shun Evil. Wherefore this being the end intended by Christ it follows that apt and fit means were also appointed that had proportion with the obtaining of this end but one necessary means to accomplish what Christ designed is the Gift of Infallibility without which the Church might fall into Error and from one Error into another and hereby deviate and swerve from its original institution and at length utterly fall away and instead of conducting Souls to Heaven it would lead them to the precipice of eternal ruine and destruction and so evacuate the Fruit of Christs Passion and put an obstacle to the obtaining of that end which he efficaciously intended And yet we must all suppose that the incarnate word was endu'd with an illimited Power his Knowledge and Wisdom was infinite so that he perfectly knew what means were necessary to accomplish his design and wanted no Power to effect it which notwithstanding could never be efficaciously attained without this Infallibility whence it necessarily follows that Christ communicated to his Church this special Preservative of always teaching truth without being subject to Error This briefly is the full strength of their second Proof Thus you see the grounds of this Doctrin are seemingly convincing and plausible enough to induce such to an assent who either cannot or will not by a studious consideration penetrate into the depth of them but will rather acquiesce than stretch their understanding by a rigid scrutiny and inquisition to detect the fallacy thereof But certainly in a matter of such moment we are not to take up all this upon trust nor blindly to give our assent till we have industriously waighed and ponder'd the whole matter that so we may be the better able to give an account of our belief which is the drift of the subsequent Section SECT III. The Decision of the present Controversie THe Assertion is That the Church of Rome enjoys not this Infallibility which they so much pretend to The first Proof Such a previous necessity to Truth would destroy Liberty and take away the laudability and merit of human actions Note That in the progress of this Discourse I shall argue ad Hominem that is I shall take along with me their own Principles and for the most part ground my Refutation upon them They all grant Liberty and Merit in such human actions as have conformity to the dictamen of Conscience for in this consists the morality of our Actions that they are consonant or dissonant to the synderesis of the Agent but if an action be extorted by an antecedent necessity there can be no exercise of Free-will nor Merit in it nor Liberty because that Power only hath liberty which after all prae-requisites and causes are put hath a power to work and not to work whereas if there be a prae-ordination by Gods Decree that the Members of a General-Council shall be determined to Truth then their decisions are wholly destitute of Liberty and Free-will because Gods efficatious Decree that hath a previous influence upon the action draws with it an indispensable necessity which destroys Free-will neither can it be meritorious because Merit supposeth Liberty and consists in the laudability of the action and how can that action be laudable which a fatal necessity forces from the Will Can any one deserve Praise for doing that which he cannot avoid Hence I conclude that Merit and Free-will are not compatible with that Infallibility which the Church of Rome pretends to which is inconsistent with Gods Providence in order to Mankind who was Created and Born free in full possession of the liberty of his will and therefore shall be Judged according to his own Actions which could not be were there any necessity or restraint put upon them Thus we see how this doctrine inverts the order of Divine Providence and imposes a necessity either of contrariety or contradiction upon Humane actions A confirmation of this Proof may be drawn from the practical proceeding of Councils who seldom or never determine any thing till after a long and serious Debate and sometimes with great fervor and animosity of Parties in opposition to each other as it hapned in the Council of Trent upon contradictory Points one Party Affirming what another Deny'd All which supposeth a liberty in their debates and determinations for if by an Inspiration of the Holy Ghost they were all fixt in Truth What need any Debate or Consultation for this can only have place in such Resolutions as depend upon Humane Prudence alone And if each Member of a General Council hath the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost How comes it to pass that when two are of different Opinions the one Denies what the other Affirms and though they may both speak as they think yet in reality they cannot both speak Truth for two contradictories cannot be both true Must then the Spirit of God be made the Author of both as though he suggested Truth to the one and Falsity to the other if not then he that contends for the Erroneous part is deserted by the Holy Ghost and agitated by some other Spirit of the Prince of Darkness which allways opposeth truth but hence it would follow that Satan acts in General Councils and that some of the Members of Councils are not inspired by the Holy Ghost and consequently not Infallible The Second Proof is a Refutation of the Grounds of the Adverse Party A Negative Tenet as this is cannot be better prov'd than by shewing the falsity of the Affirmative Contradictory First then as to their Argument drawn from Christ's Promises exprest in Scripture I demand Whence they have an Assured Infallibility that Scripture contains the True Word of God They Answer That this Infallible Church of Rome hath Defined it so to be and proposed it to the People to be so believed I demand again how they make out the Infallibility of their Church They Answer By Christ's Promises in Scripture A special Argument no better than a plain vitious Circle for they prove the Infallibility of the Scripture by the Church and the Infallibility of the Church by Scripture and prove neither Independent of each other By this way of Arguing Mahomet and his Alchoran may be prov'd Infallible For the Alchoran saith That Mahomet was inspired by God who spoke in his eare in the forme of a Dove and Mahomet saith That the Alchoran is the Word of God manifested by Divine Inspiration therefore both Mahomet and the Alchoran are Infallible This is the same Argument apply'd to another subject The Protestant Church of England hath as great a Veneration for Scripture and as strong and firm adherence to it as any can have yet are not so highly presumptuous as to arrogate to themselves a degree of Evidence or Infallibility exceeding that which the Motives Inductive to their Beliefe bring with them But I shall not need to insist upon the Invalidity of this Argument because it hath lately been so Learnedly handled by that
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
conformity to such and so many irregular Pardons as they ought to believe These and many other such inconveniences are the products of multiplying so many new Articles of Faith these are the fatal consequences that thence ensue And if you consult your Reason to suggest to you what benefit is hence expected or what Motives might induce them to impose so hard a taske upon the Believers I know none but a strong propension in the Authors to carry all things on with a strong hand to make their Empire known and to Lord it over the Flock of Christ But it may be Objected That the Illiterate shall not need to perplex themselves for they have a sure refuge to their Implicite Faith by believing what the Church believeth First I Answer That this is a very deordinate and irregular point of Doctrine to Teach them to regulate their Implicite Faith by the Belief of the Church of Rome as if this were a surer Rule to walk by then the Doctrine the Practice the Ordination and Institution of Christ himself How hot doth this smell of Blasphemy to put ignorant Souls upon such a preposterous way of Faith as to prefer the Belief of the Church of Rome before the Institution of Christ whereby the Faith of the Church ought to be originally regulated Secondly I Answer If any Implicite Faith be sufficient after the definition then the explicite declaration of so many Articles availeth nothing for the very same Implicite Faith that was sufficient before the definition is sufficient after then the Councils labor in vain or rather not in vain for though their numerous definitions produce no good effect yet they have an ample power in producing bad effects as hath been declared And thus far I go with them that in matters of Divine Faith an implicite in most cases is sufficient to Salvation provided it have a reference to that never erring Rule of Christ's Doctrine and Institution and What Romanist dares deny this For I considently assert That an Implicite Faith regulated by the belief of the Church of Rome is not sufficient to Salvation for this Church hath erred and may erre again as is in this Treatise sufficiently declared and proved But to shew yet more groundedly That the multiplying of so many Articles of Faith are wholly useless and pernicious let any rational person consider what strange wonders the Supreme Creator of all things hath wrought to bring about this great Work of Mans Redemption The Divine Word took Humane Nature upon him God became Man and a◠Man suffer'd great indignities and opposition and at last suffer'd death upon a Cross What was all this for but in order to the Redemption o◠Mankind And after all this he settled his Church Instituted Sacraments and Ordained what he deemed necessary to accomplish his final end I◠it then credible that having accomplisht all other means necessary to this end he should at last be deficient in the application of those means which would render them all useless Had he no care of his Church no◠Providence for it in future Ages What need is there then of so many new Articles of Faith Christ had 〈◊〉 perfect prospect and a full comprehension of his Church and all circumstances belonging to it for all particular times and ages and wanted n◠power to provide for it in the bes◠manner How then is it possible tha◠any person indued with Reason can conceive that this Omniscient Omnipotent and Infinitely Wise and Provident God should be deficient in a work of this Nature that he should leave this great work of our Redemption imperfect that he should fail in the compleat accomplishment of his Master-piece especially considering that he could with ease provide tunc pro nunc he could then have provided for all future events whensoever they should happen And it is as impossible that he should leave any defects in a design of so high a nature to be corrected or supplyed by meer Men that carry their human frailty and imperfections about them for by this means such Men would be concauses in the work of our Redemption and yet Christianity never yet acknowledged any Redeemer but one Wherefore it is a high presumption to attempt to compleat or perfect Christ's work or to supply the defects which we falsely suppose he hath left in it Nothing is more repugnant to Reason and nothing more derogates from the infinite Attributes and high Prerogatives of our Great Redeemer Whence I conclude with this Dilemma Either Christ Instituted all things necessary to Salvation or he did not If not What then became of all the Primitive Christians for Eight Hundred years together after Christ for in their time none of those new Doctrines which are now defined were yet started Would Christ permit so many Millions that were all Members of his Church to perish for want of necessary means to Salvation This would reflect upon the Author of Life and make him a Deluder They must therefore acknowledge That Christ did Institute in his Church all things necessary to Salvation If so Then what necessity is there of so many new definitions which only serve to pester and incumber Mens Minds because forsooth Eternal Damnation must be the reward of them that deny any one of them yea or so much as doubt of the Truth of any them SECT IV. The Objections Solved THe First Objection According to the Principles of this Discourse all Councils would be useless or rather pernicious for the main design of Councils is to decide such doubts as are promiscuously discussed among the multitude of whom without the Authority of a Council none have power to give a final determination and therefore Councils have been always in use there was a Council in the Apostles time there were several Councils in the Primitive Church So that this Doctrine wholly swerves from Reason and Antiquity The First Answer I am no Enemy of Councils but on the contrary conceive them of great use and sometimes necessary for the right Administration of the Church for certainly many great and good effects depend upon them when they take their measures right and truly conceive how far the limits of their power and autority extend But if Councils transgress their bounds and submit Christ's Actions to their scrutiny and therein presume to add or diminish to alter or change to correct or amend any of Christ's Ordinances or Institutions and so intrench upon jus Divinum which is above their sphere and in effect to cry out in coelum conscendam similis ero Altissimo this is a pernicious abuse of their autority wherefore The Second Answer is That when Vertue begins to decline and Vice to abound when the Clergy grows dissolute and the Laity stubborn and refractory against their Spiritual Leaders and Pastors when the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and the Primitive Christians is not fully upheld in its Original Purity but begins to be offuscated and to lose its efficacy by Innovations
the Principles of Philosophy and Scholastical Divinity which though Abstruse and Speculative yet is Avowed by their own Champions Dispute I. Of the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome The Preface THE natural and acquisite knowledge of Man's intellectual Faculty could never pretend to any specifical degree of Clarity above those obscure Notions which by foreign Species we draw from several Objects wherefore the Representation being weak the Vnderstanding is seldom certainly assured of the true State of the Object But the Church of Rome pretends to a higher Prerogative above the rest of Mankind viz. an Infallibility in her decisions that is a determination to Truth and an incapacity of falling into any Falsity or Error wherefore I deemed it worth the Examination whither this superexcellent Faculty be grounded upon any sure Foundation or an assumed and pretended Priviledge like his Holinesses usurped Power to Lord it over Kings and to Depose them and dispose of their Dominions at his pleasure as if Emperors Kings and Temporal Princes were but his Tenants at Will and he the Proprietor or Landlord SECT I. Wherein consists the true Notion of Infallibility TO the end we may with greater perspicuity trace the Divines of the Church of Rome in their Principles we must first premise a four-fold Knowledge that the Understanding is capable of There is an abstractive a quidditive an intuitive and a comprehensive Knowledge The first is a weak and imperfect representation fram'd by borrowed Species gathered first by the external and internal Senses and thence transmitted to the Understanding which are but virtual representations and as it were the Seeds of the Object by means whereof the Vital Power together with these Species as con-causes produce a formal image or representation of the Object And this abstractive Knowledge is peculiar to the State of Man in this Life A quidditive Knowledge is a clearer Representation framed by the Understanding instructed with proper Species by means whereof it penetrates into the essential Perfections and peculiar Faculties of the Prototypon or thing represented An intuitive Knowledge is that which by the proper Species of the exemplar distinguisheth in what State the Object is whither existent past or to come and herein it resembles that Science in God which the Divines call Scientia visionis A comprehensive Knowledge includes the two former and moreover represents all the Perfections Powers and Faculties of its Object explicitely in order to all its Connotates and Correlatives explicating distinctly all the variety of effects that may proceed from such a cause and discovering all and singular the innate Powers and Faculties thereof with reference to all external Objects that have any connexion dependence or relation to it And because these external Objects are infinite therefore this comprehensive Knowledge is peculiar to God alone but the two former are imparted to the Blessed Angels and Souls of the Faithful who by their Beatifical Vision see God quidditively and intuitively Moreover there are three degrees of clarity or certainty whereby various Acts of the Understanding do variously represent their Objects The first is Probability which by reason of its weakness and imbecillity is always accompanied with a virtual or formal Ambiguity and Fear that the contrary may be true because the motives that are inductive to the assent bring no assurance but only a seeming resemblance with the Truth The second is a Moral certainty which though there be a possibility of its failing yet seldom or never errs as one that never was at Rome yet hath a Moral certainty that such a City is extant because he hath often heard the concurring Testimonies of so many that have been there The third and highest degree is the certainty of Infallibility which is always accompanied with Truth and imports also an incapacity of Erring so that all Physical Mathematical and Metaphysical demonstrations and all those Truths which Philosophers call Prima Principia as Nihil potest simul esse non esse Omne totum est majus suâ parte Quae sunt eadem unitertio sunt eadem inter se c. all these are invested with the certainty of Infallibility To this also belongs all acts of supernatural Faith which are truly grounded on Divine Revelation This being premised we now come to inspect the peculiar nature of that Infallibility which the Doctors of Rome attempt to affix to their Church And though the word Church taken in its greatest latitude include all the Members thereof wheresoever dispersed yet their Divines commonly restrain the meaning thereof to an Oecomenical Council indicted by the Pope promulged by the Emperor furnished with a sufficient number of Fathers and Bishops wherein the Pope by himself or his Legate presides and confirms the Canons and Decrees of the same by his Apostolical Authority so that a Council with all these Requisites is that which they call the Church and assert it Infallible in all its Canons and Decrees yea and some of the Popes Candidates affirm That his Holiness also participates of this high Prerogative when he speaks ex Cathedra though no Council be then sitting which the Jesuits the Popes Minions struggle hard to maintain against others of the same Church Another difficulty hath been started amongst them How this Infallibility affects their Church Whither it be an inherent quality possessing the minds and understandings of the Fathers and Bishops in Council essentially determining them to truth or else an extrinsical assistance whereby the Holy Ghost inspires them with Truth and protects them from Error But I leave them to debate these difficulties among themselves for it is not the scope of this present discourse to examine what they call their Church and how this Infallibility affects it but only whither this singular favour be really granted to them or whither they unjustly pretend a Right to it for the better satisfaction of their Followers and making a more copious access of Proselites SECT II. The Grounds of the pretended Infallibity of the Church of Rome are proposed GReat Acquisitions are seldom made and maintained without great Art and Industry A considerable part of this sublunary World are wrought into a belief That the Church of Rome is the only Oracle of the Universe whose Doctrine is always true and not capable of Error how many Kings and Princes are swayed by this perswasion and by this means testifie a high Respect and Veneration for the See of Rome who Commissionates her Emissaries the Divines Preachers and Confessors to inculcate this Doctrine to the credulous Believers all the World over and he who writes best on this Subject expects no less than a Cardinal's Cap or a Bishoprick for his Reward The Divine Prints it the Preacher promulges it and the Confessor takes hold of opportunity times and seasons to settle it in the minds of his Penitents Princes have commonly Divines Preachers and Confessors of their own Subjects and Nation to whose conduct they presume they may safely trust
the regulating of their Consciences yet these Men though never so Heterogeneal in Dialect and National differences make but one complex or collection of the Popes Negotiators whose main scope and design is to maintain and improve the Prerogatives of their great Master by all the subtle arts and sedulous industry they are capable of What plausible Arguments do they use to persuade people that their Church cannot Err and the illiterate Vulgar greedily swallow this Bait which confirms them in their servitude and slavery and makes them prompt to submit to all the Prescripts of the See of Rome not regarding the arduity thereof And among other marks of the Popes greatness this of Infallibility is chief for upon this Link hangs immediately his Supremacy his Temporal pretended Power over Kings and Princes c. because these Titles are deduced from his being universal Pastor which the non-erring Councils have declared him to be so that the Councils Infallibility is the Root of those Prerogatives it is the main Pillar which supports the Magnificence and Greatness of the Church and Court of Rome and if this should fail that Superstructure would fall to utter Ruine and Desolation This therefore is the great Bulwark which dreads no opposition this is the main Fort that still remains immoveable against all attempts this is the Ship of St. Peter which though tossed and agitated upon the swelling Billows by Raging and Tempestuous Storms yet never sinks Well may there be some attempts upon the out-works by light Skirmishes and Velitations in Controversies of less moment which if by immediate Arguments they cannot repel recourse may still be had to the main Fort and if that begins to open upon the Enemy by Thundring Infallibility in his Ears Lord who can withstand it This will soon defeat him and dissipate all his attempts But upon what grounds doth the Church of Rome arrogate to it self this high Character First Proof in exclusion of all others Why this is drawn from an irrefragable Testimony it being grounded on the Promises of Christ himself for this is the Church to whom Christ hath promised That the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it This is the Church to whom Christ's word is engaged to send it another Paraclite the Spirit of Truth that should lead it into all Truth This is the Church to whom Christ said I will be with you till the end of the World And finally this is the Church committed to the care of St. Peter first Pope thereof to whom Christ said Thy Faith shall never fail which is meant of all other Popes that by a lineal descent succeed him And who dare attempt to evacuate Christ's Promises Hence it comes to pass that the Bishops and Fathers assembled in a general Council though of themselves weak and subject to Error yet being the chief Members of the Church for Doctrine and Dignity and being the Representative of the whole are render'd Infallible as being backt by Divine Authority by virtue of Christ's Promise they do not now determine matters of Faith and dogmatical points as meer Men but are as it were Deifi'd in order to this Function by a supernatural quality infused into them and inherent in their Intellects or else by a previous disposition and concomitant operation of the Holy Ghost which determines them to Truth and protects them from Error They are but the Organ to deliver Truth but the Divine Oracle is the Dictator they are but the instruments which convey those Mysteries to the knowledge of Mankind but the Spirit of God is the principal Agent so that thâ—â— Canons and Decrees come from them full fraught with the Divinity which renders them Infallibly certain for the Holy Ghost every Session attends the motion of those great Men to regulate all their Proceedings by the never erring Rule of his infinite Veracity whence it ensues that to pick quarrels with their Definitions is a high Temerity it is to wage War with Heaven or by the weak scrutiny of humane discourse to examine the truth of such Mysteries as Heaven hath revealed which if they should contain any seeming Error or Contradiction yet our understanding must adhere to them as infallibly true because our Reason is guided only by obscure Notions and abstractive Acts which draws in foreign Species by the mediation of the Senses which give but a glimmering light to the Understanding and often suggest Falsity for Truth but the Decrees of Councils are sacred and carry the Seal of the Holy Spirit enstampt upon them by whose directions they are framed wherefore it is no less than a Sacrilegious Presumption to Question the Truth of them for this is to oppose Human Reason against Divine Authority This is the substance of their first Proof drawn from the Authority of Scripture which at first appearance seems great and glorious a specious pretence to work upon the credulity of the ignorant Vulgar The second Proof is grounded in Reason but before we propose it we must open the way by putting the Reader in mind that the Divine Word the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity considering the deplorable condition of Mankind by the Fall of Adam resolved upon an efficacious Remedy to assume Human Nature and by an Hypostatical Union to be Phisically United and become on with Flesh and Bloud and in that Nature to suffer death and thereby to offer to his Eternal Father an infinite Treasure of Merits and Satisfaction to make an attonement between God and Man and to satisfie for Mans transgressions even to the rigor of Justice because the satisfaction was made in the same specifical nature that offended and it was made to the full equality of the Crime because the Meritorious Cause thereof was a Divine Person of infinite Dignity and therefore his Actions were of infinite Worth But because it was not permitted to every individual Person to draw from that infinite Mass of Satisfaction and Merit in what measure he pleased this priviledge being reserved for the Pope alone to grant out of this stock by his Indulgences what quantity and to whom he deemed expedient therefore a Church must be ordained and a method prescribed how to apply the benefit of Christ's Passion to each one in particular To this end our great Redeemer instituted Sacraments to be the organs and vehicles to convey the Fruit of his Passion to the Receiver and this is secunda post naufragium tabula whence the Church of Rome saith in her Publick Office O felix culpa quae talem meruit Redemptorem This being supposed The second Proof is grounded on this consideration that the principal design of our Redeemer was to draw Souls to Heaven notwithstanding the loss sustained by Original Sin for to this end he offered his satisfaction to this end he merited habitual and sanctifying Grace transient and actual Graces prevenient concomitant and subsequent Graces to illuminate the Understanding to move and incline the Will to embrace Good and
Worthy and Profound Dr. Edw. Stillingfleet Dean of Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty against Mr. Edw. Worsley a Learned Jesuite then residing at Antwerp who had formerly for many years together been a Reader of Divinity in the Jesuits Colledge at Liege where he Taught the whole Body of Divinity yet could never extricate himself out of this Labyrinth wherein Dr. Stillingfleet had involved him by this Argument to which I refer the Reader This Circle being therefore laid aside let us examine if the Scripture Independent of the Churches Definition bring with it this Infallibility or no. The Scripture is questionless of it self Infallible but it is not so to us for we have but a Moral certainty of the Infallibility of Scripture and that it is truly and à parte rei the Word of God The reason is because though we admit that what the Prophets and Apostles have left Written was truly dictated by the Holy Ghost yet they who drew Copies from those Originals wanted that support they were meer Men and carried their Humane Infirmities about them and in after ages as the Scripture was handed down to Posterity the Amanuenses by Ignorance Malice or Neglect might commit some Error either by excess by defect or by alteration whereby their Copies might disagree with the Originals of the first Hagiographers at least we have no Demonstration nor Revelation to assure us of the contrary and when Printing came in the same difficulty occurs in relation to them that Corrected the Print But when it was Translated into several Languages the difficulty is yet greater for beside the former casualties admit the Translator to be an exquisite Linguist yet the Sense of Scripture is so very nice that in his Translation he might innocently express what the Holy Ghost by the Original never meant Besides that only part of Scripture is admitted by both Churches as the Word of God which is Canonical And what Infallible Rule have we to know what part is Canonical what Apocryphal Again in that part that is received as Canonical there are so many high Mysteries some seeming contradictions not pervious to the Natural capacity of Mans understanding to reconcile the several senses thereof are so various some passages are to be understood Literally some Morally others Allegorically some others Tropologically or Figuratively How many Volumes have been Written by the Learned in both Churches to interpret the meaning and true sense of Scripture and in some places with Contradictions and Oppositions to each other yet after all we fall short of any Infallible Certainty herein for instance there have been above Fifty several Senses given by Interpreters of that short Sentence Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body And one Verse in the Psalms hath puzled the Learnedst of them all viz. Increpa feras arundinis Psal 68. v. 30. congregatio taurorum in vaccis populorum ut excludant eos qui probati sunt argento in English thus Rebuke the wilde beasts of a Reed the congregation of Bulls in the Cowes of the people that they may exclude those that are tryed with silver Instances of this nature are frequent in Scripture Humane Tradition hath brought the Scripture down to these our times yet Humane Authority is not Infallible wherefore all these particulars being duly ponder'd Where will the Romanists find that assured Infallibility which they pretend to As for the Second Proof from the strength of Reason we admit Christ's Omnipotence Omniscience his infinite Prudence and Wisdom with all other his Divine Attributes we also grant that our Redeemers Intention of being Incarnate Suffering Death c. was to save the Souls of Men but this was to be consistent with and subordinate to that state wherein the Almighty by his infinite Wisdom and Providence had placed Man in his first Creation that is with a full possession and use of his Liberty and Free-will which our Redeemer never intended to infringe for that would subvert the Order of Gods former Providence So that by the Fruit of Christ's Passion we are furnished with all necessaries to live a godly and a righteous Life which without the Grace of Christ would not be in our power to do for bare Nature hath no proportion of it self to Merit ne quidem de congruo nor to any Supernatural Reward as St. Augustine Teacheth against the Pelagians and Massilienses so that the Supernatural Graces that we receive by Christ's Merits give us a power to do good and shun evil but impose no necessity upon us to lay hold of them and improve them to our own good for this depends upon our own free election therefore when we transgress against Gods Precepts it is not for want of all necessary means to observe them but it proceeds from the Pravity of our own Wills which chuse rather to follow the suggestion of the sensual appetite than submit to the conduct of Reason and therefore are blameworthy for we had the power to do good and avoid evil and would not So that although of our selves we can do nothing in order to heaven yet every individual Member of the Church by the Grace obtained by Christ's Passion is enabled but not necessitated to save his Soul Non ego sed gratia Dei mecum It is not I but the Grace of God with me And if the Church should fall into an Error as the Church of Rome hath done the members thereof are not thereby deprived of the usual Means of Salvation neither doth that Error prejudice them as long as they remain in an invincible Ignorance of the Truth But if the Church by multiplying error upon error should fall from being a Church which could not be but that the wisest and most learned should take notice thereof and detect the errors then these are bound in conscience to desert it and detest their errors who consequently would remain constant and faithful to truth and so would continue the True Church And indeed the Second Proof proposed in the Second Section proves too much and is to be solved by the Romanists themselves for they Assert that the end of Christ's Suffering was to save all Mankind that is every single person of Humane Nature and therefore apt and proportionable means ought to be instituted without which this end could not be efficaciously obtained whence it ensues that every individual person must have this Infallibility yea and impeccability also lest Christ's design should be frustrated which is the same way of Arguing as is contained in that Proof and the illation as evidently ensues which notwithstanding we all grant false and erroneous for then none could be damned Thus you see the grounds of the Romans Infallibility how specious and convincing soever they appear yet thoroughly examined and the fallacies detected they vanish to smoak The Third Proof That Church which hath committed Errors and still perseveres in them is not Infallible But the Church of Rome hath committed errors and still
persists in them as I shall prove in the following Disputations of this Treatise ergo The Church of Rome is not Infallible for that Church that actually doth erre hath a power to erre because bene valet ab actu ad potentiam and it is evident that that Church which hath power or capacity to erre is not Infallible for Infallibility excludes a power of failing There yet remains to solve such Objections as may be proposed against our Assertion contained in the beginning of this Section SECT IV. An Answer to the Objections proposed against the nullity of the Church of Rome's Infallibility THe first Objection None can Question but that such Promises as our Redeemer hath truly made to his Church shall be fulfilled but we have a Moral certainty that the Promises specifyed in the Second Section were truly made by Christ for we admit a Moral certainty That the Holy Scripture is truly the Word of God Whence it ensues that we are Morally certain that the Church of Rome is Infallible First I Answer That this Objection destroys it self for it contends for an Infallibility and proves it by a Reflex act of Moral certainty whereas Infallibility excludes a power of Erring and Moral certainty includes that power so that the result of both would be a Fallible Infallibility which involves a Contradiction This is much of the nature of a Sillogisme wherein the conclusion semper sequitur debiliorem partem so that if one of the premises be scientifical the other only probable the conclusion will be only probable the reason is because in the conclusion the two extreams are therefore identifi'd between themselves because they were in the premises identifi'd with a third wherefore if one extream be certainly identifi'd with a third the other only probably they can but be probably identifi'd with each other for this identity is destroyed by separating either of the extreams from the third For application The Infallibility of the Church depends upon these two Principles First That we are Infallibly certain that Christ's Promises are performed Secondly That we are Infallibly certain of the thing of fact that Christ did Promise if either of these fail the Infallibility faileth and if either of these be only probable the Infallibility is reduced to a probability only now though Moral certainty be the highest degree of Probability yet it comes as far short of Infallibility as this Argument doth of proving it Secondly I Answer That the Church of Rome is too forward in arrogating to themselves alone such Promises as Christ made to his Church for to say nothing of the Church of Rome in Primitive times yet since their manifold Innovations and Superstructures the Protestant Church is the purer and freer from Error and consequently hath more right to lay hold of those Promises then the Church of Rome The Second Objection Though the Church taken barely by it self and without the support of that Testimony from Holy Writ should not be Infallible yet backt by the Motives of Credibility it will be rendred absolutely unerrable for these Motives do so peculiarly affect it and as it were point it out to be the True Church of Christ that it dissipates all the Clouds of Ambiguity which blind the incredulous For who can consider the lineal descent and succession of Chief Pastors the austerity and holiness of life exercised in Monasteries of both Sexes the Miracles wrought by the Members of this Church with the Blood of so many Martyrs the effusion whereof doth daily irrigate the same and renders it more fertile with other Motives of this nature which all are the Badges of this Church Who I say can seriously ponder this without framing an Infallible Judgment that the Church of Rome is the True Church of Christ There is certainly a strict and Metaphysical connexion between these Motives and the True Church for it is not consistent with the Divine Goodness and veracity of God to co-operate to such a Delusion as this would be if these Motives should indicate a False Church subject to Error which would make God himself the Author of this Error We may therefore hence conclude the Church of Rome in which such great Wonders are so frequently wrought to be the True and Infallible Church of Christ The First Answer Among all the Doctors and Divines of the Church of Rome I never knew of any that asserted this strict and metaphysical connexion of the Motives of Credibility with the True Church but only Cardinal Lugo Yet I have seen a whole Torrent of Autority of other Doctors of the same Church of the contrary opinion who all affirm that the collection of these Motives may possibly affect a false Church wherefore let these Authors solve this Objection The Second Answer All these Motives of credibility are fallacious as depending upon Humane Autority and being subject to many casualties and deceits and first for the succession of Chief Pastors whose Jurisdiction by an Illegal Usurpation extends it self de facto over the whole Body but is limited de jure to the Diocess of Rome only and how long together hath the Body been without a head as if it had been defunct and then Monster-like it appeared with two heads it being hard to decide which of them had most right And what is to be said of Liberius Pope who subscribed the Arians Heresie and joyned with them and of Vigilius who approved and condemned the same Doctrine in the three Chapters Must these also be links of continuation in the Succession Surely they were not Infallible Consider the manner of their Election when there occurs a vacancy there will not be wanting those in the Colledge of Cardinals who have ambition enough to aspire to such a dignity whereto is annexed a Temporal Principality a Triple Crown with many splendid Titles which makes the Succession sure But how few are there in the Consistory who are swayed by Piety and Religion to give their Suffrage only for such a Person as is duely qualified for so high a Prelacy But when they have entred the Conclave What a Bundle of Ambition is there shut up together How many are there that take their Measures from By and Sinister ends some from Ambition others from Humane Policy others again from Self-interest some give their Votes for such a Cardinal because he is of the Spanish Faction they having a Pension to uphold that Faction Others chuse another because he is of the French Faction whose Pensioners they are Others chuse one who is most addicted to themselves hoping that by his Promotion they shall become great and powerful another again who conceives himself fit to be elected casts away his own Vote upon one that is most unlike to be chosen lest his Suffrage by making access to the Party of his Competitor should promote him and deprive himself of so high a Dignity What stuff is this to have an influence upon the Electors of a Chief Pastor nay How remote is all
this from Infallibility As for Austerity I believe that many out of a true Motive of Piety are wrought to imbrace it But how many more are there that glory in their gross and vile habit and so are proud of their seeming Humility and in stead of holiness of life How many enormous crimes are committed within those private Walls they have their Pride Ambition and Factions one against another especially among the Female Sex For Miracles How many thousands have been cry'd up as true and afterwards decry'd when the Fallacy was detected And how many have the repute of Martyrs who in reality were Malefactors deserving death But how many Martyrs have the Romanists made in England by putting them to death meerly in odium fidei wherefore it is plain and evident that all these particulars being doubtful and uncertain no Infallibility can be hence evinced The Third Objection They whose reason and understandings are convinced of the truth of the Roman Religion are bound in conscience to believe it as the true Church of God For there is a Divine Precept still incumbent upon them which commands them not to sin therefore it commands them the necessary means to avoid sin but as they stand convinced the necessary means to avoid sin is to believe it to be the true Church of God but it cannot be that God should command Men to believe an error or that which is false therefore it is an infallible truth that the Church of Rome is the true Church of Christ for else God would command us to believe falsity and error and so God himself would be the Author of it First I Answer by retorting this Argument The Greeks for Example who hear their learned Doctors and Preachers Explicate and Preach their Doctrine of the Trinity that the Holy Ghost doth not proceed from the Father and the Son but only from the Father by the Son which they propose with so much plausibility and seeming truth that the hearers are convinced of the truth thereof as belonging to Faith in this case God commands them not to sin and consequently commands the necessary means to avoid sin which is to believe that Doctrine as an Article of Faith which notwithstanding is false and erroneous I aske the Romanists Whether in this case God commands the Greeks to believe this error and if they solve this Argument they will solve their own Secondly I Answer That in the case proposed in the Argument I admit a Precept of not sinning but I deny any Precept of believing the Church of Rome to be the true Church of God Nay such a belief upon the first appearance of truth would be a sin for such an easie belief upon ungrounded though plausible Arguments in a matter of Moment is an act of rashness and temerity which I am sure are no vertues and consequently not commanded by Gods Precept The reason is because where there are several means to attain an end though the end be under Precept yet no means in particular falls under the same Precept as in the case proposed They who seem to be convinced of the truth of the Church of Rome ought in prudence to suspend their Judgment to Read Authors that Treat of such matters to Converse with Men of Integrity Piety Knowledge and Learning and then seriously to ponder and maturely to consider the whole matter this is an act of Prudence and Discretion and consequently no sin so that the Persons in the Case proposed are not restrained to one only means of avoiding sin but may make use of any that is sit and apt in order to that end Else they must acknowledge the Protestant Church to be True and Orthodox for they who are convinced that this Church is the true Church of Christ are commanded not to sin and so to believe that the Protestant Church of England is the True Church of Christ which must be so because God cannot command us to believe an Error But you may Instance That an Infallible Church is certainly better then a Fallible one and the infinite goodness of God is such as always to determine him to do that wich is best and consequently in this case hath made his Church Infallible this being best I Answer The Principle on which this Instance is grounded is commonly rejected by the Roman Divines In 1 partem D. Thomae for though Granado a Spanish Jesuite doth fusely contend to establish a necessity in God to do always that which is best yet I have heard him earnestly impugned by other Professors of Divinity of the same order and in the same Colledge of St. Hermeingildus where Granado himself Taught it and Printed it and though he have some Sectators in this Point yet a far greater number of Doctors of several Orders Teach the contrary The case stands thus Here are two of Gods Attributes viz. his Liberty and Infinite Goodness brought in competition with each other Granado to maintain the Goodness of God detracts from his Absolute Liberty and Freedom which notwithstanding is as Essential to God as his Goodness Other Authors industrioufly contend to defend the Attribute of Goodness without prejudice of liberty for without any such fatal necessity of restraining the Omnipotent he hath an ample field wherein to display his Goodness That we have our Being is an effect of Gods Goodness that we are replenisht with all Necessaries and Conveâ—â—…ences in this life flows from his Bounty and Goodness that we were Redeemed when we were lost in Adam was Gods great Goodness towards us that we are now furnished with all Necessary Means of Salvation proceeds from Gods Goodness and the Ineffable and Eternal Goods of Heaven which we hope for are no other then the products of Gods Infinite Goodness and Mercy Besides we are no competent Judges whether a Fallible or Infallible Church be best for the second in it self seems best to us yet the All-seeing Eye of God who perfectly comprehends all the circumstances thereof together with all the combinations and Subordinations of one thing towards another in relation to the Divine Intention it may be for ought we know that a Church liable to error All things considered may be the best Thus you see according to my intended purpose I have delivered the Substance of what I Designed in this matter Methodically and with as much Brevity as was consistent with the clear understanding of the same Wherein First I proposed several Principles and Maxims of the Roman Doctors necessary and useful for the subsequent Discourse Secondly I gave you the grounds of their pretended Infallibility without dissembling any thing of their full strength Thirdly I set down my Tenet and Proofes thereof destructive of that Infallibility And Fourthly I solved their Objections which Method I shall observe for the future and hereby we may consider upon how weak a foundation this Main Pillar of the Church of Rome is grounded whereby the whole structure becomes disjoyned and ruinous Dispute II. Of the
petitio principii They assume for proofe that which is to be proved The thing in question is Whether the Church hath Power to Repeal Alter or Change that which Christ hath Instituted in matter of Ordination This Objection contends that the Church hath done it in Ordination Matrimony and Confirmation I grant the Church hath done it de Facto but not de Jure That is it hath by its Ordination and Practise endeavored to violate Divine Right but neither legally nor validly as we have already proved It is not that which is done at Rome that must Regulate our Belief but that which is well and regularly done So Durandus in 4. dist 13. q. 3. telling us That the custom of the Priest-Cardinals joyntly Celebrating with the Pope was not in his time observed Et si observarctur non esset necessarium credere quod benè fieret quia secundùm Hieronimum non quod fit Romae sed quod sieri debet attendendum est And if that custom should be observed at Rome it would not be necessary to believe that it were well done for according to Hierome not that which is done at Rome but that which ought to be done must be observed saith Durand As for Subdeaconship Matrimony and Confirmation they all contain the same difficulty with this Certain it is that the Church of Rome as much as in her lies hath made a change in the Matter and Forme of her pretended Sacraments and as certain it is that she hath done it illegally and invalidly as having No power autority or commission to alter change or abrogate the Constitutions of Christ which are of Divine Right and especially in our case where meer Natural Creatures are elevated to produce supernatural effects which is peculiar to an Omnipotent Power as is clearly proved in the precedent Section My Second Answer is That according to the Doctrine of this Objection we must admit in the Divine Understanding confus'd and imperfect acts such are those which represent Universals or Objects in General which the Philosophers call Vniversale and by such Acts a Created Understanding cognoscit plura non cognita pluralitate that is an Act of Human Understanding represents a nature common to Many but doth not represent the plurality nor the differences between them and so by a distinction made by the Understanding that Metaphysical formality which is common to many is separated and distinguisht from the difference that is between them and yet they are really identify'd this is proper to Human Understanding and to Angelical in such Objects as Angels know by forrain species which are imperfect but not in those that are known by their proper species because these species produce perfect acts that represent the Object as it is which of it self admits no such distinction but is indivisible Now to attribute to God such confused abstractive and imperfect notions of Objects is to destroy his Omniscience which can admit of no imperfection and so consequently this Doctrine would Ungod him Wherefore the Divine Intellect hath for its Object all those particulars with all their nicest differences that are contained under those heads that we call Generals all which he represents as they are in themselves with all their differences by a cleer intuitive and comprehensive act The reason is because God useth no species no nor acts distinct from himself his Essence is his act and species also which hath a reference to all things that are possible and hence he perfectly comprehends them all in their particulars and individuals and therefore cannot represent a general praedicate so as to prescind it from the differential formality for this would argue imperfection Now since the Will of God is regulated by his understanding he can make no decree by way of Institution of a Sacrament to elevate such or such sensible signs in general to produce supernatural effects except he fixeth it upon some determinate particulars because the Understanding represents no such generals without the determinate particular differences for nihil volitum quin praecognitum the Will can have no Object but what the Understanding represents the Understanding of God represents no General without particulars therefore the Will cannot decree an extraordinary concurse to a General without determining the particulars for otherwise God would determine himself by his Decree to give an extraordinary concurse to he knew not what but the Church must afterwards determine him which is a conceit very unworthy of the infinite perfection of Gods Understanding and Will Hence it is manifest that the Matter and Forme of Sacraments can never be capacitated to produce such wonderful and supernatural effects except the Divine Decree pass upon them in particular to enable them to it by his concomitant and extraordinary assistance But it may be alleaged that without affiixing any obscurity or imperfection to the Divine Acts a Power may be left to the Church to determine some one of those matters which the Understanding of God represents distinctly with all their particular differences and Regulates his Decree by the Churches Determination I Answer That in effect this is no other then to Assert That Christ hath Commission'd the Church to Institute Sacraments for here are no limits prescribed but they are left to the whole latitude of any sensible Matter And I demand Whether any Divine dare assert That the Church hath Power to change the Essential Matter of Baptism or Eucharist for any other specifically distinct from what is now in use if not What ground is there to assert such a Power in the Church in reference to one Sacrament more than another Besides in this particular matter of Instituting Sacraments such a subordination of Gods Decrees to Human determination derogates from the dignity of Christ as Redeemer for he alone without any Human Concurrence is the Sole Institutor of Sacraments who without Mans help hath perfected the Work of our Redemption My third Answer is That according to this Doctrine the Church of Rome would have a power to Institute Sacraments for the Essence of each Sacrament consists precisely in the Matter and Forme so that the Institutor must appoint and determine what shall be the Matter and Forme of each Sacrament which in effect is nothing else but the Sacrament it self which consists only of these two Essential parts impowered to produce such effects as are peculiar to each Sacrament But you will say It is not the Church but Christ that enables them to produce the Sacramental effects by the Churches determination It is well that the Church will admit of Christ to be a Constituter with it but yet the Church still retains the rectum which is the visible or sensible sign and contains the whole Essence of the Sacrament and leaves to Christ only the obliquum which is to do the work intended by it But where was this Divinity ever Taught to separate the parts of Institution of Sacraments so as that one part should be Human and the other
late to make any change or alteration in it or any way to repeal or abrogate it So they may talke of an indirect power of degrading the contract and depriving it of its wonted obligation and making it no civil contract but all in vain for Christ's Institution must stand Yet it may be Reply'd That those clandestine contracts which were to be after the Decree of the Council are no civil contracts and therefore not comprehended under the number of those that Christ Instituted as Sacraments I Answer That the Supreame Legislator in the Institution of Sacraments did not regulate himself by any subsequent and human Law made in prejudice of his Institution but well knowing those Clandestine Contracts to be of their own nature obligatory he confirm'd that mutual obligation in them by erecting them to the dignity of Sacraments which no human Decree can change for otherwise the Councils might prescribe him what Rules they pleased to regulate his proceeding The Second Objection Since we are destitute of any certain knowledge what those Contracts were that Christ Instituted as Sacraments we ought in this to take the testimony of the Church for the Rule of our Belief who by reason of her Infallibility is best able to informe us and secure us from Error Wherefore since the Church declares all succeeding Clandestine Contracts to be no Sacraments nor Civil Contracts we have no reason by our own fallible discourse to call in question the verity of the Churches Declaration I Answer That the Church of Rome not only declares those subsequent contracts to be void but as much as in her lies makes them so Prout eos presenti decreto irritos facit annullat which notwithstanding before this Decree were valid and obligatory As for the Church of Romes Infallibility we have in the precedent Disputation examin'd it and found it defective and shall hereafter prove it erroneous and therefore have no grounds to confide in it But in this case we have made it appear that the determination of those Contracts which of their own nature were Obligatory was made by Divine Institution and that such Contracts were deputed to be Sacraments long before this Decree of the Council yea and are still reputed Sacraments inducing a mutual obligation here in England and other places where the Council of Trent was never received which the Church of Rome acknowledges How then could this subsequent Decree of the Council have any influence upon those contracts which were establisht as valid and indued with a Sacramental vertue by a Divine Decree that was precedent to this human Decree of the Council This being but a fruitless attempt to render that invalid which was constituted as valid Jure Divino The Third Objection Clandestine Marriage was ever hold unlawful and therefore they who contract so commit a sin in doing it because they transgress against a precept of their lawful Superiors and it is not likely that Christ would affix his Supernatural Graces to a sinful action nay it is impossible that a Mortal sin and Grace can stand together in the same subject And therefore the Church might prudently presume that such sinful contracts were not Instituted by Christ as Sacraments First I Answer That the Romanists themselves must solve this Objection for they all grant that clandestine Marriages were Sacraments and valid contracts ever before the Council of Trent and are so still in England and Saxony and yet they ever were and still are unlawful which circumstance they must reconcile with Christ's Institution for notwithstanding the sin they acknowledge them to have been Instituted by Christ as Sacraments But Secondly I Answer That the circumstance of contracting clandestinely is wholly extrinsecal to the contract and therefore can never alter the nature nor essence of it for circumstances make no change in the substance and this is common to all Sacraments for whoever receives any Sacrament may out of the pravity of his own will add some unlawful circumstance to it or receive it when his Soul is contaminated with sin but we must not hence conclude that this deordinate proceeding of the Receiver layes any infection upon the Sacrament whose compleat substance and essence is wholly independant of the circumstances which are extrinsecal to it True it is that all Sacraments produce Grace as also that Grace and deadly sin are wholly inconsistent and therefore whosoever receives a Sacrament when he is actually in sin puts an Obstacle to the effect of the Sacrament and cannot then receive any Grace by it because sin makes him liable to the pains of Hell and Grace gives him whose Soul it informs a right to Glory and because these two are incompatible therefore Grace and Sin that are the necessary causes of them mutually exclude each other from the same Soul Yet they generally Teach in the Church of Rome That when the obstacle is removed and the Soul purged from sin that then the Sacrament revives and produceth that Grace which by the original Institution was annexed to it and this Doctrine they also apply to Moral actions in reference to Inherent and Sanctifying Grace which they Merit for when one falleth into sin he loseth all that habitual Grace which he possest before his fall it being inconsistent with sin but when he is again restored to the state of Grace then his Merits revive to render him the same quantity of Sanctifying Grace which he before had lost by sin So is it in those that contract clandestine Marriage if invincible ignorance doth not excuse them they sin and receive no Inherent and Sanctifying Grace till sin which is the obstacle be removed and in the same moment that this is done the Sacrament revives and produceth in their Souls its due proportion of habitual and inherent Grace See Suarez Opuscul 5. D. 2. S. 2. 3. And thus have I vindicated the Validity of Clandestine Marriage against the Church of Rome by the Principles of their own Doctors and consequently that Decree of the Council of Trent is but a vain attempt to render that void which by Divine Autority is establisht as valid which proceeding is originally drawn from a presumption of their pretended Infallibility And therefore whatsoever they decree though against Divine Right is held as Sacred and not liable to error as in this case it happens But this is certain that these private Matrimonial Contracts were by Christ appointed as Sacraments or they were not if not then the Church of Rome erred by ever acknowledging them as such if they were then the Council of Trent errs by endeavoring to repeal them You 'l say That those Contracts that proceeded the Council were Instituted by Christ because they were civil contracts but they which succeeded were not because they were no Civil contracts Yes because the Council will have it so But Who sees not that according to this Doctrine it is the Council and not Christ that is the proper Instituter of this Sacrament for the
fair Arguing some reality should be assigned for bare words are not satisfactory and if they pretend that there are any peculiar Graces or Spiritual Favors which accrew to the Receiver under the Species of Wine distinct from those that are received by Communion under the Species of Bread as many of their great Divines affirm then they give a Legal Reason of Christ's so much inculcating the receiving of this Sacrament under both Kinds Amen Amen dico vobis Johannis 6 v. 53. Mat. 26. v. 27. Luc. 22. v. 17. nisi maâ—ducaveritis carnem fiâ—â—â— fortinis biberit ejus sanguinem non habelitis vitam in vnhis Bibite ex hoc omnes Accipite hoc dividite inter vos c. And by this they may give a rational account why they so strictly exact the consummating of the Chalice in their Mass But if they grant this How then can they excuse their Injustice of denying the Cup to the Laity for these Graces are of a high value and of right belong to them as is more largely declared above Sect. 2. in this Disputation So that they are here reduced to this perplexity If they grant these Spiritual Graces to the Chalice they cannot excuse their Injustice to the Laity If they deny them they cannot make out their practise and Doctrine of their Sacrifice of the Mass These are hard shifts to defend a bad Cause but certainly they have most reason who candidly acknowledge the Graces conferred upon us by receiving the Blood of Christ under the Species of Wine which so much conduce to the right Institution of a Christian Life and perseverance in it Let us therefore cast a glance of compassion on the deplorable condition of those that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome who not only are deprived of such Spiritual Graces and Favors but by a constant Rebellion against Christ's Commands are become refractory and incorrigeable in their disobedience and which is worst of all hereby incur the penalty threatned to the disobedient by Christ himself which is no less then eternal Damnation neither is it possible as long as they remain in those circumstances to make their Peace or Attonement with All mighty God which can never be effected but by a valid Absolution or a true Repentance but if they resolve to continue in that Communion they are neither capable of a valid Absolution nor a true Repentance for two essential impediments that cannot be removed obstruct and render inefficacious all their endeavors The one is an incapacity of retractation the other an impossibility of a purpose of amendment for How is it possible for any one to retract his sin or purpose to amend as long as he is deliberately and firmly resolved to continue in the same sin for such a resolution is wholly inconsistent with a retractation and with a purpose to amend and yet these two are both necessary to a valid Absolution and to a true Repentance which is allowed by all I shall therefore conclude this Disputation with this ensuing Sillogisme They who are transgressors and uncapable of a valid Absolution and true Repentance cannot be saved but they who are resolved to continue in the Church of Rome are Transgressors and incapable of a valid Absolution and true Repentance ergo They who are resolved to continue in the Church of Rome cannot be saved The Major none can deny it being consonant to the Doctrine of both Churches and evident in it self The Minor hath been sufficiently proved in this Disputation But How dismal and fatal is the consequence to those whom it concerns They have no remedy but one which is to separate from that Church which reduceth them to such extremities and then they may be in a Capacity to Repent and exercise Acts of Attrition and Contrition so to reduce their Souls to a better state Dispute IV. Of Transubstantiation The Preface AMong all the Dogmatical Points wherein the Roman and Protestant Churches differ none is Controverted with more Fervor and Animosity then this of Transubstantiation the Romanists earnestly defending it and the Protestants as vigorously denying it Besides the Method and Manner which the Church of Rome useth in the Explication and Proofe of this Mystery leads them into such a labyrinth of insuperable Difficulties yea and Impossibilities as shall be here proved that all their Pretended Infallibility will not be able to protect them from Error for they make so great a Breach in the Lawes of Nature and so impose upon Human Reason as if rightly understood the most credulous could never stretch their Belief to an Assent For they move Heaven and Earth to accomplish their Design they bring in the Divine Omnipotence to their support and yet still need more help to make out their Vndertakings the particulars whereof the following Sections will declare SECT I. The Romanists Doctrine relating to Transubstantiation WHoever intends to make a strict Inquiry into all the Parts of this strange Mystery must of necessity Consult the Grounds of Natural Philosophy on which it depends where in the first place they adhere to Aristotle whose Principles are more accommodated to their Design then any other for they absolutely except against the Doctrine of Cartesius and reject his Principies who composeth this sublunary World or one simple Compleat substantial Body admitting of no substantial Composition either of Matter or Forme or any other equivalent parts but divides this Body into integral parts which he reduceth to Three Classes The One he calls Globulos Caelestes Another Materiam Subtilem And the Third Particulas Striatas All which though according to their own Entities are Homogeneal yet by reason of their different Figures Motions and other Modifications produce all that variety and those Hetorogeneal effects which this World proposeth to our Corporal Senses And though he often mentions Local Motion Moodes and Modisications yet he would never admit any accident either absolute or modal no first or second qualities entitatively and really distinct from the substance as his Writings sufficiently declare and also as I have been several times informed by Doctor Gutscouen a Doctor of the University of Lovaine and Canon of the Cathedral of Liege who was Des Cartes his bosom Friend with whom he Communicated all his Principles before he Printed them Who assured me that Des Cartes was an irreconcileable Enemy to all Accidents Moods and Qualities really distinct from the Substance This therefore being waved they stick close to the Peripateticks who admit Moods Qualities and Accidents really distinct from the Substances which they affect Secondly In all Compleat Bodies in this Sublunary World they admit a Substantial Composition of Matter and Forme so as that the first Matter being produced by a creatain Action is indifferent to all Formes but depends on no one in particular and therefore since the first Creation of the World if we Consult Nature no Matter hath been produced none destroyed But on the contrary the substantial Forms
hath been already said But this is not all for out of this decision of their Councils there issueth another Quaery for supposing the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist a Natural doubt ariseth What is become of the substance of Bread that was there before Here Authors are divided into three different Classes some place the Body of Christ here by Transubstantiation others by Consubstantiation others by Impanation The first Teach that the substancee of Bread as well Matter as Forme is destroyed by a Natural Exigence of Christ's Body being placed there because two compleat Corporeal Substances cannot be naturally in the same place the same time The two last Opinions Teach That the substance of Bread remaineth together with Christ's Body and differ only in this That they who hold Consubstantiation assert the Body of Christ to be with the substance of the Bread whereas the Authors of Impanation Teach The Body of Christ to be contained in this Sacrament invisibly because the substance of bread with its proper accidents as it were covers and veiles it so as to render it uncapable of being perceived by any Corporeal Sense So that the body of Christ being Miraculously Superinduc't is imbib'd within the substance of the bread and penetrated with it and therefore not pervious to Sensation In this variety of Opinions Who shall be the Umpire Certainly none more accommodated for this Function then the great Oracle of the Universe The Church of Rome whose grand Prerogative of Infallibility will take off all ambiguity of the truth of her decisions Thus then speaks the Council of Trent Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster corpus suum id quod sub specie panis offerebat verè esse dixit ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit idque nunc denuo sancta haec Synodus declarat per consecrationem panis vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus quae conversio convenientèr propriè 〈◊〉 Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata The same is contained in other Councils and Texts of the Common Law as Concil Rom. 6. Concil Lateran 2. In cap. Qui manducant de consecrat dist 2. cap. Iteratur Cap. semel Christus cap. singulis with other Texts above cited for the Real Presence And this definition of the Council is backt by a severe Canon able to strike terror into the disbelievers The Canon runs thus Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vim unà cum corpore sanguine Domini Nostri Jesu Christi negaveritque mirabilem illam singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus totius substantiae vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxit speciebus panis vini quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia optissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Anathema sit Here is a heavy Curse fulminated against all those that shall deny any part of this Canon which not only condemns the two former Opinions but is likewise extended to all these that deny the Real Presence And to make it the more plausible the â—ens of their best Divines are industriously imployed to work their Adherents and Proselites into the Belief of it So Valerius Reginaldus in parte fori pâ—â—ni L. 29. n. 36. Vasque 3 Part. To. 3. D. 180 nu 108. alibi Ledasn traâ—â— de Euch. C. 6. Concil 2.3 passim alii For is it hereby made an Article of Divine Faith and all are enjoyn'd to believe it as such under the most rigorous Commination of being Condemned to the Eternal Flames of Hell Fire if they call in question this Decree and Canon of the Council or any part thereof SECT II. Other Subtilties arising from the former Decisions not fully determin'd OTher Difficulties of like nature are frequently discussed by their Divines but not yet determin'd by the Church as First By what means the Body of Christ is made Corporeally present in the Eucharist Whether by a new production really distinct from that which conserves his Sacred Body in Heaven or else by a new ubication which they call adduction if the first then the Body and Soul of Christ must be created anew and the Natural and Hypostatical Unions must terminate new eductive actions really distinct from those whereby they exist in Heaven I remember to have Read a Book Written by one Tho. Barton alias Anderton an English Jesuite wherein he earnestly contends to establish this Opinion but I also heard others of the same Order to object against him That according to his Opinion the Divine Word would be as often Incarnate again as there should be Hosts Consecrated for every Consecration argues a new Incarnation because though the Hypostatical Union be still the same yet the action which produceth it is wholly new So that the common Opinion of their Divines is That all the parts of Christ in the Eucharist acquire only new ubies or ubications whereby the Body the Soul c. together with their respective actions the very same that are in Heaven are rendred present in the Sacrament and without leaving their Station in Heaven they do by every Consecration acquire a new place and whereas they existed but in one place before they now exist in two places at the same time Hence ariseth a Second Difficulty relating to the nature of this ubi whereby the Body of Christ is existent under the Species of bread and the Question is Whether it be ubi circumscriptivum or ubi definitivum that is Whether the body of Christ exist in the Eucharist as it doth in Heaven having all its parts duly ordered and collocated in their distinct stations with their natural distances conjunctions and contiguities to each other as human bodies are here framed so as that the Hand imployes one part of the space the Foot another part the Head another c. or else whether the whole body be in the whole space of the Host and the same whole body in every distinct part and particle of the Host as a reasonable Soul is wholly in every part of a Human body if so then the Body of Christ in the Sacrament hath a definitive ubication whereby all its parts are penetrated and so involved and implicated within each other that an Angel cannot cull out a particle of the Host how small soever it be and that no sense can perceive it but it contains all Christ And this Opinion they incline to A Third Question occurreth How long the Body of Christ together with the Soul the Divinity c. remain in the Consecrated Host There are various Answers to this Question but the common gives this Rule That as long as the natural Species of bread remains in the Host so long and no longer the Body of Christ is there present so that what alteration soever is made in the Host by
and in many other cases of like nature then are Councils both profitable and necessary as a Physitian is to a sick Patient then ought they by their opportune Remedies to salve the Sores to make up the breaches to reforme the abuses and to redintegrate the whole body of the Church and purge the Wheate from the Cockle and Darnel which by the depraved will of Man and the suggestion of Sathan began to take root But if Councils should spend their endeavors in debating certain abstruse and hidden Mysteries and frame Articles of Divine Faith upon them without any warrant in Scripture or Antiquity nay against the Original Belief of the Church and by their annexed Anathema's drive Men to confusion and desperation and yet reap no benefit thereby for it neither promotes Vertue nor curbs Vice nor any way conduceth to the institution of a Moral and Christian Life but on the contrary it puts Mens Consciences upon the Rack it disturbs the peace and quiet of their Minds it hinders their due application to Vertue and Morality it perplexes their Souls with Scruples and disposeth them to despair In this case I appeal to the Judgment of the whole World Whether the multiplying of such decisions be not fruitless and pernicious To what is added in the Objection I grant that Councils have been always in use not to decide such speculative points of Divinity and reduce them to Articles of Faith but to solve practical doubts which may arise among the vulgar concerning their practise and manners c. which may be instrumental to facilitate their progress towards Heaven but as for Divine Faith it ought to be said to them as St. Paul said to the Galatians That if an Angel should come from Heaven and Teach them otherwise then they had been Taught by Christ and his Apostles they ought not to believe him but let him be Accursed saith the Apostle Gal. 1.8 9. The Second Objection We are Taught by experience that several Heresiarchs have often attempted to make a breach in the Church by their new Heterodox Doctrine and the most efficacious remedy in the Church to prevent such inconveniences is to Anathematize the Authors and condemn their Errors as Heretical which hath been alwayes practised in the Church with good success for the extirpating of Heresie and establishing Orthodox Doctrine To this Objection I Answer First That when the Definitions of Councils are grounded in Scripture in the Doctrine and Practise of Christ and his Apostles or otherwise by true Revelations made manifest to be of Divine Autority such definitions are warrantable and useful to extinguish Heresie but nothing of all this will quadrate with the forecited definitions of the Church of Rome which are no way proved by Autority nor Reason nay rather they are repugnant to both yet are obtruded to the Credulous Believers under a Curse to be by them received by a blind assent without examining the truth of them Secondly I Answer That the most apposite and efficacious way to suppress Heresie is to evince the Error of it by solid and convincing Arguments drawn from Divine Autority or evident Principles of Reason These are the Armes with which the Antient Fathers wag'd War against the respective Heresies of their times So St. Ambrose with his Preaching and solid Principles drew the great St. Augustine from his Heresie to imbrace the Orthodox Doctrine of Christianity and the same Augustine being fully convinced thereof with no less industry and zeal then learning efficaciously refelled the Errors of the Manichaeans the Pellagians the Massilienses the Donatists c. he alledged not the Autority of Councils but convinced the Broachers and Abetters of those Errors with solid Arguments whereby he detected the Fallacy of their irregular Tenets And so by Divine Autority and strength of Reason refelled their illegal Assertions The Reason of this proceeding is manifest for the first Authors of such Erroneous Doctrines and they who greedily give their assent to them make it their business to maintain them against all opposition and glory in their undertakings hugging their Errors as the happy products of their own understanding whence they so tenaciously adhere to them that no Curse nor Censure can make any impression upon them If you cite the Definitions of Councils against them they alledge their Reasons against you and Challenge you to Solve them How earnestly did Nestorius insist upon the Force of his Argument to prove two Persons in Christ And the whole stress of his Proofe he reduced to this one Sillogisme Omnis Natura Rationalis Completa est Persona sed in Christo sunt duae Rationales Naturae completae ergo duae Personae In English thus All Compleat Rational Natures are Persons but in Christ there are two compleat Rational Natures ergo in Christ there are two Persons With this Argument Nestorius perplext the Fathers whereof none durst deny either of the Premises and yet the Conclusion was Erroneous And certainly Nestorius would have slighted any definition of a Council against his Assertion without solving his Argument Wherefore the most efficacious way to Refute an Heretick is to Instruct his Reason and Convince his Judgment that his Principles are Erroneous to this end Arguments are to be drawn from Scripture and Divine Autority seconded by cleer and evident Reason and from these two Premises you may infer a conclusion contradictory to the Error And hereby you encrease the Authors Adhesion to his Error for there are none so obstinate as to deny that which is establisht by known Divine Autority and Evident Reason SECT V. When and from whom this Doctrine of the Real Presence took its first rise ALl Dogmatical Assertions which are pretended to be matters of Divine Faith if they be so it s rigorously necessary that they be backt by Divine Autority and therefore must be traced immediately from Christ himself or else attested by those Hagyographers the old Prophets Apostles c. who were immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost and so could not erre by whose Mediation it must ultimate be resolved into Divine Autority The reason hereof is because all acts of Divine Faith consist essentially of two parts the Material and the Formal Object the Material Object is the thing believed the Formal Object is dictio Dei Gods saying it which is the only motive that induceth us to believe it as Divine Faith And herein Faith differs from Science and Opinion because Science though invested with certainty yet derives it from the evidence of Human Reason which is inductive to the assent Opinion hath neither certainty nor evidence but a meer probability grounded on a weak foundation of Reason cum formidine partis oppositae it is always accompanyed with an ambiguity either formal or virtual that the contrary may be true But Faith if it be Divine relyes upon Divine Autority if Human on Human Authority For instance we believe that the Divine Word is Incarnate because God hath assured it this is an
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
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