Power of offering Sacrifice then conferr'd upon the Ordained and nothing else And the offering of Sacrifice is the chief action of a Priest because it impowers him to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ which none but a Priest can do Albert. Mag. L. 6. Theolog. veritatis C. 36. Actus Presbyterorum saith Albertus Magnus est Consecrare corpus Sanguinem Christi est actus principalis Alius est consequens scilicet ligare solvere The Act of Priests is to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and it is the principal Act. The other is consequent which is to Retain and Absolve which they all grant therefore they must acknowledge Priesthood to be hereby conferr'd For To what other sense can they draw those words Take Receive Accept the Power of offering Sacrifice and the Ordained comes with a full intention to Receive the Power whence there cannot be the least shadow of any other design then intending this Matter and Forme as the Essentials of Priesthood SECT VIII An Illation drawn from the Premises of the Invalidity of Ordination in the Church of England Solved THe Council of Trent seems to make no difference between Order and Ordination Trid. Sess 23. Can. 3. but confounds them together Si quis dixerit Ordinem sive Sacram Ordinationem non esse verè propriè Sacramentum à Christo Domino institutum c. Anathema sit If any one shall say That Order or Holy Ordination is not truly and properly a Sacrament Instituted by Christ c. let him be Accursed But I shall make it appear that there is a considerable difference between Order and Ordination the one is that which they call a Sacrament the other not The Order of Priesthood is a Spiritual Power whereby the Ordained is enabled and Commissioned to exercise all Priestly Functions with Autority The Ordination consists in the Essential Matter and Forme regularly and aptly applyed by the Bishop which is the Ordainer to him that is Ordained and from this Matter and Forme so applyed results in the Ordained that Spiritual Power which is properly the Order of Priesthood the Character is thereby Imprinted and the Graces accommodated to the Priestly Ministry are also conferr'd So that Order with its concomitants is the effect but Ordination is the cause That is permanent in the Ordained for terme of life this is transient and passeth away for it lasts no longer then while that power is in conferring That is the principal end intended by Christ This is the means Instituted by Christ to attain that end That is as it were a Patent or Commission which the Priest acts by this the cause either efficient or Moral which procured it wherefore these being so different from each other the Council of Trent could not intend to have them both Sacraments but that alone if any must be a Sacrament which confers the Order of Priesthood to the Ordained and also Imprints the Character c. all this is performed by Ordination not by Order for nothing can be the cause of it self Order is the effect and therefore cannot be the cause The Character and Sacramental Graces are not produced by the Order but by the Ordination so that if any be a Sacrament it must be this which being premised as evident in it self A Tenth Objection by way of Deduction is drawn from the precedent Doctrine For if the Ordination of the Church of Rome be Invalid it must of necessity draw with it the Nullity of the Church of Englands Ordination who received her Orders from the Church of Rome and cannot make out her Succession of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles without passing through the sides of the Roman Bishops who must integrate the linkes of continuation Wherefore if the Church of Rome have no true Bishops it inevitably follows that the Church of England must lye under the same Censure for one that hath no power of Order can never confer that power upon another because none can give that which he hath not Otherwise it would follow that meerly Men or Civil Magistrates might confer Orders which no Man will grant My Answer to this Objection is grounded in a Principle received by the Romanists themselves namely that where the true Essentials are regularly and orderly applyed though there be a defect in the Ordainer for want of the power of Order yet if he Ordain Cum titulo colorato bona fide the Ordination is valid Four things therefore are necessary to the Validity of Ordination conferr'd by such a Bishop First That none of the Essentials be wanting Secondly That nothing be added in the Ordination repugnant to the Essentials or destructive of their Operation Thirdly That there be in the Ordainer Titulus coloratus bona sides that is a general presumption that he is a true Bishop and that he Ordains according to his Conscience knowing nothing amiss Fourthly That he have a right Intention of conferring the Order Where these Requisites do concurre the Ordination is certainly valid The First Proof hereof is grounded upon that provident care that Christ ever had of his Church for when all the Essentials and necessary Conditions are applyed and no Moral defect to be imputed to the Ordainer nor the Ordained and no Humane prudence could ever detect that secret defect in the Ordainer it would be too severe that the Original Instituter of Ordination should refuse to the Ordained the power of Order nay in a short time it would prove destructive to the whole Church for Christ knew full well the fragility of Humane Nature and considering his infinite Wisdom and Protection of his Church would not oblige our imbecility to Moral Impossibilities or if we failed by our Natural Weakness without either sin or voluntary error would permit the utter ruine and destruction of his Church which would certainly insue if such Ordinations were not valid For I suppose the Ordainers and Ordained to proceed with a candid sincere and good Conscience and that Morally speaking have not the least suspicion of any default or want of power in the Ordainer nay he himself neither knows nor surmiseth any desiciency in his Order In this Case Should the Ordination be void and null Whom could we impute it to certainly to none but those who by their Super-inductions pretended to Correct Christ's Institutions and thereby rendred all defective But must this be so prejudicial to the Church of Christ as to involve all Posterity into the Imputation of the same Crime who were no way consenting to it nay who in due time reformed such abuses and wholly disclaimed from them No certainly our Great Redeemer is more equitable and knows who rejects his Ordinances and Institutions and who endeavors to maintain them But now since Pride Ambition or a vain Pretence to an Arbitrary Power against Divine Right or what Motive else I know not induced the Prelates of the Church of Rome to evacuate Christ's Institutions and in their
as belongs to it to produce its effect But in this case the power of Order is no Physical but a Moral effect and in all Ordinations it is given by Christ alone ad exigentiam Ordinationis by a determination which proceeds from the Ordination by vertue of Divine Institution for it is Christ alone that impowers the Ordained validly to exercise the Functions of his Order which is but a Moral Power whose immediate cause is not the Ordainer but only Christ thereunto determin'd by the Ordination which doth very much facilitate and confirm the foresaid Doctrine A Third Proofe is drawn from an acknowledged Principle of those of Rome who after a vacancy when a new Pope is chosen the Cardinals in the Conclave only concur to make the Election Canonical which being done all the Power they have cannot communicate to the new elected Pope that Universal Jurisdiction over all the Church which they pretend to because they have no such Jurisdiction in themselves every Bishop and Cardinal being confined within the limits of his own Diocess and one Bishop cannot extend his Jurisdiction to the Subjects of another Diocess From whence then doth the Pope receive his pretended Universal Jurisdiction Here they must of necessity have recourse to the Supreame Lord of the Church which is Christ himself for the obtaining this Jurisdiction for their new Pope which neither they nor their Canonical Election can effect for this Election is only a Condition not the Cause of such an illimited Jurisdiction so that Christ alone is the only cause of this Pretended Papal Jurisdiction Why then in like case when the Ordination is compleated in foro externo and no error committed in foro interno Why I say in this case should not Christ in like manner confer to the Ordained the Spiritual Power of Order for though the Ordination be never so Canonical and compleat yet still it is Christ alone that grants the power of Order and it is he alone that gives Jurisdiction to every Bishop in his Ordination and even in the Church of Rome the Jurisdiction of Bishops comes not from the Pope but from Christ and therefore Jurisdictio Episcopalis est Juris Divini Episcopal Jurisdiction is of Divine Right because it proceeds immediately from Christ. So that in any Ordination when no essential nor necessary condition is wanting though the Ordainer have not the power of Order yet being universally reputed a true Bishop and this defect being secret that Morally speaking no Human Industry can discover it and all concencerned in the Ordination do proceed sincerely and with a good Conscience What true Christian can frame so hard a judgment of our Great Redeemer as to deny to the Ordained the power of Order and thereby permit so great a breach in his Church which hath an immediate tendency to the utter ruine thereof when it may be so easily remedied and when neither the Ordainer nor the Ordained can in the least have any imputation of blame As to the Point of Succession mentioned in the Objection I Answer That this succession is not to be understood in a Mathematical but a Moral Sense and it is the same in Ordination as it is in all other Dogmatical points and Principles of Faith contained under the Reformation For though the Latin Church which is but one Branch of the Universal Church was Guilty of many Errors in matter of Faith and for many years swerv'd from the Doctrine and Practise of Christ and his Apostles yet this could impose no necessity upon the Successors of this Branch ever to be excluded from the hopes of Salvation For when the Erroneous Principles of the Church of Rome were sufficiently detected they might yea they ought to Reforme such abuses and to conforme themselves to the Original Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Church which were the immediate Successors to the Apostles and so to redintegrate their Faith and for the future to regulate their Faith and Practise by that never erring Rule of the Doctrine and Practise of Christ and his Apostles And shall then the Church of Rome Object against them that they cannot prove their Succession from Christ and the Apostles Which in plain termes signifies no more then this That they have not persisted in the Errors of the Church of Rome but have imbraced a new Doctrine New indeed to them but exactly conformable to the old Doctrine which Christ left to his Church and which the Church of Rome long since deserted and so Interrupted the Continuation of Professing the True and Orthodox Principles of Christ which we by our Reformation do Reassume and chuse rather to follow Christ and his Apostles then to adhere to the False and Erroneous Principles of the Church of Rome If this be a Crime then we are Guilty Must we lye under the Imputation of Blame because we would not run headlong to utter Ruine and Damnation by adhering to the Erroneous Doctrine of Rome Must that one word of Succession startle us and be inductive to perswade us to leave Heaven and go with them to Hell for Company 's sake They have made a long continued Breach in the Church themselves and interrupted their own Succession and Must they blame us for returning to the Truth because we will not succeed them in their Errors So then our Succession in Dogmatical Points in Practise and Ordination consists in this that after a Breach made by the Latin Church we having cleerly Detected the Error have reunited our selves again to the Antient and True Professors of Christianity and detested the opposite and Erroneous Doctrine of those that had Apostated from the True Church The last Clause contained in the close of the Objection that pursuant to this Doctrine a meer Secular Layman may confer Orders is easily solved because this no way follows for in this case he could neither Ordain with a colourable Title nor with a good Conscience which are both necessary for the validity of Ordination he wants the first because he never was esteemed to have the power of Order and he himself knows certainly that he never was in Orders nor ever attempted to receive them so that in presuming to Ordain he commits a heinous Sacrilege by a gross contempt of the Holy Ghost which is inconsistent with a candid sincere and conscientious proceeding so that he wants the second also and besides in so doing he can never have a right intention to confer Orders because he is conscious that he cannot have several requisites without which he cannot Ordain I only add this General Rule That according to the present Constitution and Institution of Christ practised by the Primitive Church it is impossible to confer Priesthood validly except the Imposition of Hands be applyed as the Essential Matter and accompanyed by the words of the Bishop signifying Priesthood to be thereby conferr'd as the Essential Forme which the Church of England Religiously observeth in their Ordination for while the Bishop with other
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
Because by the words of Christ our Redeemer Eternal Life is annexed to the Receiving of his Body under the Species of Bread only If any Man eate of this Bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 51. and again He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Vers 58. Where no mention is made of Receiving under the Species of Wine and yet Eternal life is promised to him that eateth of this Bread therefore to Receive Christ under the Species of Wine is not necessary to Salvation not necessitate medii because the Bread alone is sufficient as appears by the words of Christ Nor Necessitate praecepti because no such Precept is extant and if there were then the eating of the Bread alone would not be sufficient to Salvation which Christ himself affirms to be sufficient The Fourth Reason Because it hath ever been the practice of the Church since the Apostles time to Administer the Communion under the Species of Bread only to those that were infirm and reduced to imminent danger of death for to these the Sacrament was usually carryed under one Species only so likewise in Armies before a Battel was to be fought the Sacrament was commonly Administred to them only in one kind neither is it to be presumed that the Church in its greatest purity would not only countenance men to transgress against Christ's Precept but be Instrumental also themselves to the violating of his Commands whence it follows That Christ laid no such Precept upon his Church nor the Members thereof The Fifth Reason Because in the Apostles time one Species was in use according to the opinion of diverse of the Fathers who hold that Christ gave the Communion in one kind to the two Disciples that were with him at Emaus So Augustin Hierom Chrysostom and Theophylact. Others say That the meaning of that place And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers is of this Sacrament Acts 2. v. 42. As also that And upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break Bread c. Acts 20. v. 7. Where by breaking of Bread they understand the Receiving of the Sacrament These Texts and the Reasons above mentioned we shall examine when we come to the Solution of their Objections SECT II. The Decision of this Controversie IN order to the Resolution of this Question a threefold Precept is here to be distinguish'd There is a Positive a Negative and a Mixt Precept The first is a Command of Practice for some positive action is to be exercised for the fulfilling of a Positive Precept As by the Fifth Precept of the Decalogue we are obliged to render that honor and respect which is due to our Parents which we cannot fulfil meerly by abstaining from actions of disrespect and contempt but by Positive actions of Honor and Duty though there is no obligation incumbent upon us to be always in exercise of these actions but only when occasion requires A Negative Precept commands us to abstain from doing some positive thing which is prohibited and if the action forbidden be intrinsecally ill then the doing of it is prohibitum quia malum if the action of it self be indifferent then to do it is malum quia prohibitum This Negative Precept layes a never interrupted obligation upon us to observe it as in the Sixth Commandment by which we are obliged to do no Murther the meaning is that an act of Murther is not to be permitted neither this time nor that time nor any other time whatsoever neither upon this person nor that person nor any other person whatsoever which is to be understood universally and by a compleat distribution And herein a Negative Precept differs from a Positive A Mixt Precept includes both the former of two different objects as the first Precept obligeth us to acknowledg God and not to acknowledge any thing else for God And in this is grounded that division of sins into sins of Omission and Commission This being supposed The First Assertion is That the Ordinance of the Church of Rome never to Administer the Communion to the Laity in both Kinds is manifestly against Christ's Precept For Proof hereof I shall insist upon that saying of our Saviour Amen Amen I say unto you except you eate the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you John 6. v. 53. where those words Amen Amen express the greatest asseveration that our Great Redeemer ever used and this adds more force and energie to the subsequent Precept The words cited contain a severe Commination of depriving us of eternal Salvation except we eate his Flesh and drink his Blood which by the confession of our Opponents includes a Precept though they deny that it extends to Communion under both Kinds Let us now examine what falls immediately under this Precept None but a Creature indued with liberty and reason is capable of a Precept for iâ— it be positive it injoyns the exercise of some free action regulated by Reason since necessaries cannot fall under any Precept If it be Negative it commands the avoiding of some positive action which is in the power of Free-will to exercise or not to exercise we have here a positive Precept which injoyns all Christians to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man which affects immediately the free actions of Man of eating and drinking and in obliquo it determines the matter about which these free actions are to be exercised namely the Flesh and the Blood of the Son of Man This matter is not in the power of the Laity to procure at their pleasure but is to be tendred to them by the Priest which done then it is in their free election to eate and drink or not to eate and drink wherefore these actions are that exercise which the Precept immediately obligeth them to Neither is it left to their choice how they are to receive this matter for as the Legislator determines the matter so likewise doth he determine the manner of receiving it he doth not say indesinitely or indeterminately except you take or receive this matter but explicitely plainly and distinctly Except you Eate the Flesh and Drink the Blood c. So that by this Precept they are ty'd up and determin'd to the very particular manner of doing it neither doth the Law-giver say Except you eate the flesh or drink the blood c. but Except you eate the Flesh and drink the Blood c. by a Copulative not a Disjunctive So that he who eateth the Flesh under the Species of Bread only though he fulfil the first part of the Precept yet he complyes not with the second part for though by eating the Flesh under the Species of Bread he receives the Blood also and all Christ yet he doth not drink the Blood which notwithstanding is as rigorously commanded as the first and in
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
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