Wine hath fed Five Thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes where he either Converted the Ayre into Bread and Fish or else replicated the Loaves and Fishes and so put them in several places at once And by the Power of God's Omnipotence Aaron's Rod was turned into a Serpent Why then should we refuse our Assent to his turning Bread into his Body The Answer We do not at all Question the Power of the Omnipotent who can work greater Wonders then these nay the Creation of this Globe of the Universe which he produced out of nothing was a greater Proof of God's Omnipotence but we deny the thing of Fact that Christ hath actually changed Bread into his Body which we have no ground to Believe and as our Opponents defend it we conceive it impossible Another Objection may be taken from the Autority of the Fathers whereof some seem to affirm others to deny But their Opinions make no Articles of Faith and though we reverence their Autority yet we deem it not expedient in this place to scan the drift of their respective sayings Only this in General Their usual expressions of this Sacrament are That it contains the Symbole the Figure the Type the Antitype the Resemblance the Sign the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ which certainly must stand in opposition with the Real Presence of the thing it self Dispute V. Of the Reall Presence The Preface HAving Treated of Transubstantiation which imports a real Conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ I now come to Institute a Discourse of the Real Presence For though a Conversion of that nature by force of the words of Consecration which should verifie the same words in a literal sense be wholly impossible as hath been proved yet I do not deny but that in the Treasury of Gods Omnipotency there is contained a Power to Constitute the Body of Christ Really Present in the Sacrament praescinding from the manner how it is done which if it be by a Conversion it would invert the Order of Nature in a high degree and multiply a prodigious number of Miracles without necessity But in this Discourse I shall only inquire into the Matter of Fact whether the Body of Christ be Really Present in the Eucharist or not and not at all examine the manner how it is there and so proceed equally againct Transubstantiation Consubstantiation and Impanation For I take Companation to be the same with Consubstantiation And by the Real Presence I understand a Real Actual and Local Existence whereby the Body of Christ is locally present not only in Heaven but also in the Eucharist the same time as the Church of Rome Teacheth waving any other peculiar presence besides this that the Body of Christ may have in this Sacrament for my present design is only to examine the truth of that Assertion which affirms the Body of Christ to be Properly Really Physically and Locally Present in the Eucharist by a Homogeneal ubi with the Consecrated Host whether this ubi be Circumscriptive or Definitive SECT I. The Church of Rome's Definitions concerning the Real Presence IN these later Centuries from Christ various Questions and Difficulties have been agitated concerning the Eucharist wherein both contending parts might prudently have spared themselves the trouble of raising such contests no way beneficial to a Christian Life nor necessary to Salvation As First Whether the same Body of Christ which is in Heaven be Truely and Really or only Virtually and Figuratively present in the Sacrament What need so Hot a Debate of this Question to perplex the Minds of the Well-meaning Vulgar who might as soon obtain Heaven by their Implicit Faith as after so long a protracted Contention with such Heate and Animosity on both sides in order to the decision of this Question which notwithstanding neither is nor ever will be determin'd so as both Parties will Acquiesce For supposing the Body of Christ to be only Virtually and Figuratively present yet by its being there in Virtute there are as many degrees of Grace both Habitual and Actual produced in the Soul of the Faithful and Worthy Receiver as if it were Really and Corporally present there are the same Spiritual Benefits and Emoluments to advance its progress in Vertue and its tendency towards Eternity in both cases For as in Baptisme the Lotion which is duly applyed by the Baptizer according to Christ's Institution Sanctifies the Soul of the Baptized expels Original Sin and gives him a Right to the Inheritance of Glory and yet the remote Matter still remains a meer Natural Element of Water as it was before and the Immediate Matter which is the Application of that Water to the Baptized is of it self a pure Natural Action though by Vertue of Christ's Institution these Natural things acquire a Power to produce such Supernatural effects as pure Nature cannot pretend to So likewise in the Eucharist the Natural substances of Bread and Wine have the same capacity of being elevated to a Sacrament by Christ's Ordination and consequently of being instrumental to produce those Spiritual effects which by Divine Institution are annexed to the due receiving of this Sacrament as well as the Natural Element of Water for whether the Body of Christ be really present or not yet certain it is that he is there by his Vertue by his Divinity and by his Omnipotency and will as assuredly confer upon the worthy Receiver those Spiritual Guifts which he hath promised as if he were in verity and reality present by his Body Notwithstanding the Church of Rome tenaciously asserts the Real Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament and hath raised it to an Article of Divine Faith Fulminating an Anathema against all those who shall deny it So the Council of Trent Si quis negaverit Trident. Sess 1.3 Can. 1. in Sanctissimae Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem unà cum anima Divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodò esse in co ut in signo vel sigura aut virtute Anathema sit This definition is consonant to the Canons and Decrees of other Councils and diverse Texts of the canon Law As Concil Constant. 2. Lateran Con. c. C. Panis de consecrat D. 2. C. Cum Marthae de celebrat Miss c. So that they have made it an Article of Faith and thrown their Curse upon all that shall deny it and yet many Thousands there are among the ignorant Vulgar of both Sexes who after this definition cannot give an account of the difference between the Real Virtual and Figurative being of Christ's Body in this Sacrament and so must still have recourse to their Implicit Faith as much as if there were no such definition And how much this Belief of the Real Presence conduceth to Salvation I leave to the judgment of the impartial Reader supposing what
Council determines what contracts shall be Sacraments and what shall not the Council determines to what contracts Grace shall be affixt and to what not which is all that Institution imports for they would have Christ to take his measures from them and would impose a Law upon the Will of God to accommodate himself to their will they order all and the Word Incarnate must regulate himself accordingly which makes them the principal Instituters and Christ only the Instrumental Which is too great an indignity and detracts very much from the perfection of Christ's Institution For I demand What reason can be alleag'd Why Christ could not or would not determine all this himself He had a perfect comprehension of all that concern'd his Church which the Council had not neither can they deny but that Christ was the Principal nay the only Instituter of Sacraments Who then can deny but that Christ by an Irrevocable Decree determin'd all things relating to the Sacraments independant of the Council of Trent many Ages before this Instituting Decree was framed But an Error once committed per fas nefas must be maintained I might here annex an Account of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in some others of their pretended Sacraments for whereas the Order of Subdeaconship was ever conferr'd in the Primitive Church by the Imposition of Hands this is now wholly omitted and in lieu thereof they have Instituted the Tradition of an empty Chalice and an empty Pattene to the Ordained which argues a total change So likewise in Consirmation the Apostles and their Successors ever Confirmed by the Imposition of Hands without any Unction but now without the application of Chrisme they deem Confirmation invalid and the Forme would be false which is this Signo te signo crucis Confirmo te Chrismate salutis In nomine c. I Sign thee with the Sign of the Cross and Confirm thee with the Chrisme of health In the Name c. But this I leave to others consideration for enough hath been already said to my designed end Dispute III. Of Communion in One Kind The Preface ALL Humane Laws though never so well Constituted are liable to be subverted either by the change of circumstances or by the capricious humors of Governors How happy were the Lacedemonians as long as they were govern'd by those wholsome Laws which Lycurgus had established amongst them but when those Laws were gradually repealed or per non usum antiquated then their Commonwealth began to be ruinous and tended to destruction But Divine Laws ought to be Sacred as being framed by an irrefragable Autority whose Legislator is omniscient neither hath his wisdom and prudence any bounds who knows and foresees all future changes and circumstances as perfectly as if they were present and whose infinite providence is best skilled in fencing against all adverse accidents that may happen and yet these Laws also must undergo the Test of Human Policy and suffer change and Reformation Our Great Redeemer furnished his Church with such Laws as he thought most convenient obliging all Christians to receive those Sacred Rites of his Body and Blood in both Kinds yet in process of time the Church of Rome upon some pretended inconveniences hath alter'd that Law and denyes the Laytie the use of the Chalice but whether groundedly or illegally is the drift of this Disputation to Examine SECT I. The Grounds of the Church of Rome for denying the Chalice to the Laity THat Pure and Soveraign Doctrine which was Taught and Practised by Christ himself attained its Original Purity for the space of many Centuries after Christ and his Apostles during which time the Sacrament of the Eucharist was Administred to the faithful Receivers under both Kinds but the continuance of it drew it insensibly more remote from its Origine and so exposed it to the danger of being Adulterated for the Romanists pretend that it was observed that when the Communicants lips were separated from the Chalice some small particles of the Consecrated Species fell from the Chalice which it was not possible to prevent or to collect the Particles so dispersed wherefore another expedient was instituted that they who presented themselves to participate of those Sacred Mysteries should suck the Consecrated Species out of the Chalice by a Silver Quil fitly adapted and prepared for that purpose yet all in vain for this also was found liable to the same inconvenience wherefore finding no remedy for so great a difficulty it was at last resolved That none of the Seculars nor the Clergy except such as were Priests should receive the Blood under the Species of Wine So the Council of Trent Trid. Sess 21. C. 2. Quarè agnoscens Sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in Administratione Sacramentorum Auctoritatem licet ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimè jam mutata illa consuetudine gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendam decrevit quam reprobare aut fine ipsius Ecclesiae Auctoritate pro libito mutare non licet And then layes a Curse upon those that should not submit to this Doctrine in these words Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis rationibus adductam fuisse ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret aut in eo errasse Sess 22. Can. 2. Anathema sit The First Reason Because it was a great irreverence and a high Contempt of the Sacred Blood of Christ which was the price of our Redemption to see it fall to the ground and trampled under foot by those who receive so great a benefit by it and whereunto they stand indebted for the Graces they receive here and the hope of Glory hereafter wherefore the high Veneration and Adoration which we owe to the Incarnate Word present in this Sacrament ought to preponderate all other Considerations which certainly our Redeemer expects from us The Second Reason Because whosoever receives the Holy Eucharist under the Species of Bread only receives all Christ as well the Blood as the Body together with the Divine Word and all the Sacred Trinity for though ex vi verborum by the words of Consecration only the Body of Christ be Sacramentally Constituted under the Species of Bread yet per concomitantiam by a necessary Connexion of the parts of Christ with each other the Blood of Christ the Soul c. are all rendred present under the Species of Bread so that if this Sacrament be once Administred under the Species of Bread it were a needless repetition to administer the same under the Species of Wine for this were no other then to Administer to the same person one and the self-same thing twice without addition or diminution which would not be available to the Receiver The Third Reason
materia circa quam the eating and drinking are materia quae this is the very thing that is commanded for they are the Human actions which are immediately under Precept the Body and Blood of Christ are the Matter about which these actions are verst for to fulfil this command it is not sufficient to eate and drink any thing but it is necessary to eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ it is not in the power of the Seculars to procure or Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ but when it is exhibited to them it is in their free election to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood which by this Precept they are obliged to As by the Fourth Command of the Decalogue we are injoyn'd to keep holy the Sabbath day that is to abstain from servile labor and to exercise acts of devotion but the Precept doth not determine what acts of devotion we shall in particular exercise for this is left to our free election either to hear Divine Service or hear the Word of God explained or to imploy our time in Spiritual Reading or in Prayer and Meditation c. here the alteration of the Circumstances hinders not the fulfilling of the Precept and therefore in this case the Argument proceeds rightly But our Case is far different wherein the Legislator determines us to particular actions and leaves it not in our election to change them or to omit either of them So he that takes the Body and Blood of Christ and doth not eate the one and drink the other fulfils not the Precept And this answers the Second Reason The Third Objection He that receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ and may be truly said to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ and so satisfies the Precept according to that of Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Potus esus ad eandem pertinent rationem I Answer That he who receives only under the Species of Bread though he receive the Blood as well as the Body yet cannot be said to drink the Blood under that Kind for that which is eaten is commonly solid and consistent but nothing can be taken by way of drinking except it be a sluid and a liquid matter wherefore to receive under the Species of Bread is not to drink the Blood of Christ except you grant that one may drink dry bread To the Authority of Cyprian I Answer That in the same Sermon he endeavours to prove the Evangelical Precept of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ by the same Text Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood c. where he hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Ibid. Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur whereby he expresly declares his sentiments to be coherent with ours In the words above cited he rather confirms then impugnes this Doctrine for he declares that eating and drinking belong both to this Sacrament which is the Spiritual refreshment of the Soul in the nature of one compleat Banquet which without Drinking would be imperfect and incompleat The Fourth Objection Admit the Hypothesis of a Precept to receive in both kinds yet to avoid the inconveniences before-mentioned the Superiors of the Church according to the prudential dictates of a right Government may and ought to frame an Epikeia by a grounded interpretation of the Will of the Law-giver that if he were present to be consulted herein he would declare his intention not to have his Law executed on such hard circumstances which excuses the Governours in denying the promiscuous use of the Chalice and exempts the Subjects from being transgressors First I Answer That upon the same ground they may also prohibit Communion under the species of Bread for the same difficulties are militant for this as well as for that as hath been proved Secondly I Answer That Divine Laws admit of no Epikeia nor interpretation of the Divine Will but when God commands Man must obey The reason is because we cannot suppose any defect in the Omniscience of the Divine understanding who perfectly penetrates all future events and circumstantial emergencies before they come to pass with as much infallible certainty as if they were then present so that here is no ground at all for the prudential dictates of humane Reason But humane Laws upon extraordinary accidents may admit of an Epikeia because the wisest Legislator among Men is supposed to be ignorant of future contingencies and yet such may happen wherein a rational Judgment not byassed by sinister Motives may deem it imprudence hic nunc to have the Law put in execution and therefore may rationally interpret the Will of the Law-giver to suspend the execution of the Law under such arduity But however such casualties may occur yet humane Laws suffer no detriment thereby for upon removal of such hard circumstances the Law revives and obliges to its observance as much as before How then can it be consonant to Reason that meer Men should not only suspend the execution of a Divine Law upon an incident occasion but prohibit the observance of it to all but Priests constantly and for perpetuity so that all but Priests are debarr'd from the observance of this Law for ever This is an attempt of a higher nature for hereby they endeavour to abrogate and repeal this Law as much as in them lies for ever which argues a bold and daring presumption very injurious to the Divine Conditor Legis The Fifth Objection is grounded in those sayings of Christ where he only mentions the Bread and promiseth Eternal Life to them that eat it John 6. as the Third Reason proposeth I Answer That in the same Chapter our Lord having distinctly explained his meaning more then once of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood thought it needless to repeat all the particulars as often as he mentioned this Sacrament so that the meaning of those Texts is he that eateth this Bread worthily and in the manner as I shall prescribe or as I have prescribed shall live eternally otherwise if the meer eating of that Bread were sufficient to Salvation then an unworthy Receiver might be sure of Eternal Life which illation all must reject And this answers the Third Reason The Sixth Objection is drawn from the practise of the Churh in its primitive and purest times which was to administer this Sacrament to those that were to fight a battle and to such as were in danger of death by infirmity in one kind only whence it ensues that both kinds are not necessary nor under precept which is the Fourth Reason I Answer That the precept which we insist upon being positive it doth not oblige to receive under both kinds toties quoties neither doth it determine how often we are to receive under both kinds but leaves this to the determination of the Church and the Piety and Devotion of the Receiver so that by Receiving some times in our Life or
so often every year under both kinds we fulfil the precept and that being done the receiving afterwards under one kind can be no violation of the precept it being an act of Devotion not prohibited but he that never receives under both kinds all his life time is a manifest transgressor And so the Fourth Reason is answered The Seventh Objection is in substance the same with the former only this induceth the authority of the Fathers upon the Texts cited in the Fifth Reason where by breaking Bread they understand this Sacrament I Answer That the Disciples in those times lived in common and gave up their Temporals into the common stock and took their refection in common so that their coming together to break Bread means their Meeting together to take their Corporal repast However the Receiving under one Kind upon particular occasions proves just nothing in order to this question because the Precept may at other times be fulfilled by receiving under both Kinds which the Fathers no way impugne But if you consult the Fathers you shall find many of them abetters of this Opinion Chrisostom speaking of the practise of the Old Law wherein it was not lawful for the people to participate of that part that was reserved for the Priest adds these words Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrisost Hom. 18. in poster Corinth Gelasius apud Gratian Cap. Comperimus de Consecrat dist 2. Gelatius Papa speaking of the Manachaeans saith thus Comperimus quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis Sacri portione à calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire And of the same Opinion is Leo Papa Leo. Serm. â—â—de Quadrages with others And this proves the Fifth Reason Inâ—â—â—eient SECT IV. Corallaries drawn from the Romanists Doctrine of their pretended Sacrifice of the Mass IT is the usual practise of our Antagonists when they apprehend any Dogmatical Point conducing to their intended design they cast about them and summon all the strength of Arguments they can muster up to establish that Principle But if the same Position in another occasion stand in their way and obstruct the evincing of some other Thesis then they with all sedulous industry apply themselves to depress and cry down the same Point which they had before so elaborately strived to make good As in this subject to make out the legality of their half Communion How do they endevor to devest the drinking of the Blood of all its Prerogatives and particular Graces peculiar to that kind alone as though it were superfluous and after receiving under the Species of Bread it were but actum agere to Administer the Chalice Yet when they treat of their Sacrifice of the Mass then the consummating of the Chalice is held in great veneration and esteemed to necessary that rather then omit it they must lay hold of any hard shift and have recourse to extremities for which no reason can be alleaged except they grant the Chalice its due and allow its efficacy and operation as proper to it self which in this Discourse we shall make plainly appear The approved notion of a Sacrifice is this Immutatio facta circa rem aliquam creatam in agnitionem Supremi Dominii It is a change made about some created thing in acknowledgment of the Supreme Dominion and according to this definition they infer the Mass to contain verum Council Trid. in profession sâ—â—â—i proprium propitiatorium Sacrificium as the Council of Trent declares A true proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice for in the Consecrating of the Bread and Wine there is a proper Conversion or Transmutation of the same into the Body and Blood of Christ and these are also consummated by the Sacrificater all which is performed by way of a Commemoration of that bloody Sacrifice whereby the Author of Life offer'd himself upon the Cross to his eternal Father as a Propitiation for the sins of Mankind Yet to compleat this unbloody Sacrifice it is not sufficient that the Priest do consummate the Hoast under the Species of Bread but it is also rigorously and indispensably necessary that he also consummate the Chalice under the Species of Wine and therefore in case a Priest after having Consecrated the Bread and Wine and Consummated the Hoast should by any sudden accident or indisposition of Body fall down at the Altar and be rendred wholly unable of Consummating the Chalice under the Species of Wine in this case they are to use all possible means suddenly to procure another Priest and if none could be found that are fasting yet rather then faile they must appoint one that is not fasting to Consummate the Chalice and yet without such an immergent necessity it is esteemed a heinous crime for any one to presume to receive this Sacrament except he be fasting the reason hereof is because the Sacrifice should not remain imperfect for the Offering up an incompleat Sacrifice to the Author of all Being is held a great abomination and a disrespect to God and therefore a less inconvenience must yield to a greater for ex duobus malis minus est eligendum This being so I now come to examine the ground of this indispensable necessity Why is the Consummating the Chalice so rigorously requir'd They Answer To compleat the Sacrifice I again demand What is wanting to the compleating the Sacrifice They Answer The Receiving under the Species of Wine which in this Sacrifice hath been Consecrated Here I must alledge their own Arguments which they so industriously urge to excuse their denying the Chalice to the Laity For say they he who receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ not only the Body but the Blood of Christ the Natural Union the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union and the whole Trinity therefore to receive again under the Species of Wine is superfluous it is actum agere he had all before and more he cannot have so that the second reception is but a bare repetition of the former without addition or diminution This Doctrine which is their own I apply to their Sacrifice When the Priest hath Consecrated in both Kinds and Consummated the Hoast I still press to know What is wanting to compleat their Sacrifice Nothing can be assign'd but the Consummating the Chalice But I Reply The Sacrificater hath already Received all Christ nothing excepted What would he have more for to Consummate the Chalice is but to receive the very same again it is but an unnecessary Repetition it is actum agere whereby nothing is received but what was received before and therefore if any thing be wanting to Compleat the Sacrifice it must be some Spiritual Benefit or Emolument that the Chalice brings with it In
have a strict dependance on the first Matter as their proper Subject and on several qualities and accidents as their Natural disposition so that if their Matter should be Annihilated or their disposition destroyed by the Law of Nature they could not subsist though many of them Teach that the Heavens Planets and Fixt Stars admit of no such Composition but are Compleat yea simple substantial Bodies which cannot be dissolved but only into Integral and Homogeneal parts Thirdly They Assert That though according to Nature the same Individual Body cannot be in more then one place at the same time yet that by Divine Power one and the same Body may be collocated in several and distinct places the same moment of time how distant and remote soever these places are the one from the other Which is far different from the Manner how the Soul of Man exists in the Body for though the same Soul be at the same time in the head and in the foot and because it is a Spirit and hath no substantial nor integral parts it must of necessity be all in the head and all in the foot and other parts of the Body the same instant because it is indivisible yet in this Case the whole Body is but one adequate place of the Soul for if the head should be sever'd from the Body the Soul could not in that state of Separation be both in the head and the Body no not for one moment of time Fourthly They agree in the notion of Substantial Conversion that it is a Transmutation of one Substance into another which they distinguish into two Members the one is a partial or inadequate Conversion the other a total or adequate Commutation The first is common and proper to the present order of Nature for in all the Changes that we observe of several Substances destroy'd and others produc'd there never happens but a partial Conversion for example We see Wood or other Combustible Matter Converted into Fire the Form of Wood is destroyed but the Matter as being susceptible of any Form remains under the Forme of Fire that was before under that of Wood So that you see in all these Conversions one part is destroy'd but the other persists in being so in that which succeeds one part is newly produced but the other was extant before But in a total Conversion the precedent substance is wholly destroyed the Matter is Annihilated and the Forme Corrupted and the subsequent substance which succeeds in place of that which is destroyed both Matter and Forme is all Collocated under the same Collection of Accidents either by a new production or else by an adduction for if this substance into which the former was Converted were before extant then there needs only a new Ubication in the place where the Conversion is made without relinquishing its former Vbi or place where it was existent and so is now in two distinct places at once and this total Conversion can never be made without infringing the Laws of Nature for nothing in Nature can ever lay a disposition determining to the destruction of the first Matter which depends upon no dispositions but is produced by a Creative action independant of all things else And therefore its destruction exceeds the power of all Natural Causes Then the Constituting of a Body in two distinct and adequate places at once is not in the power of Nature as all grant Fifthly They grant That Quantity Qualities Dispositions and all other Accidents cannot naturally subsist without a Subject or Receptacle to support them and keep them in being for as Aristotle saith Accidens est ens in alio or entis ens it is ordained by Nature to be subservient to substance and so is not intended for it self but to dispose the substance to several Changes and Mutations upon which it hath consequently a strict dependance neither can it have any use in Nature without the Substance So that Accidents cannot remain without a Substance but by the Miraculous assistance of a Supernatural Power and where this intervenes they maintain that all Accidents except Moodes may be conserved in being without a Subject These several Points of Doctrine being premised they conclude That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the words of Consecration which are these Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body which are pronounced by the Priest assuming Christ's Person there is wrought a total substantial Conversion which they call Transubstantiation so that the whole substance of Bread both Matter and Forme is totally destroyed and the whole substance of Christ's Body is really placed there in lieu of the Bread which is really Converted into the Body of Christ yet so as that the Species of Bread which is the collection of Accidents that were before in the Bread keep their state of being though the Bread be destroyed and are Miraculously preserved without a Subject though they are Sacramentally united to the Body of Christ And though ex vi verborum only the Body of Christ be rendred present nothing else being signified by the words of Consecration nor requisite to verifie Concomitance and Connexion whereby all the parts of Christ are united with each other there is also put under the Species of Bread the Blood of Christ the Soul of Christ with the Natural Union between his Body and Soul the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union which Connects the Divine Word to the Humanity and consequently all the Sacred Trinity are all there really Existent under the Species of Bread which Species or Complex of Accidents were produced and conserved before the Bread was destroyed by an Action called Eduction that is a production dependant on another to wit the Substance of Bread to which they were the natural disposition but that substance being destroyed they are now conserved by another action which they terme Creation that is a production independant of all others By the Species of Bread they understand the Heat the Cold the Dryeth the Moysture the Quantity the Rarity the Density the Colour the Odour the Taste c. which were all appropriated to the Bread They also Affirm That these strange Wonders are wrought by the words of Consecration which are Instituted by Christ to this purpose and by their Obediential Power are elevated to effect what of themselves they are uncapable of the Divine Power Cooperating with them to accomplish this design so that these few words pronounced by a Priest who assumes Christ's Person and Officiates in his Name are not only representative but also practical they effect what they signifie and so reduce themselves to a Conformity with their Object which makes them true But it may be demanded In what Critical Moment of time this great Change is made For the words though few yet are pronounced by the Priest successively whence the doubt ariseth Whether this strange Conversision be made in the beginning the middle or the end of the words of Consecration To this they Answer
act of Divine Faith whose material Object is the Incarnation of the Divine Word The formal Object is Gods asserting of it Whence it ensues that though Faith have a greater certainty then Science yet it is destitute of Evidence as well in attestato as in attestante that is can neither demonstrate by Human Reason the Revelation it self nor the Mystery revealed We all agree that those words Hoc est corpus menm were spoken by Christ himself But we differ in giving the true sense and meaning of them The surest Rule that may guide us herein is to consult the Belief of the Primitive Church they certainly received from the Apostles the true Interpretation of them For it would derogate from Christ's goodness and providence to imprint an erroneous belief upon the first Professors of Christianity What then remains but that we consult Antiquity and inquire what their beliefe was of this Mystery And when this appears it would be a vain attempt of any one after a long continued series of Centuries to start a new Interpretation of those words for that must needs be an Erroneous Innovation and Adulterated Doctrine as repugnant to the general belief of all Christians from Christ's time I should swerve from my intended brevity should I here cite the several Texts of the antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church in opposition to the Real Presence for speaking of the Eucharist they frequently call it the Sacrement of the Body and Blood of Christ and St. Augustine tells us Aug. de Civit Dei L. 10. C. 5. That a Sacrament signifies a Sacred Sign which cannot be the thing signified They also call it the Resemblance the Similitude the Type the Antitype the Symbole the Sign the Image the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently not the Body it self Consonant to these expressions of the Fathers was the Universal Belief of the Church none positively affirming for above 800 years after Christ that the Body of our Saviour was really contained in the Sacrament Though in the year 637 A Monk of Mount Sinai one Anastasius among other Contemplations which he had in his Cell would needs disapprove of the former way of speaking which had been ever used till his time and so rejected the expression of Figure and Antitype but used no attempt to settle any point of Doctrine repugnant to the belief of Antiquity Yet what Anastasius began by way of altering the Tearms another Monk of Corbie in France one Paschasius Ratbert compleating by his Doctrine Taught That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which he declares in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he Composed in the Ninth Century after Christ in the year 818. And for this we have Bellarmines own Testimony Bellarm. de Script Eccles who acknowledgeth that Paschasius was the first Author that ever Wrote a serious Treatise of the Truth of the Body and Blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist This Doctrine being then new never any before attempting to assert it by any set Treatise it found great opposition so that most of the Learnedest Men in those times employed their endeavors severally to oppose it and cry it down which Paschasius himself acknowledgeth for being moved by his intimate Friend Frudegard Paschasias Epist ad Frudegard Pag. 623. about this Doctrine he Answers him You question me about a difficulty whereof many People do doubt to wit of the Real Presence so in his Letter to Frudegard And in his Commentary upon the 26th of St. Mark Idem in 26 Matth. L. 12. pag. 1094. he says I have Treated of these Mysteries more amply and expresly because I have been informed that I have been Censured by many as if in the Book which I Wrote of the Sacrament and Published I had attributed to the words of Christ more then the truth of the words would permit This being a thing so well known in History I shall not here inlarge upon it but only reflect upon the Doctrine of one of our own Nation which is venerable Bede Bede in Luc. C. 22. Idem in Ps 3. Idem hom de Sanc. in Epiph. Idem in Ps 133. To. 8. Idem de Tahern L. 2. C. 2. asibi who in several places of his Works declares his Opinion against the Real Presence for he tells us That our Saviour hath given us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that our Saviour gave to his Disciples in the Last Supper the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable Sactification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour changed the Sacrifices of the Legalia into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine And that in lieu of celebrating the Passion of our Saviour in the Flesh and the Blood of Victims as the Antients did we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine These and the like expressions which are frequent in the Works of this Author do manifestly declare that in those times none held the Real Presence but all believed the Eucharist to be a Figure or a Sacrament that is a Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ Hence there arose in the Church a high debate about this new Doctrine Paschasius got some Abetters of his Opinion but the greatest number and the most considerable vehemently opposed it as a Novelty others stood indifferent expecting the issue others again held a third Opinion which in substance was Consubstantiation for they Asserted The Body of Christ in the Eucharist to be united to the substance of Bread The contest about these several Opinions grew fervent some adhering to the one part others to the other and this mutual Contest lasted all the Ninth Century Whereupon that Great Emperor Charles Surnamed the Balde who was then Emperor of Germany and King of France finding his Subjects dissected into opposite Parties and contending against each other with so much rancor and animosity resolved to Consult the Learnedst Men he had in his Dominions upon the Question which was the ground of the debate Pursuant to this Resolution he calls to him one John Scot whose right Name was Erigene by Nation an Irish-man or a Scotchman I am not certain which This was a person of profound Learning and eminent Vertue and therefore highly esteemed by the Emperor and was vulgarly called The Holy Philosopher Another which the Emperor designed for his intended purpose was one Bertram but by the Writers of his time was called Retram which was his true Name He was a Monk and Priest of the Church of Rome of the Monastery of Corbie and afterwards for his Fame and rare Parts was created Abbot of Orbais who Wrote several Books and among others one of Predestination against Paschasius whom he Learnedly impugnes and censures him of
Heresie He was of the most eminent repute of his time He was a great Opponent of all Novelty and Innovation and for his Merits very dear to the Emperor These then were the Persons which the Emperor consulted and required them to give him in Writing the True Sense of the Church concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Whether it were contained in the Sacrament in Verity and Reality or only in Vertue and Figure as also whether it were the same Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary Suffered upon the Cross Rose from the Dead c. that we receive in the Sacrament for to both Questions Paschasius Answers That it was the same Body present in the Eucharist in Verity and Reality and not only in Vertue and Figure To these two Questions the forenamed Doctors gave in their Answer in Latin to the Emperor in Writing and their Resolutions were contrary to the Doctrine of Paschasius as to both Questions For to the First Whether that which we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be truly and really the Body of Christ or only a Figure and Type thereof They both Answer That the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in this Sacrament only in Figure and Virtue and not in Reality As to the Second Question Whether it be the same Body that was Born of the Virgin Mary that suffered on the Cross that was Buried and Rose again that Ascended into Heaven they Answer That we Receive the Figure and Verture of that same Body And not wholly to omit the Transactions of these two Doctors I shall here briefly relate some passages of each of them SECT VI. A briefe account of some passages of the life and death of John Erigène THis Learned Doctor how dear soever he was to that Great Emperor Charles yet he was sharply censur'd and severely handled by several Authors and great Prelates and especially by the Council of Valentia for some Dogmatical Points which he deliver'd in a Treatise that he Wrote of Predestination and the state of the future Life as deviating from the Orthodox Principles of the Church yet none reprehended him for his Doctrine of the Eucharist And certainly he meritted eternal renown for Translating the Hierarchy of Dionysius of Areopagyta from Greek into Latin by Command of the Emperor Charles which Work added no small access to the Opinion formerly conceived of his zeal and eloquence for hence he was esteemed a Saint and that his Doctrine and knowledge was infus'd from Heaven His Fame daily increasing he was at last called into England by Alfrede then King where he was Barbarously Murdered by his own Disciples in the Monastery of Malmesbury in the year 883 or thereabouts and was decently buried in that Church but his Body was afterwards with great Pomp and Magnificence translated to the Cathedral and there placed before the Altar with this Epitaph Here lies John the Holy Philosopher Gulielm Malmesb. L. 2. C. 5. who in his life time was inriched with wonderful Doctrine and in the end had the honor to ascend by Martyrdom to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign eternally as William of Malmesbury relates And after his decease by the Autority of the See of Rome he was put into the Catalogue of Martyrs His Treatise of the Eucharist remained extant about 200 years after he Wrote it by the Emperors Command but about the year 1050 it was read in the Council of Verceils where Pope Leo the Ninth presided and there condemned to be Burnt as being repugnant to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Eucharist which was accordingly put in execution and so this Treatise perish'd And consequently it was often moved to have him expunged from the Catalogue of Saints but without effect till the time of Baronius who alledging That he had Written against the Real Presence upon this account got him excluded from that rank wherein he had been formerly placed by Gregory the 13th and other Popes Histor Ecclesiast Angliae L. 2. P. 119. as Fuller relates SECT VII Some Passages of the Life and Doctrine of Retram THis Doctor was one of the Learnedst and of the fairest repute of his time and upon this account was chosen among the rest by Charles the Emperor together with John Scot or Erigéne to give him an account what was the true meaning of Christ's Word 's and the true Doctrine of the Church in relation to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist By this means to allay the heat of that turbulent Contention and Animosity which had reacht the utmost confines of his Dominions and dissected his Subjects into violent Factions occasioned by the Writings of Paschasius wherein he Asserted the Real Presence These two great Men in Complyance to the Emperors Command gave their Answer in two distinct Treatises in Latin upon this Subject wherein they both agreed that the true Orthodox Doctrine never admitted of any Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament but that it was there contained Virtually and Figuratively by means of Christ's Institution which they proved out of the Scripture and Fathers alleging several parallel examples out of Holy Writ concluding that the adverse Opinion was a Heterodox novelty contrary to Scripture Fathers and the Universal Belief of the Church till that time Retram when he Wrote this Treatise was a Priest of the Church of Rome and Monck of the Monastery of Corby soon after there arose great difficulties between Nicholas the First then Pope and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople whereupon Pope Nicholas implores the Assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks The Clergy of the Gallican Church knew not where to find a more able and expert Champion to carry on this great design then Bertram or Retram and so unanimously chose him to defend the Pope and the Latin Church against their Antagonists Retram undertakes it and discharges his trust with a great deal of honor and applause and was afterwards created Abbot of Orbais But to come to his Doctrine his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ was providently preserved and at length Translated into English and Printed here in England about a Hundred Thirty and two years since in the year of our Lord 1549 whereof there have been several Editions since and it was lately Printed in France both in Latin and French But now come we to give you a Specimen of the Tenets which by this Treatise he endeavors to establish First Then he tells us That the Bread which by the Mystery of the Priest is made the Body of Christ doth shew one thing to the External Senses and another thing soundeth inwardly to the Mind of Faith Outwardly the Bread remaineth as it was before c. and then he adds of the VVine The Wine also which by the Consecration of the Priest is made the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ
c. What other thing is superficially looked upon but the substance of Wine VVhere he affirms the substance of Bread and VVine to remain in the Sacrament after Consesecration To this he subjoyns For notwithstanding that after the Mystical Consecration Bread is not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ yet after that which is seen neither is any kind of Flesh known in the Bread nor in the Wine any drop of Blood Before he told us that the Bread and VVine remained in the Sacrament after Consecration as they were before now he tells us That after Consecration there is not any kind of Flesh nor one drop of Blood though the Bread be not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ where he granteth the denomination of the Body and Blood of Christ but denyeth the verity and substance thereof for he acknowledgeth nothing but the Bread and VVine though they be not called so This in substance he often repeateth for after the verity saith he the kind of creature which was before is known still to remain VVhat more conspicuous Then addressing his Discourse to his Adversaries he tells them That under the veile of Corporeal Bread and Wine is the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ. So that the Bread and VVine remain Corporeally but the Body and Blood of Christ Spiritually by their vertue of Sanctification And then presently compares this Sacrament to Holy Baptisme wherein the natural Element of VVater which of it self hath only power to wash and cleanse the Body yet by Christ's Institution is impowered to cleanse and sanctifie the Soul and yet still remains the Natural Element of VVater subject to corruption and then applyes the VVater in Baptisme to the Bread and VVine in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Hence he proceeds to another similitude telling them That the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea which produced a Spiritual effect and yet suffered no Mutation This again he parallelleth to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Then he tells them Likewise Manna given to the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were Corporeal and Corporeally they fed the People and gave them drink yet the Apostle nameth that Manna and that Water Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and then he applyeth it to the Bread and Wine as before which takes off all ambiguity of his meaning for he drives at this that the Bread and VVine which remain in the Sacrament though Natural and Corporeal things yet by the powerful operation of Christ they are enabled to produce in the Souls of the worthy Receivers the same Spiritual Grace and Sanctification as if the Body and Blood of Christ were there really present and therefore the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ. He proceeds farther saying Here also we ought to consider what is meant by these words except you shall eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his Blood you shall have no life in you He said not That his Flesh which hanged on the Cross should be eaten in pieces and eaten of the Apostles nor that his Blood which he shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink for it were a wicked thing if his Flesh should be eaten and his Blood drunk as the Infidels took it And to confirm this he cites St. Augustine upon the same Text of Scripture Aug. de Dodr. Christ L. 3. of Christ's commands in these words He seemeth to command a wicked thing therefore it is a Figure c. Thus St. Augustine affirmeth the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ to be celebrated of the Faithful under a Figure for he saith It is no point of Religion but rather of Iniquity to take his Flesh and his Blood as they did which understood not Christ 's words Spiritually but Carnally and went back Then he gives many examples in other like cases to shew Why the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ because of the Similitude they have with the things Signified and so concludeth Wherefore the Mysteries be named the Body and Blood of Christ because they take the appellation of things whereof they be Sacraments Then he cites several passages out of St. Isidore to confirm the same Opinion of whom he saith Afterwards he declareth what Sacraments are to be Celebrated among the Faithful that is the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Body and Blood of Christ And here I desire the Reader to take notice by the way that for above Eight hundred years after Christ there were but these Two Sacraments acknowledged in the Church of Christ and consequently no more were Instituted by Christ himself Yet the Church of Rome hath introduced Five more which Antiquity never heard of under the notion of Sacraments Is it credible that Christ should Institute for his Church Seven Sacraments and yet communicate to the first Professors of Christianity and their Successors for Eight Centuries the knowledge only of Two of them This cannot be The other Five were therefore Instituted by the Church of Rome for the Council of Trent names Seven and makes it an Article of Faith to believe them all Sacraments and layes its Curse upon the Disbelievers Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis Trident. Sess 7. Can. 1. non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino Nostro Instituta aut esse plura vel paucior a quam septem videlicet Baptismum Consirmationem Eucharistiam Poenitentiam extremam Vnctionem Ordinem Matrimonium aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse vere propriè Sacramentum Anathema sit Which was formerly defin'd by the Council of Florence Florent Decr. Eugenii a Arm. under the same circumstances What judgment can we here frame Examine Antiquity for Eight or Nine hundred years after Christ that can give us no Intelligence of any more then Two Sacraments and yet the Church of Rome strictly commands the belief of Seven Certainly the Subjects of that Church must have recourse to their blind obedience to submit to such Canons and Decrees as these For if Christ did not Institute those Five pretended Sacraments as it is plain he did not then the Church of Rome must have attempted to institute them not by appointing the matter but by giving them the vertue of Sacraments which is highly presumptive and a manifest violation of Divine Right for none but Christ can ordain the means and the vehicles whereby he intended to convey his Spiritual Graces which were the fruits of his Passion to the Souls of the Faithful this is his peculiar Prerogative But this being a digression from the matter in hand I desist and leave it to the consideration of the Judicious Reader Bertram now draws to the close of his First Question Whether the Body and Blood of Christ
be contained in the Holy Sacrament in Verity or in Figure and concludes with these words Hitherto have we declared that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful be Figures And so terminates this First Question SECT VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question THe Second Question that was to be resolved by Retram or Bertram was this as he himself declares Whether the same Body that was Born of Mary that Suffered Dyed was Buried and sitteth on the Right hand of the Father be that Body which is daily received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament or no Ambr. L. 1 de Sacram. And first he discourseth out of St. Ambrose That the substance of the Creatures suffer no Mutation in these words For after the substance of the Creatures they be even the same things after the Consecration that they were before For before the Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after they appear to remain in the same kind still Where his Position is That the substance of the Creatures are the same after Consecration that they were before which he proves thus Before Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after Consecration they not only appear to remain but really do remain in the same kind still of Bread and Wine this must be the drift of his Argument for else it would not prove his intent Then having said That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in forme but in vertue he applauds a distinction of St. Ambrose How diligently and how wisely hath he made a distinction where be saith touching the flesh which was Crucisied and Buried this is the true Flesh of Christ but touching that which is received in the Sacrament he saith This is the Sacrament of the true Flesh so dividing the Sacrament of the Flesh from the very Flesh c. But he affirmeth the Mystery which is done in the Church to be the Sacrament of the very Flesh in which Christ Suffered instructing the Faithful that the Flesh in which Christ Suffered and was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but the very Natural Flesh but this Flesh which now containeth the Similitude of the very Flesh in Mystery is not Flesh in Kind nor in Forme but in Sacrament For in Kind it is Bread c. Hence he proceeds to the Autority of St. Hierome Hieron in Epistolam Pauli ad Eph. The Flesh and the Blood of Christ saith he St. Hierom are understood two manner of ways which he explicates the one Corporeally and the other Spiritually Therefore saith Bertram the Spiritual Flesh and the Spiritual Blood which are daily received of the Faithful do differ undoubtedly from the Flesh Crucified and the Blood shed as the Autority of this Doctor doth witness Much to this purpose he discourseth upon the Autority of St. Augustine Aug. in Evangelium Sancti Joan. distinguishing between the Spiritual Food and the Corporeal Food of the Fathers of the Old Law comparing them with us Where he affirms out of St. Augustine that their Spiritual Food was the same with ours the Body of Christ but the Corporeal Food was very different as much as the Manna the Cloud and the Sea differ from Bread and Wine Which he confirms by the Autority of St. Paul speaking of the Antient Fathers that were Baptised in Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and they all did eate the same Spiritual Meate and drank the same Spiritual Drink which he concludes to be Christ in a Figure as it is with us in the Sacrament where he saith Christ is in a certain manner and this manner is in Figure and Image Hence he draws this Illation Wherefore the Body and Blood that we now celebrate in the Church do differ from the Body and the Blood which are now known to be glorified by the Resurrection This Body is the Pledge and the Figure the other is the very Natural Body And presently he adds And as the Figure differeth from the verity thus it is plain that the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which is received of the Faithful in the Church differeth from the said Body that was Born of Mary the Virgin c. Then he cites St. Austin's words Preaching to the People of the Body and Blood of Christ. The thing which you see in the Altar of God saith St. Austin was seen of you the last night Aug. Serm. ad Populum but what it is or what it meaneth or of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament ye have not yet heard The thing which you see is Bread and Wine He then tells them That by Faith they ought to believe the Bread to be the Body and the Wine to be the Blood of Christ And then he makes them object that the Body of Christ that was Born of the Virgin c. with his Blood Ascended entirely into Heaven where he now is How then can this Bread be his Body and this Wine his Blood St. Austin Answers These good Brethren be called Sacraments because that one thing is seen in them and another thing understood that which is seen hath a Corporeal form and that which is not seen hath a Spiritual Fruit. Whereupon Bertram adds In these words this worshipful Author instructing us what we ought to think of the proper Body of the Lord that was Born of Mary c. Also what we ought to think of the Body set on the Altar whereof the People be partakers The very Body is whole and not divided with any Section neither cover'd with any Figures but this Body set on the Table of the Lord is a Figure because it is a Sacrament And again Therefore St. Austin hath Taught us that as the Body of Christ is signified in the Bread which is on the Altar so is the Body of the People that receive it Then Addressing his Discoure to the Emperor he saith Your Wisdom most excellent Prince may perceive that I have proved by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup called his Blood is a Figure because it is a Mystery And that there is no small difference between the Mystical Body and the Body that Suffered was Buried and Rose again for this which suffered is the proper Body of our Saviour neither in it is any Figure or Signification but the manifest action of the thing it self c. And thus he concludes his Answer to the Emperor insisting all along upon this Truth That in this Holy Sacrament is contained the same Bread and Wine that was before which are called the Body and Blood of Christ because they Mystically and Figuratively signifie the same and are Received by the Faithful by way of Commemoration of Christ's Passion and by vertue of Christ's Institution they
one Constantinus Caetanus Abbot of a Monastery near Rome which contains all that the former Rituals have but is more ample and adds more Ceremonies and Prayers not any way belonging to the Essentials of Priesthood except that which is specified towards the end for the Bishop having recited the Consecration he totally omits that which is contained under the Title Consummatio Presbyteri as in the first Ritual then he puts the Stole on the right shoulder of him that is to be Ordained saying Accipe jugum Dei jugum enim ejus suave est onus ejus leve Receive the yoke of God for his yoke is sweet and his burthen light Then he puts on his Casula or Vestment saying Stola innocentiae induat te Dominus God put thee on the Stole of Innocence Then follows the Benediction Deus Sanctificationum c. as in the first Ritual which done Capiens oleum facit crucem super manus ambas ita dicens Consecrare sanctificare digneris Domine manus istas per istam unctionem ut quaecunque consecraverint consecrentur quaecunque benedixerint benedicantur sanctificentur in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi Hoc facto accipiat patenam cum oblatis calicâ—â—â— cum vino dicat Accipe potestatem 〈…〉 sacrificium Deo Missamque cebbâ—â—re tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis in nomine Domini Benedictio Benedictio Dei Patris silii Spiritus Sancti descendet saper vos ut sitis benedicti in ordine Sacerdotali offeratis placabiles hostias pro peccatis at que offensionibus populi omnipotenti Deo cui est honor gloria per omnia Taking the Oyle he makes a Cross upon both his hands saying thus O Lord vouchsafe to Consecrate and Sanctifie these hands by this Unction that whatever they shall Consecrate may be consecrated and whatever they shall bless may be blessed in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ This being performed let him take the Paren with the Offerings and the Calice with the Wine let him say Receive the Power to offer Sacrifice to God and to say Mass both for the Living and the Dead in the Name of our Lord c. The Benediction Let the Blessing of God the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost descend upon ye may ye be blessed in the Order of riesthood and may ye offer Attoning Sacrifices for the Sins and offences of the People to Almighty God To whom be Honor and Glory c. This is the first Ritual that I can find which contains the touching of the Chalice with Wine and the Pattene with an Hoast with this Form Accipe potestatem c. as above which the Church of Rome hath ever since retained to this day Another Ritual belonging to the Church of Mens of 450 years standing contains all that the former hath But in the Margin it is written that the Bishop saith to them that are Ordained Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum remiserit is peccata remittuntur eis quorum retinueritis retenta sunt c. post sumptionem corporis Sanguinis Jesu Christi antequam dicatur postcommunio tunc Episcopus trahat unicuique casulam deorsum per scapulas osculans eum dicens Pax Domini sit semper tecum Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit are remitted and whose sins ye retain are retained And after the receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ before the saying of the Post-Communion let the Bishop let down the Vestment from their shoulders kissing each of them and saying Let the Peace of our Lord be always with you This addition is all the difference between this and the last Ritual and in the perusal of these and several other Rituals I never met with any power to Remit and Retain sins communicated to the Ordained by such plain and express words after they had received the power of Priesthood Yet by the Custom of some Churches this form Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum c. is used in the beginning of the Ordination of Priests and accompanyeth the Imposition of hands But the present Practice of the Church of Rome is to give this power about the end of the Mass by the Imposition of Hands as the Matter and the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum c. as the Form And because the Modern Rituals of the Latines contain nothing of moment more then what the Roman Pontifical expresseth I shall therefore wave them lest it might prove tedious to the Reader SECT III. A briefe Account of the Rituals of the Greeks Maronites c. WE begin with the Greeks and because the Antient Rituals have no more in them then what is contained in those of a later date I shall omit the former for after them to transcribe the more modern Pontificals were actum agere to do the same thing twice A Greek Ritual Written 800 years since kept in the Liberary of Cardinal Franciscus Barbarinus Ordinatio Presbyteri Postquam allata sunt Sancta dona in sacra mensa reposita sunt completus est Sanctus Hymnus mysticus Cherubicus charta consueta traditur Archiepiscopo in qua scriptum est Divina gratia quae semper infirma curat deficientia complet promovet hunc N. Deo amabilem Diaconum in Presbyterum Eaque lecta ita ut omnes audiant qui ordinandus est adducitur eoque genu flectente tria crucis signa facit super caput ejus habensque manum et impositam haec precatur Deus qui es principii finis expers qui omni creatura longè es antiquior quique denominatione Presbyteri eos honorasti qui digni judicati sunt in eo gradu sancte administrare verbum veritatis tuae Ipse omnium Domine complaceat tibi hunc quam à me propter politiam irreprehensibilem modumque agendi inculpatum fidem constantem promoveri probasti magnam illam gratiam Sancti Spiritus tui suscipere Perfectum redda servum tuum ut tibi in omnibus placeat pro data sibi à providente virtute tua magno illo sacerdotali honore dignè sese gerat conversetur quia tua est potentia tuum est regnum virtus c. Tum facit Presbyterorum unus Diaconi precem in hunc modum In pace Dominum deprecemur Pro suprema pace ac salute Pro pace universi mandi Pro Archiepiscopo nostro N. ipsius sacerdotio auxilio perseverantia pace ac salute operibus manuum ejus Dominum deprecemur Pro eo qui nunc promovetur Presbytero salute ipsius Dominum deprecemur Vt clemens hominum amans Deus immaculatum irreprehensibile largiatur illi Sacerdotium deprecemur Pro piissimo à Deo custodito Imperatore Nostro c. Et cum à Presbytero haec habetur oratio Archiepiscopus consimiliter manum tenens super caput illius qui ordinatur sic precatur Deus qui potens es in
Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ who alwayes makest perfect our defects according to the will of God the Father in the virtue of the Holy Ghost be present with these who are here offered c. It is it who calls and offers N. from the degree of Deacon to the degree of a Priest at the Holy and Divine Altar of the House of the Mother of God Mary c. Therefore let us all Pray that Grace and the Holy Spirit may descend upon them c. thrice Kyrie Eleison c. The Bishop puts his hands upon the Mystery and stretcheth forth his armes and gathers and contracts them thrice over the Body and Blood taking out of the Chalice the Particles whilst they gather them together and cover them with a Veil or Sacred Linnen After he turns to him that is to be Ordained and puts his hand on his head and measures them to him and again lifts up his hands stretching out his armes on high and lets his hands fall trembling upon his head This the Bishop repeats three times his eyes looking down with fear After this he lays his right hand on his head and covers the head and hands of him that is to be Ordained with a Vaile His right hand is placed upon his head and his left is moved to and fro and he turns his left hand thrice about his neck and face c. Invocation of the Holy Ghost c. Afterward the Bishop turns to the West towards him that is to be Ordained and puts his right hand on his head and signs him with the Cross between his eyes saying thus He is Ordain'd in the Holy Church of God The Archdeacon saith N. Priest at the Holy Altar of the House of the Mother of God The Bishop adds N. Priest at the Holy Altar c. In the Name of the Father c. After he hath made three signs of the Cross the Priest Ordained returns to the Altar Mystically saying this Prayer We have received thy Grace O Lord c. Then the Bishop returns to him and takes him by the right hand and lifts him up The Archdeacon saith Your Blessing my Lord. The Bishop takes the Stole which was upon him and brings it over his right shoulder from the forepart saying To the Praise and Honor and Beauty and Exaltation of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity and to the Peace and Edification of the Holy Church of God The Clergy Answer To the Praise c. And when he with Pompe carries the Vestment and Tunick and Girdle c. and saith To the Praise c. Afterwards delivers to him a Censer and commands him to put Incense therein Moreover the Bishop takes him by the hand and leads him to kiss the Table of Life which being done he kisseth the Bishops hand who gives him his Peace and commands all the rest to do the like And forthwith the Bishop signs with the Cross the Consummation of the Holy Body with the Cup and after he hath communicated Orders that he Communicate the Congregation the Bishop shall sign with the Cross and conclude The Ritual of the Cophticks or Aegyptians for the Ordination of Priests THe disserence between the Cophticks and the Jacobites is not considerable only they who lived in Persia Syria Assyria and the East were called Jacobites But they who inhabited Aegypt and Aethiopia were called Cophticks whose Ritual differs but little from the Jacobites which is as followeth Cum volunt praesentare Ordinandum in Sacerdotem testificantur primo Sacerdotes de operibus ejus bonis de scientia ejus quod uxor ejus talis sit qualem lex requirit quod acceperit inferiores gradus c. Deinde prodit foras vestitus veste Diaconi haltheus super humerum ejus sinistrum coram altari Stet autem Episcopus cum Sacerdotibus Et qui separatus est incurvat genua sua ante Altare Episcopus dicit gratiarum actionem accipit simul thymiama orat super illud conversusque facie sua ad Altare dicit hanc orationem O Domine Deus qui venire nos fecisti c. He prays for the Holy Ghost and Grace to administer Priesthood right Ecce venit ad te Ordinandus in Sacerdotem perfice eum in servum tuum c. Dicit Archidiaconus Gratia Domini Nostri Jesu Christi c as above Ter Kyrie Eleison Episcopus conversus ad orientem hanc orationem dicit Queso Domine Deus pone eum dignum vocatione Presbyteratus c. ut ministret Altari tuo sancto c. ter Kyrie Eleison Conversus ad occidentem Episcopus ponit manum suam dextram super caput ejus sic orando O Domine Deus omnipotens c. Respice super hunc servum tuum qui tibi praesentatur ad sacerdotium per approbationem judicium eorum qui tibi eum stiterunt c. Reple eum Spiritu Sancto gratia c. The Bishop Prays for him that he may worthily perform the functions of Priesthood c. Et conversus ad occidentem signat frontem ejus pollice suo dicens vocamus to in Ecclesiam Dei Sanctam Amen Alta voce dicit Archidiaconus N. Sacerdos est Altaris Sancti quod est in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica Apostolica Ecclesia Dei Amen Deinde clara voce Episcopus dicit vocamus te N. Sacerdotem Altaris Sancti quod vocatur Orthodoxorum in nomine Patris c. Facit Episcopus super frontem ejus tres cruces significando Trinitatem Deinde vestit illum Stola dicens Gloria honor Trinitati Sanctae consubstantiali Patri Filio Spiritui Sancto Pax incrementum Ecclesiae Dei Sanctae Amen Conversus ad orientem Episcopus orat sic Gratias tibi agimus c. A Thansgiving to God and a Petition that the Ceremonies of Ordination may please him Then follows an Admonition to the Priest newly Ordained Et juramento praestito osculatur Episcopum Altare praesentes Deinde explicat aliquid de mysteriis Et Episcopus ponit super eum manum tribus vicibus omnes dicunt alta voce dignus est N. ut sit Sacerdos in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica Apostolica And so it ends The Cophticks and Aegyptians WHen they would present him that is to be Ordained Priest first of all the Priests give Testimony of his good Works and his Learning and that his Wife is such as the Law requires that he hath received the Inferior Orders c. Then he comes forth in his Deacons Habit and having a Stole on his left shoulder he stands before the Altar The Bishop likewise stands with his Priests And he that is separated kneels before the Altar The Bishop recites a Prayer of Thansgiving and at the same time takes the Incense and blesseth it and turning his face to the Altar he recites this Prayer O Lord God who hast ordered our coming c. Behold he that is to be
touching the Vessels with this Forme Accipe potestatem c. they affirm the Ordained to receive the Order of Priesthood with Power to Consecrate and offer Sacrifice and the Character to be thereby imprinted But by the consequent imposition of hands the Ordained receives a Power only to forgive or retain sins as the Forme of words expresseth So Becanus Part 3. Theologiae Cap. 26. de Sacramento Ordinis quest 4. who uses his utmost endeavor by this means to maintain the Validity of Ordination according to the present practice of the Church of Rome yet so as not to draw any prejudice upon the Ordination of the Greek Church and other Christian Congregations whose Ordinations the Church of Rome ever declared valid But the Council of Florence seems to obstruct his design by assigning no other Essentials of Ordination but the Tradition of the Vessels and their Forme and here Gamachaeus above cited in the precedent Section Cap. 4. joyns his forces with Becanus or rather Becanus with him So also doth Meratius D 7. S. 2. who to the Autority of the Council of Florence Answers Concilium non suscepisse ex professo declarandum accurate singulorum ordinum materiam formam totalem ac integram c. sed solum per cujus rei Traditionem potestas ordinis conferetur The Council saith Meratius did not undertake of purpose to declare exactly the total and adequate Matter and Forme of each order c. but only to declare what those things were by whose Tradition the power of order was conferr'd And this Opinion Isamberus also imbraces with avidity as conceiving all helps little enough in such a hard conjuncture and therfore joyns this Opinion with his own specify'd above in the Second Objection St. Bonaventure holds the same in 4 d. 7. ar 1. q. 1. 2. and before him Alexander p. 4. Summe q. 9. Memb. 1. 2. ar 2. where he distinguisheth between that which Christ Ordained and that which the Church Ordained in these words Quae enim ab homine Ordinata sunt ab homine possunt mutari quae autem à Deo instituta sunt non nisi dictante Deo debent mutari These things saith he that are Ordained by Man may be changed by Man but those things that are Instituted by God are not to be changed but by Gods appointment As to their Interpretation of the Council of Florence I Answer That it is is a meer ungrounded shift for the Council gives not the least hint of any such sense but undertakes to assign the Essential matter of Priesthood and to that purpose specifies only the Tradition of the Vessels as the only Essential Matter and mentions nothing else which would be a meer delusion if the Council had judged any thing else to be Essential But Becanus interprets it thus Nota antiqua Concilia assignasse materiam à Christo Institutam Florentinum verò materiam assignasse quam Ecclesia introduxit Note saith Becanus that the Antient Councils assigned the matter Instituted by Christ but the Council of Florence specified the Matter that was introduced by the Church Be it so then the Antient Councils assigned only the Imposition of hands as the Essential Matter of Priesthood but the Council of Florence in the time of those Fathers signified the Tradition of the Vessels and nothing else as the only Essential Matter So that neither the Antient nor Modern Councils ever joyned these two Matters together as parts of the whole by their own Confession But hence it is plain that the Church of Rome hath introduced a New Matter and Forme which Christ never Instituted and yet they hold it Essential Now to their Argument My first Answer is That this is a meer evasion to save them from Shipwrack What ground have they for patching up a Sacramental Matter with two such disparate and heterogeneal pieces What time will they appoint to have the Character imprinted What will this avail them if it should be all granted for none of them will admit the Imposition of Hands alone with its Forme to have a capacity to confer the Order of Priesthood and Imprint the Character therefore they must declare the Ordination of the Greeks to be frustrate who never used any other Matter then the Imposition of Hands But if this alone be sufficient Then what need is there of the Tradition of the Vessels Why should these two parts so different from each other be conjoyned if either of them apart were sufficient My Second Answer is That they could never have made a worse choice then to joyn these two Matters and Formes together in order to constitute the entire Essence of Ordination for both the one and the other are Innovations the one begun about Seven hundred years since the other was introduced about Four hundred and fifty years since so that neither was Instituted by Christ neither recommended by the Apostles neither practised in the Church of God before the times specified From whence then can they derive their Validity My Third Answer is That the last Imposition of Hands with this Forme Accipe Spiritum Sanctum c. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you forgive they are forgiven whose sins you retain they are retained This I say can no way belong to the Essentials of Priesthood because this Matter and Forme are applyed to none but those that have before received the Order of Priesthood and have the Character Imprinted which is manifest because they all said Mass and Consecrated with the Bishop before the application of this Matter and Forme which is not performed till after they have all Received the Communion immediately before the Post-Communion is Read wherefore this Matter and Forme comes too late to have any influence upon the Order of Priesthood but I shall not need spend time in the Proof of this because the Authors of this Objection grant it and only make use of this Matter and Forme to confer the Power of Forgiving and Retaining sins Which being supposed they must rely wholly upon the Tradition of the Vessels for conferring upon the Ordained the Spiritual Power of Priesthood and enabling him to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and to offer Sacrifice and for Imprinting the Character c. all which the touching of the Vessels with its Forme can never accomplish because here is nothing at all of Christ's Institution no Imposition of Hands doth any way concur to this So that we have here the Power of Priesthood conferr'd with the Character and yet without any Imposition of Hands and hereby this Opinion agrees with the First Objection which excludes all Imposition of Hands and therefore must of necessity condemn the Greek Church who never use any other Matter of Ordination then the Imposition of Hands And yet the main drift of these Objections is to save the Validity of the Greeks Ordinations so as not to destroy their own And that the Power of Consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ is the
Principal Act of Priesthood they all grant and it is so asserted by Albertus Magnus The Act of Priests saith he is to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ Albert. Mag. L. 6. Theologie veritatis C. 36. and it is the Principal Act the other is consequent which is to Retain and Absolve A Fourth Objection Nothing can be more significant nor more proportionable to the Function and chief Ministry of a Priest then the delivering to him in his Ordination those Vessels wherein he is to Consecrate and Consummate the Mysteries of the Eucharist which is the Principal and Substantial Act of his Priestly Office and therefore nothing so fit to be the Essential Matter of his Ordination So likewise the Forme clearly and Explicitely signifieth the Order of Priesthood to be conferr'd to the Ordained by the application of this Matter and Forme and therefore is most exactly accommodated to this present end I Answer That it argues Temerity and Presumption for meer Men to prefer their judgments before the judgment of the Word Incarnate who knows and comprehends all things whose judgment and prudence is infi nite and consequently he best knew what was most significant and most expedient for the Matter and Forme of such Mysteries as he himself Instituted And therefore to reject that which Christ appointed and substitute in lieu thereof the products of our own weak invention under pretence that it is more accommodated to the Mystery then that is too high an attempt for hereby we devest Christ of his Omniscience and consequently of his Divinity by preferring our own Finite and Limited capacities before the II-limited Perfections of Christ's Understanding which is very preposterous and deordinate As to the Forme of words which they have introduced to animate their adventitious Matter lest their Reformation should remain incompleate I Answer That this Modern Forme now in practice in the Church of Rome to wit Receive a Power of offering Sacrifice as well for the Living as the Dead c. is very different from the antient Forme derived from the Apostles which is this The Divine Grace which always heals that which is infirm and supplies that which is defective promotes this holy Deacon to be a Priest Compare these two together and you will find a substantial difference between them that is Imperative this Indicative that gives Power of offering Sacrifice this hath no such expression That specifies to whose benefit the Sacrifice shall accrue this makes no mention at all to whose benefit it should redound c. These and other differences make those two Forms very heterogeneal and discrepating when compared with each other But it may be alleag'd That notwithstanding these seeming Differences yet in effect the two Forms are equivalent and render the same sense only with this difference that what the one contains implicitely the other expresseth more particularly and explicitely The second signifies Priesthood conferr'd which implies a power of exercising all the Functions and Ministeries that properly belong to a Priest among which is enumerated the power of offering Sacrifice which peculiarly belongs to a Priest This therefore is tacitly contained and involved under the signification of this Second Forme and the first signifies more distinctly this self-same thing and no more For the intention of the Sacrificator is extrinsecal to the Sacrifice for whether he offer it for the Living or the Dead or by way of Satisfaction Propitiation or Impetration for himself or others makes no change in the Sacrifice This latter part I admit but to the rest I Answer That the offering of Sacrifice in the Law of Grace is not the only Function peculiar and proper to a Priest because the Administration of the Sacraments Preaching and Explaining the Word of God c. are Ministeries belonging to the Office of Priests all which are contained under the Second Forme but wholly omitted in the First which only impowers the Ordained to offer Sacrifice and limits his power to this alone because this Power is explicitely given him and no mention made of any other so that the Second Forme having a greater latitude as comprehending all that is contained under the notion of Priesthood and the First Forme limited to one Function alone it is manifest that this First Forme peccat per defectum that it is deficient for it doth not reach the compleate Power of Priesthood and the Second Forme being wholly omitted in the Roman Pontifical the Ordination consequently is Essentially defective Yet Independent of all this they acknowledging the Original Matter and Forme to be valid What necessity was there of Instituting this New Matter and Forme Is it Christian-like to be diffident of Christ's Providence as though the Supreame Power of our Benign Redeemer wanted Ability or his Omniscience were defective to know our wants or his Infinite Goodness had not the Will to furnish us with all necessaries conducing to our Eternal Bliss Is it possible that any understanding though but meanly instructed with Reason can conceive that Human Providence in these Supernatural Mysteries can in the least manner come in competition with that never failing Providence of Christ himself They Teach That the Matter and Forme of all Sacraments are so determin'd by Divine Institution Bellarm. L. 1. de Sacram in genere C. 21. ut non liceat quidquam immutare that it is not lawful to change any thing saith Bellarmine and Suarez saith It is an Article of Faith See the Authors for this above Sect. 6. in the Fourth Answer to the Second Objection they also hold Ordination to be a Sacrament Si quis dixerit Ordinem sive Sacram Ordinationem Trident. Sess 23. Can. 3. non esse verè propriè Sacramentum à Christo Domino Institutum c. Anathema sit If any one shall say That Order or Ordination is not truely and properly a Sacrament Instituted by Christ our Lord let him be Accursed saith the Council of Trent If therefore they stand to their own Principles the change which they have made in the Matter and Forme of Ordination can be no less then a violation of Divine Right which renders the Order of Priesthood Invalid But this is not all for though their Modern Forme should be equivalent to the Primitive Forme yet if it be misplaced and not applyed to the Imposition of Hands which is the Original Matter it cannot make one with it and so on this account the Ordination will be Invalid And in effect they have so dismembred the parts of Christ's Institution and so inverted the Order of them that it is very remote from being the same thing it was For though they use the Imposition of Hands which is the Original Matter yet they apply not to it the Original Forme which they entirely omit nay they allow it no Forme at all as it were in Contempt the Ordainer with Deep Silence only putting his hand upon the Head of him that is to be Ordained not deeming it an
Power of offering Sacrifice then conferr'd upon the Ordained and nothing else And the offering of Sacrifice is the chief action of a Priest because it impowers him to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ which none but a Priest can do Albert. Mag. L. 6. Theolog. veritatis C. 36. Actus Presbyterorum saith Albertus Magnus est Consecrare corpus Sanguinem Christi est actus principalis Alius est consequens scilicet ligare solvere The Act of Priests is to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and it is the principal Act. The other is consequent which is to Retain and Absolve which they all grant therefore they must acknowledge Priesthood to be hereby conferr'd For To what other sense can they draw those words Take Receive Accept the Power of offering Sacrifice and the Ordained comes with a full intention to Receive the Power whence there cannot be the least shadow of any other design then intending this Matter and Forme as the Essentials of Priesthood SECT VIII An Illation drawn from the Premises of the Invalidity of Ordination in the Church of England Solved THe Council of Trent seems to make no difference between Order and Ordination Trid. Sess 23. Can. 3. but confounds them together Si quis dixerit Ordinem sive Sacram Ordinationem non esse verè propriè Sacramentum à Christo Domino institutum c. Anathema sit If any one shall say That Order or Holy Ordination is not truly and properly a Sacrament Instituted by Christ c. let him be Accursed But I shall make it appear that there is a considerable difference between Order and Ordination the one is that which they call a Sacrament the other not The Order of Priesthood is a Spiritual Power whereby the Ordained is enabled and Commissioned to exercise all Priestly Functions with Autority The Ordination consists in the Essential Matter and Forme regularly and aptly applyed by the Bishop which is the Ordainer to him that is Ordained and from this Matter and Forme so applyed results in the Ordained that Spiritual Power which is properly the Order of Priesthood the Character is thereby Imprinted and the Graces accommodated to the Priestly Ministry are also conferr'd So that Order with its concomitants is the effect but Ordination is the cause That is permanent in the Ordained for terme of life this is transient and passeth away for it lasts no longer then while that power is in conferring That is the principal end intended by Christ This is the means Instituted by Christ to attain that end That is as it were a Patent or Commission which the Priest acts by this the cause either efficient or Moral which procured it wherefore these being so different from each other the Council of Trent could not intend to have them both Sacraments but that alone if any must be a Sacrament which confers the Order of Priesthood to the Ordained and also Imprints the Character c. all this is performed by Ordination not by Order for nothing can be the cause of it self Order is the effect and therefore cannot be the cause The Character and Sacramental Graces are not produced by the Order but by the Ordination so that if any be a Sacrament it must be this which being premised as evident in it self A Tenth Objection by way of Deduction is drawn from the precedent Doctrine For if the Ordination of the Church of Rome be Invalid it must of necessity draw with it the Nullity of the Church of Englands Ordination who received her Orders from the Church of Rome and cannot make out her Succession of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles without passing through the sides of the Roman Bishops who must integrate the linkes of continuation Wherefore if the Church of Rome have no true Bishops it inevitably follows that the Church of England must lye under the same Censure for one that hath no power of Order can never confer that power upon another because none can give that which he hath not Otherwise it would follow that meerly Men or Civil Magistrates might confer Orders which no Man will grant My Answer to this Objection is grounded in a Principle received by the Romanists themselves namely that where the true Essentials are regularly and orderly applyed though there be a defect in the Ordainer for want of the power of Order yet if he Ordain Cum titulo colorato bona fide the Ordination is valid Four things therefore are necessary to the Validity of Ordination conferr'd by such a Bishop First That none of the Essentials be wanting Secondly That nothing be added in the Ordination repugnant to the Essentials or destructive of their Operation Thirdly That there be in the Ordainer Titulus coloratus bona sides that is a general presumption that he is a true Bishop and that he Ordains according to his Conscience knowing nothing amiss Fourthly That he have a right Intention of conferring the Order Where these Requisites do concurre the Ordination is certainly valid The First Proof hereof is grounded upon that provident care that Christ ever had of his Church for when all the Essentials and necessary Conditions are applyed and no Moral defect to be imputed to the Ordainer nor the Ordained and no Humane prudence could ever detect that secret defect in the Ordainer it would be too severe that the Original Instituter of Ordination should refuse to the Ordained the power of Order nay in a short time it would prove destructive to the whole Church for Christ knew full well the fragility of Humane Nature and considering his infinite Wisdom and Protection of his Church would not oblige our imbecility to Moral Impossibilities or if we failed by our Natural Weakness without either sin or voluntary error would permit the utter ruine and destruction of his Church which would certainly insue if such Ordinations were not valid For I suppose the Ordainers and Ordained to proceed with a candid sincere and good Conscience and that Morally speaking have not the least suspicion of any default or want of power in the Ordainer nay he himself neither knows nor surmiseth any desiciency in his Order In this Case Should the Ordination be void and null Whom could we impute it to certainly to none but those who by their Super-inductions pretended to Correct Christ's Institutions and thereby rendred all defective But must this be so prejudicial to the Church of Christ as to involve all Posterity into the Imputation of the same Crime who were no way consenting to it nay who in due time reformed such abuses and wholly disclaimed from them No certainly our Great Redeemer is more equitable and knows who rejects his Ordinances and Institutions and who endeavors to maintain them But now since Pride Ambition or a vain Pretence to an Arbitrary Power against Divine Right or what Motive else I know not induced the Prelates of the Church of Rome to evacuate Christ's Institutions and in their
Priests puts his Hands upon the Head of him that is to be Ordained he pronounceth this Forme Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our Hands Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained Aud be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father c. Here are both the Essentials duely applyed and punctually observed Whereas the Church of Rome applyes neither as an Essential part and therefore their Ordination of Priests according to their own Doctrine can in no way be Valid SECT IX Consectaries drawn from the Proofes of the precedent Assertion HOw many false Aspertions and querulous Cavillations have been raised by the Jesuits and other Romanists against the Bishops of the Church of England under that frivolous pretence of their being Consecrated at the Naggs head Tavern in Cheapside by one single Bishop or at most by two and they not Canonically Elected and Consecrated in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign All which were false and Malitious Calumnies invented for no other end then to depress the Autority of the Bishops of England thereby to facilitate their access to draw Proselites from the Church of England and seduce them to their Communion Which scandalous and ungrounded Comments have been fully Answered and the Canonical Ordination and Consecration of the Bishops of England cleerly vindicated from the false Imputation of all such Detracters by that Worthy and Learned Prelate John Bramhall D. D. and late Lord Primate of Ireland But What judgment shall we frame of the Ordination of Bishops and Priests in the Church of Rome there being at present neither Pope nor Cardinal nor Bishop nor Priest but such as have been Ordained according to their new Model of Ordination we shall not need here to have recourse to frivolous and feigned Stories where such grounded Truths strike at the very Essentials of their Ordination and evince the invalidity thereof Neither can they raise a Battery of Arguments against us without destroying themselves for the Proofes of the nullity of their Ordination are grounded on their own Doctrine They all Teach That Ordination is a Sacrament Instituted by Christ. The Council of Trent hath defined it so to be as we see above Sect. 7. They all assert the Matter and Forme of all Sacraments to be determined by Divine Autority which Suarez saith is de fide See their words Sect. 6. They hold moreover that any substantial change either in Matter or Forme renders the Sacrament invalid 3 Part. Tom. 3. D. 2. S. 4. Si mutatio materiae aut formae Essentialis seu substantialis sit nullum essicitur Sacramentum saith Suarez which is the current opinion of their other Divines It is likewise certain that the matter which they use in the Collation of Priesthood is essentially and more then Specifically different from the matter which Christ Instituted and which was constantly used in Ordinations many Centuries after Christ before Ordination was new molded It is also certain that the Forme of Ordination determined by Christ and a long time in use in the Church is now utterly rejected and cast out All this being duely ponder'd we must of necessity conclude that their Ordination is invalid except some other grounded expedient can be found out and proved to uphold the validity of their Ordination which hitherto I cannot discover but wish I could But no quibbles nor quirkes nor nice distinctions can any way avail them for the matter of Fact is uncontroleable and the Doctrinal part is evidenced by their own Words and Writings which it is now too late to retract It is time therefore for them seriously to consider what expedient may be found out to reinvalidate their Ordination and to qualifie themselves so as they may be in a capacity to prevent this grand inconvenience for the future for this shakes the very foundation and renders the whole Hierarchy of their Church ruinous If there are no Priests there can be no Bishops since Episcopacy is no new Order superadded but only a farther extension of the Order and Character of Priesthood as they teach well then may the Bishops exercise their potestatem jurisdictionis but can no way exercise nor communicate to others their potestatem Ordinis for none can exercise nor confer upon another a power which he neither formally nor virtually nor radically contains in himself jure communi but their Jurisdiction they distinguish from the Order of Presbitery since divers Bishops and Cardinals in the Church of Rome are only Deacons or Subdeacons and yet their Jurisdiction is as ample and hath as great an extension as if they were Priests who commonly make use of other Suffraganean Bishops to Officiate Confirm and confer Orders in their Diocess Hence it ensues that those putative Bishops which are presumed to be Canonically indued with Presbytery and Episcopacy yet in reality are not so when they personally exercise the Functions of Episcopacy their Confirmation is void yea their very Consecration of Chrisme and other Holy Oyles is of no effect but after Consecration they retain nothing but the Natural Elements of Oyle and Balsome as they were before and so are uncapable of rendring any Spiritual Emolument to those to whom they are applyed their Imposition of Hands and Benedictions are no way available to the Confirmed no more than if they were performed by a Lay-person for where the radical power of Order is wanting none of these Spiritual and Supernatural effects can ensue And when they Officiate in Mass and attempt to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and having Consecrated the Hoaste they kneel down to adore it and then elevate it and shew it to the People that they also may adore it both they themselves and many Thousands of the People do daily commit at least a Material Idolatry though it may be that Invincible Ignorance may excuse them from a Formal one for they exhibit a worship of Latria to a supposed Deity under the species of Bread when in reality no such Deity is there so as they give to the meer substance of Bread a Worship due to God alone And this is daily repeated thorough the whole extent of the Roman Jurisdiction And the same happens when any other inferior Priest Officiates for the Order of Priesthood is equally defective in them all and where there is no power of Order to qualifie them for Consecration this must of necessity be void So when they administer the Communion to the People who present themselves in hopes to receive the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently those Graces which from thence accrew to the worthy Receivers Poor Souls How are they deluded and their hopes frustrated for whereas they came full fraught withthe expectation of Spiritual and Supernatural Graces they are dismist with a bare
as express terms To confirm this I shall in the next Assertion make it appear that in drinking the Chalice there is a different signification and a peculiar benefit which accrues to the Receiver very distinct from all that which issues from the receiving under the Species of Bread Which much commends the great love of our dear Redeemer to Mankind in Commanding us to Receive under both Species that so he might give us an entire and compleat repast and refresh us with all those Graces which correspond to each part thereof he doth not invite us to this Banquet of all Delicious Rarities with intention to feed our Souls by piece-meale and by halves but abundantly poureth forth the Treasures of his Merit and Satisfaction so to replenish our Souls with a full and compleat refection And to make us the more sensible hereof he chose to suffer that Ignominious Death upon a Cross and to permit the effusion of his most Sacred Blood though he could have wrought our Redemption without either for though as purely God he was not capable of Satisfaction nor Merit yet that Divine Word having by the Hypostatical Union assumed Humane Nature all his actions became Theandrical the least whereof was of an infinite value capable without Death or Passion to Redeem a Thousand Worlds for though he assumed the Nature of Man yet he took not upon him the Personality of Man there was but one Suppositum which was the Divine Hypostasis of the Word of God and this gave the poyse and value to all his actions which proceeded from one Person that was both God and Man as they proceeded from Man they were capable of Merit and Satisfaction and as they proceeded from God they were infinite in both kinds and so never to be exhausted So that by one act of love or any other Moral Vertue he might efficaciously have Redeemed us and yet he chose to do it by a bitter Death and Passion the better to accommodate himself to the weakness and imbecillity of our capacity for this more efficaciously strikes our fancy and imprints upon our Souls a more sensible feeling of his infinite Love towards us And for a more ample testimony hereof he hath left us his Sacred Body and Blood to participate thereof and to taste of the fulness of his Graces and Mercies thereby still renewing the Memory of his Passion Who then shall abridge us of these Favors by prescinding the one halfe and mincing the benefits bestow'd upon us by so liberal and munificent a Hand How great is the presumption of some Men who call all Christ's Actions in question and submit them to the scrutiny of their weak indagation They usurp his Infallibility they alter and change his Sacraments they Repeal his Laws they dispense in his Precepts and Impose upon him what he never Ordained Christ saith Except ye drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye shall have no life in you The Church of Rome saith Though ye drink not the Blood of the Son of Man so you eate his Body ye shall have life in you Whom shall we believe Christ or the Church of Rome Shall we desert a certain Infallibility to adhere to an uncertain and presumptive one Could not the All-knowing Word of God whose Prudence and Wisdom hath no bounds foresee all the Inconveniences that could or would come to pass And Could not his Infinite Providence order and dispose all for the best Is it to be presumed that Christ left his Work imperfect or not duly order'd to be compleated or reformed by the weak industry of Man Wherefore by what hath been said I conclude That the practice of the Roman Church in denying the Chalice to the Laity is an express violation of Christ's Precept The Second Assertion This kind of half-Communion Prohibiting the Sacrament under both Kinds is a high Injustice and very prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver This Assertion I prove first because all the Laity yeà and the Clergy also that are not Priests are rendred uncapable of fulfilling Christ's Precept at least as long as they shall remain in their Communion and though the Authors of this Prohibition are highly culpable and very unjust in denying the Faithful what Christ hath left them yet the Receivers also are transgressers for not fulfilling Christ's Precept But you will say How can they help themselves if the Priest refuseth to exhibit the Sacrament to them in both Kinds which is not in their power to procure neither can they be obliged to impossibilities I Answer That they who seriously endeavor to fulfill Christ's Precepts are bound in Conscience to forsake the Communion of that Church and to Imbrace the Communion of the Protestant Church where these Sacred Mysteries will be compleatly Administred to them for by this means they are capable of complying with Christ's Command which they are strictly obliged to do The Second Proofe They who never receive those Holy Rites but in one Kind not only transgress against Christ's Command but also incur the penalty that is annexed to it which is no less than the privation of eternal happiness Except you eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you And what is consequent hereto they are liable to the everlasting torments of Hell How enormous therefore must the Injustice be of those that are Instrumental What do I say instrumental that are the principle cause of reducing men to that extremity that unavoidably they must violate Christ's Command and thereby incur eternal damnation and all this by denying them that which by Christ's Institution they have right to Can any Injustice be compared to this Can any damage be more prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver The Third Proof The Sacramental products of Communion under the Species of Wine are very different and heterogeneal from all the Graces and Favors conferr'd upon him that participates the Sacrament in the other kind only for this Spiritual refection hath a great analogy and proportionable similitude with the natural repast of the Body and their respective operations are reciprocal correlatives by way of similitude with each other and therefore the Original Instituter adapting these Mysteries to the procedure of Nature congruously Instituted them under the Symboles of Bread and Wine the Bread we esteem to be the Staffe of Mans Life because it Administers such vital and animal Spirits as are the substantial support of Mans Life and thereby it gives aliment vigor and growth to the body which is the principal part of nutrition The Wine makes the heart glad and enlivens it to exercise the functions incident to human imploy with more life and expedition it also supplies the radical heat and moisture with seasonable accesses of its innate qualities it delibutes the vessels and organs which are the vehicles of the Spirits and furnishes them with such proportionable qualities as are most accommodated to expediate the exercise of their nutritive Functions
by compleating the disposition which the oeconomy of Nature intends for nutrition by their attractive dispositive conversive and expulsive faculties and so conduceth in a high degree to nutrition augmentation and sensation So the Bread administreth the substantial matter that is to be wrought upon but the qualities of Wine give their immediate assistance in all the elaboratories which it passeth through to dispose it and bring it to its intended end In like manner by the primary Institution of this Sacrament those Graces that are drawn from the Mass of Christ's Merits are not inconsiderately distributed but in pondere mensura with a due regard to the exigency of circumstances for though increase of Inherent and Sanctifying Grace be common to both parts of this Sacrament yet the Actual Graces which are annexed to the one part are far different from those that correspond to the other for Communion under the Species of Bread Communicates to the Receiver such Actual Graces as tend to the substance of the Spiritual and Supernatural Life of the Soul they incline the understanding to a firm adhesion to the Principles of Faith they move the Will to the practice of Moral Vertues Piety and Religion both towards God and Man But Communion under the Species of Wine gives proportionable Graces which though they are vers'd about the same matter yet their tendency towards those vertues is in a different manner for they excite the faculties of the Soul to the exercise of Christianity with cheerfulness and alacrity they give perseverance and longanimity they induce the Will to practise Vertue and Religion out of the highest Motive of the Love of God above all things These are the Graces which put the last accomplishment to our Spiritual Actions without which the former though they come full fraught with the substantial and consistent Element of a Spiritual Life yet in the execution thereof they are dull and flaccide and for want of a more vigorous excitation are the sooner defeated by adverse Temptations and Suggestions of the Sensual Appetite Hence we may gather how much more a whole and adequate Communion conduceth to the accomplishment of a Spiritual Life then an inadequate and half one for what emolument is it to one to receive a strong and substantial food if his vital faculties are not duly qualified to digest it and converte it into his proper substance And I would have it observ'd that this Doctrine of the different Graces corresponding to the receiving this Sacrament under the two different Species is no product of my weak invention but is the constant Position of diverse Learned and Approved Divines of the Church of Rome and without which their Principles of the Sacrisice of the Mass cannot be well managed as I shall shew anon And in this is grounded the substance of this Third Proof For if we duely ponder of how great a consideration and value these special Graces are in themselves which correspond to the Chalice and how conducing they are to the perfection of a Spiritual Life and sencing the Soul against the subtile attempts of its Enemies it will be the manifest ground of a cleer illation that to deprive so many thousands of such unspeakable benefits is a great Injustice and a considerable prejudice to those in whose favor the Meritorious cause of them had with so much bounty and liberality left them as a Legacy to all such as should worthily receive his most Sacred Blood under the Species of Wine The Pope in his Oeconomy and the Administration of his Jurisdiction seems wholly unmindful of Distributive Justice for to some by his Jubilies Pardons and Indulgences he very liberally disposeth of Christ's Satisfaction upon consideration of their complyance with the Orders of His Holiness though he be sparing enough to others But in arrogating to himself a Power of dispensing Christ's Merits and the fruits of his Passion yea and to alter Christ's own Institution by refusing them to such as the Author himself had ordered to receive them is too high a presumption Must we by Human Autority be deprived of what by the Divine Giver hath been consign'd to us this stands in high opposition with all equity and is besides an illegal usurpation of Divine Right But we now come to solve their Objections and Allegations specified in the precedent Section in defence of this partial refusal SECT III. The Objections Solved THe first Objection is grounded on the Irreverence of permitting some Particles of the Chalice to fall to the ground as is specified in the first reason of the contrary opinion First I Answer That this Prohibition removes not that inconvenience except they forbid Communion under the Species of Bread also and so utterly exclude the Laity from any part of this Sacrament for there are more Particles lost from off the Bread then from the Wine it being not Morally possible to handle the Bread without separating from it several Minute Particles which did adhere to the Mass and yet were not continued but only contiguous to it which on the least motion fall off whereof many are so small that sugiunt visum and especially when a Priest in Mass divides the Hoast in order to Consummation then by reason of the Elastick Vertue of the Ayre and the resisting quality of the Wafer these Minute Parts must of necessity be carryed beyond the extent of the corporal and so lost which no human care nor diligence can prevent Secondly I Answer That this and all other circumstances which occur in practise were cleerly and certainly foreseen by Christ himself who notwithstanding deemed it expedient if not necessary to issue forth his Command of receiving this Sacrament in both Kinds who knew full well how far the weak industry of Man could reach to prevent such inconveniences and for ought we know may send his Angels from Heaven to collect and take care of such Particles as some of the adverse Party affirm And this may serve for an Answer to the first Reason The Second Objection He that complies with a Precept quoad substantiam though he should not be so circumspect as to be punctual in all things quoad circumstantias yet he may truly be deemed to have complyed with the command and is no transgressor but he who receives in one Kind only receives all Christ as well the Body as the Blood which is the whole substance of the Precept therefore he is no Transgressor I Answer by distinguishing the Major He that complyes with the Precept quoad substantiam although he observe not the Circumstances fulfils the Precept if the Circumstances be the Object of the Precept I deny the Major If the Circumstances fall not under the Precept I grant it but in the present case the eating and drinking compared to the Precept are the very substance thereof though in reference to the Body and Blood of Christ they are but Circumstances for the Body and Blood of Christ in relation to this Precept are
natural causes if the disposition suffer not so much change as would render it uncapable to sustain the substantial forme of bread so long the Body of Christ remains there but when by contrary Agents the last disposition of the forme of bread is expel'd then the Body of Christ withdraws and relinquisheth its ubi not by a local motion but by a meer destruction of that ubication without acquiring any new one but is reduced to his former ubication without passing from Earth to Heaven And though before the destruction of the accidents of bread the Body of Christ was existent in Heaven and here on Earth the same time yet after that destruction it exists only in Heaven and yet never tended by a local and successive motion from Earth towards Heaven nor ever penetrated the Air nor the Heavens to obtain his place in the Emperial Heaven because it had that place before This is the sum of their Doctrine These Three Difficulties though much agitated by their Divines yet are not fully determined by their Church Only the Council of Trent touches upon the Second and Third but leaves the First to the litigation of the Schoolmen Of the Second Trid. Con. Sess 23. Can. 3. it saith Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus separatione facta totum Christum contineri Anathema sit If any one shall deny in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist all Christ to be contained under each Kind and under every part of each Kind after Separation let him be Accursed The same is declared Sess 23. Cap. 3. Sess 21. Cap. 3. which is conformable to the Council of Florence In Decreto Eugenti ad Armenios yet none of these places define the manner how Christ's Body exists in this Sacrament whether definitively or Circumspectively but only assert all Christ to be in each part As to the Third The Council of Trent decrees the Body of Christ to be present immediately after Consecration but resolves nothing how long it continues there for thus saith the Council Trid. Sess 33. Can. 4. Si quis dixerit peracta consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus sanguinem Domini Nostri Jesus Christi sed tantum in usu dum sumitur non autem ante vel post in hostiis seu particulis consecratis quae post Communionem reservantur vel supersunt non remanere verum corpus Domini Anathema sit If any one shall say That after Consecration in the Admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not there but only in practice when it is received yet not before nor after and that in the Hosts or Particles that are Consecrated which after Communion are reserved or left the true Body of Christ doth not remain let him be Accursed This declares when the Body of Christ begins to be present in the Sacrament but determines nothing how long it remains there But since there is no more necessity of defining the Real Presence Transubstantiation c. then of determining those difficulties here proposed we may groundedly expect in the next general Council a full decision of these nice Questions by new Canons and Decrees and new Articles of Faith to be framed for the resolution of these and the like doubts SECT III. The Inutility of Multiplying Definitions of this nature ANd now if some impartial and unbyassed Judge were to deliver his Opinion of these and the like proceedings of the Church of Rome I would propose to his Consideration First What Grounds or Footsteps can be found in Scripture in the Practise or Doctrine of Christ or his Apostles or in all the Transactions of Antiquity or the Primitive Church for so Rigorous and Comminatorious decision of such subtile and nice Points under so great a Penalty and I am sure none can be found Secondly Cast a glance upon the effects of these new-framed Articles of Faith What Benefit or Emolument doth accrew to Christianity by them Do the Graces of Christ flow from the Sacraments more plentifully by vertue of those Definitions then they did before This cannot be alleged for the measure of Grace was taxed and determined by Christ in his Original Institution with reference to the disposition of the receiver Do they conduce to the better institution of a Christian Life Do the Faithful the more adhere to the due observance of Gods Law Do they promote Vertue and Good Life Do they check the illegal progress of the Licentious Do they cry down Vice and Wickedness Do they add any new Motives to abandon the Old Man and shun Sensuality Do they excite to the regulating our Actions by the Conduct of a just Synderesis instructed with true Reason and to reject the suggestion of sense not the least of these products do issue from them Nay on the contrary Do they not add more load to the Consciences of the Faithful who are bound to Believe what they comprehend not Do they not enthrall and enslave their Souls to be liable to the Belief of such a long Catalogue of nicities or else be damned What a dreadful thing it is to implicate Mens Minds and Consciences into such an unextricable labyrinth of sollicitude anxiety and confusion when they shall consider that of so many definitions if they disbelieve but one though they believe all the rest nothing remains for them but the eternal slames of Hell Fire And yet they are wholly ignorant what it is they ought to believe for you were as good endeavor to wash a Blackamore white as to go about to make the common vulgar of both Sexes capable of the true meaning of those points which are so remote from sense And How can they exercise themselves in Vertue while such anxious scruples and confusion clowds their understanding and casts a damp upon all their vital faculties Nay this hath an immediate tendency to despair for when they consider themselves uncapable of complying with such a Mass of Implex Articles of Faith and considering their own imbecility they will be apt to conceive that they are lost and that Eternity of Bliss is out of their reach for qui erraverit in uno factus est omnium reus he that errs in one is made guilty of all and hence they connaturally fall into desperation Besides What more hinders the Propagation of the Gospel then such a multiplicity of Tenets pretended necessary to Salvation and yet so full of arduity and so repugnant to the common course of Nature which are apt to startle the most credulous Who would imbrace Christianity if such a bundle of incredible Mysteries were candidly proposed to them as all necessary to Salvation which are so destructive of the Laws of Nature and no Proofes of any of them but only because the Church of Rome hath defined them Few or none would deny their Reason and yield a blind
Sanctifie the Receiver but still denies that the True Body and Blood of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary Suffered c. is in Verity or Reality present in this Sacrament but only Figuratively and Mystically SECT IX Animadversions on the Premises WE have seen the Opinion of those Two Champions of the Church of Christ which were Consulted by Charles the Emperor To whom I might add many more Abbots Bishops and Archbishops and the most eminent Persons of those times for Learning and Vertue but this would be too prolix and contrary to my Design But in the First place let us reflect that after Retram had Written his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ How all the Bishops and Prelates of France could precedently elect him in a matter of so great consequence to defend the Latin Church against the Pretensions of the Greeks and rely chiefly upon his management of it Especially since Pope Nicholas the First who had excited them to this Debate approved of their Choice for had they found any flaw in his Doctrine as not conformable to the Antient Belief of the Church they might with Reason have suspected that he might have vented some other error in his Disputes with the Greeck Church which would utterly have ruin'd their Cause But no such thing was surmis'd of him nor objected against him whence we may certainly infer That all the Bishops and Prelates of the Gallican Church yea and the Pope also were of his Opinion in the Doctrine of the Eucharist To this we may add That Pope Adrian the Second who also Govern'd the Church during this Debate never opposed himself against the Doctrine of Retram nor never Reprehended him for it which notwithstanding he ought to have done had he deem'd it any way Heterodox Gratian. in in Decret dist 82. C. Error For as Gratian tells us He approves an Error which he doth not oppose especially if by his Office he ought to do it And because during this Ninth Century there were so few that adher'd to the Doctrine of Paschasius it seemed very inconsiderable and like to dye of it self for want of support and therefore was prudently not reflected upon Whence we may safely conclude that the General Belief of the Church till almost Nine Hundred years after Christ was conformable to the Doctrine of Retram and of John Erigéne who denyed the Existence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrament in Verity and Reality and admitted it Virtually Figuratively and by way of a Sacrament Which belief maugre all the Anathemaes of the Church of Rome is lineally descended from Christ and his Apostles to these our times and is the general perswasion of the Protestant Church of England and conformable to the Nine and Thirty Articles Seconly Consider which of these two Dogmatical Assertions is most like to be the genuine and legitimate off-spring of Christ either that which drew his Origine immediately from Christ and his Apostles and hath kept possession ever since or the other that was not started till Eight Hundred years after and knows no other Progenitor but Paschasius The first certainly will appear to the unbiassed judgment of all to be Legitimate and the second Spurious and Adulterate But Thirdly Here is yet a higher Point which presents it self to our consideration We all believe that the Divine Word pursuant to his efficacious Decree became Incarnate chiefly for this end That in Human Nature he might Redeem Mankind he accomplished this end by a cruel Death and other Indignities which he suffered and thereby fatisfied for our Transgressions and Merited for us an infinite Treasure of Graces and to the end that Mankind might participate of this ineffable benefit for all future ages he instituted a Church ordained Sacraments to convey those Graces to our Souls He Instructed those that were to initiate his Church in his Divine Doctrine he gave them his Heavenly Precepts c. Whence I appeal to the impartial and unbyassed judgments both of Men and Angels whether it be probable or credible that this Supreme Artificer instructed with all his infinite Attributes of an illimited Knowledge Power Wisdom Providence c. should leave this great Work of our Redemption which was his Master-piece imperfect and incompleat yea contaminated with gross Errors and Heresies in its first Foundation in a matter of such high moment which concerned his most Sacred Body and Blood and was destructive of the Essentials of one of those two Sacraments which he had ordain'd and the Principal for Dignity and permit its progress in this erroneous Doctrine for Eight Hundred years together which would have had a direct tendency to confusion and finally to the utter ruine and dissolution of his Church and so frustrate the final end of his Incarnation And that after so many Centuries one Paschasius Rathert a Monk should start up from his Cell and pretend to Correct this Error and hereby to perfect and amend the work of the Omnipotent as if Christ would not or could not have done it of himself Is this I say credible or Would it not highly derogate from the Dignity of the Divine Person and the infinite Attributes of our great Lord and Master What then must we conclude But that this belief of the Body and Blood of Christ which took its Origine from the Primitive Institution of Christianity was True Orthodox and Catholick Doctrine so that Christ accomplisht the design which he had undertaken perfectly and compleatly and so remitted it to Posterity without either spot or blemish And if you desire Presidents do but cast a compendious glance upon all the former products of the Omnipotent hand of God The Frame of this Universe was Projected and Created by God himself who having produc't it he saw that it was very good that is perfect and compleat He Created the Angels with all the Natural Perfections due to the excellency of their Nature no accomplishment was wanting and moreover in their first Creation imbued them with Supernatural Grace and gave them a Title to Glory Simul in eis condens naturam Aug. l. 12. de Civit. C. 9. largiens gratiam saith St. Austin The same saith St. Gregory in his Morals and others Man was likewise produc't in his full perfection and his Soul in its first Creation was imbellisht with Sactifying Grace and Original Justice The Superior Orbes were Created and placed in their respective Sphears with all the Accomplishment of Perfection proper to their Nature with due Subordination conducing to the good and perservation of the Universe their Natural Motion was imprinted into them in their first Creation which still remains immutable though probably their rapt motion be regulated by the Ministery of Angels And in this sublunary World there is not one Species but in its first being received all the Perfections which were appropriated to its kind So that all the Works of God were perfect and compleat though some of the Angels
and the First Man Adam which were Created free fell from the happy State they were Created in by the perverse use of their Free-wills Who then shall dare presume to asperse the Last Work of the Incarnate Word with any Pretended Imperfection and render it Heterogeneal from the rest For he is the same Omnipotent God that Created all those things mentioned and his Power is not Abridg'd nor his Will Chang'd for he is Essentially uncapable of any Error Mutation or Imperfection It remains therefore that the Opinion of Paschasius Teaching the Real Existence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist was a New Heterodox and Erroneous Doctrine discrepating from the constant Belief of the Church from the begining till that time And hence is evinced the falsity of that Erroneous Doctrine that asserts the Literal and Oral Manducation of Christ's Glorisied Body in the Communion for if that Glorified Body be not Actually Really Physically and Locally present in the Eucharist then the Receiver cannot exercise any such Oral Manducation of it Wherefore this Position is repugnant to Autority of Scripture and Fathers it is against Antiquity and Reason The Church of Rome was once Immaculate and retain'd its Original Innocency for many years But as the Angels though perfect in their Creation yet by their Swelling Thoughts Aspired to Sublimer Prerogatives not allowed to their Limited Perfections fell from that happy State of their Primitive Creation so the Church of Rome when many high and Soaring Spirits met together in Councils Relying upon their Pretended Infallibility Usurpt a Power of Swaying all things belonging to the Church and Religion according to their own fancy then they began to Abrogate some things of Christ's Institution and Superinduce others of their own they made several Commutations and Reformations exceeding the limits of their Power as hath been proved in this Treatise So that now their Church is like a confus'd Chaos retaining some things of Christ's Institution commixt with others of their own Human Invention and so have lost that Purity and Perfection which once they enjoy'd And which the Protestant Church of England still retains in its Primitive and Original Purity and Integrity And here I close up this Discourse of Religion wherein whatsoever I have delivered I humbly submit to the Censure and Correction of those upon whom it is incumbent to Regulate the Belief and Practise of the Protestant Church of England AN INDEX OF THE Disputations and Sections Dispute I. Of the Pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome SEct. I. Wherein consists the true Notion of Infallibility Sect. II. The Grounds of the Pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome are proposed Sect. III. The Decision of the Present Controversie Sect. IV. An Answer to the Objections proposed against the Nullity of the Church of Rome's Infallibility Dispute II. Of the Intrenchments of the Church of Rome upon Divine Right by Changing the Essentials of their Pretended Sacraments SEct. I. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome relating to this present Controversie Sect. II. The Practise of Antiquity in the Collation of Priesthood Sect. III. A brief account of the Rituals of the Greeks Maronites c. Sect. IV. Shewing that the Church of Rome placeth the Essence of the Ordination of Priests in touching the Vessels and the Forme annexed to it Sect. V. The Order of Priesthood according to the present Institution cannot be validly conferr'd by touching the Vessels with this Forme Accipe potestatem c. Sect. VI. An Answer to the Objections proposed by the Divines of the Church of Rome against the Invalidity of their Ordination Sect. VII The Solution of other Objections against the same Doctrine Sect. VIII An Illation drawn from the Premises of the Invalidity of Ordination in the Church of England solved Sect. IX Consectaries drawn from the Proofes of the precedent assertion Sect. X. Of Clandestine Marriage Sect. II. The Arguments to vindicate the Nullity of Clandestine Marriage Answered Dispute III. Of Communion in one Kind SEct. I. The Grounds of the Church of Rome for denying the Chalice to the Laity Sect. II. The Decision of this Controversie Sect. III. The Objections Solved Sect. IV. Corallaries drawn from the Romanists Doctrine of their pretended Sacrifice of the Mass Dispute IV. Of Transubstantiation SEct. I. The Romanists Doctrine relating to Transubstantiation Sect. II. The Orthodox Doctrine against Transubstantiation proposed and proved Sect. III. Of the possibility of Transubstantiation as held by the Church of Rome Sect. IV. Objections for Transubstantiation solved Dispute V. Of the Real Presence SEct. I. The Church of Romes Definitions concerning the Real Presence Sect. II. Other Subtilties arising from the former Decisions not fully determin'd Sect. III. The Inutility of multiplying Definitions of this Nature Sect. IV. The Objections Solved Sect. V. When and from whom this Doctrine of the Real Presence took its first rise Sect. VI. A Briefe Account of some passages of the Life and Death of John Erigene Sect. VII Some Passages of the Life and Doctrine of Retram Sect. VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question Sect. IX Animadversions on the Premises FINIS