Council determines what contracts shall be Sacraments and what shall not the Council determines to what contracts Grace shall be affixt and to what not which is all that Institution imports for they would have Christ to take his measures from them and would impose a Law upon the Will of God to accommodate himself to their will they order all and the Word Incarnate must regulate himself accordingly which makes them the principal Instituters and Christ only the Instrumental Which is too great an indignity and detracts very much from the perfection of Christ's Institution For I demand What reason can be alleag'd Why Christ could not or would not determine all this himself He had a perfect comprehension of all that concern'd his Church which the Council had not neither can they deny but that Christ was the Principal nay the only Instituter of Sacraments Who then can deny but that Christ by an Irrevocable Decree determin'd all things relating to the Sacraments independant of the Council of Trent many Ages before this Instituting Decree was framed But an Error once committed per fas nefas must be maintained I might here annex an Account of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in some others of their pretended Sacraments for whereas the Order of Subdeaconship was ever conferr'd in the Primitive Church by the Imposition of Hands this is now wholly omitted and in lieu thereof they have Instituted the Tradition of an empty Chalice and an empty Pattene to the Ordained which argues a total change So likewise in Consirmation the Apostles and their Successors ever Confirmed by the Imposition of Hands without any Unction but now without the application of Chrisme they deem Confirmation invalid and the Forme would be false which is this Signo te signo crucis Confirmo te Chrismate salutis In nomine c. I Sign thee with the Sign of the Cross and Confirm thee with the Chrisme of health In the Name c. But this I leave to others consideration for enough hath been already said to my designed end Dispute III. Of Communion in One Kind The Preface ALL Humane Laws though never so well Constituted are liable to be subverted either by the change of circumstances or by the capricious humors of Governors How happy were the Lacedemonians as long as they were govern'd by those wholsome Laws which Lycurgus had established amongst them but when those Laws were gradually repealed or per non usum antiquated then their Commonwealth began to be ruinous and tended to destruction But Divine Laws ought to be Sacred as being framed by an irrefragable Autority whose Legislator is omniscient neither hath his wisdom and prudence any bounds who knows and foresees all future changes and circumstances as perfectly as if they were present and whose infinite providence is best skilled in fencing against all adverse accidents that may happen and yet these Laws also must undergo the Test of Human Policy and suffer change and Reformation Our Great Redeemer furnished his Church with such Laws as he thought most convenient obliging all Christians to receive those Sacred Rites of his Body and Blood in both Kinds yet in process of time the Church of Rome upon some pretended inconveniences hath alter'd that Law and denyes the Laytie the use of the Chalice but whether groundedly or illegally is the drift of this Disputation to Examine SECT I. The Grounds of the Church of Rome for denying the Chalice to the Laity THat Pure and Soveraign Doctrine which was Taught and Practised by Christ himself attained its Original Purity for the space of many Centuries after Christ and his Apostles during which time the Sacrament of the Eucharist was Administred to the faithful Receivers under both Kinds but the continuance of it drew it insensibly more remote from its Origine and so exposed it to the danger of being Adulterated for the Romanists pretend that it was observed that when the Communicants lips were separated from the Chalice some small particles of the Consecrated Species fell from the Chalice which it was not possible to prevent or to collect the Particles so dispersed wherefore another expedient was instituted that they who presented themselves to participate of those Sacred Mysteries should suck the Consecrated Species out of the Chalice by a Silver Quil fitly adapted and prepared for that purpose yet all in vain for this also was found liable to the same inconvenience wherefore finding no remedy for so great a difficulty it was at last resolved That none of the Seculars nor the Clergy except such as were Priests should receive the Blood under the Species of Wine So the Council of Trent Trid. Sess 21. C. 2. Quarè agnoscens Sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in Administratione Sacramentorum Auctoritatem licet ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimè jam mutata illa consuetudine gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendam decrevit quam reprobare aut fine ipsius Ecclesiae Auctoritate pro libito mutare non licet And then layes a Curse upon those that should not submit to this Doctrine in these words Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis rationibus adductam fuisse ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret aut in eo errasse Sess 22. Can. 2. Anathema sit The First Reason Because it was a great irreverence and a high Contempt of the Sacred Blood of Christ which was the price of our Redemption to see it fall to the ground and trampled under foot by those who receive so great a benefit by it and whereunto they stand indebted for the Graces they receive here and the hope of Glory hereafter wherefore the high Veneration and Adoration which we owe to the Incarnate Word present in this Sacrament ought to preponderate all other Considerations which certainly our Redeemer expects from us The Second Reason Because whosoever receives the Holy Eucharist under the Species of Bread only receives all Christ as well the Blood as the Body together with the Divine Word and all the Sacred Trinity for though ex vi verborum by the words of Consecration only the Body of Christ be Sacramentally Constituted under the Species of Bread yet per concomitantiam by a necessary Connexion of the parts of Christ with each other the Blood of Christ the Soul c. are all rendred present under the Species of Bread so that if this Sacrament be once Administred under the Species of Bread it were a needless repetition to administer the same under the Species of Wine for this were no other then to Administer to the same person one and the self-same thing twice without addition or diminution which would not be available to the Receiver The Third Reason
have a strict dependance on the first Matter as their proper Subject and on several qualities and accidents as their Natural disposition so that if their Matter should be Annihilated or their disposition destroyed by the Law of Nature they could not subsist though many of them Teach that the Heavens Planets and Fixt Stars admit of no such Composition but are Compleat yea simple substantial Bodies which cannot be dissolved but only into Integral and Homogeneal parts Thirdly They Assert That though according to Nature the same Individual Body cannot be in more then one place at the same time yet that by Divine Power one and the same Body may be collocated in several and distinct places the same moment of time how distant and remote soever these places are the one from the other Which is far different from the Manner how the Soul of Man exists in the Body for though the same Soul be at the same time in the head and in the foot and because it is a Spirit and hath no substantial nor integral parts it must of necessity be all in the head and all in the foot and other parts of the Body the same instant because it is indivisible yet in this Case the whole Body is but one adequate place of the Soul for if the head should be sever'd from the Body the Soul could not in that state of Separation be both in the head and the Body no not for one moment of time Fourthly They agree in the notion of Substantial Conversion that it is a Transmutation of one Substance into another which they distinguish into two Members the one is a partial or inadequate Conversion the other a total or adequate Commutation The first is common and proper to the present order of Nature for in all the Changes that we observe of several Substances destroy'd and others produc'd there never happens but a partial Conversion for example We see Wood or other Combustible Matter Converted into Fire the Form of Wood is destroyed but the Matter as being susceptible of any Form remains under the Forme of Fire that was before under that of Wood So that you see in all these Conversions one part is destroy'd but the other persists in being so in that which succeeds one part is newly produced but the other was extant before But in a total Conversion the precedent substance is wholly destroyed the Matter is Annihilated and the Forme Corrupted and the subsequent substance which succeeds in place of that which is destroyed both Matter and Forme is all Collocated under the same Collection of Accidents either by a new production or else by an adduction for if this substance into which the former was Converted were before extant then there needs only a new Ubication in the place where the Conversion is made without relinquishing its former Vbi or place where it was existent and so is now in two distinct places at once and this total Conversion can never be made without infringing the Laws of Nature for nothing in Nature can ever lay a disposition determining to the destruction of the first Matter which depends upon no dispositions but is produced by a Creative action independant of all things else And therefore its destruction exceeds the power of all Natural Causes Then the Constituting of a Body in two distinct and adequate places at once is not in the power of Nature as all grant Fifthly They grant That Quantity Qualities Dispositions and all other Accidents cannot naturally subsist without a Subject or Receptacle to support them and keep them in being for as Aristotle saith Accidens est ens in alio or entis ens it is ordained by Nature to be subservient to substance and so is not intended for it self but to dispose the substance to several Changes and Mutations upon which it hath consequently a strict dependance neither can it have any use in Nature without the Substance So that Accidents cannot remain without a Substance but by the Miraculous assistance of a Supernatural Power and where this intervenes they maintain that all Accidents except Moodes may be conserved in being without a Subject These several Points of Doctrine being premised they conclude That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the words of Consecration which are these Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body which are pronounced by the Priest assuming Christ's Person there is wrought a total substantial Conversion which they call Transubstantiation so that the whole substance of Bread both Matter and Forme is totally destroyed and the whole substance of Christ's Body is really placed there in lieu of the Bread which is really Converted into the Body of Christ yet so as that the Species of Bread which is the collection of Accidents that were before in the Bread keep their state of being though the Bread be destroyed and are Miraculously preserved without a Subject though they are Sacramentally united to the Body of Christ And though ex vi verborum only the Body of Christ be rendred present nothing else being signified by the words of Consecration nor requisite to verifie Concomitance and Connexion whereby all the parts of Christ are united with each other there is also put under the Species of Bread the Blood of Christ the Soul of Christ with the Natural Union between his Body and Soul the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union which Connects the Divine Word to the Humanity and consequently all the Sacred Trinity are all there really Existent under the Species of Bread which Species or Complex of Accidents were produced and conserved before the Bread was destroyed by an Action called Eduction that is a production dependant on another to wit the Substance of Bread to which they were the natural disposition but that substance being destroyed they are now conserved by another action which they terme Creation that is a production independant of all others By the Species of Bread they understand the Heat the Cold the Dryeth the Moysture the Quantity the Rarity the Density the Colour the Odour the Taste c. which were all appropriated to the Bread They also Affirm That these strange Wonders are wrought by the words of Consecration which are Instituted by Christ to this purpose and by their Obediential Power are elevated to effect what of themselves they are uncapable of the Divine Power Cooperating with them to accomplish this design so that these few words pronounced by a Priest who assumes Christ's Person and Officiates in his Name are not only representative but also practical they effect what they signifie and so reduce themselves to a Conformity with their Object which makes them true But it may be demanded In what Critical Moment of time this great Change is made For the words though few yet are pronounced by the Priest successively whence the doubt ariseth Whether this strange Conversision be made in the beginning the middle or the end of the words of Consecration To this they Answer
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
be contained in the Holy Sacrament in Verity or in Figure and concludes with these words Hitherto have we declared that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful be Figures And so terminates this First Question SECT VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question THe Second Question that was to be resolved by Retram or Bertram was this as he himself declares Whether the same Body that was Born of Mary that Suffered Dyed was Buried and sitteth on the Right hand of the Father be that Body which is daily received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament or no Ambr. L. 1 de Sacram. And first he discourseth out of St. Ambrose That the substance of the Creatures suffer no Mutation in these words For after the substance of the Creatures they be even the same things after the Consecration that they were before For before the Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after they appear to remain in the same kind still Where his Position is That the substance of the Creatures are the same after Consecration that they were before which he proves thus Before Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after Consecration they not only appear to remain but really do remain in the same kind still of Bread and Wine this must be the drift of his Argument for else it would not prove his intent Then having said That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in forme but in vertue he applauds a distinction of St. Ambrose How diligently and how wisely hath he made a distinction where be saith touching the flesh which was Crucisied and Buried this is the true Flesh of Christ but touching that which is received in the Sacrament he saith This is the Sacrament of the true Flesh so dividing the Sacrament of the Flesh from the very Flesh c. But he affirmeth the Mystery which is done in the Church to be the Sacrament of the very Flesh in which Christ Suffered instructing the Faithful that the Flesh in which Christ Suffered and was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but the very Natural Flesh but this Flesh which now containeth the Similitude of the very Flesh in Mystery is not Flesh in Kind nor in Forme but in Sacrament For in Kind it is Bread c. Hence he proceeds to the Autority of St. Hierome Hieron in Epistolam Pauli ad Eph. The Flesh and the Blood of Christ saith he St. Hierom are understood two manner of ways which he explicates the one Corporeally and the other Spiritually Therefore saith Bertram the Spiritual Flesh and the Spiritual Blood which are daily received of the Faithful do differ undoubtedly from the Flesh Crucified and the Blood shed as the Autority of this Doctor doth witness Much to this purpose he discourseth upon the Autority of St. Augustine Aug. in Evangelium Sancti Joan. distinguishing between the Spiritual Food and the Corporeal Food of the Fathers of the Old Law comparing them with us Where he affirms out of St. Augustine that their Spiritual Food was the same with ours the Body of Christ but the Corporeal Food was very different as much as the Manna the Cloud and the Sea differ from Bread and Wine Which he confirms by the Autority of St. Paul speaking of the Antient Fathers that were Baptised in Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and they all did eate the same Spiritual Meate and drank the same Spiritual Drink which he concludes to be Christ in a Figure as it is with us in the Sacrament where he saith Christ is in a certain manner and this manner is in Figure and Image Hence he draws this Illation Wherefore the Body and Blood that we now celebrate in the Church do differ from the Body and the Blood which are now known to be glorified by the Resurrection This Body is the Pledge and the Figure the other is the very Natural Body And presently he adds And as the Figure differeth from the verity thus it is plain that the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which is received of the Faithful in the Church differeth from the said Body that was Born of Mary the Virgin c. Then he cites St. Austin's words Preaching to the People of the Body and Blood of Christ. The thing which you see in the Altar of God saith St. Austin was seen of you the last night Aug. Serm. ad Populum but what it is or what it meaneth or of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament ye have not yet heard The thing which you see is Bread and Wine He then tells them That by Faith they ought to believe the Bread to be the Body and the Wine to be the Blood of Christ And then he makes them object that the Body of Christ that was Born of the Virgin c. with his Blood Ascended entirely into Heaven where he now is How then can this Bread be his Body and this Wine his Blood St. Austin Answers These good Brethren be called Sacraments because that one thing is seen in them and another thing understood that which is seen hath a Corporeal form and that which is not seen hath a Spiritual Fruit. Whereupon Bertram adds In these words this worshipful Author instructing us what we ought to think of the proper Body of the Lord that was Born of Mary c. Also what we ought to think of the Body set on the Altar whereof the People be partakers The very Body is whole and not divided with any Section neither cover'd with any Figures but this Body set on the Table of the Lord is a Figure because it is a Sacrament And again Therefore St. Austin hath Taught us that as the Body of Christ is signified in the Bread which is on the Altar so is the Body of the People that receive it Then Addressing his Discoure to the Emperor he saith Your Wisdom most excellent Prince may perceive that I have proved by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup called his Blood is a Figure because it is a Mystery And that there is no small difference between the Mystical Body and the Body that Suffered was Buried and Rose again for this which suffered is the proper Body of our Saviour neither in it is any Figure or Signification but the manifest action of the thing it self c. And thus he concludes his Answer to the Emperor insisting all along upon this Truth That in this Holy Sacrament is contained the same Bread and Wine that was before which are called the Body and Blood of Christ because they Mystically and Figuratively signifie the same and are Received by the Faithful by way of Commemoration of Christ's Passion and by vertue of Christ's Institution they
Because by the words of Christ our Redeemer Eternal Life is annexed to the Receiving of his Body under the Species of Bread only If any Man eate of this Bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 51. and again He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Vers 58. Where no mention is made of Receiving under the Species of Wine and yet Eternal life is promised to him that eateth of this Bread therefore to Receive Christ under the Species of Wine is not necessary to Salvation not necessitate medii because the Bread alone is sufficient as appears by the words of Christ Nor Necessitate praecepti because no such Precept is extant and if there were then the eating of the Bread alone would not be sufficient to Salvation which Christ himself affirms to be sufficient The Fourth Reason Because it hath ever been the practice of the Church since the Apostles time to Administer the Communion under the Species of Bread only to those that were infirm and reduced to imminent danger of death for to these the Sacrament was usually carryed under one Species only so likewise in Armies before a Battel was to be fought the Sacrament was commonly Administred to them only in one kind neither is it to be presumed that the Church in its greatest purity would not only countenance men to transgress against Christ's Precept but be Instrumental also themselves to the violating of his Commands whence it follows That Christ laid no such Precept upon his Church nor the Members thereof The Fifth Reason Because in the Apostles time one Species was in use according to the opinion of diverse of the Fathers who hold that Christ gave the Communion in one kind to the two Disciples that were with him at Emaus So Augustin Hierom Chrysostom and Theophylact. Others say That the meaning of that place And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers is of this Sacrament Acts 2. v. 42. As also that And upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break Bread c. Acts 20. v. 7. Where by breaking of Bread they understand the Receiving of the Sacrament These Texts and the Reasons above mentioned we shall examine when we come to the Solution of their Objections SECT II. The Decision of this Controversie IN order to the Resolution of this Question a threefold Precept is here to be distinguish'd There is a Positive a Negative and a Mixt Precept The first is a Command of Practice for some positive action is to be exercised for the fulfilling of a Positive Precept As by the Fifth Precept of the Decalogue we are obliged to render that honor and respect which is due to our Parents which we cannot fulfil meerly by abstaining from actions of disrespect and contempt but by Positive actions of Honor and Duty though there is no obligation incumbent upon us to be always in exercise of these actions but only when occasion requires A Negative Precept commands us to abstain from doing some positive thing which is prohibited and if the action forbidden be intrinsecally ill then the doing of it is prohibitum quia malum if the action of it self be indifferent then to do it is malum quia prohibitum This Negative Precept layes a never interrupted obligation upon us to observe it as in the Sixth Commandment by which we are obliged to do no Murther the meaning is that an act of Murther is not to be permitted neither this time nor that time nor any other time whatsoever neither upon this person nor that person nor any other person whatsoever which is to be understood universally and by a compleat distribution And herein a Negative Precept differs from a Positive A Mixt Precept includes both the former of two different objects as the first Precept obligeth us to acknowledg God and not to acknowledge any thing else for God And in this is grounded that division of sins into sins of Omission and Commission This being supposed The First Assertion is That the Ordinance of the Church of Rome never to Administer the Communion to the Laity in both Kinds is manifestly against Christ's Precept For Proof hereof I shall insist upon that saying of our Saviour Amen Amen I say unto you except you eate the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you John 6. v. 53. where those words Amen Amen express the greatest asseveration that our Great Redeemer ever used and this adds more force and energie to the subsequent Precept The words cited contain a severe Commination of depriving us of eternal Salvation except we eate his Flesh and drink his Blood which by the confession of our Opponents includes a Precept though they deny that it extends to Communion under both Kinds Let us now examine what falls immediately under this Precept None but a Creature indued with liberty and reason is capable of a Precept for iâ— it be positive it injoyns the exercise of some free action regulated by Reason since necessaries cannot fall under any Precept If it be Negative it commands the avoiding of some positive action which is in the power of Free-will to exercise or not to exercise we have here a positive Precept which injoyns all Christians to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man which affects immediately the free actions of Man of eating and drinking and in obliquo it determines the matter about which these free actions are to be exercised namely the Flesh and the Blood of the Son of Man This matter is not in the power of the Laity to procure at their pleasure but is to be tendred to them by the Priest which done then it is in their free election to eate and drink or not to eate and drink wherefore these actions are that exercise which the Precept immediately obligeth them to Neither is it left to their choice how they are to receive this matter for as the Legislator determines the matter so likewise doth he determine the manner of receiving it he doth not say indesinitely or indeterminately except you take or receive this matter but explicitely plainly and distinctly Except you Eate the Flesh and Drink the Blood c. So that by this Precept they are ty'd up and determin'd to the very particular manner of doing it neither doth the Law-giver say Except you eate the flesh or drink the blood c. but Except you eate the Flesh and drink the Blood c. by a Copulative not a Disjunctive So that he who eateth the Flesh under the Species of Bread only though he fulfil the first part of the Precept yet he complyes not with the second part for though by eating the Flesh under the Species of Bread he receives the Blood also and all Christ yet he doth not drink the Blood which notwithstanding is as rigorously commanded as the first and in
materia circa quam the eating and drinking are materia quae this is the very thing that is commanded for they are the Human actions which are immediately under Precept the Body and Blood of Christ are the Matter about which these actions are verst for to fulfil this command it is not sufficient to eate and drink any thing but it is necessary to eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ it is not in the power of the Seculars to procure or Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ but when it is exhibited to them it is in their free election to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood which by this Precept they are obliged to As by the Fourth Command of the Decalogue we are injoyn'd to keep holy the Sabbath day that is to abstain from servile labor and to exercise acts of devotion but the Precept doth not determine what acts of devotion we shall in particular exercise for this is left to our free election either to hear Divine Service or hear the Word of God explained or to imploy our time in Spiritual Reading or in Prayer and Meditation c. here the alteration of the Circumstances hinders not the fulfilling of the Precept and therefore in this case the Argument proceeds rightly But our Case is far different wherein the Legislator determines us to particular actions and leaves it not in our election to change them or to omit either of them So he that takes the Body and Blood of Christ and doth not eate the one and drink the other fulfils not the Precept And this answers the Second Reason The Third Objection He that receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ and may be truly said to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ and so satisfies the Precept according to that of Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Potus esus ad eandem pertinent rationem I Answer That he who receives only under the Species of Bread though he receive the Blood as well as the Body yet cannot be said to drink the Blood under that Kind for that which is eaten is commonly solid and consistent but nothing can be taken by way of drinking except it be a sluid and a liquid matter wherefore to receive under the Species of Bread is not to drink the Blood of Christ except you grant that one may drink dry bread To the Authority of Cyprian I Answer That in the same Sermon he endeavours to prove the Evangelical Precept of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ by the same Text Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood c. where he hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Ibid. Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur whereby he expresly declares his sentiments to be coherent with ours In the words above cited he rather confirms then impugnes this Doctrine for he declares that eating and drinking belong both to this Sacrament which is the Spiritual refreshment of the Soul in the nature of one compleat Banquet which without Drinking would be imperfect and incompleat The Fourth Objection Admit the Hypothesis of a Precept to receive in both kinds yet to avoid the inconveniences before-mentioned the Superiors of the Church according to the prudential dictates of a right Government may and ought to frame an Epikeia by a grounded interpretation of the Will of the Law-giver that if he were present to be consulted herein he would declare his intention not to have his Law executed on such hard circumstances which excuses the Governours in denying the promiscuous use of the Chalice and exempts the Subjects from being transgressors First I Answer That upon the same ground they may also prohibit Communion under the species of Bread for the same difficulties are militant for this as well as for that as hath been proved Secondly I Answer That Divine Laws admit of no Epikeia nor interpretation of the Divine Will but when God commands Man must obey The reason is because we cannot suppose any defect in the Omniscience of the Divine understanding who perfectly penetrates all future events and circumstantial emergencies before they come to pass with as much infallible certainty as if they were then present so that here is no ground at all for the prudential dictates of humane Reason But humane Laws upon extraordinary accidents may admit of an Epikeia because the wisest Legislator among Men is supposed to be ignorant of future contingencies and yet such may happen wherein a rational Judgment not byassed by sinister Motives may deem it imprudence hic nunc to have the Law put in execution and therefore may rationally interpret the Will of the Law-giver to suspend the execution of the Law under such arduity But however such casualties may occur yet humane Laws suffer no detriment thereby for upon removal of such hard circumstances the Law revives and obliges to its observance as much as before How then can it be consonant to Reason that meer Men should not only suspend the execution of a Divine Law upon an incident occasion but prohibit the observance of it to all but Priests constantly and for perpetuity so that all but Priests are debarr'd from the observance of this Law for ever This is an attempt of a higher nature for hereby they endeavour to abrogate and repeal this Law as much as in them lies for ever which argues a bold and daring presumption very injurious to the Divine Conditor Legis The Fifth Objection is grounded in those sayings of Christ where he only mentions the Bread and promiseth Eternal Life to them that eat it John 6. as the Third Reason proposeth I Answer That in the same Chapter our Lord having distinctly explained his meaning more then once of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood thought it needless to repeat all the particulars as often as he mentioned this Sacrament so that the meaning of those Texts is he that eateth this Bread worthily and in the manner as I shall prescribe or as I have prescribed shall live eternally otherwise if the meer eating of that Bread were sufficient to Salvation then an unworthy Receiver might be sure of Eternal Life which illation all must reject And this answers the Third Reason The Sixth Objection is drawn from the practise of the Churh in its primitive and purest times which was to administer this Sacrament to those that were to fight a battle and to such as were in danger of death by infirmity in one kind only whence it ensues that both kinds are not necessary nor under precept which is the Fourth Reason I Answer That the precept which we insist upon being positive it doth not oblige to receive under both kinds toties quoties neither doth it determine how often we are to receive under both kinds but leaves this to the determination of the Church and the Piety and Devotion of the Receiver so that by Receiving some times in our Life or
so often every year under both kinds we fulfil the precept and that being done the receiving afterwards under one kind can be no violation of the precept it being an act of Devotion not prohibited but he that never receives under both kinds all his life time is a manifest transgressor And so the Fourth Reason is answered The Seventh Objection is in substance the same with the former only this induceth the authority of the Fathers upon the Texts cited in the Fifth Reason where by breaking Bread they understand this Sacrament I Answer That the Disciples in those times lived in common and gave up their Temporals into the common stock and took their refection in common so that their coming together to break Bread means their Meeting together to take their Corporal repast However the Receiving under one Kind upon particular occasions proves just nothing in order to this question because the Precept may at other times be fulfilled by receiving under both Kinds which the Fathers no way impugne But if you consult the Fathers you shall find many of them abetters of this Opinion Chrisostom speaking of the practise of the Old Law wherein it was not lawful for the people to participate of that part that was reserved for the Priest adds these words Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrisost Hom. 18. in poster Corinth Gelasius apud Gratian Cap. Comperimus de Consecrat dist 2. Gelatius Papa speaking of the Manachaeans saith thus Comperimus quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis Sacri portione à calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire And of the same Opinion is Leo Papa Leo. Serm. â—â—de Quadrages with others And this proves the Fifth Reason Inâ—â—â—eient SECT IV. Corallaries drawn from the Romanists Doctrine of their pretended Sacrifice of the Mass IT is the usual practise of our Antagonists when they apprehend any Dogmatical Point conducing to their intended design they cast about them and summon all the strength of Arguments they can muster up to establish that Principle But if the same Position in another occasion stand in their way and obstruct the evincing of some other Thesis then they with all sedulous industry apply themselves to depress and cry down the same Point which they had before so elaborately strived to make good As in this subject to make out the legality of their half Communion How do they endevor to devest the drinking of the Blood of all its Prerogatives and particular Graces peculiar to that kind alone as though it were superfluous and after receiving under the Species of Bread it were but actum agere to Administer the Chalice Yet when they treat of their Sacrifice of the Mass then the consummating of the Chalice is held in great veneration and esteemed to necessary that rather then omit it they must lay hold of any hard shift and have recourse to extremities for which no reason can be alleaged except they grant the Chalice its due and allow its efficacy and operation as proper to it self which in this Discourse we shall make plainly appear The approved notion of a Sacrifice is this Immutatio facta circa rem aliquam creatam in agnitionem Supremi Dominii It is a change made about some created thing in acknowledgment of the Supreme Dominion and according to this definition they infer the Mass to contain verum Council Trid. in profession sâ—â—â—i proprium propitiatorium Sacrificium as the Council of Trent declares A true proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice for in the Consecrating of the Bread and Wine there is a proper Conversion or Transmutation of the same into the Body and Blood of Christ and these are also consummated by the Sacrificater all which is performed by way of a Commemoration of that bloody Sacrifice whereby the Author of Life offer'd himself upon the Cross to his eternal Father as a Propitiation for the sins of Mankind Yet to compleat this unbloody Sacrifice it is not sufficient that the Priest do consummate the Hoast under the Species of Bread but it is also rigorously and indispensably necessary that he also consummate the Chalice under the Species of Wine and therefore in case a Priest after having Consecrated the Bread and Wine and Consummated the Hoast should by any sudden accident or indisposition of Body fall down at the Altar and be rendred wholly unable of Consummating the Chalice under the Species of Wine in this case they are to use all possible means suddenly to procure another Priest and if none could be found that are fasting yet rather then faile they must appoint one that is not fasting to Consummate the Chalice and yet without such an immergent necessity it is esteemed a heinous crime for any one to presume to receive this Sacrament except he be fasting the reason hereof is because the Sacrifice should not remain imperfect for the Offering up an incompleat Sacrifice to the Author of all Being is held a great abomination and a disrespect to God and therefore a less inconvenience must yield to a greater for ex duobus malis minus est eligendum This being so I now come to examine the ground of this indispensable necessity Why is the Consummating the Chalice so rigorously requir'd They Answer To compleat the Sacrifice I again demand What is wanting to the compleating the Sacrifice They Answer The Receiving under the Species of Wine which in this Sacrifice hath been Consecrated Here I must alledge their own Arguments which they so industriously urge to excuse their denying the Chalice to the Laity For say they he who receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ not only the Body but the Blood of Christ the Natural Union the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union and the whole Trinity therefore to receive again under the Species of Wine is superfluous it is actum agere he had all before and more he cannot have so that the second reception is but a bare repetition of the former without addition or diminution This Doctrine which is their own I apply to their Sacrifice When the Priest hath Consecrated in both Kinds and Consummated the Hoast I still press to know What is wanting to compleat their Sacrifice Nothing can be assign'd but the Consummating the Chalice But I Reply The Sacrificater hath already Received all Christ nothing excepted What would he have more for to Consummate the Chalice is but to receive the very same again it is but an unnecessary Repetition it is actum agere whereby nothing is received but what was received before and therefore if any thing be wanting to Compleat the Sacrifice it must be some Spiritual Benefit or Emolument that the Chalice brings with it In
c. What other thing is superficially looked upon but the substance of Wine VVhere he affirms the substance of Bread and VVine to remain in the Sacrament after Consesecration To this he subjoyns For notwithstanding that after the Mystical Consecration Bread is not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ yet after that which is seen neither is any kind of Flesh known in the Bread nor in the Wine any drop of Blood Before he told us that the Bread and VVine remained in the Sacrament after Consecration as they were before now he tells us That after Consecration there is not any kind of Flesh nor one drop of Blood though the Bread be not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ where he granteth the denomination of the Body and Blood of Christ but denyeth the verity and substance thereof for he acknowledgeth nothing but the Bread and VVine though they be not called so This in substance he often repeateth for after the verity saith he the kind of creature which was before is known still to remain VVhat more conspicuous Then addressing his Discourse to his Adversaries he tells them That under the veile of Corporeal Bread and Wine is the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ. So that the Bread and VVine remain Corporeally but the Body and Blood of Christ Spiritually by their vertue of Sanctification And then presently compares this Sacrament to Holy Baptisme wherein the natural Element of VVater which of it self hath only power to wash and cleanse the Body yet by Christ's Institution is impowered to cleanse and sanctifie the Soul and yet still remains the Natural Element of VVater subject to corruption and then applyes the VVater in Baptisme to the Bread and VVine in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Hence he proceeds to another similitude telling them That the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea which produced a Spiritual effect and yet suffered no Mutation This again he parallelleth to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Then he tells them Likewise Manna given to the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were Corporeal and Corporeally they fed the People and gave them drink yet the Apostle nameth that Manna and that Water Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and then he applyeth it to the Bread and Wine as before which takes off all ambiguity of his meaning for he drives at this that the Bread and VVine which remain in the Sacrament though Natural and Corporeal things yet by the powerful operation of Christ they are enabled to produce in the Souls of the worthy Receivers the same Spiritual Grace and Sanctification as if the Body and Blood of Christ were there really present and therefore the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ. He proceeds farther saying Here also we ought to consider what is meant by these words except you shall eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his Blood you shall have no life in you He said not That his Flesh which hanged on the Cross should be eaten in pieces and eaten of the Apostles nor that his Blood which he shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink for it were a wicked thing if his Flesh should be eaten and his Blood drunk as the Infidels took it And to confirm this he cites St. Augustine upon the same Text of Scripture Aug. de Dodr. Christ L. 3. of Christ's commands in these words He seemeth to command a wicked thing therefore it is a Figure c. Thus St. Augustine affirmeth the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ to be celebrated of the Faithful under a Figure for he saith It is no point of Religion but rather of Iniquity to take his Flesh and his Blood as they did which understood not Christ 's words Spiritually but Carnally and went back Then he gives many examples in other like cases to shew Why the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ because of the Similitude they have with the things Signified and so concludeth Wherefore the Mysteries be named the Body and Blood of Christ because they take the appellation of things whereof they be Sacraments Then he cites several passages out of St. Isidore to confirm the same Opinion of whom he saith Afterwards he declareth what Sacraments are to be Celebrated among the Faithful that is the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Body and Blood of Christ And here I desire the Reader to take notice by the way that for above Eight hundred years after Christ there were but these Two Sacraments acknowledged in the Church of Christ and consequently no more were Instituted by Christ himself Yet the Church of Rome hath introduced Five more which Antiquity never heard of under the notion of Sacraments Is it credible that Christ should Institute for his Church Seven Sacraments and yet communicate to the first Professors of Christianity and their Successors for Eight Centuries the knowledge only of Two of them This cannot be The other Five were therefore Instituted by the Church of Rome for the Council of Trent names Seven and makes it an Article of Faith to believe them all Sacraments and layes its Curse upon the Disbelievers Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis Trident. Sess 7. Can. 1. non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino Nostro Instituta aut esse plura vel paucior a quam septem videlicet Baptismum Consirmationem Eucharistiam Poenitentiam extremam Vnctionem Ordinem Matrimonium aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse vere propriè Sacramentum Anathema sit Which was formerly defin'd by the Council of Florence Florent Decr. Eugenii a Arm. under the same circumstances What judgment can we here frame Examine Antiquity for Eight or Nine hundred years after Christ that can give us no Intelligence of any more then Two Sacraments and yet the Church of Rome strictly commands the belief of Seven Certainly the Subjects of that Church must have recourse to their blind obedience to submit to such Canons and Decrees as these For if Christ did not Institute those Five pretended Sacraments as it is plain he did not then the Church of Rome must have attempted to institute them not by appointing the matter but by giving them the vertue of Sacraments which is highly presumptive and a manifest violation of Divine Right for none but Christ can ordain the means and the vehicles whereby he intended to convey his Spiritual Graces which were the fruits of his Passion to the Souls of the Faithful this is his peculiar Prerogative But this being a digression from the matter in hand I desist and leave it to the consideration of the Judicious Reader Bertram now draws to the close of his First Question Whether the Body and Blood of Christ
Church without examining particulars as the Council of Florence directs 'T is well that you have exempted the Ordainer from reprehension But then I must demand What intention the Church had in introducing this new Matter and Forme so explicitely and in express terms signifying the collation of Priestly Power to proced from hence and consequently the Character to be hereby imprinted for if these are not intended as Essentials then you have removed the siction from the Ordainer and attributed it to the Church so that the one or the other must be the Author of it but as to this present controversie it matters not which And indeed to solve all there is but one way which is to grant that the tradition of the Vessels and the Forme of Words thereunto annexed do Essentially confer the Order and imprint the Character The Third Proofe is made out by induction which to effect we must make a strict inquiry into all the parts contained in the Roman Ritual to deprehend if any one of them have any proportionable capacity in order to this effect The first imposition of hands can have none because there is no Form appropriated to it neither can a bare Matter without a Forme constitute the adequate Essence of a Sacrament The Second Imposition of â—ands though there be a Form accommodated to it yet it is neither Indicative or Enunciative nor Imperative but only Deprecatory which is not sufficient to satisfie the See of Rome But however as the Roman Ritual for Priesthood is disposed the Order of Priesthood can never proceed from hence except the touching of the Vessels with its Forme be wholly left out for in case Priesthood should be validly conferr'd by this Imposition of Hands and its Forme then the tendring the Vessels afterwards to him that is already Ordained with these words Accipe potestatem Take a power to offer Sacrifice c. would be a Sacrilegious and Fallacious attempt to Reordain him that was before validly Ordained and had the Character of Priesthood imprinted upon him and this would be constantly practised through the whole extent of the Church Besides this Doctrine is wholly destitute of Autority for there are few or no Divines that insist upon this What then remains only the Third Imposition of Hands which follows a long time after about the end of Mass with these words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis quorum retinueritis retenta sunt Receive the Holy Ghost they whose sins you forgive are forgiven and they whose sins you retain are retained This likewise hath no proportion to confer the Order of Priesthood First because it supposeth that Order already conferr'd for none but a Priest is sufficiently qualified to receive a Power of Relaxing and Retaining sins But in the Primitive Church this power was ever esteemed a branch of Presbytery necessarily resulting from the Validity of Ordination so that all Priests had the Radical Power of Absolving but they were not to practice it without a Deputation from their Bishop neither is it above Four hundred and Fifty years since this Forme was thrust into the Ritual and by reason of its novelty as not being instituted by Christ as Essential to the Ordination of Priesthood cannot participate of the nature of a Sacrament nor any way belong to the Essentials of Ordination Lastly That this Matter and Forme have no influence upon the Power of Consecrating or offering Sacrifice is evidently evinced from hence That all they who receive it had before said Mass with the Bishop and Consecrated with him and to that end the Canon and especially the words of Consecration that usually are pronounced with a lower voice are by the Bishop pronounced aloud and distinctly because the Ordained may accompany him for he that first ends the words of Consecration doth truly Consecrate and none of the rest except they direct their intention to that instant in which the Bishop pronounceth the last lyllable How then can this last imposition of Hands or its Forme any way conduce to the Power of Order It therefore remains that nothing contained in the Roman Ritual for Priesthood can be Essential to that Order except the Tradition of the Vessels with its Forme all the rest being accidentary and circumstantial as I shall prove hereafter by their own Authors All this is confirmed by the practise prescribed in the Roman Ritual for degrading a Priest Ministri tradunt in manus degradandi calicem cum vino aqua ac patena hostia quam Pontifex Degradator aufert de manibus degradandi The Ministers deliver into the hands of him that is to be degraded a Chalice with Wine and Water and a Patene and Hoaste which the Bishop that is the Degrader takes out of the hands of the degraded because by delivering these Vessels to him he was Ordained Priest and therefore by taking them from him again they think him sufficiently devested of that dignity This Truth is so apparent that it needs no other proofe then to observe in their Ordination how indifferent and unconcerned they are in all parts thereof except in delivering the Vessels and pronouncing the Forme that affects them here one Priest inspects one side another surveys the other side and they keep such a pressing of the Ordaineds hands both on the Patene and Chalice that no Error be committed in the application of these Vessels that the beholder will presently conclude that they esteem the whole substance of Ordination to consist in this Discourse their Clergy and you will find that no one doubts it Read the Forme Accipe potestatem c. Receive the power c. and you will certainly conclude that it signifieth nothing else And they who live amongst them and converse with them cannot but know their general and unanimous belief and perswasion that the Order of Priesthood is validly conferr'd by the touching of those Vessels and the Form which accompanys it and the Character thereby imprinted and Sacramental Grace conferr'd Wherefore as to the thing in substance I offer this Dilemma either the Order of Priesthood is validly conferr'd by touching the Vessels and the Forme appropriated to it and the Character thereby imprinted or not If the first be granted that is the scope of our present intention If the second then I declare that the words which the Ordainer pronounceth are Nugatory Delusive and Fallacious for the words are Imperative whereby the Bishop bids the Ordained receive a power of offering Sacrifice which in effect is Priesthood and the Ordained who comes full fraught with an ardent desire of receiving it consequently accepts it and yet notwithstanding this offer and acceptation he is deluded for that power being Spiritual and so invisible as is also the Character he conceives himself impower'd to offer Sacrifice and his Soul consequently imbellisht with a new and high Prerogative in plain and explicite words offered him and yet is defrauded and disappointed of his expectation
Power of offering Sacrifice then conferr'd upon the Ordained and nothing else And the offering of Sacrifice is the chief action of a Priest because it impowers him to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ which none but a Priest can do Albert. Mag. L. 6. Theolog. veritatis C. 36. Actus Presbyterorum saith Albertus Magnus est Consecrare corpus Sanguinem Christi est actus principalis Alius est consequens scilicet ligare solvere The Act of Priests is to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and it is the principal Act. The other is consequent which is to Retain and Absolve which they all grant therefore they must acknowledge Priesthood to be hereby conferr'd For To what other sense can they draw those words Take Receive Accept the Power of offering Sacrifice and the Ordained comes with a full intention to Receive the Power whence there cannot be the least shadow of any other design then intending this Matter and Forme as the Essentials of Priesthood SECT VIII An Illation drawn from the Premises of the Invalidity of Ordination in the Church of England Solved THe Council of Trent seems to make no difference between Order and Ordination Trid. Sess 23. Can. 3. but confounds them together Si quis dixerit Ordinem sive Sacram Ordinationem non esse verè propriè Sacramentum à Christo Domino institutum c. Anathema sit If any one shall say That Order or Holy Ordination is not truly and properly a Sacrament Instituted by Christ c. let him be Accursed But I shall make it appear that there is a considerable difference between Order and Ordination the one is that which they call a Sacrament the other not The Order of Priesthood is a Spiritual Power whereby the Ordained is enabled and Commissioned to exercise all Priestly Functions with Autority The Ordination consists in the Essential Matter and Forme regularly and aptly applyed by the Bishop which is the Ordainer to him that is Ordained and from this Matter and Forme so applyed results in the Ordained that Spiritual Power which is properly the Order of Priesthood the Character is thereby Imprinted and the Graces accommodated to the Priestly Ministry are also conferr'd So that Order with its concomitants is the effect but Ordination is the cause That is permanent in the Ordained for terme of life this is transient and passeth away for it lasts no longer then while that power is in conferring That is the principal end intended by Christ This is the means Instituted by Christ to attain that end That is as it were a Patent or Commission which the Priest acts by this the cause either efficient or Moral which procured it wherefore these being so different from each other the Council of Trent could not intend to have them both Sacraments but that alone if any must be a Sacrament which confers the Order of Priesthood to the Ordained and also Imprints the Character c. all this is performed by Ordination not by Order for nothing can be the cause of it self Order is the effect and therefore cannot be the cause The Character and Sacramental Graces are not produced by the Order but by the Ordination so that if any be a Sacrament it must be this which being premised as evident in it self A Tenth Objection by way of Deduction is drawn from the precedent Doctrine For if the Ordination of the Church of Rome be Invalid it must of necessity draw with it the Nullity of the Church of Englands Ordination who received her Orders from the Church of Rome and cannot make out her Succession of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles without passing through the sides of the Roman Bishops who must integrate the linkes of continuation Wherefore if the Church of Rome have no true Bishops it inevitably follows that the Church of England must lye under the same Censure for one that hath no power of Order can never confer that power upon another because none can give that which he hath not Otherwise it would follow that meerly Men or Civil Magistrates might confer Orders which no Man will grant My Answer to this Objection is grounded in a Principle received by the Romanists themselves namely that where the true Essentials are regularly and orderly applyed though there be a defect in the Ordainer for want of the power of Order yet if he Ordain Cum titulo colorato bona fide the Ordination is valid Four things therefore are necessary to the Validity of Ordination conferr'd by such a Bishop First That none of the Essentials be wanting Secondly That nothing be added in the Ordination repugnant to the Essentials or destructive of their Operation Thirdly That there be in the Ordainer Titulus coloratus bona sides that is a general presumption that he is a true Bishop and that he Ordains according to his Conscience knowing nothing amiss Fourthly That he have a right Intention of conferring the Order Where these Requisites do concurre the Ordination is certainly valid The First Proof hereof is grounded upon that provident care that Christ ever had of his Church for when all the Essentials and necessary Conditions are applyed and no Moral defect to be imputed to the Ordainer nor the Ordained and no Humane prudence could ever detect that secret defect in the Ordainer it would be too severe that the Original Instituter of Ordination should refuse to the Ordained the power of Order nay in a short time it would prove destructive to the whole Church for Christ knew full well the fragility of Humane Nature and considering his infinite Wisdom and Protection of his Church would not oblige our imbecility to Moral Impossibilities or if we failed by our Natural Weakness without either sin or voluntary error would permit the utter ruine and destruction of his Church which would certainly insue if such Ordinations were not valid For I suppose the Ordainers and Ordained to proceed with a candid sincere and good Conscience and that Morally speaking have not the least suspicion of any default or want of power in the Ordainer nay he himself neither knows nor surmiseth any desiciency in his Order In this Case Should the Ordination be void and null Whom could we impute it to certainly to none but those who by their Super-inductions pretended to Correct Christ's Institutions and thereby rendred all defective But must this be so prejudicial to the Church of Christ as to involve all Posterity into the Imputation of the same Crime who were no way consenting to it nay who in due time reformed such abuses and wholly disclaimed from them No certainly our Great Redeemer is more equitable and knows who rejects his Ordinances and Institutions and who endeavors to maintain them But now since Pride Ambition or a vain Pretence to an Arbitrary Power against Divine Right or what Motive else I know not induced the Prelates of the Church of Rome to evacuate Christ's Institutions and in their
as express terms To confirm this I shall in the next Assertion make it appear that in drinking the Chalice there is a different signification and a peculiar benefit which accrues to the Receiver very distinct from all that which issues from the receiving under the Species of Bread Which much commends the great love of our dear Redeemer to Mankind in Commanding us to Receive under both Species that so he might give us an entire and compleat repast and refresh us with all those Graces which correspond to each part thereof he doth not invite us to this Banquet of all Delicious Rarities with intention to feed our Souls by piece-meale and by halves but abundantly poureth forth the Treasures of his Merit and Satisfaction so to replenish our Souls with a full and compleat refection And to make us the more sensible hereof he chose to suffer that Ignominious Death upon a Cross and to permit the effusion of his most Sacred Blood though he could have wrought our Redemption without either for though as purely God he was not capable of Satisfaction nor Merit yet that Divine Word having by the Hypostatical Union assumed Humane Nature all his actions became Theandrical the least whereof was of an infinite value capable without Death or Passion to Redeem a Thousand Worlds for though he assumed the Nature of Man yet he took not upon him the Personality of Man there was but one Suppositum which was the Divine Hypostasis of the Word of God and this gave the poyse and value to all his actions which proceeded from one Person that was both God and Man as they proceeded from Man they were capable of Merit and Satisfaction and as they proceeded from God they were infinite in both kinds and so never to be exhausted So that by one act of love or any other Moral Vertue he might efficaciously have Redeemed us and yet he chose to do it by a bitter Death and Passion the better to accommodate himself to the weakness and imbecillity of our capacity for this more efficaciously strikes our fancy and imprints upon our Souls a more sensible feeling of his infinite Love towards us And for a more ample testimony hereof he hath left us his Sacred Body and Blood to participate thereof and to taste of the fulness of his Graces and Mercies thereby still renewing the Memory of his Passion Who then shall abridge us of these Favors by prescinding the one halfe and mincing the benefits bestow'd upon us by so liberal and munificent a Hand How great is the presumption of some Men who call all Christ's Actions in question and submit them to the scrutiny of their weak indagation They usurp his Infallibility they alter and change his Sacraments they Repeal his Laws they dispense in his Precepts and Impose upon him what he never Ordained Christ saith Except ye drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye shall have no life in you The Church of Rome saith Though ye drink not the Blood of the Son of Man so you eate his Body ye shall have life in you Whom shall we believe Christ or the Church of Rome Shall we desert a certain Infallibility to adhere to an uncertain and presumptive one Could not the All-knowing Word of God whose Prudence and Wisdom hath no bounds foresee all the Inconveniences that could or would come to pass And Could not his Infinite Providence order and dispose all for the best Is it to be presumed that Christ left his Work imperfect or not duly order'd to be compleated or reformed by the weak industry of Man Wherefore by what hath been said I conclude That the practice of the Roman Church in denying the Chalice to the Laity is an express violation of Christ's Precept The Second Assertion This kind of half-Communion Prohibiting the Sacrament under both Kinds is a high Injustice and very prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver This Assertion I prove first because all the Laity yeà and the Clergy also that are not Priests are rendred uncapable of fulfilling Christ's Precept at least as long as they shall remain in their Communion and though the Authors of this Prohibition are highly culpable and very unjust in denying the Faithful what Christ hath left them yet the Receivers also are transgressers for not fulfilling Christ's Precept But you will say How can they help themselves if the Priest refuseth to exhibit the Sacrament to them in both Kinds which is not in their power to procure neither can they be obliged to impossibilities I Answer That they who seriously endeavor to fulfill Christ's Precepts are bound in Conscience to forsake the Communion of that Church and to Imbrace the Communion of the Protestant Church where these Sacred Mysteries will be compleatly Administred to them for by this means they are capable of complying with Christ's Command which they are strictly obliged to do The Second Proofe They who never receive those Holy Rites but in one Kind not only transgress against Christ's Command but also incur the penalty that is annexed to it which is no less than the privation of eternal happiness Except you eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you And what is consequent hereto they are liable to the everlasting torments of Hell How enormous therefore must the Injustice be of those that are Instrumental What do I say instrumental that are the principle cause of reducing men to that extremity that unavoidably they must violate Christ's Command and thereby incur eternal damnation and all this by denying them that which by Christ's Institution they have right to Can any Injustice be compared to this Can any damage be more prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver The Third Proof The Sacramental products of Communion under the Species of Wine are very different and heterogeneal from all the Graces and Favors conferr'd upon him that participates the Sacrament in the other kind only for this Spiritual refection hath a great analogy and proportionable similitude with the natural repast of the Body and their respective operations are reciprocal correlatives by way of similitude with each other and therefore the Original Instituter adapting these Mysteries to the procedure of Nature congruously Instituted them under the Symboles of Bread and Wine the Bread we esteem to be the Staffe of Mans Life because it Administers such vital and animal Spirits as are the substantial support of Mans Life and thereby it gives aliment vigor and growth to the body which is the principal part of nutrition The Wine makes the heart glad and enlivens it to exercise the functions incident to human imploy with more life and expedition it also supplies the radical heat and moisture with seasonable accesses of its innate qualities it delibutes the vessels and organs which are the vehicles of the Spirits and furnishes them with such proportionable qualities as are most accommodated to expediate the exercise of their nutritive Functions
That during the time that the Priest is pronouncing those words nothing is done till he pronounceth the last Syllable of the last word meum and in that moment the whole business is effected and the Priest no sooner hath spoken that last syllable but he kneels to Adore Christ then present and Elevates the Hoast to shew it to the People that they also may adore it Another Query may be proposed How long the Body of Christ remains in the Hoast under the Species of Bread Their Answer is That as long as the dispositions of Bread remain there so long is Christ present but when by contrary Causes these Qualities and Accidents are so far Changed that the Forme of Bread could not Naturally there subsist then the Body of Christ is withdrawn This is a short but true Account of their Tenets whence they Conclude That by such a Transubstantiation as is above explicated the substance of Bread is truly and really Converted into the Body of Christ and this they propose to all to be Believed as an Article of Faith The Grounds of this Paradoxical Doctrine we shall propose in the Objections against those Assertions which we are going to establish in the next Section SECT II. The Orthodox Doctrine against Transubstantiation proposed and proved THe First Assertion The Doctrine of Transubstantiation as it is Taught by the Church of Rome is de facto false and Erroneous I add those words de facto because in this Conclusion I only design to prove That no such Transubstantiation is actually to be admitted waving the possibility of it but I shall afterwards prove that it is wholly Chymerical and Impossible and the Proofs of that Assertion will confirm this The First Proofe Christ came not into the World to destroy but to edifie and therefore was so zealous to fulfil the Old Law and certainly he stood not in opposition with his Eternal Father who was the great Framer and Conserver of the Universe who constituted it in its due order by providing for the proper Nature propensions and inclinations of each part thereof by ordaining the Natural Causes Effects Proprieties and Passions of all things and by that provident subordination of one thing to another in relation to the good and conservation of the whole But this Doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be defended but by violating those Laws of Nature established by God himself in a high degree for in every Consecration there are as many Miracles which infringe the Laws of Nature as there are Minute Accidents and Qualities existing without their Subject it is a Miracle that the Forme of Bread should be destroyed and its disposition entire contrary to the exigence of Nature it is a Miracle and against Nature that the first Matter should be annihilated nothing in the Universe determining to it it is a Miracle that the Body of Christ should be in so many places the same time it is a Miracle that the Words of Consecration a meer Sound from a Mans Organ should be elevated to effect such Prodigies And in most places subject to the See of Rome there is a never interrupted continuation of all these Miraculous products by keeping the Consecrated Hoast in a Cyborium within the Tabernacle which is never intermitted Nay What a Prodigious Number of Miracles are daily and hourly multiplyed by so many Millions of Hoasts as are continually Consecrated in the whole extent of the Universe Who can be so impious as to impute so horrid a Fraction in Nature to Christ himself as though he waged War with his Eternal Father by endeavoring to subvert the Order and Nature of this Universe contrary to its first Institution all which being duely considered who can be so great a Contemner of his own Reason as blindly to inslave it to such incredible Doctrine The Second Proof If the Substance of Bread were really Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and the Species of Bread should remain without a Subject that Collection of Species would be wholly incorruptible and consequently Christ's Body would never be separated from that Hoaste where it is once present The Illation I prove evidently for if that Collection of Accidents exist independant of any Subject and are preserv'd by a Creative Action then no Natural Cause nor Agent could have any influence upon them for no Natural Agent can operate but in order to some Subject which must receive and support the effect produced wherefore admit that a Consecrated Hoaste were applyed to the fire the Species of Bread extant in the Hoaste would suffer some Change or Alteration by the influence of the fire suppose then one degree of heate to be produced in the Hoaste then one degree of cold must be expelled from thence which is the contrary to heate if so then that degree of Heate which the fire produced must be Created and not Educted because there is no subject at all to receive it and so it must exist as the rest of that Complex doth independant of a Subject and that degree of cold that is destroyed must be annihilated not corrupted for it is destroyed independant of any Subject What then to maintain this Doctrine Must we admit that a meer Creature and a Natural cause as the Fire hath a power to create and annihilate you were as good say that a Creature may be Omnipotent for hitherto I never heard but of one Creator God himself who alone hath power to Create and Annihilate What is this but to rob God of his Prime Attributes and communicate them to his Creatures But What remedy for manifest experience sheweth that a consecrated Hoaste is as liable to alteration change and corruption as another that is not consecrated so there is no way but one to salve all these inconveniences which is by denying Transubstantiation out of which those gross errors inevitably follow But it may be Objected That the proper Subject of the Species of Bread is the quantity and not the substance it self for the quantity is the subject of other qualities and common accidents and that alone is Miraculously conserved in the Eucharist without a subject First I Answer That the proper function of quantity is to communicate impenetrability to the Bodies that it affects for two Bodies meeting together resist each other and cannot be both penetrated in the same place as our Soul is with our Body This proceeds from quantity which is the root of impenetrability Besides that is the subject of the common accidents which is by them disposed for several Formes but it is only the substance that is so disposed for quantity is of it self but an accident therefore the common accidents are received in the substance and not in the quantity Secondly I Answer That all the School of the Thomists all the School of the Scotists and a great part of the Jesuites and other Authors of the Church of Rome do absolutely assert that the substance and not the quantity is the proper subject of the
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