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
ROME'S CONVICTION OR A VINDICATION OF THE Original Institution OF Christianity In Opposition to the Many USURPATIONS OF THE CHVRCH of ROME And their frequent VIOLATION of DIVINE RIGHT Cleerly Evinced By Arguments Drawn from their Own PRINCIPLES And Undeniable Matter of Fact By John Savage Gent. London Printed by T. N. for Gabriel Kunholt at the King's Head over against the Mews near Charing-Cross MDCLXXXIII TO THE MOST RENOWNED MONARCH Charles the II. OF England Scotland France and Ireland KING Defender of the Faith c. Most Dread Soveraign WHither should This TREATISE of Religion Fly for Protection but under the Wings of Your Most Sacred Majesty Duely Intituled to the Glorious Prerogative of Defender of the FAITH Hither therefore it Connaturally tends but makes its Approach in an Humble Posture Dazled as it were with the Glory of so much Majesty It s Author likewise Falls Prostrate at Your Royal Feet earnestly Imploring Your PRINCELY Protection of these his weak Endeavors He comes Full Fraught with a Confident Hope that where such Power and Goodness Reigns he cannot suffer a Repulse And being sway'd by the Memory of Your Past Favors the sense of Gratitude as well as Duty hath Immutably Fixt him in this Resolve That a Deep-Rooted Loyalty Animated with a Fervent Zeal for Your Majesties Royal Person Government and Prerogatives shall ever be the Indeleble Character of Your Majesties Most Loyal Most Submissive and Most Addicted Subject John Savage TO THE Reader HAving had a more then ordinary inspection into the Doctrine and PRINCIPLES of the Church of Rome I have upon this Account been earnestly mov'd by some Persons of Honor and Worth to Write something in Opposition to that Church and at length I was wrought to a Compliance In the pursuit whereof I have had no consideration of the Unkindness and Ingratitude of some of the Church of Rome towards me but have proceeded with all imaginable Candor and Sincerity wholly devested of all Ranker Spleen and Animosity against their Persons But I deem'd it no way repugnant to Christian Charity to use my best endeavors to open a way to Truth And if sometimes my Pen seems to be Dipt in Gall yet this only is a product of Zeal for the Doctrine I have undertaken to defend in opposition to theirs without the least intending to infringe the Laws of Morality The Heads of Doctrine contained in each Disputation of this Treatise I have several times Proposed to the Learnedst Doctors of the Church of Rome that I could meet with of several Religious Orders quasi tentando by way of Discourse P. Worsleus Soc. Jesu Leodii One tells me That these Difficulties were indeed insuperable if scann'd by the Light of Reason but yet we were all oblig'd to captivare intellectum in obsequium fidei to captivate our Vnderstanding in Obedience to Faith P. Haseur Recollecta Namurci Another Answers by way of Admonition That it was not safe but on the contrary very dangerous to penetrate too deep into the Mysteries of Faith A Third Alleadgeth P. Derkennis Soc. Jesu Lovanii That I had as good Question the Verity of Scripture as submit the Definitions of Councils to the Scrutiny of Reason because the Scripture also contains very great Difficulties and seeming Contradictions To all these I Reply That Divine Faith consists of Two parts the Material Object which is the thing we Believe and the Formal Object which is the Motive why we Believe and that is dictio Dei God's saying or revealing it Wherefore when a Mystery is proposed to be Believed as an Article of Faith though I have no Evidence in attestato in the thing Revealed because I cannot demonstrate the Truth of it by Human Reason yet if I have Evidence or Certainty in attestante that is I am sure God says it then with a Blind Obedience and with a firm Adhesion I assent to it But if it be Doubtful and Ambiguous whether it be a Divine Revelation or no then to Institute a strict Inquiry Whether it be truly and really attested by Divine Autority or no is an act of Prudence and therefore not dangerous but secure and laudable But how shall we know assuredly whether it be a Divine Revelation or not First I Answer That no New Revelations are to be admitted but such as are contained in Holy Writ in the Canonical Scripture Secondly I Answer That if the Mystery proposed drive us to such Extremities that no Assent can be given to it without denying some one of the Prima Principia Lumine Naturae nota First Principles known by the Light of Nature which the Wit of Man cannot avoid then we may certainly conclude that if it be a new Doctrine not contained in Scripture or if it be evidently inconsistent with the Light of Nature in both cases it comes not from God but is a meer Human Invention And we ought not to Believe by Divine Faith that which is backt only by Human Authority As for the Difficulties of Scripture those which are Seeming Contradictions are most Historical and are Solved by those Authors who ex professo have Written so many Large Tomes of the Interpretation of Scripture Other Mysteries which are Speculative and Doctrinal as a Virgin to Conceive the Incarnation of the Divine Word and the Hypostatical Union the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity c. there is no one of all these that is destructive of the Light of Human Reason or that will reduce us to a necessity of denying the Truth of any of the First Principles Since therefore we admit of all Canonical Scripture as the Word of God we ought to Believe it by Divine Faith For certain it is that as God's Infinite Veracity is uncapable of asserting such things as are impossible so likewise by the same Rule God who is the Author of Human Reason is uncapable of Imposing upon Man's Understanding a necessity of Believing that which is false or impossible for if false it is destructive of his Veracity which would un-God him if Impossible it is inconsistent with Human Reason And yet all things are to be granted to the Divine Omnipotence that involve not a manifest Contradiction And this may serve as a Reply to the Answers of the aforementioned Doctors I shall therefore proceed in order to examine the Controverted Difficulties which this Treatise contains as they are digested under their respective Heads whereof each hath his Peculiar Disputation and the Disputations I Subdivide into Sections In the Second Disputation of this Treatise I have Inserted most of the Antient Rituals and Liturgies of the Latine Greek and the Eastern Churches which Morinus Translated out of the Greek and Syrian into Latine And as this Translator was tyed to give the Literal Sense of the Originals without Mutation so also I deem'd it Illegal to make any change or alteration in the Latin Version which in some places is obscure and obsolete but I have rendered the true and genuine sense
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
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
predicate the act being affirmative represents these two as identified and because in the Object they are identified therefore the Proposition is true But if the two extreams were not identified yet possibly might be then the act were in materia contingenti that is contingently false but if they were not identified nor by any power could be identified then the Proposition were in materia remota that is necessarily false This being supposed The Second Assertion is That Transubstantiation as grounded on the literal sense of this Proposition Hoc est corpus meum is impossible and Chymerical That I may be rightly understood in the Proofe of this Assertion I desire it may be observed that in the progress of this discourse I shall always take the Proposition in question in a literal sense according to the natural and plain signification and meaning of the words as understood by the Romanists themselves who take it literally wherein I shall first prove the true signification of the Subject and then of the Predicate whence I shall cleerly deduce the truth of this Assertion The Subject of this Proposition Hoc est corpus meum is that which is signified by the word Hoc which I thus prove to be the substance of Bread That which was actually present when the word hoc was pronounced is the Object or thing signified thereby But the substance of Bread was the only thing present when the word hoc was pronounced ergo the substance of Bread is the Object or thing signified thereby The first Proposition or Major cannot be reasonably doubted for that particle hoc being demonstrative it indicates and shews its Object as present for that which is absent or not existent cannot in any propriety of Speech be signified by the word hoc or this as if the Author of a Book should hold one of the Copies in his hand and shew it to those that were present saying This is my Composition Could any one in his right wits doubt but that by the word this he signified the Book which he held in his hand wherefore that which Christ held in his hand and shewed to his Apostles when he said Hoc est corpus meum must necessarily be the thing signified by the word hoc The Minor or Second Proposition I prove thus That which was present when Christ pronounced the Word hoc was that which he held in his hand and shewed to his Apostles which was only Bread under its proper Species for in that moment the Body of Christ was not there under the Species of Bread as our Antagonists themselves confess who constantly affirm That the Body of Christ is not rendred present under the Species of Bread till that instant wherein the Proposition is compleatly ended and the reason is because till that instant there is nothing that signifieth the Body of Christ which is made present by the force and energia of the signification of that Proposition which they say is elevated to be iustrumental in producing its object and by that means concurs to its own verity Therefore Christ's Body not being present under the Species of Bread in that instant it remains that only the substance of Bread was then present in Christ's hand and consequently that alone was the Subject of that Proposition whose Predicate was affirmed or enunciated of it The Predicate of the forementioned Proposition which is Corpus meum my Body plainly and explicitly signifieth the Body of Christ who pronounceth the Proposition and saith of that Bread which he then held in his hand that it was his Body and therefore I shall not detain you in proving the Body of Christ to be the thing signified by the Predicate especially since our Opponents grant it to make good their Tenet Having proved the true meaning and signification of the Subject of the forenamed Proposition to be Bread and our Adversaries granting the thing rerepresented by the Predicate to be the Body of Christ let us now examine the sense and meaning of the whole act Christ holding Bread in his hand saith This is my Body that is this Bread is my Body as hath been proved and the Proposition being Affirmative intentionally affirms Christ's Body to be really identified with that Bread signified by the word this because no Affirmative Proposition can be true except the Subject and Predicate thereof be identified ex parte objecti for without this identity the act can never be conformable to its object wherein consists the truth of it whence it comes to pass that the Proposition in Question taken in a literal sense according to the true and genuine signification of the words without Tropes and Figures cannot possibly be true which I prove thus An identity between Bread and the Body of Christ is impossible and Chymerical but the Proposition in Question affirms an identity between Bread and the Body of Christ ergo the Proposition in Question affirms that which is impossible and chymerical The Minor or Second Proposition is plain and evident by what hath been already proved and granted The Major or First Proposition I shall here prove all identity between two Substances specifically and individually distinct is as impossible as a hyrco-cervus or hypocentaurus as they call them that is a down-right Chymera the reason is because it involves a contradiction whereof one Member formally destroys the other for the notion of identity between two objects consists in this That the one hath omnia sola illa quae aliud habet all the perfections and predicates of the other and nothing more but the substance of Bread hath not all the perfections and predicates of the Body of Christ for it wants Organizations Life c. and hath a specifical forme which Christ hath not therefore if these two were identified the one would have all that the other hath which idenity implyes and the one would not have all that the other hath by reason of their specifical distinction which is a plain contradiction wherein the Affirmative formally destroys the Negative and econtra the Negative destroys the Affirmative Again that Bread and the Body of Christ are individually distinct and an individuum is that which is indivisum in se divisum à quolibet alio indistinct in it self and distinct from all others but if those two individuals were identified each of them would be distinct from all other and would not be distinct from all other which is a formal contradiction and therefore all such identities between two are impossible and chymerical and so I have proved the Major of the last Syllogisme whence I conclude that this Proposition Hoc est corpus meum taken literally affirms that which is impossible and chymerical and therefore cannot ground a real change or conversion and so Transubstantiation as grounded on this Proposition is wholly impossible and a meer Chymera This Proofe I efficaciously confirm thus Either that Particle Hoc signifies the substance of Bread or it doth not if the
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