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
That during the time that the Priest is pronouncing those words nothing is done till he pronounceth the last Syllable of the last word meum and in that moment the whole business is effected and the Priest no sooner hath spoken that last syllable but he kneels to Adore Christ then present and Elevates the Hoast to shew it to the People that they also may adore it Another Query may be proposed How long the Body of Christ remains in the Hoast under the Species of Bread Their Answer is That as long as the dispositions of Bread remain there so long is Christ present but when by contrary Causes these Qualities and Accidents are so far Changed that the Forme of Bread could not Naturally there subsist then the Body of Christ is withdrawn This is a short but true Account of their Tenets whence they Conclude That by such a Transubstantiation as is above explicated the substance of Bread is truly and really Converted into the Body of Christ and this they propose to all to be Believed as an Article of Faith The Grounds of this Paradoxical Doctrine we shall propose in the Objections against those Assertions which we are going to establish in the next Section SECT II. The Orthodox Doctrine against Transubstantiation proposed and proved THe First Assertion The Doctrine of Transubstantiation as it is Taught by the Church of Rome is de facto false and Erroneous I add those words de facto because in this Conclusion I only design to prove That no such Transubstantiation is actually to be admitted waving the possibility of it but I shall afterwards prove that it is wholly Chymerical and Impossible and the Proofs of that Assertion will confirm this The First Proofe Christ came not into the World to destroy but to edifie and therefore was so zealous to fulfil the Old Law and certainly he stood not in opposition with his Eternal Father who was the great Framer and Conserver of the Universe who constituted it in its due order by providing for the proper Nature propensions and inclinations of each part thereof by ordaining the Natural Causes Effects Proprieties and Passions of all things and by that provident subordination of one thing to another in relation to the good and conservation of the whole But this Doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be defended but by violating those Laws of Nature established by God himself in a high degree for in every Consecration there are as many Miracles which infringe the Laws of Nature as there are Minute Accidents and Qualities existing without their Subject it is a Miracle that the Forme of Bread should be destroyed and its disposition entire contrary to the exigence of Nature it is a Miracle and against Nature that the first Matter should be annihilated nothing in the Universe determining to it it is a Miracle that the Body of Christ should be in so many places the same time it is a Miracle that the Words of Consecration a meer Sound from a Mans Organ should be elevated to effect such Prodigies And in most places subject to the See of Rome there is a never interrupted continuation of all these Miraculous products by keeping the Consecrated Hoast in a Cyborium within the Tabernacle which is never intermitted Nay What a Prodigious Number of Miracles are daily and hourly multiplyed by so many Millions of Hoasts as are continually Consecrated in the whole extent of the Universe Who can be so impious as to impute so horrid a Fraction in Nature to Christ himself as though he waged War with his Eternal Father by endeavoring to subvert the Order and Nature of this Universe contrary to its first Institution all which being duely considered who can be so great a Contemner of his own Reason as blindly to inslave it to such incredible Doctrine The Second Proof If the Substance of Bread were really Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and the Species of Bread should remain without a Subject that Collection of Species would be wholly incorruptible and consequently Christ's Body would never be separated from that Hoaste where it is once present The Illation I prove evidently for if that Collection of Accidents exist independant of any Subject and are preserv'd by a Creative Action then no Natural Cause nor Agent could have any influence upon them for no Natural Agent can operate but in order to some Subject which must receive and support the effect produced wherefore admit that a Consecrated Hoaste were applyed to the fire the Species of Bread extant in the Hoaste would suffer some Change or Alteration by the influence of the fire suppose then one degree of heate to be produced in the Hoaste then one degree of cold must be expelled from thence which is the contrary to heate if so then that degree of Heate which the fire produced must be Created and not Educted because there is no subject at all to receive it and so it must exist as the rest of that Complex doth independant of a Subject and that degree of cold that is destroyed must be annihilated not corrupted for it is destroyed independant of any Subject What then to maintain this Doctrine Must we admit that a meer Creature and a Natural cause as the Fire hath a power to create and annihilate you were as good say that a Creature may be Omnipotent for hitherto I never heard but of one Creator God himself who alone hath power to Create and Annihilate What is this but to rob God of his Prime Attributes and communicate them to his Creatures But What remedy for manifest experience sheweth that a consecrated Hoaste is as liable to alteration change and corruption as another that is not consecrated so there is no way but one to salve all these inconveniences which is by denying Transubstantiation out of which those gross errors inevitably follow But it may be Objected That the proper Subject of the Species of Bread is the quantity and not the substance it self for the quantity is the subject of other qualities and common accidents and that alone is Miraculously conserved in the Eucharist without a subject First I Answer That the proper function of quantity is to communicate impenetrability to the Bodies that it affects for two Bodies meeting together resist each other and cannot be both penetrated in the same place as our Soul is with our Body This proceeds from quantity which is the root of impenetrability Besides that is the subject of the common accidents which is by them disposed for several Formes but it is only the substance that is so disposed for quantity is of it self but an accident therefore the common accidents are received in the substance and not in the quantity Secondly I Answer That all the School of the Thomists all the School of the Scotists and a great part of the Jesuites and other Authors of the Church of Rome do absolutely assert that the substance and not the quantity is the proper subject of the
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
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
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
Intrenchments of the Church of Rome upon Divine Right by changing the Essentials of their pretended Sacraments The Preface MAny Censures of the highest strain hath the Church of Rome thundered out against the Protestants for Separating from her Communion and deserting her Tenets in that Latitude as she professeth them whereas notwithstanding the Protestant Church did most Religiously imbrace all the Doctrine and Practise instituted by Christ and exprest in Holy Writ and rejected only the Corruptions and Innovations which had no Autority but Humane she separated the pure Gold from the Dross and the Wheat from the Cockle and by this means continued the true Church of Christ pure and undefiled But what Censure doth the Church of Rome deserve who by a bold and a high attempt endeavoureth to incroach upon Divine Right by making a change and reformation in the Original Institutions of Christ himself as shall appear by the several Sections of this Disputation SECT I. Of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome relating to this present Controversie THere are various Principles and Dogmatical Decisions of the Church of Rome much conducing to this present Discourse whereof some are defined by their General Councils others are promiscuously Taught and Asserted by their Divines And because I here intend to argue ad hominem that is out of their own Doctrine I shall therefore do them no wrong by drawing such illations from thence as shall clearly evince their violating of Divine Right by endeavouring as much as in them lyeth to make an Essential change in their Sacraments which they acknowledge Instituted by Christ himself First therefore They admit Seven Sacraments to wit Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Pennance Extreme Vnction Order and Matrimony And though they ground themselves upon several Texts of Scripture misunderstood for the practice of them yet it is a business of greater arduity to prove them all Sacraments but to satisfie their Sectators they need no more then to tell them that these are all defined to be Sacraments by the Council of Trent in these words Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino Nostro instituta Trid. Sess Can. 1. aut esse plura vel pauciora quam septem videlicet Baptismum Confirmationem Eucharistiam Poenitentiam Extremam Vnctionem Ordinem Matrimonium aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse verè propriè Sacramentum Anathema sit If any one shall say That the Sacraments of the New Law were not all Instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord Or that they are more or fewer then Seven namely Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Pennance Extreame Vnction Order and Matrimony or also that any one of these is not truly and properly a Sacrament let him be Accursed But because it is not the drift of my present design to examin the truth hereof I shall therefore wave it and only suppose it to be their Doctrine Secondly They admit that all Sacraments were Instituted by Christ himself for as much as concerns the Essence and Substance of them and consequently it exceeds the limits of any Humane Power either to abrogate or to alter any thing of that which is by Divine Right established and that they were all Instituted by Christ is also defined by the Council of Trent as above and Asserted by their Divines Thirdly In every Sacrament they distinguish between the Essential and Accidental parts of it the Essential parts they place in the matter and forme the Accidental parts are the Ceremonies Prayers Unctions and Actions which are used in the Administration of them which they call not Sacramenta but Sacramentalia And whensoever the Essential parts are daily applyed to the Receiver though the Accidental parts are omitted yet the Sacrament is valid But if either of the Essential parts be wanting that is if either the true matter or the true forme which Christ instituted be not applyed then the Sacrament is void as their Divines Teach For example in the Sacrament of Baptisme there is materia proxima and materia remota a remote and an immediate matter the remote is the natural Element of Water the immediate is the Lotion or the action whereby the Baptiser applyes the Water to the Baptised during which action the Essential Form is to be pronounced by the Baptiser in these words I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost In this matter and forme consists the whole Substance and Essence of this Sacrament and therefore if by reason of the weakness of the Child or by any other incident casualty the other Ceremonies cannot be performed yet the Child is Truly Baptized though performed by the Midwife or any other person because all the essential parts of Baptism instituted by Christ are duly applyed to the Child though the Unctions Prayers and other Ceremonies be omitted and they insist so earnestly upon these essential parts that in case no other Water could be had but Rose-water or some other Liquor that hath affinity with Water they hold the Sacrament not valid because the Matter instituted by Christ is wanting which is the natural Element of Water Fourthly They hold that though the Matter and Form be the whole Essence of the Sacrament yet if they be not conjoined so as to make up one thing the Sacrament is nul and of no effect for the form must be applied to the matter and have a moral concomitance with it or else it cannot have a moral union with the same if therefore the Water in Baptism be applyed to day to the Baptised and the form pronounced to morrow there will be no Baptism nor Sacrament for the words would be false which signifie a present Lotion Fifthly Of all the seven Sacramentss which they admit they assert that only three to wit Baptism Confirmation and Order do imprint upon the Soul of the Receiver an indelible spiritual Character never to be blotted out so as those Souls which receive any of these three Sacraments after separation from the Body will appear in the next World with these characteristical Notes instampt upon them some with one some with two others with all three according to their respective differences they having an essential discrepation from one another each of them denoting the Sacrament from whence they proceeded Hence they infer that none of these three Sacraments when once validly conferr'd can be reiterated or received twice by the same Person and that it would be a Sacriledge to attempt it because they frustrate the effect of the Sacrament yet if there arise any doubt of the validity of the former collation then a strict inquiry is to be made how grounded that doubt is and if it be still found ambiguous then that Sacrament is to be again conferr'd sub conditione But if it be evident that there was wanting either the true matter or the true forme which are all the essentials or the right intention of the Administrer
Sacraments are Certainly none will attempt it but such whose ambition prompts them to intrench upon Divine Right and God it here upon Earth not knowing or not acknowledging that their power is limited and confin'd within its certain bounds Besides were there two Formes of Ordination one Instituted by Divine Autority the other by Human and both valid by the same Rule you might institute Two hundred yea every Diocess might have one peculiar to it self there is no more difficulty for the Third then there was for the Second nor for the Fourth then the Third and so of all the rest Wherefore if such a power were delegated to meer Humanes What a confusion might they bring into the Church which would be the ground of Discord and Dissention for one Bishop might contend with another whose Ordination was best Having thus proved the Invalidity of Ordination according to the Present Roman Pontifical and General Approbation of that Church I shall now imploy my endeavors to solve the Objections which may be proposed in vindication thereof SECT VI. An Answer to the Objections Proposed by the Doctors of the Church of Rome against the Invalidity of their Ordination THe Roman Divines who earnestly endeavor to compose this difficulty find so much arduity in it that they cannot agree among themselves but what expedient one finds out as accommodated to this end another disapproves and so with great anxiety they cast about by several windings and turnings to compose the Difference between both Churches but in the execution they impugne each other and by this means divide themselves into several Classes Whereof I shall here give you an account The most considerable Party as well for number as for autority and reputation are those who absolutely exclude all Imposition of Hands from the Essentials of Ordination and place the whole Essence thereof in Touching the Holy Vessels with the Forme accommodated thereunto And indeed this is generally received in the Church of Rome as an undoubted Truth Some of the Authors of this Opinion I have cited in the Fourth Section and practised as such This is conformable to the Doctrine of the Council of Florence and Pope Gregory the 9th which I have cited in the beginning of the Fourth Section This Opinion needs no Answer for the Authors hereof are so far from reconciling both Churches that they Unchurch both and in stead of solving the difficulty they sink under the burthen thereof They destroy the Greek Church by denying the Imposition of Hands to be Essential to Ordination which the Greeks ever used as the only Essential Matter thereof They destroy the Latines by relying wholly upon the Touching of the Vessels and the Forme annexed as the only Essential Matter and Forme of Ordination excluding all other and yet this Matter and Forme are wholly uncapable of giving any validity to the Order of Priesthood because they want the Essence the very life and soul of being Instrumental to Ordination which is the Divine Institution as I have manifestly proved in the precedent Section A Second Objection The Divine Institutor of the Order of Priesthood did not determine the specifical Matter and Forme thereof but only in general that the Church should appoint some sensible Matter and some Forme of Words whereby to signifie the collation of Order by their application So that here is a latitude in Christ's Institution and a Power left to the Church to determine what particular Matter and Forme she should think fit and by this Power the Church may alter the Matter and Forme of Order at her pleasure she may abrogate what was before in use and Institute a new Matter and Forme and the Order will still be valid So Isambertus the Kings Professor of Divinity at Paris Treating at large of the Sacrament of Order Disput 3. art 3. his words are these Christus Dominus instituendo Ordines determinavit tantum eorum materias in genere nimirum ut ea esset legitima cujuslibet Ordinis materia quae existens sensibilis sui Traditione debitè sufficienter facta tam ex parte Ministri quam intentionis significaret tune de facto potestatem tali Ordini propriam dari ei qui materiam istam sensibilem seu signum istud sensibile acciperet in sua Ordinatione particularem autem istius signi determinationem seu imponere veluti affigere significationem practicam illius potestatis huic vel illi rei sensibili in particulari reliquit faciendum Ecclesiae prout quando illa judicaret esse conveniens Our Lord Christ Instituting Orders did only determine their Matter in General which being sensible duly and sufficiently apply'd as well in reference to the Minister as the Intention might signifie then in effect the power proper to that Order to be given to him that in his Ordination should receive this sensible Matter or Sign But to determine this Sign in particular and to Impose and as it were affix to it a Practical Signification of that Power given to this or that Sensible Thing in Particular he hath left to be done by the Church when and how she should judge it convenient And having Proved out of the Constitutions of Clement and the Fourth Council of Carthage That the Imposition of Hands by the Bishop and the assisting Priests used in the beginning of Ordination was formerly the Essential Matter of Priesthood he adds Igitur cum hoc nostro tempore haec Impositio manuum sit tantum accidentalis illa posterior quae fit à solo Episcopo simul dicente ei quem Ordinat Accipe Spiritum Sanctum Quorum c. sit nunc Essentialis ut supra ostendimus aliqua mutatio est facta per Ecclesiam in ista materia Ordinum Therefore since in this our time this Imposition of Hands is only accidental and that last which is performed only by the Bishop saying to him whom he Ordains Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins c. is Essential as I have shewn above some change is made by the Church in this matter of Orders Thus he The same saith Gammacheus de Sacramento Ordinis Cap. 4. Hallerius S. Bonaventura Prepositus Atrebas de materia forma Ordinationis n. 109. There are Three Reasons that this Objection is grounded on Lugo D 2. de Sacramentis in genere S. 5. n. 85. The first is because the Church hath changed the matter of Subdeaconship which was formerly conferr'd by the Imposition of Hands but now by the Ordination and Practise of the Church that Imposition of Hands doth not at all belong to the Essence of Subdeaconship Secondly Clandestine Marriage was ever valid before the Council of Trent but now is rendred invalid by that Council Thirdly The Apostles Confirmed by Imposition of Hands without Unction but now if the Unction be omitted the Confirmation is invalid To this Objection my first Answer is That it is all gratis dictum it is said without ground It is mera
Divine which still makes the Church a joynt Institutor with Christ and so as that the Church hath the greatest hand in it for the Church Orders Appoints and Determines all and Christ is to be ready at the Churches beck to execute what she appoints as though the Omnipotent Power of the Divine Word were subservient to the Church for it is the powerful hand of Christ that elevates the sensible Signs to produce Sacramental effects which are out of the reach of nature But the Church determines what the Signs shall be and summons the Divine Words Omnipotency when and where to elevate them and so she hath the greatest share in the Institution of Sacraments 'T is strange how such a Thought could find admittance into any true Christians understanding to devest Christ of this Prerogative and give it the Roman Church which so much derogates from the high Power and Wisdom of the Incarnate Word My Fourth Answer is grounded on Autority And first I begin with the Council of Trent in these words Trident Sess 7. Can. 1. Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino nostro Instituta c. Anathema sit If any one shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all Instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord let him be Accursed St. Thomas of Aquine their great Divine saith Aquinas 3 Part. q. 60. ar 5. corpore In Sacramentis novae legis quibus homines Sanctificantur oportet uti rebus ex Divina Institutione determinatis In the Sacraments of the New Law by which Men are Sanctify'd it is necessary to use things that by Divine Institution are determined Consonant to this is the testimony of Bellarmine Bellarminus L. 1. de Sacramentis in genere C. 21. Ibid. in these words Res certae determinaiae ab ipso Deo in Sacramentis esse debent Things certain and determined by God himself must be used in the Sacraments And again saith he Non solum res sed etiam verba in Sacramentis novae legis à Deo determinatae sunt ut non liceat quidquam immutare Not only the things saith he but also the words in the Sacraments of the New Law are determin'd by God so that it is not lawful to change any thing All this is confirmed and attested by Suarez that great Divine whose Autority bears such sway in the Church of Rome who first lays his Ground-work in these words Suarez 3 Part. To. 3. D. 2. S. 2. citans D. Thomam Omnia Sacramenta quae consistunt in usu constant rebus verbis seu materia forma tanquam ex partibus quibus componuntur All Sacraments which consist in use contain things and words or matter and forme as parts whereof they are composed And afterwards he adds these words Ibid. S. 3. Dico 1. materias formas Sacramentorum determinatas esse ex Christi Domini Institutione eo modo quo definitae sunt esse necessarias ad Sacramenta conficienda First I assert saith Suarez that the Matters and Forms of Sacraments are determined by the Institution of Christ our Lord and in that manner as they are defin'd they are necessary to the validity of the Sacraments But this is not all for of this very Opinion he adds these words Est communis Theologorum absolute loquendo est de fide This is the common Doctrine of the Divines and absolutely speaking it is an Article of Faith Ile adds one Text more out of Suarez because his Autority is so renowned In the Fourth Section he thus declares his Opinion Ibid. S. 4. Si mutatio materiae aut formae essentialis seu substantialis sit nullum efficitur Sacramentum If any change be made in the Matter or Forme that is Essential or Substantial it renders the Sacrament void and ineffectual Hence I conclude that the Authors and Abetters of the Doctrine contained in the Objection do not only impugne the common Opinion of Divines but they also erre in matter of Faith as Suarez observes And it is to be observed that all these Autorities agree in this That Christ not only Instituted but also Determined the Matter and Forme of all Sacraments which the Authors of this Objection deny To this I le annex the Judgment of Maldonatus Maldonatus Tom. 2. de Sacramentis Tract de Ordine q. 3. part 2. a Famous Divine of the Jesuits whose words are these Impositio manuum non est habenda tanquam ceremonia non necessaria scd tanquam pars Essentialis Sacramenti idque videtur tenendum side Catholica Primum quia in Scriptura ubicunque fit montio de Ordinatione declaratur per impositionem manuum Et videtur mihi esse temerarium scripturam deserere consectari chymeras id est rationes naturales Secundò quia veterem Ecclesiam nunquam ordinasse sine impositione manuum ex omnibus autoribus antiquis perspicuum est De traditione autem calicis hostiae nulla est mentio apud illos Tertiò quia videtur durum nimis esse ceremoniam quam nobis perspicuè tradunt Apostoli excludere à natura Sacramenti inducere illam de qua nulla mentio fit in Scriptura In English thus The Imposition of hands is not to be esteemed as a Ceremony not necessary but as an Essential part of the Sacrament and this ought to be held as an Article of Faith First Because in Scripture wheresoever mention is made of Ordination it is declar'd by the Imposition of hands and it seems to me temerarious to desert the Scripture and follow Fictions that is Natural Reasons Secondly Because it is evident by all Antient Writers that the Primitive Church never Ordained without the Imposition of hands but they make no mention of delivering the Chalice and the Hoast Thirdly Because it seems too hard to exclude from the nature of a Sacrament a Ceremony which is clearly delivered to us by the Apostles and to induce that of which there is no mention made in the Scripture Thus Maldonatus 'T is well that some of our Antagonists cannot be swayed neither by hope nor fear nor any way deterr'd from uttering Truth He tells us That it is an Article of Faith that the Imposition of hands is Essential to Ordination and that it is a temerity to deny it and he proves both by solid Arguments So that they who adhere to the practise and perswasion of the Church of Rome must to defend this Doctrine desert both Scripture and Tradition SECT VII The Solution of other Objections against the same Doctrine A Third Objection endeavors a Reconciliation by joyning the delivery of the Instruments or Vessels and their Forme with the last Imposition of hands and this Forme Accipe Spiritum Sanctum c. So that of these two Matters they make one entire Matter and of these two Forms they frame one entire and adequate Forme Yet so as that by
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
Priests puts his Hands upon the Head of him that is to be Ordained he pronounceth this Forme Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our Hands Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained Aud be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father c. Here are both the Essentials duely applyed and punctually observed Whereas the Church of Rome applyes neither as an Essential part and therefore their Ordination of Priests according to their own Doctrine can in no way be Valid SECT IX Consectaries drawn from the Proofes of the precedent Assertion HOw many false Aspertions and querulous Cavillations have been raised by the Jesuits and other Romanists against the Bishops of the Church of England under that frivolous pretence of their being Consecrated at the Naggs head Tavern in Cheapside by one single Bishop or at most by two and they not Canonically Elected and Consecrated in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign All which were false and Malitious Calumnies invented for no other end then to depress the Autority of the Bishops of England thereby to facilitate their access to draw Proselites from the Church of England and seduce them to their Communion Which scandalous and ungrounded Comments have been fully Answered and the Canonical Ordination and Consecration of the Bishops of England cleerly vindicated from the false Imputation of all such Detracters by that Worthy and Learned Prelate John Bramhall D. D. and late Lord Primate of Ireland But What judgment shall we frame of the Ordination of Bishops and Priests in the Church of Rome there being at present neither Pope nor Cardinal nor Bishop nor Priest but such as have been Ordained according to their new Model of Ordination we shall not need here to have recourse to frivolous and feigned Stories where such grounded Truths strike at the very Essentials of their Ordination and evince the invalidity thereof Neither can they raise a Battery of Arguments against us without destroying themselves for the Proofes of the nullity of their Ordination are grounded on their own Doctrine They all Teach That Ordination is a Sacrament Instituted by Christ. The Council of Trent hath defined it so to be as we see above Sect. 7. They all assert the Matter and Forme of all Sacraments to be determined by Divine Autority which Suarez saith is de fide See their words Sect. 6. They hold moreover that any substantial change either in Matter or Forme renders the Sacrament invalid 3 Part. Tom. 3. D. 2. S. 4. Si mutatio materiae aut formae Essentialis seu substantialis sit nullum essicitur Sacramentum saith Suarez which is the current opinion of their other Divines It is likewise certain that the matter which they use in the Collation of Priesthood is essentially and more then Specifically different from the matter which Christ Instituted and which was constantly used in Ordinations many Centuries after Christ before Ordination was new molded It is also certain that the Forme of Ordination determined by Christ and a long time in use in the Church is now utterly rejected and cast out All this being duely ponder'd we must of necessity conclude that their Ordination is invalid except some other grounded expedient can be found out and proved to uphold the validity of their Ordination which hitherto I cannot discover but wish I could But no quibbles nor quirkes nor nice distinctions can any way avail them for the matter of Fact is uncontroleable and the Doctrinal part is evidenced by their own Words and Writings which it is now too late to retract It is time therefore for them seriously to consider what expedient may be found out to reinvalidate their Ordination and to qualifie themselves so as they may be in a capacity to prevent this grand inconvenience for the future for this shakes the very foundation and renders the whole Hierarchy of their Church ruinous If there are no Priests there can be no Bishops since Episcopacy is no new Order superadded but only a farther extension of the Order and Character of Priesthood as they teach well then may the Bishops exercise their potestatem jurisdictionis but can no way exercise nor communicate to others their potestatem Ordinis for none can exercise nor confer upon another a power which he neither formally nor virtually nor radically contains in himself jure communi but their Jurisdiction they distinguish from the Order of Presbitery since divers Bishops and Cardinals in the Church of Rome are only Deacons or Subdeacons and yet their Jurisdiction is as ample and hath as great an extension as if they were Priests who commonly make use of other Suffraganean Bishops to Officiate Confirm and confer Orders in their Diocess Hence it ensues that those putative Bishops which are presumed to be Canonically indued with Presbytery and Episcopacy yet in reality are not so when they personally exercise the Functions of Episcopacy their Confirmation is void yea their very Consecration of Chrisme and other Holy Oyles is of no effect but after Consecration they retain nothing but the Natural Elements of Oyle and Balsome as they were before and so are uncapable of rendring any Spiritual Emolument to those to whom they are applyed their Imposition of Hands and Benedictions are no way available to the Confirmed no more than if they were performed by a Lay-person for where the radical power of Order is wanting none of these Spiritual and Supernatural effects can ensue And when they Officiate in Mass and attempt to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and having Consecrated the Hoaste they kneel down to adore it and then elevate it and shew it to the People that they also may adore it both they themselves and many Thousands of the People do daily commit at least a Material Idolatry though it may be that Invincible Ignorance may excuse them from a Formal one for they exhibit a worship of Latria to a supposed Deity under the species of Bread when in reality no such Deity is there so as they give to the meer substance of Bread a Worship due to God alone And this is daily repeated thorough the whole extent of the Roman Jurisdiction And the same happens when any other inferior Priest Officiates for the Order of Priesthood is equally defective in them all and where there is no power of Order to qualifie them for Consecration this must of necessity be void So when they administer the Communion to the People who present themselves in hopes to receive the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently those Graces which from thence accrew to the worthy Receivers Poor Souls How are they deluded and their hopes frustrated for whereas they came full fraught withthe expectation of Spiritual and Supernatural Graces they are dismist with a bare
piece of Bread and not the least access made to their inherent and sanctifying nor to their actual and transient Graces Neither is it for once or twice that they are so treated but constantly and toties quoties which certainly is an unworthy abuse and a Spiritual Cheat did not the Authors thereof proceed bonâ fide as not hgving detected the Error Their Power of Relaxing and Retaining sins participates much of the nature of Episcopacy in this respect that neither the one nor the other is a distinct Order from Priesthood but both of them necessarily and essentially presuppose Priesthood already Confer'd as the ground-work and foundation on which they depend so that the Power of Absolving is a superinduction to Priesthood or rather a consequent faculty that issues from it and if this Order be wanting that power can never be validly conferr'd wherefore the Penitents presuming upon the validity of this Power and their easie access to Absolution hence take occasion to be less circumspect and to let the reins loose to such sins as their sensual appetite prompts them to but when they come to make their Confession and receive Absolution though they have discover'd their Sore and the nature of the Spiritual Distemper of their Souls yet no Soveraign Medicine can be apply'd in order to their Cure for want of Ability in their Spiritual Physitian for where the Radical Power is wanting the Desired Effect cannot be produced so they return with the clogg of their sins as burthensome to them as before they came And not to insist upon any more particulars I shall conclude with this General Maxime that the Invalidity of all other Functions peculiar to Priesthood alone is an inseparable companion to the Invalidity of their Ordination But it may be pretended that Consocration Communion Absolution c. may be validly performed by one that hath titulum coloratum bonam fidem a colourable title a good Conscience c. though he should want the power of Order according to the rule above given in the Eighth Section First I Answer That it is not likely nor probable that the Incarnate Word would imploy his Omnipotency to grant such extraordinary favors to the Church of Rome because he can have no valuable motive to do it For Why should Christ bestow such singular Graces on his Enemies who have deserted his Doctrine changed his Ordinances and Institutions rob'd him as much as in them lyeth of his Prerogatives and usurp'd to themselves a Power which is peculiar to himself alone and these favors to be constantly conferr'd upon them and to be continued without intermission till the World's end for there is little hope of their Retractation And I dare aver that if any indifferent judgment should seriously ponder their manifold Errors whereof some are proposed and proved in this Treatise which I am ready to maintain against any legal opposition it would plainly appear that the Church of Rome is but a corrupted branch of the Universal Church of Christ and consequently sequester'd from the True Church And though I cannot deny but that our benign Lord grants to all out of the Treasure of his Merits Grace sufficient for their Salvation yet I fear they will scarce render this Grace efficacious by their cooperation with it for it must be an extraordinary a potent Grace that must incline them to a Recantation Secondly I Answer that this Case proposed in the Objection is far different from the Rule given above in the Eighth Section for there the Question was of the preservation or utter ruine of a True Church of Christ which cannot subsist without true Ordination but here the case only concerns particular persons and they likewise by the pravity of their own wills long since cut off from the True Church of Christ neither would these favors if granted revive their Church so as to render its Doctrine Orthodox or any way to reduce the Members or Heads thereof to a better sense Wherefore in this Case there is no ground nor motive to induce Christ to grant such an extraordinary concurse but in the former case it was strictly necessary for the preservation of a considerable part of the True Church of Christ Besides in the Case here proposed our Omnipotent Redeemer must have recourse to his Illimited Power daily to make so many Thousands of Miracles and this constantly to be continued without interruption but in the former case we only Assert that upon just and congruous grounds our Gratious Redeemer only for once supplyed the defect of Order when no Essential nor Necessary condition or Requisite was wanting SECT X. Of Clandestine Marriage THe Church of Rome that Sancta mater Ecclesia pretends to so much Power and Autority in ordering and disposing of all things belonging to Sacraments that it not only prescribes the Manner and Method of their Administration but also penetrates into the very Essence and Substance of them Subtracting Adding and Changing what she pleaseth and indeed in five of them there might be some seeming pretence for it they having received the honor of being called Sacraments from that Churches Institution without sufficient ground in Scripture for it whereof this of Matrimony is one of which we shall here Treate Marriage is a Contract between Man and Woman containing a Mutual Tradition to each other by proper words de presenti the last words de presenti distinguish Marriage from Sponsalia or Betrothing which is no Marriage nor Actual Tradition but a Promise of Marriage for the future The Council of Trent hath defin'd Matrimony to be a Sacrament and Anathematiz'd those that shall deny it Si quis dixerit Matrimonium Tril Sess 24. Can. 1. non esse propriè verè unum exseptem legis Evangelicae Sacramentis à Christo Domino Institutum sed ab hominibus in Ecclesiam invectum neque gratiam conferre Anathema sit By the Constitutions of the Church of Rome there are several Impediments of Marriage which are distinguisht into two Classis The First are such as render Matrimony Invalid which they call impedimenta dirimentia They of the Second Classis are only impedientia which render the persons inhabiles to Contract lawfully yet having Contracted the Marriage is valid To Contract clandestinely without such Witnesses as can give sufficient proofe and evidence of the Contract in foro externo hath been alwayes prohibited and therefore held unlawful but yet valid though now since the Council of Trent it is rendred invalid The words of the Council are these Trid Sess 24. C. 1. Reforan Matrim Qui aliter quam praesenti Parocho vel alio Sacerdote de ipsius Parochi seu Ordinarii licentia duobus vel tribus testibus Matrimonium contrahere attentabunt eos Sancta Synodus ad sic contrahendum omnino inhabiles reddit hujusmodi contractus irritos nullos esse decernit prout eos praesenti decreto irritos facit annullat By which Decree Clandestine Marriage which
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
Council determines what contracts shall be Sacraments and what shall not the Council determines to what contracts Grace shall be affixt and to what not which is all that Institution imports for they would have Christ to take his measures from them and would impose a Law upon the Will of God to accommodate himself to their will they order all and the Word Incarnate must regulate himself accordingly which makes them the principal Instituters and Christ only the Instrumental Which is too great an indignity and detracts very much from the perfection of Christ's Institution For I demand What reason can be alleag'd Why Christ could not or would not determine all this himself He had a perfect comprehension of all that concern'd his Church which the Council had not neither can they deny but that Christ was the Principal nay the only Instituter of Sacraments Who then can deny but that Christ by an Irrevocable Decree determin'd all things relating to the Sacraments independant of the Council of Trent many Ages before this Instituting Decree was framed But an Error once committed per fas nefas must be maintained I might here annex an Account of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in some others of their pretended Sacraments for whereas the Order of Subdeaconship was ever conferr'd in the Primitive Church by the Imposition of Hands this is now wholly omitted and in lieu thereof they have Instituted the Tradition of an empty Chalice and an empty Pattene to the Ordained which argues a total change So likewise in Consirmation the Apostles and their Successors ever Confirmed by the Imposition of Hands without any Unction but now without the application of Chrisme they deem Confirmation invalid and the Forme would be false which is this Signo te signo crucis Confirmo te Chrismate salutis In nomine c. I Sign thee with the Sign of the Cross and Confirm thee with the Chrisme of health In the Name c. But this I leave to others consideration for enough hath been already said to my designed end Dispute III. Of Communion in One Kind The Preface ALL Humane Laws though never so well Constituted are liable to be subverted either by the change of circumstances or by the capricious humors of Governors How happy were the Lacedemonians as long as they were govern'd by those wholsome Laws which Lycurgus had established amongst them but when those Laws were gradually repealed or per non usum antiquated then their Commonwealth began to be ruinous and tended to destruction But Divine Laws ought to be Sacred as being framed by an irrefragable Autority whose Legislator is omniscient neither hath his wisdom and prudence any bounds who knows and foresees all future changes and circumstances as perfectly as if they were present and whose infinite providence is best skilled in fencing against all adverse accidents that may happen and yet these Laws also must undergo the Test of Human Policy and suffer change and Reformation Our Great Redeemer furnished his Church with such Laws as he thought most convenient obliging all Christians to receive those Sacred Rites of his Body and Blood in both Kinds yet in process of time the Church of Rome upon some pretended inconveniences hath alter'd that Law and denyes the Laytie the use of the Chalice but whether groundedly or illegally is the drift of this Disputation to Examine SECT I. The Grounds of the Church of Rome for denying the Chalice to the Laity THat Pure and Soveraign Doctrine which was Taught and Practised by Christ himself attained its Original Purity for the space of many Centuries after Christ and his Apostles during which time the Sacrament of the Eucharist was Administred to the faithful Receivers under both Kinds but the continuance of it drew it insensibly more remote from its Origine and so exposed it to the danger of being Adulterated for the Romanists pretend that it was observed that when the Communicants lips were separated from the Chalice some small particles of the Consecrated Species fell from the Chalice which it was not possible to prevent or to collect the Particles so dispersed wherefore another expedient was instituted that they who presented themselves to participate of those Sacred Mysteries should suck the Consecrated Species out of the Chalice by a Silver Quil fitly adapted and prepared for that purpose yet all in vain for this also was found liable to the same inconvenience wherefore finding no remedy for so great a difficulty it was at last resolved That none of the Seculars nor the Clergy except such as were Priests should receive the Blood under the Species of Wine So the Council of Trent Trid. Sess 21. C. 2. Quarè agnoscens Sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in Administratione Sacramentorum Auctoritatem licet ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimè jam mutata illa consuetudine gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendam decrevit quam reprobare aut fine ipsius Ecclesiae Auctoritate pro libito mutare non licet And then layes a Curse upon those that should not submit to this Doctrine in these words Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis rationibus adductam fuisse ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret aut in eo errasse Sess 22. Can. 2. Anathema sit The First Reason Because it was a great irreverence and a high Contempt of the Sacred Blood of Christ which was the price of our Redemption to see it fall to the ground and trampled under foot by those who receive so great a benefit by it and whereunto they stand indebted for the Graces they receive here and the hope of Glory hereafter wherefore the high Veneration and Adoration which we owe to the Incarnate Word present in this Sacrament ought to preponderate all other Considerations which certainly our Redeemer expects from us The Second Reason Because whosoever receives the Holy Eucharist under the Species of Bread only receives all Christ as well the Blood as the Body together with the Divine Word and all the Sacred Trinity for though ex vi verborum by the words of Consecration only the Body of Christ be Sacramentally Constituted under the Species of Bread yet per concomitantiam by a necessary Connexion of the parts of Christ with each other the Blood of Christ the Soul c. are all rendred present under the Species of Bread so that if this Sacrament be once Administred under the Species of Bread it were a needless repetition to administer the same under the Species of Wine for this were no other then to Administer to the same person one and the self-same thing twice without addition or diminution which would not be available to the Receiver The Third Reason
natural causes if the disposition suffer not so much change as would render it uncapable to sustain the substantial forme of bread so long the Body of Christ remains there but when by contrary Agents the last disposition of the forme of bread is expel'd then the Body of Christ withdraws and relinquisheth its ubi not by a local motion but by a meer destruction of that ubication without acquiring any new one but is reduced to his former ubication without passing from Earth to Heaven And though before the destruction of the accidents of bread the Body of Christ was existent in Heaven and here on Earth the same time yet after that destruction it exists only in Heaven and yet never tended by a local and successive motion from Earth towards Heaven nor ever penetrated the Air nor the Heavens to obtain his place in the Emperial Heaven because it had that place before This is the sum of their Doctrine These Three Difficulties though much agitated by their Divines yet are not fully determined by their Church Only the Council of Trent touches upon the Second and Third but leaves the First to the litigation of the Schoolmen Of the Second Trid. Con. Sess 23. Can. 3. it saith Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus separatione facta totum Christum contineri Anathema sit If any one shall deny in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist all Christ to be contained under each Kind and under every part of each Kind after Separation let him be Accursed The same is declared Sess 23. Cap. 3. Sess 21. Cap. 3. which is conformable to the Council of Florence In Decreto Eugenti ad Armenios yet none of these places define the manner how Christ's Body exists in this Sacrament whether definitively or Circumspectively but only assert all Christ to be in each part As to the Third The Council of Trent decrees the Body of Christ to be present immediately after Consecration but resolves nothing how long it continues there for thus saith the Council Trid. Sess 33. Can. 4. Si quis dixerit peracta consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus sanguinem Domini Nostri Jesus Christi sed tantum in usu dum sumitur non autem ante vel post in hostiis seu particulis consecratis quae post Communionem reservantur vel supersunt non remanere verum corpus Domini Anathema sit If any one shall say That after Consecration in the Admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not there but only in practice when it is received yet not before nor after and that in the Hosts or Particles that are Consecrated which after Communion are reserved or left the true Body of Christ doth not remain let him be Accursed This declares when the Body of Christ begins to be present in the Sacrament but determines nothing how long it remains there But since there is no more necessity of defining the Real Presence Transubstantiation c. then of determining those difficulties here proposed we may groundedly expect in the next general Council a full decision of these nice Questions by new Canons and Decrees and new Articles of Faith to be framed for the resolution of these and the like doubts SECT III. The Inutility of Multiplying Definitions of this nature ANd now if some impartial and unbyassed Judge were to deliver his Opinion of these and the like proceedings of the Church of Rome I would propose to his Consideration First What Grounds or Footsteps can be found in Scripture in the Practise or Doctrine of Christ or his Apostles or in all the Transactions of Antiquity or the Primitive Church for so Rigorous and Comminatorious decision of such subtile and nice Points under so great a Penalty and I am sure none can be found Secondly Cast a glance upon the effects of these new-framed Articles of Faith What Benefit or Emolument doth accrew to Christianity by them Do the Graces of Christ flow from the Sacraments more plentifully by vertue of those Definitions then they did before This cannot be alleged for the measure of Grace was taxed and determined by Christ in his Original Institution with reference to the disposition of the receiver Do they conduce to the better institution of a Christian Life Do the Faithful the more adhere to the due observance of Gods Law Do they promote Vertue and Good Life Do they check the illegal progress of the Licentious Do they cry down Vice and Wickedness Do they add any new Motives to abandon the Old Man and shun Sensuality Do they excite to the regulating our Actions by the Conduct of a just Synderesis instructed with true Reason and to reject the suggestion of sense not the least of these products do issue from them Nay on the contrary Do they not add more load to the Consciences of the Faithful who are bound to Believe what they comprehend not Do they not enthrall and enslave their Souls to be liable to the Belief of such a long Catalogue of nicities or else be damned What a dreadful thing it is to implicate Mens Minds and Consciences into such an unextricable labyrinth of sollicitude anxiety and confusion when they shall consider that of so many definitions if they disbelieve but one though they believe all the rest nothing remains for them but the eternal slames of Hell Fire And yet they are wholly ignorant what it is they ought to believe for you were as good endeavor to wash a Blackamore white as to go about to make the common vulgar of both Sexes capable of the true meaning of those points which are so remote from sense And How can they exercise themselves in Vertue while such anxious scruples and confusion clowds their understanding and casts a damp upon all their vital faculties Nay this hath an immediate tendency to despair for when they consider themselves uncapable of complying with such a Mass of Implex Articles of Faith and considering their own imbecility they will be apt to conceive that they are lost and that Eternity of Bliss is out of their reach for qui erraverit in uno factus est omnium reus he that errs in one is made guilty of all and hence they connaturally fall into desperation Besides What more hinders the Propagation of the Gospel then such a multiplicity of Tenets pretended necessary to Salvation and yet so full of arduity and so repugnant to the common course of Nature which are apt to startle the most credulous Who would imbrace Christianity if such a bundle of incredible Mysteries were candidly proposed to them as all necessary to Salvation which are so destructive of the Laws of Nature and no Proofes of any of them but only because the Church of Rome hath defined them Few or none would deny their Reason and yield a blind
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 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
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
Church without examining particulars as the Council of Florence directs 'T is well that you have exempted the Ordainer from reprehension But then I must demand What intention the Church had in introducing this new Matter and Forme so explicitely and in express terms signifying the collation of Priestly Power to proced from hence and consequently the Character to be hereby imprinted for if these are not intended as Essentials then you have removed the siction from the Ordainer and attributed it to the Church so that the one or the other must be the Author of it but as to this present controversie it matters not which And indeed to solve all there is but one way which is to grant that the tradition of the Vessels and the Forme of Words thereunto annexed do Essentially confer the Order and imprint the Character The Third Proofe is made out by induction which to effect we must make a strict inquiry into all the parts contained in the Roman Ritual to deprehend if any one of them have any proportionable capacity in order to this effect The first imposition of hands can have none because there is no Form appropriated to it neither can a bare Matter without a Forme constitute the adequate Essence of a Sacrament The Second Imposition of â—ands though there be a Form accommodated to it yet it is neither Indicative or Enunciative nor Imperative but only Deprecatory which is not sufficient to satisfie the See of Rome But however as the Roman Ritual for Priesthood is disposed the Order of Priesthood can never proceed from hence except the touching of the Vessels with its Forme be wholly left out for in case Priesthood should be validly conferr'd by this Imposition of Hands and its Forme then the tendring the Vessels afterwards to him that is already Ordained with these words Accipe potestatem Take a power to offer Sacrifice c. would be a Sacrilegious and Fallacious attempt to Reordain him that was before validly Ordained and had the Character of Priesthood imprinted upon him and this would be constantly practised through the whole extent of the Church Besides this Doctrine is wholly destitute of Autority for there are few or no Divines that insist upon this What then remains only the Third Imposition of Hands which follows a long time after about the end of Mass with these words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis quorum retinueritis retenta sunt Receive the Holy Ghost they whose sins you forgive are forgiven and they whose sins you retain are retained This likewise hath no proportion to confer the Order of Priesthood First because it supposeth that Order already conferr'd for none but a Priest is sufficiently qualified to receive a Power of Relaxing and Retaining sins But in the Primitive Church this power was ever esteemed a branch of Presbytery necessarily resulting from the Validity of Ordination so that all Priests had the Radical Power of Absolving but they were not to practice it without a Deputation from their Bishop neither is it above Four hundred and Fifty years since this Forme was thrust into the Ritual and by reason of its novelty as not being instituted by Christ as Essential to the Ordination of Priesthood cannot participate of the nature of a Sacrament nor any way belong to the Essentials of Ordination Lastly That this Matter and Forme have no influence upon the Power of Consecrating or offering Sacrifice is evidently evinced from hence That all they who receive it had before said Mass with the Bishop and Consecrated with him and to that end the Canon and especially the words of Consecration that usually are pronounced with a lower voice are by the Bishop pronounced aloud and distinctly because the Ordained may accompany him for he that first ends the words of Consecration doth truly Consecrate and none of the rest except they direct their intention to that instant in which the Bishop pronounceth the last lyllable How then can this last imposition of Hands or its Forme any way conduce to the Power of Order It therefore remains that nothing contained in the Roman Ritual for Priesthood can be Essential to that Order except the Tradition of the Vessels with its Forme all the rest being accidentary and circumstantial as I shall prove hereafter by their own Authors All this is confirmed by the practise prescribed in the Roman Ritual for degrading a Priest Ministri tradunt in manus degradandi calicem cum vino aqua ac patena hostia quam Pontifex Degradator aufert de manibus degradandi The Ministers deliver into the hands of him that is to be degraded a Chalice with Wine and Water and a Patene and Hoaste which the Bishop that is the Degrader takes out of the hands of the degraded because by delivering these Vessels to him he was Ordained Priest and therefore by taking them from him again they think him sufficiently devested of that dignity This Truth is so apparent that it needs no other proofe then to observe in their Ordination how indifferent and unconcerned they are in all parts thereof except in delivering the Vessels and pronouncing the Forme that affects them here one Priest inspects one side another surveys the other side and they keep such a pressing of the Ordaineds hands both on the Patene and Chalice that no Error be committed in the application of these Vessels that the beholder will presently conclude that they esteem the whole substance of Ordination to consist in this Discourse their Clergy and you will find that no one doubts it Read the Forme Accipe potestatem c. Receive the power c. and you will certainly conclude that it signifieth nothing else And they who live amongst them and converse with them cannot but know their general and unanimous belief and perswasion that the Order of Priesthood is validly conferr'd by the touching of those Vessels and the Form which accompanys it and the Character thereby imprinted and Sacramental Grace conferr'd Wherefore as to the thing in substance I offer this Dilemma either the Order of Priesthood is validly conferr'd by touching the Vessels and the Forme appropriated to it and the Character thereby imprinted or not If the first be granted that is the scope of our present intention If the second then I declare that the words which the Ordainer pronounceth are Nugatory Delusive and Fallacious for the words are Imperative whereby the Bishop bids the Ordained receive a power of offering Sacrifice which in effect is Priesthood and the Ordained who comes full fraught with an ardent desire of receiving it consequently accepts it and yet notwithstanding this offer and acceptation he is deluded for that power being Spiritual and so invisible as is also the Character he conceives himself impower'd to offer Sacrifice and his Soul consequently imbellisht with a new and high Prerogative in plain and explicite words offered him and yet is defrauded and disappointed of his expectation
place to substitute their own and hereby to make Ordination void so likewise is Human frailty subject to many such defects whereof some are imputable of crime to the first Authors but not to those that succeed them for I suppose these to be blinded by invincible ignorance others proceed only from the weakness and limited capacity of Human nature without any deformity or Moral defect in their wills Wherefore should the Church of God so rely upon our weak capacities that a secret and clandestine defect in an Ordainer which no vigilance nor Human precaution can avoid when all other requisites are applyed and all have an invincible ignorance of that secret defect Should this I say render all his Ordinations invalid when all other requisites are applyed then another such defect may on the same account incidently fall on another considering our weakness or Malice in the beginners and so on a third and at length no Bishop nor Priest that 's validly Ordained will be found in the Church See how this is inductive to the Churches ruine which certainly had been long-since destroyed had not the Divine Instituter thereof maintained it by supplying such defects which we can neither avoid nor prevent which he can as easily do as he first Instituted the Sacraments and Ordination for it is he alone that gives the Spiritual Order to the Ordained and to give it in these circumstances is but congruous for none concerned in such an Ordination are blameworthy and not to give it is absolutely and by common providence inevitably destructive of the whole Church which certainly the Supreme Lord thereof will not deliver up to ruine since with so much difficulty care and tenderness he Instituted it and to the same it belongs first to Institute and then to Conserve But this Doctrine seems to administer the occasion of a reply for admitting that Titulus coloratus bona fides do supply the defect of Order in the Ordainer so that one who is by all esteemed and reputed a true Bishop yet in effect by reason of some secret default is not so when all other requisites and essentials are aptly and duely applyed do validly Ordain Why then cannot this Doctrine be applied to the Roman Bishops For if they should be defective in the Power of Order yet adhibiting all essentials and other necessary conditions their Ordinations would also be valid among themselves for we cannot in Charity presume that they proceed against their Conscience or that they want that sincerity and right intention which we suppose in others This being supposed the case is the same for if the Roman Bishops validly Ordained the Bishops of the Church of England Why should not they validly Ordain their own I Answer That they Ordain their own Priests and Bishops according to the Roman Ritual and consequently they want the maine requisite which is the essential Matter and Forme for they have Innovated a Matter and Forme of their own far different from that which Christ Instituted and they cleerly signifie by that Forme that they intend thereby to confer the Order of Priesthood so that they cannot intend to Ordain by the Essential Matter and Forme derived from the Apostles if any such be contained in their Ritual except they would be reputed deluders as hath been proved at large in the Fifth Sixth and Seventh Sections of this Disputation Wherefore according to the disposition of the Roman Ritual the Essence of Ordination cannot subsist And certainly nothing can have a being without its own Essence as all must grant For the Church of Rome partly by adding their new reputed Essentials to which their intention of Ordaining must be fixed and partly by Inverting the Order have made so great a confusion that one part destroys another and particularly their Essentials do absolutely destroy the Essentials Instituted by Christ if their Liturgy contain any such and hinder their effect But when the Bishops that were Ordained in the Church of Rome had deserted their Communion and Ordained the Bishops of the Church of England they did it by the English Ritual which contains the very Essential Matter and Forme Instituted by Christ and delivered to us by the Apostles which were so duely and regularly applyed to the Ordained as was ever in practise in the antient Church so that here nothing at all was wanting that in the case proposed was necessary to the validity of Ordination Wherefore this Ordination is far different from that which the Roman Bishops use when they Ordain according to the Roman Pastoral And consequently the Ordination which the Romans use among themselves is Invalid but the Ordination of the English Bishops reteins its Integrity A Second Proofe hereof is grounded upon the practise of the Greek Church whose Ordination the Church of Rome ever approved as valid yet they always used the Imposition of hands as the Essential matter of Priesthood with this Forme Divina Gratia quae semper infirma sanat deficientia complet promovet hunc Deo amabilem Diaconum in Presbyterum The Divine Grace that always cures that which is infirme and compleats that which is deficient promotes this pious Deacon to Priesthood Consider here what precaution the Greeks used in the Essential Forme of their Ordination for knowing how prone we are all to errors and mistakes they in a matter of such high concern have recourse to the Author of Grace to confirm and strengthen that which by Human Frailty might be weak and unstable as also to compleat the defects and supply the wants of their Ordination in case any thing else should be necessary not known to them And hereby they used their best endeavors to prevent the nullity of their Ordinations which might proceed from their own weakness or inadvertency as not being ignorant how many errors and mistakes we are subject to notwithstanding the best of our endeavors to the contrary Which implyes a confidence in them that using the true Essentials and a right intention Christ would supply all other secret defects whereof the want of the power of Order in the Ordainer is one especially when he is generally reputed by all and by himself also a true Bishop For as it is above observed in the beginning of this Section the Power of Order in the Ordained is no Essential part of Ordination but meerly the effect thereof so that the Ordination is Essentially and Specifically compleat without it and because Ordination is Instituted by Christ as a means to determine him to confer this Spiritual Power upon the Ordained How reasonable and congruous is it that the cause being compleat the effect should not be wanting especially since it exceeds our capacity to discover the defect For when a cause is hinder'd from producing his effect either by contrary agents or by the indisposition of the Medium or by the incapacity of the Passum we cannot thence infer that the agent is incompleat or wants vertue quantum est ex se for as much
have a strict dependance on the first Matter as their proper Subject and on several qualities and accidents as their Natural disposition so that if their Matter should be Annihilated or their disposition destroyed by the Law of Nature they could not subsist though many of them Teach that the Heavens Planets and Fixt Stars admit of no such Composition but are Compleat yea simple substantial Bodies which cannot be dissolved but only into Integral and Homogeneal parts Thirdly They Assert That though according to Nature the same Individual Body cannot be in more then one place at the same time yet that by Divine Power one and the same Body may be collocated in several and distinct places the same moment of time how distant and remote soever these places are the one from the other Which is far different from the Manner how the Soul of Man exists in the Body for though the same Soul be at the same time in the head and in the foot and because it is a Spirit and hath no substantial nor integral parts it must of necessity be all in the head and all in the foot and other parts of the Body the same instant because it is indivisible yet in this Case the whole Body is but one adequate place of the Soul for if the head should be sever'd from the Body the Soul could not in that state of Separation be both in the head and the Body no not for one moment of time Fourthly They agree in the notion of Substantial Conversion that it is a Transmutation of one Substance into another which they distinguish into two Members the one is a partial or inadequate Conversion the other a total or adequate Commutation The first is common and proper to the present order of Nature for in all the Changes that we observe of several Substances destroy'd and others produc'd there never happens but a partial Conversion for example We see Wood or other Combustible Matter Converted into Fire the Form of Wood is destroyed but the Matter as being susceptible of any Form remains under the Forme of Fire that was before under that of Wood So that you see in all these Conversions one part is destroy'd but the other persists in being so in that which succeeds one part is newly produced but the other was extant before But in a total Conversion the precedent substance is wholly destroyed the Matter is Annihilated and the Forme Corrupted and the subsequent substance which succeeds in place of that which is destroyed both Matter and Forme is all Collocated under the same Collection of Accidents either by a new production or else by an adduction for if this substance into which the former was Converted were before extant then there needs only a new Ubication in the place where the Conversion is made without relinquishing its former Vbi or place where it was existent and so is now in two distinct places at once and this total Conversion can never be made without infringing the Laws of Nature for nothing in Nature can ever lay a disposition determining to the destruction of the first Matter which depends upon no dispositions but is produced by a Creative action independant of all things else And therefore its destruction exceeds the power of all Natural Causes Then the Constituting of a Body in two distinct and adequate places at once is not in the power of Nature as all grant Fifthly They grant That Quantity Qualities Dispositions and all other Accidents cannot naturally subsist without a Subject or Receptacle to support them and keep them in being for as Aristotle saith Accidens est ens in alio or entis ens it is ordained by Nature to be subservient to substance and so is not intended for it self but to dispose the substance to several Changes and Mutations upon which it hath consequently a strict dependance neither can it have any use in Nature without the Substance So that Accidents cannot remain without a Substance but by the Miraculous assistance of a Supernatural Power and where this intervenes they maintain that all Accidents except Moodes may be conserved in being without a Subject These several Points of Doctrine being premised they conclude That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the words of Consecration which are these Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body which are pronounced by the Priest assuming Christ's Person there is wrought a total substantial Conversion which they call Transubstantiation so that the whole substance of Bread both Matter and Forme is totally destroyed and the whole substance of Christ's Body is really placed there in lieu of the Bread which is really Converted into the Body of Christ yet so as that the Species of Bread which is the collection of Accidents that were before in the Bread keep their state of being though the Bread be destroyed and are Miraculously preserved without a Subject though they are Sacramentally united to the Body of Christ And though ex vi verborum only the Body of Christ be rendred present nothing else being signified by the words of Consecration nor requisite to verifie Concomitance and Connexion whereby all the parts of Christ are united with each other there is also put under the Species of Bread the Blood of Christ the Soul of Christ with the Natural Union between his Body and Soul the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union which Connects the Divine Word to the Humanity and consequently all the Sacred Trinity are all there really Existent under the Species of Bread which Species or Complex of Accidents were produced and conserved before the Bread was destroyed by an Action called Eduction that is a production dependant on another to wit the Substance of Bread to which they were the natural disposition but that substance being destroyed they are now conserved by another action which they terme Creation that is a production independant of all others By the Species of Bread they understand the Heat the Cold the Dryeth the Moysture the Quantity the Rarity the Density the Colour the Odour the Taste c. which were all appropriated to the Bread They also Affirm That these strange Wonders are wrought by the words of Consecration which are Instituted by Christ to this purpose and by their Obediential Power are elevated to effect what of themselves they are uncapable of the Divine Power Cooperating with them to accomplish this design so that these few words pronounced by a Priest who assumes Christ's Person and Officiates in his Name are not only representative but also practical they effect what they signifie and so reduce themselves to a Conformity with their Object which makes them true But it may be demanded In what Critical Moment of time this great Change is made For the words though few yet are pronounced by the Priest successively whence the doubt ariseth Whether this strange Conversision be made in the beginning the middle or the end of the words of Consecration To this they Answer
common accidents and consequently the Argument proceeds in its full strength against all these The Third Proof Insisting upon the Principles of Transubstantiation an irreconcileable difficulty will occur when that complex of first and second qualities and other accidents is so altered and changed that it becomes an apt disposition to a new specifical Forme As for example A Communicant receives a consecrated Hoaste which is log'd in the Stomach of the Receiver and by the natural activity of the Stomach is fitly disposed to receive the Forme of Chyle then there is a strict exigence in nature that the Forme of Chyle be introduced What is to be done in this case Nature may spend it self in clamoring to have this Forme introduced but alass here is no subject nor receptacle to receive it Some expedient must here be found you will say that in this case the Author of Nature must create new Matter to receive this Forme and to relieve the Accidents from that violent state wherein they have been detained Most excellent Philosophy How absurd would this seem to any of the Antients but meanly verst in this Science Aristotle never dreamt of such anxieties and distresses of Nature And the Divinity is yet worse which makes God subject to submit to the extravagant exigences of his creatures no way grounded in his own Providence and Disposition for the great Author of Nature Created the whole Mass of first Matter independant of any thing else and since that original creation no Matter hath been destroyed none produced but the same succeeds indifferently to all the variety of Formes that are produced and destroyed But now here comes a strict exigence of a substantial Forme to be produced dependant on the Matter and yet there is no matter to receive it but the Supreme Creator must be summoned by his creatures to supply this defect by Creating new Matter as though he had been ignorant in the Beginning what quantity of Matter was sufficient who created all things by his Infinite Wisdom and Providence in pondere mensura out of his own Free-will without any exigence or determination of his creatures Must then the Order of this Systeme be inverted and God as it were necessitated to exercise his Omnipotence in a New creation not grounded in his former Instituon But here it may be Alleg'd That the drift of all these Proofes is no other then to make it appear that the whole business of Transubstantiation is Supernatural and Miraculous which the Church of Rome freely acknowledgeth and are induced to this belief by the Autority of Christ himself who holding Bread in his hand in the Last Supper plainly told his Apostles Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body If Christ affirms it Who dares gainsay it We all know that the Substance of Bread cannot by Natural Means be converted into the Body of Christ but by the illimited power of God it may be done and Christ tells us That it is done Why therefore should we not believe it First I Answer That what is possible though Miraculous and Supernatural may be believed yet not slightly and without sufficient reason but if by an urgent and indispensable necessity or an irrefragable autority which brings with it a perfect assurance of the true sense and meaning thereof we are pressed to an assent this is a sufficient Motive to induce us to believe But in the next Proofe I shall make it appear that here is no such inductive no necessity of yielding our assent to such a prodigious number of Miracles not once only but daily and hourly repeated and constantly continued and so to last till the Worlds end Secondly I Answer That in the Second Proofe of this Assertion it appeareth that from this Doctrine of Transubstantiation it unavoidably follows That all Natural Causes both can and do actually create and annihilate who promiscuously have their insluences when duly applyed upon a consecrated Hoaste as much as they have upon one that is not consecrated which plain experience maketh manifest and to have such a power to create and annihilate or to produce something out of nothing is so peculiar to God alone as wholly depending on an Omnipotent Power that it is absolutely impossible that it should be communicated to any pure creature The Fourth Proofe There is no necessity neither from Scripture nor Reason nor from any other Revelation to admit Transubstantiation The greatest necessity that hath been hitherto alledged is drawn from those words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum but from hence no necessity can be derived for they that hold Consubstantiation and assert That Christ's Body exists in the Sacrament together with the Substance of Bread these I say as rigorously stand to the literal sense of Christ's words and as properly verify them as they who hold Transubstantiation for the words of themselves imply no conversion or change of one substance into another but if taken in a literal sense they only signifie Christ's Body there present wherefore there is no necessity from these words to multiply so many Miracles yea and Impossibilities as are inferr'd from Transubstantiation because the literal sense of the words may be saved without them But in reality there is no more necessity of understanding those words of Christ in a literal sense then when he saith I am a Door I am a Vine c. For since the Scripture is capable of so many Senses and Interpretations there is no Reason nor Necessity of wresting it to that sense alone which brings with it the greatest difficulties of any especially when by congruities and other places of Scripture it may be connaturally understood in another sense and since it was usual with our Great Redeemer to speak by Allegories Parables by Tropes and Figures it is most likely he spoke so here which is sufficiently intimated by Christ himself telling his Disciples John 6. vers 63. that It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life and yet the words that he then spoke were concerning his Body Hence I Conclude That the words of Christ above rehersed can ground no necessary inference of Transubstantiation SECT III. Of the Possibility of Transubstantiation as held by the Church of Rome IN order to the determination of this difficulty I must first premise That according to the Rules of Logick no affirmative proposition or enunciation can be true except it have a conformity with its Object that is the Object must be in its self as the act represents it All Enunciations consist of two parts the subject and the predicate the subject is that of which it enunciates the predicate is that which it enunciates of the subject if the proposition be negative it separates the predicate from the subject but if it be affirmative it intentionally identisies the one with the other as in this Proposition Angelus est Spiritus Angelus is the subject and Spiritus is the
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
Heresie He was of the most eminent repute of his time He was a great Opponent of all Novelty and Innovation and for his Merits very dear to the Emperor These then were the Persons which the Emperor consulted and required them to give him in Writing the True Sense of the Church concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Whether it were contained in the Sacrament in Verity and Reality or only in Vertue and Figure as also whether it were the same Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary Suffered upon the Cross Rose from the Dead c. that we receive in the Sacrament for to both Questions Paschasius Answers That it was the same Body present in the Eucharist in Verity and Reality and not only in Vertue and Figure To these two Questions the forenamed Doctors gave in their Answer in Latin to the Emperor in Writing and their Resolutions were contrary to the Doctrine of Paschasius as to both Questions For to the First Whether that which we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be truly and really the Body of Christ or only a Figure and Type thereof They both Answer That the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in this Sacrament only in Figure and Virtue and not in Reality As to the Second Question Whether it be the same Body that was Born of the Virgin Mary that suffered on the Cross that was Buried and Rose again that Ascended into Heaven they Answer That we Receive the Figure and Verture of that same Body And not wholly to omit the Transactions of these two Doctors I shall here briefly relate some passages of each of them SECT VI. A briefe account of some passages of the life and death of John Erigène THis Learned Doctor how dear soever he was to that Great Emperor Charles yet he was sharply censur'd and severely handled by several Authors and great Prelates and especially by the Council of Valentia for some Dogmatical Points which he deliver'd in a Treatise that he Wrote of Predestination and the state of the future Life as deviating from the Orthodox Principles of the Church yet none reprehended him for his Doctrine of the Eucharist And certainly he meritted eternal renown for Translating the Hierarchy of Dionysius of Areopagyta from Greek into Latin by Command of the Emperor Charles which Work added no small access to the Opinion formerly conceived of his zeal and eloquence for hence he was esteemed a Saint and that his Doctrine and knowledge was infus'd from Heaven His Fame daily increasing he was at last called into England by Alfrede then King where he was Barbarously Murdered by his own Disciples in the Monastery of Malmesbury in the year 883 or thereabouts and was decently buried in that Church but his Body was afterwards with great Pomp and Magnificence translated to the Cathedral and there placed before the Altar with this Epitaph Here lies John the Holy Philosopher Gulielm Malmesb. L. 2. C. 5. who in his life time was inriched with wonderful Doctrine and in the end had the honor to ascend by Martyrdom to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign eternally as William of Malmesbury relates And after his decease by the Autority of the See of Rome he was put into the Catalogue of Martyrs His Treatise of the Eucharist remained extant about 200 years after he Wrote it by the Emperors Command but about the year 1050 it was read in the Council of Verceils where Pope Leo the Ninth presided and there condemned to be Burnt as being repugnant to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Eucharist which was accordingly put in execution and so this Treatise perish'd And consequently it was often moved to have him expunged from the Catalogue of Saints but without effect till the time of Baronius who alledging That he had Written against the Real Presence upon this account got him excluded from that rank wherein he had been formerly placed by Gregory the 13th and other Popes Histor Ecclesiast Angliae L. 2. P. 119. as Fuller relates SECT VII Some Passages of the Life and Doctrine of Retram THis Doctor was one of the Learnedst and of the fairest repute of his time and upon this account was chosen among the rest by Charles the Emperor together with John Scot or Erigéne to give him an account what was the true meaning of Christ's Word 's and the true Doctrine of the Church in relation to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist By this means to allay the heat of that turbulent Contention and Animosity which had reacht the utmost confines of his Dominions and dissected his Subjects into violent Factions occasioned by the Writings of Paschasius wherein he Asserted the Real Presence These two great Men in Complyance to the Emperors Command gave their Answer in two distinct Treatises in Latin upon this Subject wherein they both agreed that the true Orthodox Doctrine never admitted of any Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament but that it was there contained Virtually and Figuratively by means of Christ's Institution which they proved out of the Scripture and Fathers alleging several parallel examples out of Holy Writ concluding that the adverse Opinion was a Heterodox novelty contrary to Scripture Fathers and the Universal Belief of the Church till that time Retram when he Wrote this Treatise was a Priest of the Church of Rome and Monck of the Monastery of Corby soon after there arose great difficulties between Nicholas the First then Pope and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople whereupon Pope Nicholas implores the Assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks The Clergy of the Gallican Church knew not where to find a more able and expert Champion to carry on this great design then Bertram or Retram and so unanimously chose him to defend the Pope and the Latin Church against their Antagonists Retram undertakes it and discharges his trust with a great deal of honor and applause and was afterwards created Abbot of Orbais But to come to his Doctrine his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ was providently preserved and at length Translated into English and Printed here in England about a Hundred Thirty and two years since in the year of our Lord 1549 whereof there have been several Editions since and it was lately Printed in France both in Latin and French But now come we to give you a Specimen of the Tenets which by this Treatise he endeavors to establish First Then he tells us That the Bread which by the Mystery of the Priest is made the Body of Christ doth shew one thing to the External Senses and another thing soundeth inwardly to the Mind of Faith Outwardly the Bread remaineth as it was before c. and then he adds of the VVine The Wine also which by the Consecration of the Priest is made the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ
be contained in the Holy Sacrament in Verity or in Figure and concludes with these words Hitherto have we declared that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful be Figures And so terminates this First Question SECT VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question THe Second Question that was to be resolved by Retram or Bertram was this as he himself declares Whether the same Body that was Born of Mary that Suffered Dyed was Buried and sitteth on the Right hand of the Father be that Body which is daily received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament or no Ambr. L. 1 de Sacram. And first he discourseth out of St. Ambrose That the substance of the Creatures suffer no Mutation in these words For after the substance of the Creatures they be even the same things after the Consecration that they were before For before the Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after they appear to remain in the same kind still Where his Position is That the substance of the Creatures are the same after Consecration that they were before which he proves thus Before Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after Consecration they not only appear to remain but really do remain in the same kind still of Bread and Wine this must be the drift of his Argument for else it would not prove his intent Then having said That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in forme but in vertue he applauds a distinction of St. Ambrose How diligently and how wisely hath he made a distinction where be saith touching the flesh which was Crucisied and Buried this is the true Flesh of Christ but touching that which is received in the Sacrament he saith This is the Sacrament of the true Flesh so dividing the Sacrament of the Flesh from the very Flesh c. But he affirmeth the Mystery which is done in the Church to be the Sacrament of the very Flesh in which Christ Suffered instructing the Faithful that the Flesh in which Christ Suffered and was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but the very Natural Flesh but this Flesh which now containeth the Similitude of the very Flesh in Mystery is not Flesh in Kind nor in Forme but in Sacrament For in Kind it is Bread c. Hence he proceeds to the Autority of St. Hierome Hieron in Epistolam Pauli ad Eph. The Flesh and the Blood of Christ saith he St. Hierom are understood two manner of ways which he explicates the one Corporeally and the other Spiritually Therefore saith Bertram the Spiritual Flesh and the Spiritual Blood which are daily received of the Faithful do differ undoubtedly from the Flesh Crucified and the Blood shed as the Autority of this Doctor doth witness Much to this purpose he discourseth upon the Autority of St. Augustine Aug. in Evangelium Sancti Joan. distinguishing between the Spiritual Food and the Corporeal Food of the Fathers of the Old Law comparing them with us Where he affirms out of St. Augustine that their Spiritual Food was the same with ours the Body of Christ but the Corporeal Food was very different as much as the Manna the Cloud and the Sea differ from Bread and Wine Which he confirms by the Autority of St. Paul speaking of the Antient Fathers that were Baptised in Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and they all did eate the same Spiritual Meate and drank the same Spiritual Drink which he concludes to be Christ in a Figure as it is with us in the Sacrament where he saith Christ is in a certain manner and this manner is in Figure and Image Hence he draws this Illation Wherefore the Body and Blood that we now celebrate in the Church do differ from the Body and the Blood which are now known to be glorified by the Resurrection This Body is the Pledge and the Figure the other is the very Natural Body And presently he adds And as the Figure differeth from the verity thus it is plain that the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which is received of the Faithful in the Church differeth from the said Body that was Born of Mary the Virgin c. Then he cites St. Austin's words Preaching to the People of the Body and Blood of Christ. The thing which you see in the Altar of God saith St. Austin was seen of you the last night Aug. Serm. ad Populum but what it is or what it meaneth or of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament ye have not yet heard The thing which you see is Bread and Wine He then tells them That by Faith they ought to believe the Bread to be the Body and the Wine to be the Blood of Christ And then he makes them object that the Body of Christ that was Born of the Virgin c. with his Blood Ascended entirely into Heaven where he now is How then can this Bread be his Body and this Wine his Blood St. Austin Answers These good Brethren be called Sacraments because that one thing is seen in them and another thing understood that which is seen hath a Corporeal form and that which is not seen hath a Spiritual Fruit. Whereupon Bertram adds In these words this worshipful Author instructing us what we ought to think of the proper Body of the Lord that was Born of Mary c. Also what we ought to think of the Body set on the Altar whereof the People be partakers The very Body is whole and not divided with any Section neither cover'd with any Figures but this Body set on the Table of the Lord is a Figure because it is a Sacrament And again Therefore St. Austin hath Taught us that as the Body of Christ is signified in the Bread which is on the Altar so is the Body of the People that receive it Then Addressing his Discoure to the Emperor he saith Your Wisdom most excellent Prince may perceive that I have proved by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup called his Blood is a Figure because it is a Mystery And that there is no small difference between the Mystical Body and the Body that Suffered was Buried and Rose again for this which suffered is the proper Body of our Saviour neither in it is any Figure or Signification but the manifest action of the thing it self c. And thus he concludes his Answer to the Emperor insisting all along upon this Truth That in this Holy Sacrament is contained the same Bread and Wine that was before which are called the Body and Blood of Christ because they Mystically and Figuratively signifie the same and are Received by the Faithful by way of Commemoration of Christ's Passion and by vertue of Christ's Institution they
Sanctifie the Receiver but still denies that the True Body and Blood of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary Suffered c. is in Verity or Reality present in this Sacrament but only Figuratively and Mystically SECT IX Animadversions on the Premises WE have seen the Opinion of those Two Champions of the Church of Christ which were Consulted by Charles the Emperor To whom I might add many more Abbots Bishops and Archbishops and the most eminent Persons of those times for Learning and Vertue but this would be too prolix and contrary to my Design But in the First place let us reflect that after Retram had Written his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ How all the Bishops and Prelates of France could precedently elect him in a matter of so great consequence to defend the Latin Church against the Pretensions of the Greeks and rely chiefly upon his management of it Especially since Pope Nicholas the First who had excited them to this Debate approved of their Choice for had they found any flaw in his Doctrine as not conformable to the Antient Belief of the Church they might with Reason have suspected that he might have vented some other error in his Disputes with the Greeck Church which would utterly have ruin'd their Cause But no such thing was surmis'd of him nor objected against him whence we may certainly infer That all the Bishops and Prelates of the Gallican Church yea and the Pope also were of his Opinion in the Doctrine of the Eucharist To this we may add That Pope Adrian the Second who also Govern'd the Church during this Debate never opposed himself against the Doctrine of Retram nor never Reprehended him for it which notwithstanding he ought to have done had he deem'd it any way Heterodox Gratian. in in Decret dist 82. C. Error For as Gratian tells us He approves an Error which he doth not oppose especially if by his Office he ought to do it And because during this Ninth Century there were so few that adher'd to the Doctrine of Paschasius it seemed very inconsiderable and like to dye of it self for want of support and therefore was prudently not reflected upon Whence we may safely conclude that the General Belief of the Church till almost Nine Hundred years after Christ was conformable to the Doctrine of Retram and of John Erigéne who denyed the Existence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Sacrament in Verity and Reality and admitted it Virtually Figuratively and by way of a Sacrament Which belief maugre all the Anathemaes of the Church of Rome is lineally descended from Christ and his Apostles to these our times and is the general perswasion of the Protestant Church of England and conformable to the Nine and Thirty Articles Seconly Consider which of these two Dogmatical Assertions is most like to be the genuine and legitimate off-spring of Christ either that which drew his Origine immediately from Christ and his Apostles and hath kept possession ever since or the other that was not started till Eight Hundred years after and knows no other Progenitor but Paschasius The first certainly will appear to the unbiassed judgment of all to be Legitimate and the second Spurious and Adulterate But Thirdly Here is yet a higher Point which presents it self to our consideration We all believe that the Divine Word pursuant to his efficacious Decree became Incarnate chiefly for this end That in Human Nature he might Redeem Mankind he accomplished this end by a cruel Death and other Indignities which he suffered and thereby fatisfied for our Transgressions and Merited for us an infinite Treasure of Graces and to the end that Mankind might participate of this ineffable benefit for all future ages he instituted a Church ordained Sacraments to convey those Graces to our Souls He Instructed those that were to initiate his Church in his Divine Doctrine he gave them his Heavenly Precepts c. Whence I appeal to the impartial and unbyassed judgments both of Men and Angels whether it be probable or credible that this Supreme Artificer instructed with all his infinite Attributes of an illimited Knowledge Power Wisdom Providence c. should leave this great Work of our Redemption which was his Master-piece imperfect and incompleat yea contaminated with gross Errors and Heresies in its first Foundation in a matter of such high moment which concerned his most Sacred Body and Blood and was destructive of the Essentials of one of those two Sacraments which he had ordain'd and the Principal for Dignity and permit its progress in this erroneous Doctrine for Eight Hundred years together which would have had a direct tendency to confusion and finally to the utter ruine and dissolution of his Church and so frustrate the final end of his Incarnation And that after so many Centuries one Paschasius Rathert a Monk should start up from his Cell and pretend to Correct this Error and hereby to perfect and amend the work of the Omnipotent as if Christ would not or could not have done it of himself Is this I say credible or Would it not highly derogate from the Dignity of the Divine Person and the infinite Attributes of our great Lord and Master What then must we conclude But that this belief of the Body and Blood of Christ which took its Origine from the Primitive Institution of Christianity was True Orthodox and Catholick Doctrine so that Christ accomplisht the design which he had undertaken perfectly and compleatly and so remitted it to Posterity without either spot or blemish And if you desire Presidents do but cast a compendious glance upon all the former products of the Omnipotent hand of God The Frame of this Universe was Projected and Created by God himself who having produc't it he saw that it was very good that is perfect and compleat He Created the Angels with all the Natural Perfections due to the excellency of their Nature no accomplishment was wanting and moreover in their first Creation imbued them with Supernatural Grace and gave them a Title to Glory Simul in eis condens naturam Aug. l. 12. de Civit. C. 9. largiens gratiam saith St. Austin The same saith St. Gregory in his Morals and others Man was likewise produc't in his full perfection and his Soul in its first Creation was imbellisht with Sactifying Grace and Original Justice The Superior Orbes were Created and placed in their respective Sphears with all the Accomplishment of Perfection proper to their Nature with due Subordination conducing to the good and perservation of the Universe their Natural Motion was imprinted into them in their first Creation which still remains immutable though probably their rapt motion be regulated by the Ministery of Angels And in this sublunary World there is not one Species but in its first being received all the Perfections which were appropriated to its kind So that all the Works of God were perfect and compleat though some of the Angels