so called, because they were truly many in respect of the little number of the Jews; and left them his Body and Blood to be offered for that end.  
Thirdly, he ordered some thing to be done by his Inheritors, viz. That they should love one another: As God in the Old Testament proposed by Moses the Commands of the Law.  
Fourthly, He did it afore witnesses, viz. the Representative Church, or all the Apostle, who knew he was making his Testament.  
Fifthly, Here he was in a living condition at the signing of his Testament, not so at the Cross. Hence avow, that at our Lord's Supper the New Testament was made, and the figure of the Old fulfilled.  
Quaeres. Did he speak plain when he said, Drink ye all of this Cup?  
Answer. Grant he did not, that was not of the essence of the Sacrament: Next, a figurative speech, so commonly used, that it would be odd to understand it otherwise then in the sense of the speaker, is equivalent to a proper speech. CUP, hath two significations by the institution of men: Taken alone, it signifies a certain Vessel; joined to DRINK, it signifies the thing contained.  
Note: Although we say he spoke without figure in instituting this Sacrament, as it is set down by St. Matthew, who alone of all the Evangelists, that relate to us the institution, was present: We do not say that he spoke always so.  
Obj. The Apostles asked Christ the meaning of Parables, why did not they ask the meaning of these words which carried such strange consequences, as one Body to be in divers places at once? etc.  
Answer. He had cleared them sufficiently by what he said in the 6. Chap. of St. john, so that St. john having spoken of it there, does not so much as mention it afore his Passion, nor any Disciple seemed to wonder, hearing the words of the Institution; although many of the Disciples afore, Io. 6. v. 61. had said, This speech is hard, and who can hear it? They were wiser, after they had heard what he said, Io. 6. than to say with the Capharnaites, How can he give us his Flesh to Eat? Or with the Protestants, How can he be at once in two places?   

SECTION II. For the Real Presence. Our second Proof.  
WE say the Type ought not to be more excellent than the thing Typified, since S. Paul, Collos. 2. v. 17. compares the Type to a shadow, and the thing typified to a Body; but if the Eurharist be a mere piece of Bread, the Paschal Lamb being the Type of it, the Type will be more excellent than the thing Typified; then the Eucharist is not a piece of Bread.  
Mr. Rodon, To avoid this Argument, says, That the thing Typified by the Paschal Lamb is not the Eucharist, but Christ; as St. Paul shows clearly, says he, 1 Cor. 5. saying, Christ our Passover was crucified for us.  
Answer. 1. Should I rely upon Mr. Rodon's sentiment against the Judgement of the Fathers? Tertul. lib. 4. in Marcionem. Cyprian lib. de unitate Eccles. Hierom. in cap. 26. Math. Chrysos. Homil. de Prodit. judae. August. lib. 2. contra Literas Petiliani cap. 37. saying, Aliud est, says he there, Pascha quod Iudaei de Ove celebrant, aliud quod nos in Corpore & Sanguine Domini accipimus. I bring only the Passage of St. Aug. a Father of great Authority with Protestants, for brevity's sake. The Passover that the jews celebrated in a Lamb, was different from that we take in the Body and Blood of our Lord. Here he calls the Body and Blood of our Lord the Passover.  
And this Sentiment of his and the other Fathers, hath its great ground out of the Gospel, Math. 26. and Luc. 22. Because our Lord, for no other cause instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist after he had eaten the Paschal Lamb according to the judaic rite and Ceremony, but that he might signify, as S. Leo serm. 7. de Pas. remarks, That the Old observation (or Figure) was fulfilled and taken away by the New Testament. When the Legal Festivity is changed, says he, 'tis fulfilled.  
Answer. 2. The Paschal Lamb may be considered; First, as killed only, and so it is a figure of Christ's Death.  
Secondly, as 1. Immolated. 2. And eaten. 3. The 14 day. 4. In the evening, 5. Within the House; and so it's a Figure not of Christ's Death, but of the Eucharist, or his Body Sacrificed or given for us. Luhe 22. And eaten, the 14. day, in the evening; (for he died the 15. day, being the Full Moon,) and eaten only by those who are within the Church, or the House of God, Exod. 12. v. 46. Whereas the Passion of Christ extends to all men, to those who are within, and to those who are out of the Church, that they may come in. See S. Cypr. lib. de unit. Eccles.  
Note, St. Paul does not say, 1 Cor. 5. v. 7. Our Passover Christ was Crucified, but Immolated, Greek Ethutee, that is, Sacrificed. He adds v. 9 Let us keep the Feast, etc. with the unleavened Bread of sincerity and Truth. This relates to eating, indeed we keep the solemn Feast of our Passover by eating the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which was first instituted and made for us at our Lord's Supper.  
Object 1. The Types of the Old Testament were instituted, that the Faithful of those times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified in the New; but those of the Old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal Lamb; then the Paschal Lamb was not a Type of it.  
Answer. They were not instituted only for that reason, but also, that we in the New Law might understand that we are one and the same Church with them, they having had at least in Figure, and consequently an obscure knowledge of what we have in reality: And so the Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist, although the jews came not by it to a knowledge of the Eucharist.  
Ob. 2. The Passover was a Type, and the Eucharist is also a Type of Christ, Therefore, if the Passover had been a Type of the Eucharist, it had been a Type of a Type, and not of a thing Typified.  
Answer. A bare Type may be the Type of that which is not a bare Type. So the Paschal Lamb was a Type of the Eucharist, which in one respect is the thing Typified, and in an other the Type: The thing Typified in respect of the Paschal Lamb; and a Type in respect of Christ's Death, which it represents. So also the Paschal Lamb was in one respect a true Sacrifice, and in an other it was the Type of the Sacrifice of Christ made in the Eucharist, and on the Cross.  
The nullity of Mr. Rodon's answer to St. Rigau's Proof which he looks upon as our third Proof may be seen in my Chapter 4. Sect. 1.   

SECTION III. For the Real Presence. Our fourth Proof.  
GOD can put two Bodies in one place; then he may put one Body in two places, or at once in Heaven, and in the Host. The antecedent is proven by Christ's entering into the Canacle of the Apostles, the doors being shut. Io. 20. v. 19  
Mr. Rodon's answer, is to explain those words, thus, The doors having been shut, which explication suffers the opening of them; again, to let Christ in. But that which annull's all his frivolous explications of those words, is, that the Greek Original text has thuroon kekleisménoon, in the Genetive absolute, the doors being shut: and the English Protestant Translation, has, when the doors were shut came jesus: Both which import a simultaneus entry of jesus with the door's being shut: or that jesus entered while the doors were shut, and consequently, two Bodies were penetratively in the same place.  
2. Christ came out of his Blessed Mother's womb without opening it; but Mr. Rodon for certain assures the contrary, because Luke 2. he was presented to the Lord, as is written in the Law, every male that opens the womb, Luke 2. v. 23. But let me ask: Because Christ submitted himself to the Law, was he subject ro the Law? Because he took upon him Circumcision the mark of a Sinner, was he a Sinner? No more had he opened his Mother's Womb, although he was presented to the Lord. Must we degrade the Mother of God of the title of a Virgin; or go from the common notion of a Virgin to ply to Mr. Rodon's Faithless imagination?  
3. Was not Christ risen afore St. Mary Magdalen, said, who will roll away the Stone, Mark. 16? And consequently, in rising penetrating it, was in the same place with the Stone,  
3. St. Paul says, Hebr. 4. That jesus Christ penetrated the Heavens, and consequently the Heavens and his Body were in one and the same place. Mr. Rodon answers: That is to be understood improperly, that is, that the Heavens gave way to his Body as the Air to an Arrow. But I reply: The Holy Scripture is to be taken in the literal sense, when so taken (as here,) it implies no contradiction, nor any thing against Faith, or good manners. Moreover St. Paul spoke so, to let us know, that Penetrability or subtlety, is one of the Gifts or Endowments of a Glorious Body. Mr. Rodon is not of that Authority, to make his bare word be taken against the sentiment of all the Orthodox Divines.  
Mr. Rodon objects Numb. 15. That a modal accident (in the opinion of those Romish Doctors who hold them) cannot be without a subject; therefore the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, cannot be without a Subject.  
Answer. I deny the consequence, because the Modal Accident, in the opinion of those who hold them; is jultima rei determinatio, it ultimately determines its Subect; and consequently when it exists, it is with its Subject: But other Accidents, as the Species of Bread or Wine as Colour, Savour, etc. do not ultimately or actually determine a Subject, but only have naturally an appetite to be in a Subject; so Fire naturally has an appetite to burn, yet, by Divine power its actual burning was hindered in the Furnace of Babylon.   

SECTION iv For the Sacrifice of the Mass. Our first Proof.  
TO Mr. Rhodon's answer to our first Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass out of the Prophet Malachy, I reply in my 7 Chap. Subs. 4. where I deduce that proof at length.  
What he says about the word New offering is out of purpose, for we have not that word in our Bible, but only Oblatio munda, a pure offering. Only let his Defender take notice; that Sacrifices are not acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, unless the Offerers be living stones, or living members of his Church by Grace, 1. Pet. cap. 2. v. 5. And not that every abominable sinner who breaks the Commandments of God, though he believe in Christ, may think his Sacrifice will be accepted, so he offer it by Jesus Christ. No, God hates the impious, Prov. 15. So far he is from accepting their offering. And Christ says, Not every one that says to me Lord, Lord, this I repeat often to imprint it well in Protestants mind (such believe in him, otherways they would not call him Lord) shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but who does the will of my Father, Math. 7.2. Christ is not a coverer of iniquity that still remains in the heart of the sinner.   

SECTION V For the Sacrifice of the Mass. Our second Proof.  
WHich Mr. Rodon answers, is taken from these words. Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine (for he was a Breist of God the most High) blessed him, Gen. 14.18.  
From these words according to the unanimous consent of Greek and Latin Fathers whose passages you may read in Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa. chap. 6. We say 1. That Melchisedech Sacrificed there, 2. That the chief difference between the Sacrifice of Aaron, and that of Melchisedech made there, was in this, that Aaron's was Bloody, and Melchisedech's Unbloody, or in Bread and Wine; and therefore since Christ, according to David, Psal. 109. and St. Paul, Hebr. 7. is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aaron, as St. Paul v. 11. expressly intimates, it behoved him to Sacrifice under the forms of Bread and Wine, as he did at the last Supper, when having changed a piece of Bread into his Body, he said, This is my Body which is given (that is, offered) for you, and This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood which is poured out (that is Sacrificed) for you, Luke 22. And consequently the oblation which is made in the Mass (it being the same with that which Christ made at the last Supper) is a true Sacrifice.  
An other difference taken from the Person Sacrificrificing, is that Melchisedech neither succeeded to any in his Presstly dignity, being without Father and Mother in order to his Preist-hood which he had not carnally by right of Inheritance, but was the first of that order, neither had he a Successor, as Aaron had Eleazar, and in this he was a Type of Christ a Priest for ever.  
Mr. Rhodon to weaken this our Argument for the Sacrifice of the Mass, from these words, Genes. 14. Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth Bread and Wine, (for he was a Priest of God the most High) blessed him. Says, we falsify the Text in three places putting the Participle Bringing for brought, the causal For for And. and leaving out another And.  
Answer. I freely avow, our Translation does not follow the Hebrew Text word for word. Is a Translator bound to more than the true, and full sense of what he Translates? May not he change an active Verb into a Passive, a Verb into a Participle, etc. If I should translate the French, Jay froid, thus, I have cold, would not I be ridiculous to an English man who says, I am cold? Do not the Grecians who are lovers of Participles say handsomely by a Participle, that which in Latin we say by a Verb? St. jerom then knowing the meaning of the H. Ghost in that Passage, by the sentiment of the Church and all the H. Fathers, did not stick to the words in his Latin Translation, but gives us neatly the sense. But Protestants in their Translation disturb the sense, making the words and was a Priest relate to and he blessed him, whereas they relate to the words going afore, and therefore we turn this Particle Vaughan, which signifies both For and and, For. Now here is the reason why the words For, or And he was a Priest relate to the former words, viz. Brought forth Wine and Bread, because in the Hebrew Text after these words For, or And he was a Priest is put the accent, which the Hebrews call Soph Pasuch, which signifies that the period is ended there.  
Note, more over 1. It makes the same sense whether you say, Bringing forth Bread he blessed him, or He brought forth bread (viz. to Sacrifice) because he was a Priest) and blessed him.  
Note, 2. The word proferens bringing, or according to the Hebrew word hotsi, that is, brought, though of itself signifies nothing but bringing or brought, yet oftentimes for the exigence of the place it is used to signify the bringing of the Host to be Sacrificed: as Iud 6.18. And we take it so here, for the reason I'll bring by and by in the sixth note.  
Note, 3. Although the Hebrew has Vaughan, that is And he was a Priest that makes nothing; because Vaughan is taken most frequently, as Ballarmine remarks for the causal ki, that is, for, or because, as Psal. 95.5. The Sea is his AND he made it, St. Jerome turns, BECAUSE he made it. And Isa. 64. v. 5. Thou art angry AND we have sinned, says the Hebrew and Greek and Latin, though the Protestant Bible translates For, that is, because we have sinned. And Gen. 20. v. 3. Thou art but a dead Man for the Woman's sake which thou hast taken FOR she is a Man's Wife: the Hebrew has Vaughan i. e. And she is married to a Husband.  
And he blessed him, viz. Melchisedech blessed Abraham, not as a Priest, but as a greater Person, for Abraham was also a Priest and had often Sacrificed. Item Salom. 3. Reg. 8. blessed the People although he was not a Priest, but because he was a greater person; (Hebr. 7. v. 7. The less is blessed of the better.) Priest then here relates to Sacrifice, and not to Blessed Him.  
You Object in these words Blessed Him the Relative Him relates to the Person to whom the Bread was offered; but 'twas Abraham he blessed; then the Bread was offered only to Abraham, not to God, and consequently there was no Sacrifice.  
Answer. Him relates etc. to whom the Bread was offered first or Sacrificed by crumbling a little of it on the fire, I deny, to whom the Bread was offered by a second action to make him participant of the Sacrifice, I grant: So Christ first offered his Body and Blood to his Father, which after he offered or gave to his Disciples.  
Note 4. When Bellarmin does not deny that Melchisedech brought Bread and Wine to refresh Abraham, it's not to be understood Corporally (for they had no need of that, being refreshed immediately afore) but Spiritually, by making them participant of the Sacrifice, ut de Sacrificio participarent, says Bellarm.  
Understand, the Jews of whom St. Jerome writes to Evagrius, in the same sense, and Joseph and Damascen when they say that Melchisedech brought Bread and Wine to refresh Abraham and his people, vix. spiritually: as those words of Damascen intimate lib' 4. de fide. chap. 14. Mensa illa (Melchisedech) Mysticam hanc (speaking of the Eucharist) adumbrabat, that is, That Table (of Melchisedech) represented this, (viz. of the Eucharist) mystical one. Or if this does not please you, remember that David was refreshed corporally with the Loaves of proposition which had been offered to God, so Melchisedech might have refreshed them with the Bread and Wine after he had offered both to God. 1. Samuel. chap. 21. v. 6.  
Note 5. Howsoever St. Cyprian and St. August. translate that passage. And he was a Priest, or For he was a Priest; 'tis clear they hold that Melchisedech offered there Bread and Wine in a Sacrifice, St, Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecil. after he had cited those words of the Psalm, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, he adds Qui ordo utique est de Sacrificio illo quod Melchisedech Sacerdos Dei summi fuit quod panem & vinum obtulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus noster Jesus? qui Sacrificium Deo Pairi obtulit & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat, i. e. Panem & Vinum, suum, viz. Corpus & sanguinem. i e. Which order certainly was of that Sacrifice, viz. that Melchisedech was Priest of God most high, that he offered Bread and Wine. etc. And St. Aug. Epist. 95. ad Innoc. Papam. which he writes in his own Name, and in the Name of other Bishops, he says Melchisedech prolato Sacramento Mensae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus Sacerdotium figurare. That is, Melchisedech having brought forth the Sacrament of our Lord's Table knew to represent his eternal Preist-hood. And lib. 16. de Civit. Dei. cap. 22. speaking of the Oblation of Melchesedech; Ibi, says he, first appeared the Sacrifice which is now offered by Christians to God all the world over.  
To return to the word hotsi. Note 6. that there is a necessity to give the same signification to the word hotsi here, that it hath Jud. 6. For this is the necessity, because we have no other place in Scripture telling us what was the Sacrifice of Melchisedech as it is condistinguished from that of Aaron: and therefore there was an obligation to translate the Hebrew particle Vau, which signifies both And and FOR, for and not AND, bringing so the reason wherefore he brought Bread and Wine, viz. to offer them to God afore he gave them to Abraham and his people, to make them participant of the Sacrifice.  
Note. 7. 'Tis not probable that St. Jerom's latin translation of this passage for he was a Priest is corrupted, because in his Hebrew questions and in his Epistle, to Evagrius he translates and he was a Priest, because he is to be judged to have wrote with more application and exactness his Translation of the Bible, which, if approved, was for the whole Church and to be read till the end of the world, than his answers to some particular questions or to a missive Letter.  
And, since Mr. Rhodon avows here Num. 25. that the Hebrew particle, viz. Vaughan used by Moses does sometimes signify FOR, and St. Jerome had two reasons obliging him to turn it so there, 1. To show what Melchisedech's Sacrifice was (which we have not where else.)  
2. To show that Christ was a Priest for ever according to that order, viz. by his Sacrificing under the forms of Bread and wine till the end of the world, how can he say that 'tis a manifest falsification? to me its a manifest falsification in him when he says in the same Num. that the greek septuagint translate it as Protestants do, and he was a Priest; for the London Edition of the Septuagint 1653. by Roger Daniel has eën de hiereus but or for he was a Priest, not and he was a Preistj for the particle de signifies not only but; but also gar, that is, for in good English as Henricus Stephanus tell us in his Greek Dictionary when he comes to that particle. to tell the truth I have not by me the old Latin interpreter to see his expression, and therefore I will not contradict Mr. Rodon in that.  
If you say Christ is a Priest for ever because he remains for ever.  
I Answer. That remaining for ever makes him capable to do the function of a Priest for ever be being a Priest, but that alone does not make him a Priest for ever, no more than it makes an Angel, who will remain for ever, a Priest for ever.  
Neither can you say that he is a Priest for ever because the virtue of his Sacrifice on the Cross remains for ever. For the virtue of the Sacrifice of Noë which obtained that no more deluge should come upon the Earth for ever Genes. 8. so remains or dures for ever, yet I hope you will not say that Noë is a Priest for ever.  
Would you say at the death of a man, whom the King makes Lord Chief Justice, and deprives him of his office at the years end, he living yet 19 years after, he was Lord Chief Justice 20. years? No; because he did the function of a Chief Justice only one year.  
No more could we say that Christ is a Priest for ever, if he did not do the function of a Priest for ever. And the function of a Priest, according to St. Paul, Hebr. 8. v. 3. is to offer: every High Priest is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man (viz. Christ) have some what also to offer. He speaks not here of intercession, as if it were the proper partial function of a Priest, by reason of which Mr. Rodon would have Christ called a Priest for ever.  
If you say with Calvin, lib. 4. Inst. cap. 18. he offers himself in Heaven. I ask; is that oblation made in Heaven a proper Sacrifice? If so, than the Christian Religion is no more upon Earth but translated to Heaven, because The Preist-hood being translated, there is made of necessity says St. Paul, Hebr. 7. v. 11. A translation also of the Law.  
Note 8. Christ is not called a Priest for ever because he intercedes for ever; for to intercede is common to a Priest and other men: but because he Sacrifices for ever. That is, to the end of the World the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, of which he is the chief offerer.  
Note 9 Although it was not necessary we should know how Melchisedeth executed his Kingly Office, yet is was necessary we should know how he exercised his Preist-hood; because he is not mentioned to have had aspecial Kingship, but he is mentioned to have had a special Preist-hood. And because no mention is made in the Scriptures of the end of his Preisthood more than of the end of his Life, he is called in them a Priest for ever, and in that, a figure of Christ's Preisthood for ever, but not that he was truly a Priest for ever, as Christ. So he is said to have been without a Father or Mother, not, that truly he was so, but only without Parents mentioned in the Scripture.  
Mr. Rodon in his last answer num. 28. says, its false that the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech, and that of Aaron did consist in this, viz. that Aaron offered the bloody Sacrifices of Beasts, and Melchisedech offered an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine; Also he says its false, that the likeness of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS doth consist in this, viz. That as Melchisedech did Sacrifice Bread and Wine; so JESUS did Sacrifice his Body and Blood, under the Species of Bread and Wine. And that these are human inventions, neither founded on Scripture or Reason.  
Answer. They are not human inventions, since they are grounded on Scripture, as the Church and Fathers interpret it; against whose Authority, if Mr. Rodon thinks his bare assertion is of sufficient force, I may say in French, Mr. Rodon radote, or deviats from the right tract. As to that he says, That the Apostle writing to the Hebrews places the difference between the Preist-hood of Melchisedech and that of Aaron, and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing then in that we allege; this I deny, and grant, that he places the difference of the Person of Melchisedech from that of Aaron, and some likeness of the Person of Melchisedech with that of CHRIST, in quite an other thing, but not the difference of the Preist-hood of Melchisedech from that of Aaron, or the likeness of the Priest hood of Melchisedech to that of JESUS in other things, than those which are asserted by the Roman Church. St. Paul is here silent of both, as to their formal difference or likeness, for a reason which I shall bring by and by.  
By this that Melchisedech receives tithes from Abraham and blesses him, he is declared by the Apostle to be a greater Person than Abraham, but by this is not signified the difference of his Preist-hood from that of Aaron and others, who were yet in the Loins of Abraham; by that also that he was a King, and a King of Peace, the greater likeness of his Person than that of Aaron's, to CHRIST, is intimated, but not the likeness of his Preist-hood.  
If you ask me why the Apostle does not here assign formally and openly the difference between the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and that of Aaron: And the resemblance of Melchisedech's with that of Christ in the Eucharist.  
My answer is, that the controversy between the incredulous Jews and St. Paul, was not about that difference or resemblance, (and besides by reason of their incredulity & weakness, they were not capable of understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist) but whither or no all the Sacrifices of Aaron and his order were sufficient for the general redemption and satisfaction for the Sins of all mankind; and he answers, no, and says, that they had need of a greater Sacrifice, viz. that of the Cross, and a greater Person to be Priest, figured by Melchisedech, who was eminently above Abraham, and all the Order of Aaron, and who was to be a Priest for ever, viz. by the proper act of Preist-hood, that is, was to Sacrifice till the end of the World, (which is not done by a perpetual intercession, unless it be joined to a Sacrifice and so makes one thing with it, for a pure Intercession is not the proper act of a Priest.) And this was foretell by David, Psal. 109. Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedech.  
Yet he intimated the difference of Melchisedeches Sacrifice from that of Aaron sufficiently to the Faithful, (Sapientia pauca, a word suffices to those who know the thing already,) when he spoke of his Preist-hood, condistinguished from that of Aaron (because a special Preist-hood cannot be conceived without the special Sacrifice to which it has a reference.  
Note 1. 'Tis indifferent to Preist-hood to have been a King or not: to have one's Birth mentioned or not; also 'tis not the proper act of Preist-hood to bless, but only because Preist-hood is a dignity above all human dignity, therefore 'tis given to the Priest to Bless, his proper act being to Sacrifice.  
Note 2. From these words of St. Paul, If then consummation was by the Levitical Preist-hood, (for under it the People received the Law,) that the People of God were made a Lawful Community under God by the Preist-hood, by means of which they adored God as he desired: so that the Preist-hood altering, the Law altered, they being annexed or tied together.  
Note 3. The Old Preist-hood and its Sacrifices were not translated into the Preist-hood and Sacrifice of the Cross, as the only Preist-hood and Sacrifice of the New Law; because at this Sacrifice, all People could not be present to acknowledge God's supreme Dominion all the time of the New Law, as People were present at the Levitical Sacrifices during the Old Law; so than the Levitical Pristhood of which St. Paul, Hebr. 7. v. 12. was translated into the Preist-hood after the Order of Melchisedech, and the Levitical Sacrifices into the Sacrifices of the Christian Church made in the Eecharist, as the Mosaic Law was translated into the Christian Law. Did not the Prophet, Isaiah foretell. Cap. 61. v. 6. That there should be Priests in the New Law, and can Priests be without proper Sacrifices? And are there any proper Sacrifices in the Christian Church if that of the Mass be not a true Sacrifice?  
Mr. Rodon concludes his Book with this Argument: jesus Christ hath offered no Sacrifice, but after the Order whereof he was established a Priest: Hence he concludes that according to us, he has offered no Sacrifice but that of the Mass.  
Answer. jesus Christ hath offered no Sacrifice for ever, but that of the Mass, I grant, no other Sacrifice for once, I deny. Again: He was only established a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech for ever, I grant: for once, I deny; and say, that this Order for once, was a special one for the sole Sacrifice of Redemption. Yet the Sacrifice of the Cross may be also called, according to the Order of Melchisedech in a good sense, because he who made it was a Priest after the Order of Melchisedech: As a French Sermon made by an English man, may be called an English piece, viz. a piece proceeding from an English man.     

The EPILOGUE.  
NOw to end this little work, I wish Protestants may weigh the force of our Proofs in Order to believe, and Catholics meditate the same in Order to be fervent in the daily practice of what they believe. St. Bonaventure, in his traitise of the preparation to Mass, will have the Priest come to the Altar, not only all a fire, but also wholly crucified totus ignitus, says he, & totus crucifixus: All burning with the Love of this Lovely Lord, possessed with a strong apprehension of his Death and an equal feeling of his pain. Such pain in the Priest and all the assisting offerers, may be well joined with an excessive Joy to see themselves, have a hand in giving God at that moment the greatest honour all his grandour can receive. If it was a great honour to Charles the fifth Emperor, landing at the Town of Naples to have had all the way laid with Cloth of Gold from the Ship to the Palace: What an honour is given to God, when in this Mystery, not Gold and Silver is trodden underfoot, but a Divine Person equal to himself is Sacrificed to honour him.  
May the offerers look for little from the Person who is honoured with such a Gift? We know the more holy was the sacrificer among the ancient patriarchs, and the more Noble was his Victim, the more favourably was both looked upon by God: respexit Dominus ad Abel & numera ejus, says Moses, Gen. 4. v. 4. God, who frowned upon Cain, had a complacence both for the Person of Abel and his Gifts: Now, what was the sanctity of Abel to that of jesus, and Abel's offering to his?  
What may then they who with a lively faith are present at this Sacrifice expect from Heaven. since Christ makes over to them, all, with which his father for this Sacrifice might liberally acknowledge him? see Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. can. 2. a great measure of grace in order to a full repentance, and a great remission of pain due to Sin, great lights to discover the more perfect way to Salvation: great strength to walk and persever therein. But mind always that, Justus ex fide vivit, as all our spiritual Life springs first from faith, so it grows not to perfection without the same. Let us then endeavour never to come to this fountain of all good without a lively one.  
To the greater glory of our Saviour in this Mystery of his Love to Men.  
FINIS.   

ERRORS in the Printing. P. stands for the Page; l. for the line of the page. R. for read.  

Pag. 1. lin. last xpress. R. express  
P. 7. l. 3. neot. R. note  
P. 10. l. 28. sing. R. sign  
P. 11. l. 3. to. R. too  
P. 11. l. 4. humon. R. humoon  
P. 16. l. 19 truth. R. life  
P. 19 l. 29 after but make ( 
P. 19 l. 20. after flesh)  
P. 25. l. 17. neces. R. neces▪  
P. 25. l. 38. wac. R. wa  
P. 26. l. 4. after food. put  
P. 28. l. 15. peternitie. R. paternity  
P. 32. l. 26. this. R. this  
P. 41. l. 29. neigher. R. nigher  
P. 43. l. 38. pla. R. place  
P. 84. l. 35. exigenbe. R. exigence  
P. 58. l. 29. dwells. R. dwell  
P. 58. l. 36. his. R. this  
P. 59 l. 36. invoce. R. invoke  
P. 61. l. 12. after Silver 1. blot out 2.  
P. 61. l. 13. and. R. and  
P. 62. l. 15 blot out again  
P. 65. l. 12. ermanent. r. permanent  
P. 66. l. 23. cannally. R. carnally  
P. 66. l. 24. refressed. R. refreshed  
P. 85. l. 3. adumbrabant. add Christils  
P. 86. l. 18. and is. blot out and  
P. 88 l. 22. stronly. R. strongly  
P. 88 l 23. leit●urgim. R. leitourgountoon.  
P. 97. l 4. after cursed add Gal. 1. v. 8.  
P. 97. l. 18. after Scripture add 1. Io. 4. v. 1.  
P. 98. l. 14. R. 1. Io. c. 4. v. 1.  
P. 98. l. 27. R. 1. Io. 4. v. 6.  
P. 99 l. 6. R. 1. Io. c. 4. v. 6.  
P. 101. l. 10. them. R. his Disciples  
P. 103. l. 9 hide. R. hid  
P. 103. l. 15. Fat there's. R. Fathers  
P. 105. l. 31. ac. R. as  
P. 111. l. 14. without. R. with