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
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
hath been already said But this is not all for out of this decision of their Councils there issueth another Quaery for supposing the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist a Natural doubt ariseth What is become of the substance of Bread that was there before Here Authors are divided into three different Classes some place the Body of Christ here by Transubstantiation others by Consubstantiation others by Impanation The first Teach that the substancee of Bread as well Matter as Forme is destroyed by a Natural Exigence of Christ's Body being placed there because two compleat Corporeal Substances cannot be naturally in the same place the same time The two last Opinions Teach That the substance of Bread remaineth together with Christ's Body and differ only in this That they who hold Consubstantiation assert the Body of Christ to be with the substance of the Bread whereas the Authors of Impanation Teach The Body of Christ to be contained in this Sacrament invisibly because the substance of bread with its proper accidents as it were covers and veiles it so as to render it uncapable of being perceived by any Corporeal Sense So that the body of Christ being Miraculously Superinduc't is imbib'd within the substance of the bread and penetrated with it and therefore not pervious to Sensation In this variety of Opinions Who shall be the Umpire Certainly none more accommodated for this Function then the great Oracle of the Universe The Church of Rome whose grand Prerogative of Infallibility will take off all ambiguity of the truth of her decisions Thus then speaks the Council of Trent Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster corpus suum id quod sub specie panis offerebat verè esse dixit ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit idque nunc denuo sancta haec Synodus declarat per consecrationem panis vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus quae conversio convenientèr propriè 〈◊〉 Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata The same is contained in other Councils and Texts of the Common Law as Concil Rom. 6. Concil Lateran 2. In cap. Qui manducant de consecrat dist 2. cap. Iteratur Cap. semel Christus cap. singulis with other Texts above cited for the Real Presence And this definition of the Council is backt by a severe Canon able to strike terror into the disbelievers The Canon runs thus Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vim unà cum corpore sanguine Domini Nostri Jesu Christi negaveritque mirabilem illam singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus totius substantiae vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxit speciebus panis vini quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia optissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Anathema sit Here is a heavy Curse fulminated against all those that shall deny any part of this Canon which not only condemns the two former Opinions but is likewise extended to all these that deny the Real Presence And to make it the more plausible the â—ens of their best Divines are industriously imployed to work their Adherents and Proselites into the Belief of it So Valerius Reginaldus in parte fori pâ—â—ni L. 29. n. 36. Vasque 3 Part. To. 3. D. 180 nu 108. alibi Ledasn traâ—â— de Euch. C. 6. Concil 2.3 passim alii For is it hereby made an Article of Divine Faith and all are enjoyn'd to believe it as such under the most rigorous Commination of being Condemned to the Eternal Flames of Hell Fire if they call in question this Decree and Canon of the Council or any part thereof SECT II. Other Subtilties arising from the former Decisions not fully determin'd OTher Difficulties of like nature are frequently discussed by their Divines but not yet determin'd by the Church as First By what means the Body of Christ is made Corporeally present in the Eucharist Whether by a new production really distinct from that which conserves his Sacred Body in Heaven or else by a new ubication which they call adduction if the first then the Body and Soul of Christ must be created anew and the Natural and Hypostatical Unions must terminate new eductive actions really distinct from those whereby they exist in Heaven I remember to have Read a Book Written by one Tho. Barton alias Anderton an English Jesuite wherein he earnestly contends to establish this Opinion but I also heard others of the same Order to object against him That according to his Opinion the Divine Word would be as often Incarnate again as there should be Hosts Consecrated for every Consecration argues a new Incarnation because though the Hypostatical Union be still the same yet the action which produceth it is wholly new So that the common Opinion of their Divines is That all the parts of Christ in the Eucharist acquire only new ubies or ubications whereby the Body the Soul c. together with their respective actions the very same that are in Heaven are rendred present in the Sacrament and without leaving their Station in Heaven they do by every Consecration acquire a new place and whereas they existed but in one place before they now exist in two places at the same time Hence ariseth a Second Difficulty relating to the nature of this ubi whereby the Body of Christ is existent under the Species of bread and the Question is Whether it be ubi circumscriptivum or ubi definitivum that is Whether the body of Christ exist in the Eucharist as it doth in Heaven having all its parts duly ordered and collocated in their distinct stations with their natural distances conjunctions and contiguities to each other as human bodies are here framed so as that the Hand imployes one part of the space the Foot another part the Head another c. or else whether the whole body be in the whole space of the Host and the same whole body in every distinct part and particle of the Host as a reasonable Soul is wholly in every part of a Human body if so then the Body of Christ in the Sacrament hath a definitive ubication whereby all its parts are penetrated and so involved and implicated within each other that an Angel cannot cull out a particle of the Host how small soever it be and that no sense can perceive it but it contains all Christ And this Opinion they incline to A Third Question occurreth How long the Body of Christ together with the Soul the Divinity c. remain in the Consecrated Host There are various Answers to this Question but the common gives this Rule That as long as the natural Species of bread remains in the Host so long and no longer the Body of Christ is there present so that what alteration soever is made in the Host by
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
the regulating of their Consciences yet these Men though never so Heterogeneal in Dialect and National differences make but one complex or collection of the Popes Negotiators whose main scope and design is to maintain and improve the Prerogatives of their great Master by all the subtle arts and sedulous industry they are capable of What plausible Arguments do they use to persuade people that their Church cannot Err and the illiterate Vulgar greedily swallow this Bait which confirms them in their servitude and slavery and makes them prompt to submit to all the Prescripts of the See of Rome not regarding the arduity thereof And among other marks of the Popes greatness this of Infallibility is chief for upon this Link hangs immediately his Supremacy his Temporal pretended Power over Kings and Princes c. because these Titles are deduced from his being universal Pastor which the non-erring Councils have declared him to be so that the Councils Infallibility is the Root of those Prerogatives it is the main Pillar which supports the Magnificence and Greatness of the Church and Court of Rome and if this should fail that Superstructure would fall to utter Ruine and Desolation This therefore is the great Bulwark which dreads no opposition this is the main Fort that still remains immoveable against all attempts this is the Ship of St. Peter which though tossed and agitated upon the swelling Billows by Raging and Tempestuous Storms yet never sinks Well may there be some attempts upon the out-works by light Skirmishes and Velitations in Controversies of less moment which if by immediate Arguments they cannot repel recourse may still be had to the main Fort and if that begins to open upon the Enemy by Thundring Infallibility in his Ears Lord who can withstand it This will soon defeat him and dissipate all his attempts But upon what grounds doth the Church of Rome arrogate to it self this high Character First Proof in exclusion of all others Why this is drawn from an irrefragable Testimony it being grounded on the Promises of Christ himself for this is the Church to whom Christ hath promised That the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it This is the Church to whom Christ's word is engaged to send it another Paraclite the Spirit of Truth that should lead it into all Truth This is the Church to whom Christ said I will be with you till the end of the World And finally this is the Church committed to the care of St. Peter first Pope thereof to whom Christ said Thy Faith shall never fail which is meant of all other Popes that by a lineal descent succeed him And who dare attempt to evacuate Christ's Promises Hence it comes to pass that the Bishops and Fathers assembled in a general Council though of themselves weak and subject to Error yet being the chief Members of the Church for Doctrine and Dignity and being the Representative of the whole are render'd Infallible as being backt by Divine Authority by virtue of Christ's Promise they do not now determine matters of Faith and dogmatical points as meer Men but are as it were Deifi'd in order to this Function by a supernatural quality infused into them and inherent in their Intellects or else by a previous disposition and concomitant operation of the Holy Ghost which determines them to Truth and protects them from Error They are but the Organ to deliver Truth but the Divine Oracle is the Dictator they are but the instruments which convey those Mysteries to the knowledge of Mankind but the Spirit of God is the principal Agent so that thâ—â— Canons and Decrees come from them full fraught with the Divinity which renders them Infallibly certain for the Holy Ghost every Session attends the motion of those great Men to regulate all their Proceedings by the never erring Rule of his infinite Veracity whence it ensues that to pick quarrels with their Definitions is a high Temerity it is to wage War with Heaven or by the weak scrutiny of humane discourse to examine the truth of such Mysteries as Heaven hath revealed which if they should contain any seeming Error or Contradiction yet our understanding must adhere to them as infallibly true because our Reason is guided only by obscure Notions and abstractive Acts which draws in foreign Species by the mediation of the Senses which give but a glimmering light to the Understanding and often suggest Falsity for Truth but the Decrees of Councils are sacred and carry the Seal of the Holy Spirit enstampt upon them by whose directions they are framed wherefore it is no less than a Sacrilegious Presumption to Question the Truth of them for this is to oppose Human Reason against Divine Authority This is the substance of their first Proof drawn from the Authority of Scripture which at first appearance seems great and glorious a specious pretence to work upon the credulity of the ignorant Vulgar The second Proof is grounded in Reason but before we propose it we must open the way by putting the Reader in mind that the Divine Word the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity considering the deplorable condition of Mankind by the Fall of Adam resolved upon an efficacious Remedy to assume Human Nature and by an Hypostatical Union to be Phisically United and become on with Flesh and Bloud and in that Nature to suffer death and thereby to offer to his Eternal Father an infinite Treasure of Merits and Satisfaction to make an attonement between God and Man and to satisfie for Mans transgressions even to the rigor of Justice because the satisfaction was made in the same specifical nature that offended and it was made to the full equality of the Crime because the Meritorious Cause thereof was a Divine Person of infinite Dignity and therefore his Actions were of infinite Worth But because it was not permitted to every individual Person to draw from that infinite Mass of Satisfaction and Merit in what measure he pleased this priviledge being reserved for the Pope alone to grant out of this stock by his Indulgences what quantity and to whom he deemed expedient therefore a Church must be ordained and a method prescribed how to apply the benefit of Christ's Passion to each one in particular To this end our great Redeemer instituted Sacraments to be the organs and vehicles to convey the Fruit of his Passion to the Receiver and this is secunda post naufragium tabula whence the Church of Rome saith in her Publick Office O felix culpa quae talem meruit Redemptorem This being supposed The second Proof is grounded on this consideration that the principal design of our Redeemer was to draw Souls to Heaven notwithstanding the loss sustained by Original Sin for to this end he offered his satisfaction to this end he merited habitual and sanctifying Grace transient and actual Graces prevenient concomitant and subsequent Graces to illuminate the Understanding to move and incline the Will to embrace Good and
Worthy and Profound Dr. Edw. Stillingfleet Dean of Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty against Mr. Edw. Worsley a Learned Jesuite then residing at Antwerp who had formerly for many years together been a Reader of Divinity in the Jesuits Colledge at Liege where he Taught the whole Body of Divinity yet could never extricate himself out of this Labyrinth wherein Dr. Stillingfleet had involved him by this Argument to which I refer the Reader This Circle being therefore laid aside let us examine if the Scripture Independent of the Churches Definition bring with it this Infallibility or no. The Scripture is questionless of it self Infallible but it is not so to us for we have but a Moral certainty of the Infallibility of Scripture and that it is truly and à parte rei the Word of God The reason is because though we admit that what the Prophets and Apostles have left Written was truly dictated by the Holy Ghost yet they who drew Copies from those Originals wanted that support they were meer Men and carried their Humane Infirmities about them and in after ages as the Scripture was handed down to Posterity the Amanuenses by Ignorance Malice or Neglect might commit some Error either by excess by defect or by alteration whereby their Copies might disagree with the Originals of the first Hagiographers at least we have no Demonstration nor Revelation to assure us of the contrary and when Printing came in the same difficulty occurs in relation to them that Corrected the Print But when it was Translated into several Languages the difficulty is yet greater for beside the former casualties admit the Translator to be an exquisite Linguist yet the Sense of Scripture is so very nice that in his Translation he might innocently express what the Holy Ghost by the Original never meant Besides that only part of Scripture is admitted by both Churches as the Word of God which is Canonical And what Infallible Rule have we to know what part is Canonical what Apocryphal Again in that part that is received as Canonical there are so many high Mysteries some seeming contradictions not pervious to the Natural capacity of Mans understanding to reconcile the several senses thereof are so various some passages are to be understood Literally some Morally others Allegorically some others Tropologically or Figuratively How many Volumes have been Written by the Learned in both Churches to interpret the meaning and true sense of Scripture and in some places with Contradictions and Oppositions to each other yet after all we fall short of any Infallible Certainty herein for instance there have been above Fifty several Senses given by Interpreters of that short Sentence Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body And one Verse in the Psalms hath puzled the Learnedst of them all viz. Increpa feras arundinis Psal 68. v. 30. congregatio taurorum in vaccis populorum ut excludant eos qui probati sunt argento in English thus Rebuke the wilde beasts of a Reed the congregation of Bulls in the Cowes of the people that they may exclude those that are tryed with silver Instances of this nature are frequent in Scripture Humane Tradition hath brought the Scripture down to these our times yet Humane Authority is not Infallible wherefore all these particulars being duly ponder'd Where will the Romanists find that assured Infallibility which they pretend to As for the Second Proof from the strength of Reason we admit Christ's Omnipotence Omniscience his infinite Prudence and Wisdom with all other his Divine Attributes we also grant that our Redeemers Intention of being Incarnate Suffering Death c. was to save the Souls of Men but this was to be consistent with and subordinate to that state wherein the Almighty by his infinite Wisdom and Providence had placed Man in his first Creation that is with a full possession and use of his Liberty and Free-will which our Redeemer never intended to infringe for that would subvert the Order of Gods former Providence So that by the Fruit of Christ's Passion we are furnished with all necessaries to live a godly and a righteous Life which without the Grace of Christ would not be in our power to do for bare Nature hath no proportion of it self to Merit ne quidem de congruo nor to any Supernatural Reward as St. Augustine Teacheth against the Pelagians and Massilienses so that the Supernatural Graces that we receive by Christ's Merits give us a power to do good and shun evil but impose no necessity upon us to lay hold of them and improve them to our own good for this depends upon our own free election therefore when we transgress against Gods Precepts it is not for want of all necessary means to observe them but it proceeds from the Pravity of our own Wills which chuse rather to follow the suggestion of the sensual appetite than submit to the conduct of Reason and therefore are blameworthy for we had the power to do good and avoid evil and would not So that although of our selves we can do nothing in order to heaven yet every individual Member of the Church by the Grace obtained by Christ's Passion is enabled but not necessitated to save his Soul Non ego sed gratia Dei mecum It is not I but the Grace of God with me And if the Church should fall into an Error as the Church of Rome hath done the members thereof are not thereby deprived of the usual Means of Salvation neither doth that Error prejudice them as long as they remain in an invincible Ignorance of the Truth But if the Church by multiplying error upon error should fall from being a Church which could not be but that the wisest and most learned should take notice thereof and detect the errors then these are bound in conscience to desert it and detest their errors who consequently would remain constant and faithful to truth and so would continue the True Church And indeed the Second Proof proposed in the Second Section proves too much and is to be solved by the Romanists themselves for they Assert that the end of Christ's Suffering was to save all Mankind that is every single person of Humane Nature and therefore apt and proportionable means ought to be instituted without which this end could not be efficaciously obtained whence it ensues that every individual person must have this Infallibility yea and impeccability also lest Christ's design should be frustrated which is the same way of Arguing as is contained in that Proof and the illation as evidently ensues which notwithstanding we all grant false and erroneous for then none could be damned Thus you see the grounds of the Romans Infallibility how specious and convincing soever they appear yet thoroughly examined and the fallacies detected they vanish to smoak The Third Proof That Church which hath committed Errors and still perseveres in them is not Infallible But the Church of Rome hath committed errors and still
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
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
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
Wine hath fed Five Thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes where he either Converted the Ayre into Bread and Fish or else replicated the Loaves and Fishes and so put them in several places at once And by the Power of God's Omnipotence Aaron's Rod was turned into a Serpent Why then should we refuse our Assent to his turning Bread into his Body The Answer We do not at all Question the Power of the Omnipotent who can work greater Wonders then these nay the Creation of this Globe of the Universe which he produced out of nothing was a greater Proof of God's Omnipotence but we deny the thing of Fact that Christ hath actually changed Bread into his Body which we have no ground to Believe and as our Opponents defend it we conceive it impossible Another Objection may be taken from the Autority of the Fathers whereof some seem to affirm others to deny But their Opinions make no Articles of Faith and though we reverence their Autority yet we deem it not expedient in this place to scan the drift of their respective sayings Only this in General Their usual expressions of this Sacrament are That it contains the Symbole the Figure the Type the Antitype the Resemblance the Sign the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ which certainly must stand in opposition with the Real Presence of the thing it self Dispute V. Of the Reall Presence The Preface HAving Treated of Transubstantiation which imports a real Conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ I now come to Institute a Discourse of the Real Presence For though a Conversion of that nature by force of the words of Consecration which should verifie the same words in a literal sense be wholly impossible as hath been proved yet I do not deny but that in the Treasury of Gods Omnipotency there is contained a Power to Constitute the Body of Christ Really Present in the Sacrament praescinding from the manner how it is done which if it be by a Conversion it would invert the Order of Nature in a high degree and multiply a prodigious number of Miracles without necessity But in this Discourse I shall only inquire into the Matter of Fact whether the Body of Christ be Really Present in the Eucharist or not and not at all examine the manner how it is there and so proceed equally againct Transubstantiation Consubstantiation and Impanation For I take Companation to be the same with Consubstantiation And by the Real Presence I understand a Real Actual and Local Existence whereby the Body of Christ is locally present not only in Heaven but also in the Eucharist the same time as the Church of Rome Teacheth waving any other peculiar presence besides this that the Body of Christ may have in this Sacrament for my present design is only to examine the truth of that Assertion which affirms the Body of Christ to be Properly Really Physically and Locally Present in the Eucharist by a Homogeneal ubi with the Consecrated Host whether this ubi be Circumscriptive or Definitive SECT I. The Church of Rome's Definitions concerning the Real Presence IN these later Centuries from Christ various Questions and Difficulties have been agitated concerning the Eucharist wherein both contending parts might prudently have spared themselves the trouble of raising such contests no way beneficial to a Christian Life nor necessary to Salvation As First Whether the same Body of Christ which is in Heaven be Truely and Really or only Virtually and Figuratively present in the Sacrament What need so Hot a Debate of this Question to perplex the Minds of the Well-meaning Vulgar who might as soon obtain Heaven by their Implicit Faith as after so long a protracted Contention with such Heate and Animosity on both sides in order to the decision of this Question which notwithstanding neither is nor ever will be determin'd so as both Parties will Acquiesce For supposing the Body of Christ to be only Virtually and Figuratively present yet by its being there in Virtute there are as many degrees of Grace both Habitual and Actual produced in the Soul of the Faithful and Worthy Receiver as if it were Really and Corporally present there are the same Spiritual Benefits and Emoluments to advance its progress in Vertue and its tendency towards Eternity in both cases For as in Baptisme the Lotion which is duly applyed by the Baptizer according to Christ's Institution Sanctifies the Soul of the Baptized expels Original Sin and gives him a Right to the Inheritance of Glory and yet the remote Matter still remains a meer Natural Element of Water as it was before and the Immediate Matter which is the Application of that Water to the Baptized is of it self a pure Natural Action though by Vertue of Christ's Institution these Natural things acquire a Power to produce such Supernatural effects as pure Nature cannot pretend to So likewise in the Eucharist the Natural substances of Bread and Wine have the same capacity of being elevated to a Sacrament by Christ's Ordination and consequently of being instrumental to produce those Spiritual effects which by Divine Institution are annexed to the due receiving of this Sacrament as well as the Natural Element of Water for whether the Body of Christ be really present or not yet certain it is that he is there by his Vertue by his Divinity and by his Omnipotency and will as assuredly confer upon the worthy Receiver those Spiritual Guifts which he hath promised as if he were in verity and reality present by his Body Notwithstanding the Church of Rome tenaciously asserts the Real Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament and hath raised it to an Article of Divine Faith Fulminating an Anathema against all those who shall deny it So the Council of Trent Si quis negaverit Trident. Sess 1.3 Can. 1. in Sanctissimae Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem unà cum anima Divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodò esse in co ut in signo vel sigura aut virtute Anathema sit This definition is consonant to the Canons and Decrees of other Councils and diverse Texts of the canon Law As Concil Constant. 2. Lateran Con. c. C. Panis de consecrat D. 2. C. Cum Marthae de celebrat Miss c. So that they have made it an Article of Faith and thrown their Curse upon all that shall deny it and yet many Thousands there are among the ignorant Vulgar of both Sexes who after this definition cannot give an account of the difference between the Real Virtual and Figurative being of Christ's Body in this Sacrament and so must still have recourse to their Implicit Faith as much as if there were no such definition And how much this Belief of the Real Presence conduceth to Salvation I leave to the judgment of the impartial Reader supposing what
conformity to such and so many irregular Pardons as they ought to believe These and many other such inconveniences are the products of multiplying so many new Articles of Faith these are the fatal consequences that thence ensue And if you consult your Reason to suggest to you what benefit is hence expected or what Motives might induce them to impose so hard a taske upon the Believers I know none but a strong propension in the Authors to carry all things on with a strong hand to make their Empire known and to Lord it over the Flock of Christ But it may be Objected That the Illiterate shall not need to perplex themselves for they have a sure refuge to their Implicite Faith by believing what the Church believeth First I Answer That this is a very deordinate and irregular point of Doctrine to Teach them to regulate their Implicite Faith by the Belief of the Church of Rome as if this were a surer Rule to walk by then the Doctrine the Practice the Ordination and Institution of Christ himself How hot doth this smell of Blasphemy to put ignorant Souls upon such a preposterous way of Faith as to prefer the Belief of the Church of Rome before the Institution of Christ whereby the Faith of the Church ought to be originally regulated Secondly I Answer If any Implicite Faith be sufficient after the definition then the explicite declaration of so many Articles availeth nothing for the very same Implicite Faith that was sufficient before the definition is sufficient after then the Councils labor in vain or rather not in vain for though their numerous definitions produce no good effect yet they have an ample power in producing bad effects as hath been declared And thus far I go with them that in matters of Divine Faith an implicite in most cases is sufficient to Salvation provided it have a reference to that never erring Rule of Christ's Doctrine and Institution and What Romanist dares deny this For I considently assert That an Implicite Faith regulated by the belief of the Church of Rome is not sufficient to Salvation for this Church hath erred and may erre again as is in this Treatise sufficiently declared and proved But to shew yet more groundedly That the multiplying of so many Articles of Faith are wholly useless and pernicious let any rational person consider what strange wonders the Supreme Creator of all things hath wrought to bring about this great Work of Mans Redemption The Divine Word took Humane Nature upon him God became Man and a◠Man suffer'd great indignities and opposition and at last suffer'd death upon a Cross What was all this for but in order to the Redemption o◠Mankind And after all this he settled his Church Instituted Sacraments and Ordained what he deemed necessary to accomplish his final end I◠it then credible that having accomplisht all other means necessary to this end he should at last be deficient in the application of those means which would render them all useless Had he no care of his Church no◠Providence for it in future Ages What need is there then of so many new Articles of Faith Christ had 〈◊〉 perfect prospect and a full comprehension of his Church and all circumstances belonging to it for all particular times and ages and wanted n◠power to provide for it in the bes◠manner How then is it possible tha◠any person indued with Reason can conceive that this Omniscient Omnipotent and Infinitely Wise and Provident God should be deficient in a work of this Nature that he should leave this great work of our Redemption imperfect that he should fail in the compleat accomplishment of his Master-piece especially considering that he could with ease provide tunc pro nunc he could then have provided for all future events whensoever they should happen And it is as impossible that he should leave any defects in a design of so high a nature to be corrected or supplyed by meer Men that carry their human frailty and imperfections about them for by this means such Men would be concauses in the work of our Redemption and yet Christianity never yet acknowledged any Redeemer but one Wherefore it is a high presumption to attempt to compleat or perfect Christ's work or to supply the defects which we falsely suppose he hath left in it Nothing is more repugnant to Reason and nothing more derogates from the infinite Attributes and high Prerogatives of our Great Redeemer Whence I conclude with this Dilemma Either Christ Instituted all things necessary to Salvation or he did not If not What then became of all the Primitive Christians for Eight Hundred years together after Christ for in their time none of those new Doctrines which are now defined were yet started Would Christ permit so many Millions that were all Members of his Church to perish for want of necessary means to Salvation This would reflect upon the Author of Life and make him a Deluder They must therefore acknowledge That Christ did Institute in his Church all things necessary to Salvation If so Then what necessity is there of so many new definitions which only serve to pester and incumber Mens Minds because forsooth Eternal Damnation must be the reward of them that deny any one of them yea or so much as doubt of the Truth of any them SECT IV. The Objections Solved THe First Objection According to the Principles of this Discourse all Councils would be useless or rather pernicious for the main design of Councils is to decide such doubts as are promiscuously discussed among the multitude of whom without the Authority of a Council none have power to give a final determination and therefore Councils have been always in use there was a Council in the Apostles time there were several Councils in the Primitive Church So that this Doctrine wholly swerves from Reason and Antiquity The First Answer I am no Enemy of Councils but on the contrary conceive them of great use and sometimes necessary for the right Administration of the Church for certainly many great and good effects depend upon them when they take their measures right and truly conceive how far the limits of their power and autority extend But if Councils transgress their bounds and submit Christ's Actions to their scrutiny and therein presume to add or diminish to alter or change to correct or amend any of Christ's Ordinances or Institutions and so intrench upon jus Divinum which is above their sphere and in effect to cry out in coelum conscendam similis ero Altissimo this is a pernicious abuse of their autority wherefore The Second Answer is That when Vertue begins to decline and Vice to abound when the Clergy grows dissolute and the Laity stubborn and refractory against their Spiritual Leaders and Pastors when the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and the Primitive Christians is not fully upheld in its Original Purity but begins to be offuscated and to lose its efficacy by Innovations
and in many other cases of like nature then are Councils both profitable and necessary as a Physitian is to a sick Patient then ought they by their opportune Remedies to salve the Sores to make up the breaches to reforme the abuses and to redintegrate the whole body of the Church and purge the Wheate from the Cockle and Darnel which by the depraved will of Man and the suggestion of Sathan began to take root But if Councils should spend their endeavors in debating certain abstruse and hidden Mysteries and frame Articles of Divine Faith upon them without any warrant in Scripture or Antiquity nay against the Original Belief of the Church and by their annexed Anathema's drive Men to confusion and desperation and yet reap no benefit thereby for it neither promotes Vertue nor curbs Vice nor any way conduceth to the institution of a Moral and Christian Life but on the contrary it puts Mens Consciences upon the Rack it disturbs the peace and quiet of their Minds it hinders their due application to Vertue and Morality it perplexes their Souls with Scruples and disposeth them to despair In this case I appeal to the Judgment of the whole World Whether the multiplying of such decisions be not fruitless and pernicious To what is added in the Objection I grant that Councils have been always in use not to decide such speculative points of Divinity and reduce them to Articles of Faith but to solve practical doubts which may arise among the vulgar concerning their practise and manners c. which may be instrumental to facilitate their progress towards Heaven but as for Divine Faith it ought to be said to them as St. Paul said to the Galatians That if an Angel should come from Heaven and Teach them otherwise then they had been Taught by Christ and his Apostles they ought not to believe him but let him be Accursed saith the Apostle Gal. 1.8 9. The Second Objection We are Taught by experience that several Heresiarchs have often attempted to make a breach in the Church by their new Heterodox Doctrine and the most efficacious remedy in the Church to prevent such inconveniences is to Anathematize the Authors and condemn their Errors as Heretical which hath been alwayes practised in the Church with good success for the extirpating of Heresie and establishing Orthodox Doctrine To this Objection I Answer First That when the Definitions of Councils are grounded in Scripture in the Doctrine and Practise of Christ and his Apostles or otherwise by true Revelations made manifest to be of Divine Autority such definitions are warrantable and useful to extinguish Heresie but nothing of all this will quadrate with the forecited definitions of the Church of Rome which are no way proved by Autority nor Reason nay rather they are repugnant to both yet are obtruded to the Credulous Believers under a Curse to be by them received by a blind assent without examining the truth of them Secondly I Answer That the most apposite and efficacious way to suppress Heresie is to evince the Error of it by solid and convincing Arguments drawn from Divine Autority or evident Principles of Reason These are the Armes with which the Antient Fathers wag'd War against the respective Heresies of their times So St. Ambrose with his Preaching and solid Principles drew the great St. Augustine from his Heresie to imbrace the Orthodox Doctrine of Christianity and the same Augustine being fully convinced thereof with no less industry and zeal then learning efficaciously refelled the Errors of the Manichaeans the Pellagians the Massilienses the Donatists c. he alledged not the Autority of Councils but convinced the Broachers and Abetters of those Errors with solid Arguments whereby he detected the Fallacy of their irregular Tenets And so by Divine Autority and strength of Reason refelled their illegal Assertions The Reason of this proceeding is manifest for the first Authors of such Erroneous Doctrines and they who greedily give their assent to them make it their business to maintain them against all opposition and glory in their undertakings hugging their Errors as the happy products of their own understanding whence they so tenaciously adhere to them that no Curse nor Censure can make any impression upon them If you cite the Definitions of Councils against them they alledge their Reasons against you and Challenge you to Solve them How earnestly did Nestorius insist upon the Force of his Argument to prove two Persons in Christ And the whole stress of his Proofe he reduced to this one Sillogisme Omnis Natura Rationalis Completa est Persona sed in Christo sunt duae Rationales Naturae completae ergo duae Personae In English thus All Compleat Rational Natures are Persons but in Christ there are two compleat Rational Natures ergo in Christ there are two Persons With this Argument Nestorius perplext the Fathers whereof none durst deny either of the Premises and yet the Conclusion was Erroneous And certainly Nestorius would have slighted any definition of a Council against his Assertion without solving his Argument Wherefore the most efficacious way to Refute an Heretick is to Instruct his Reason and Convince his Judgment that his Principles are Erroneous to this end Arguments are to be drawn from Scripture and Divine Autority seconded by cleer and evident Reason and from these two Premises you may infer a conclusion contradictory to the Error And hereby you encrease the Authors Adhesion to his Error for there are none so obstinate as to deny that which is establisht by known Divine Autority and Evident Reason SECT V. When and from whom this Doctrine of the Real Presence took its first rise ALl Dogmatical Assertions which are pretended to be matters of Divine Faith if they be so it s rigorously necessary that they be backt by Divine Autority and therefore must be traced immediately from Christ himself or else attested by those Hagyographers the old Prophets Apostles c. who were immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost and so could not erre by whose Mediation it must ultimate be resolved into Divine Autority The reason hereof is because all acts of Divine Faith consist essentially of two parts the Material and the Formal Object the Material Object is the thing believed the Formal Object is dictio Dei Gods saying it which is the only motive that induceth us to believe it as Divine Faith And herein Faith differs from Science and Opinion because Science though invested with certainty yet derives it from the evidence of Human Reason which is inductive to the assent Opinion hath neither certainty nor evidence but a meer probability grounded on a weak foundation of Reason cum formidine partis oppositae it is always accompanyed with an ambiguity either formal or virtual that the contrary may be true But Faith if it be Divine relyes upon Divine Autority if Human on Human Authority For instance we believe that the Divine Word is Incarnate because God hath assured it this is an