was before valid though unlawful is now made void and of no effect Were Matrimony only a Civil Contract and not defin'd by the Church of Rome to be elevated to the dignity of a Sacrament and to produce Grace here would be little ground of altercation for it is not my intent in this Discourse to call in question the power of Ecclesiastical or Secular Law-givers in matters of this nature But they acknowledge Marriage to be a Sacrament and the Matter and Forme thereof wherein consists the whole Essence of it to be instituted and determin'd by Divine Autority whence it becomes Juris Divini Hence ariseth the difficulty How the Church of Rome can make any alteration or change or how they can declare that to be ineffectual and void which Jure Divino is determinately setled and establisht as valid Clandestine Marriage before the Council of Trent was ever held an Essential and a valid Matrimony though unlawful factum valet sed fieri non licet yea and notwithstanding the Councils Decree they still hold it valid in England and Saxony where the Council of Trent was never received nor promulged for they Teach That no Human Law can induce an Obligation to the observance of it but in such places where it hath been sufficiently intimated and accepted Here I suppose with them that the whole Essence and Substance of each Sacrament consists purely in the two Essential parts the Matter and the Forme The Matter of this Contract is the Internal Consent of the Persons Contracting exprest by some External and sensible sign The Forme is the words de praesenti I take thee c. which signifie a Mutual Tradition of themselves to each other for term of life Hence I Argue against them ad hominem supposing the Institution as the Origine and Cause of all Sacraments The whole Essence of Matrimony necessarily Constitutes a valid Marriage but the Matter and Forme are the whole Essence of Matrimony ergo the Matter and Forme necessarily constitute a valid Marriage The Major is universally true in all things for the whole Essence of a thing and the thing it self are convertible the Minor is their own Dectrine as appears by their own words above cited Whence I subsume The Matter and Forme necessarily constitute a valid Marriage but Clandestine Matrimony contains the Matter and Forme ergo Clandestine Matrimony contains a valid Marriage The Major is the conclusion of the last sillogisme The Minor I prove First because Clandestine Matrimony was valid before the Council of Trent and yet it contains now the same Matter and Forme it did then Secondly I prove it because Clandestine Marriage is still valid where the Council of Trent was never received ergo it hath the whole Matter and Forme of Marriage which was Instituted and determin'd by Christ as the whole Essence of it for they that Contract Clandestinè have the same Internal consent made sensible which is the Matter and use the same words by way of Forme as they that Contract in facie Ecclesiae wherefore if the one hath the same Matter and Forme with the other wherein consists the whole Essence of Marriage if the one be valid the other must be valid also And this Argument proceeds in like manner against all other impedimenta dirimentia such impediments as Jure Ecclesiastico are introduced to render Matrimony void and of no effect but if there be any impediment jure naturae destructive of the validity of Matrimony In this case it is most like that the Original Instituter excepted it As many of the Roman Divines conceive Consanguinity in the First Degree to invalidate Matrimony jure naturae by reason of the horror and aversion that Nature hath against a Fathers Marrying his own Daughter or a Mothers taking her own Son for a Husband or for a Brother to Marry his own Sister And therefore Marriage in the first degree of Consanguinity was ever held invalid in the Evangelical Law But this administers matter for an instance against what hath been said for Marriage contracted in the first degree hath all the Essentials of Matrimony and only the proximity of Blood hinders the validity of it therefore it is not enough to have all the Essentials as Matter and Forme to make Matrimony valid I Answer that all Sacraments do necessarily suppose the Original Institution upon which they Essentially depend for the Essential parts of all Sacraments are in themselves natural things but by the Omnipotent Power of the Divine Instituter the Complex which results of these parts is elevated per potentiam obedientialem to produce Grace in the Receiver in that quality and degree as Christ hath setled and establisht without which they are no Sacraments And who can deny but that it was in the free power and election of the Divine Instituter to affix his Supernatural Graces where and when and to what Instruments he pleased for Sacraments are by Institution but instruments to convey the Graces Merited by Christ to our Souls wherefore it being incongruous that a Contract made in the first degree of Consanguinity from which Nature hath so great a horror should be an instrument of conveying Grace to the Souls of the contracters grounded Reason dictates that this was excepted and never Instituted for a Sacrament which the constant practice of the Church from Christ's time sufficiently confirms But it may bereply'd That if Christ in the Original Institution Ordained that all complexes resulting from such a determinate Matter and Forme should be Sacraments and yet an exception may be made in one case Why not in another I Answer That this Reply is grounded on a false Principle for it supposeth Christ to have confused acts such as are proper to Men when they determine things in general and make an universal without distinguishing or distinctly knowing the particulars contained under that universal which argues the imperfection of Human understanding and therefore such obscure and imperfect acts have no place in Christ for the understanding of the Divine Word is infinite and consequently exempt from the least imperfection And the understanding of his Sacred Humanity was indued with an infused knowledge whereby he saw and knew clearly and distinctly all that concerned at least himself as Redeemer of Mankind so that when he Instituted the Sacraments he did it not by a general notion but reflected upon every particular individual cleerly and distinctly Wherefore in the Case proposed he Ordained such and such particular Contracts to be instruments of conveying Grace and no others so as those only which Christ hath so determin'd are valid Contracts by Divine Institution and no others and by this means the cleerness and perspicuity of Christ's understanding hath partioularly determin'd every individual Contract of Marriage that ever hath been or ever will be and decreed its validity or non validity in his Original Institution so as all Declarations and Decrees as are meerly Human have no power at all to alter or change
Intrenchments of the Church of Rome upon Divine Right by changing the Essentials of their pretended Sacraments The Preface MAny Censures of the highest strain hath the Church of Rome thundered out against the Protestants for Separating from her Communion and deserting her Tenets in that Latitude as she professeth them whereas notwithstanding the Protestant Church did most Religiously imbrace all the Doctrine and Practise instituted by Christ and exprest in Holy Writ and rejected only the Corruptions and Innovations which had no Autority but Humane she separated the pure Gold from the Dross and the Wheat from the Cockle and by this means continued the true Church of Christ pure and undefiled But what Censure doth the Church of Rome deserve who by a bold and a high attempt endeavoureth to incroach upon Divine Right by making a change and reformation in the Original Institutions of Christ himself as shall appear by the several Sections of this Disputation SECT I. Of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome relating to this present Controversie THere are various Principles and Dogmatical Decisions of the Church of Rome much conducing to this present Discourse whereof some are defined by their General Councils others are promiscuously Taught and Asserted by their Divines And because I here intend to argue ad hominem that is out of their own Doctrine I shall therefore do them no wrong by drawing such illations from thence as shall clearly evince their violating of Divine Right by endeavouring as much as in them lyeth to make an Essential change in their Sacraments which they acknowledge Instituted by Christ himself First therefore They admit Seven Sacraments to wit Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Pennance Extreme Vnction Order and Matrimony And though they ground themselves upon several Texts of Scripture misunderstood for the practice of them yet it is a business of greater arduity to prove them all Sacraments but to satisfie their Sectators they need no more then to tell them that these are all defined to be Sacraments by the Council of Trent in these words Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino Nostro instituta Trid. Sess Can. 1. aut esse plura vel pauciora quam septem videlicet Baptismum Confirmationem Eucharistiam Poenitentiam Extremam Vnctionem Ordinem Matrimonium aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse verè propriè Sacramentum Anathema sit If any one shall say That the Sacraments of the New Law were not all Instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord Or that they are more or fewer then Seven namely Baptisme Confirmation Eucharist Pennance Extreame Vnction Order and Matrimony or also that any one of these is not truly and properly a Sacrament let him be Accursed But because it is not the drift of my present design to examin the truth hereof I shall therefore wave it and only suppose it to be their Doctrine Secondly They admit that all Sacraments were Instituted by Christ himself for as much as concerns the Essence and Substance of them and consequently it exceeds the limits of any Humane Power either to abrogate or to alter any thing of that which is by Divine Right established and that they were all Instituted by Christ is also defined by the Council of Trent as above and Asserted by their Divines Thirdly In every Sacrament they distinguish between the Essential and Accidental parts of it the Essential parts they place in the matter and forme the Accidental parts are the Ceremonies Prayers Unctions and Actions which are used in the Administration of them which they call not Sacramenta but Sacramentalia And whensoever the Essential parts are daily applyed to the Receiver though the Accidental parts are omitted yet the Sacrament is valid But if either of the Essential parts be wanting that is if either the true matter or the true forme which Christ instituted be not applyed then the Sacrament is void as their Divines Teach For example in the Sacrament of Baptisme there is materia proxima and materia remota a remote and an immediate matter the remote is the natural Element of Water the immediate is the Lotion or the action whereby the Baptiser applyes the Water to the Baptised during which action the Essential Form is to be pronounced by the Baptiser in these words I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost In this matter and forme consists the whole Substance and Essence of this Sacrament and therefore if by reason of the weakness of the Child or by any other incident casualty the other Ceremonies cannot be performed yet the Child is Truly Baptized though performed by the Midwife or any other person because all the essential parts of Baptism instituted by Christ are duly applyed to the Child though the Unctions Prayers and other Ceremonies be omitted and they insist so earnestly upon these essential parts that in case no other Water could be had but Rose-water or some other Liquor that hath affinity with Water they hold the Sacrament not valid because the Matter instituted by Christ is wanting which is the natural Element of Water Fourthly They hold that though the Matter and Form be the whole Essence of the Sacrament yet if they be not conjoined so as to make up one thing the Sacrament is nul and of no effect for the form must be applied to the matter and have a moral concomitance with it or else it cannot have a moral union with the same if therefore the Water in Baptism be applyed to day to the Baptised and the form pronounced to morrow there will be no Baptism nor Sacrament for the words would be false which signifie a present Lotion Fifthly Of all the seven Sacramentss which they admit they assert that only three to wit Baptism Confirmation and Order do imprint upon the Soul of the Receiver an indelible spiritual Character never to be blotted out so as those Souls which receive any of these three Sacraments after separation from the Body will appear in the next World with these characteristical Notes instampt upon them some with one some with two others with all three according to their respective differences they having an essential discrepation from one another each of them denoting the Sacrament from whence they proceeded Hence they infer that none of these three Sacraments when once validly conferr'd can be reiterated or received twice by the same Person and that it would be a Sacriledge to attempt it because they frustrate the effect of the Sacrament yet if there arise any doubt of the validity of the former collation then a strict inquiry is to be made how grounded that doubt is and if it be still found ambiguous then that Sacrament is to be again conferr'd sub conditione But if it be evident that there was wanting either the true matter or the true forme which are all the essentials or the right intention of the Administrer
Sacraments are Certainly none will attempt it but such whose ambition prompts them to intrench upon Divine Right and God it here upon Earth not knowing or not acknowledging that their power is limited and confin'd within its certain bounds Besides were there two Formes of Ordination one Instituted by Divine Autority the other by Human and both valid by the same Rule you might institute Two hundred yea every Diocess might have one peculiar to it self there is no more difficulty for the Third then there was for the Second nor for the Fourth then the Third and so of all the rest Wherefore if such a power were delegated to meer Humanes What a confusion might they bring into the Church which would be the ground of Discord and Dissention for one Bishop might contend with another whose Ordination was best Having thus proved the Invalidity of Ordination according to the Present Roman Pontifical and General Approbation of that Church I shall now imploy my endeavors to solve the Objections which may be proposed in vindication thereof SECT VI. An Answer to the Objections Proposed by the Doctors of the Church of Rome against the Invalidity of their Ordination THe Roman Divines who earnestly endeavor to compose this difficulty find so much arduity in it that they cannot agree among themselves but what expedient one finds out as accommodated to this end another disapproves and so with great anxiety they cast about by several windings and turnings to compose the Difference between both Churches but in the execution they impugne each other and by this means divide themselves into several Classes Whereof I shall here give you an account The most considerable Party as well for number as for autority and reputation are those who absolutely exclude all Imposition of Hands from the Essentials of Ordination and place the whole Essence thereof in Touching the Holy Vessels with the Forme accommodated thereunto And indeed this is generally received in the Church of Rome as an undoubted Truth Some of the Authors of this Opinion I have cited in the Fourth Section and practised as such This is conformable to the Doctrine of the Council of Florence and Pope Gregory the 9th which I have cited in the beginning of the Fourth Section This Opinion needs no Answer for the Authors hereof are so far from reconciling both Churches that they Unchurch both and in stead of solving the difficulty they sink under the burthen thereof They destroy the Greek Church by denying the Imposition of Hands to be Essential to Ordination which the Greeks ever used as the only Essential Matter thereof They destroy the Latines by relying wholly upon the Touching of the Vessels and the Forme annexed as the only Essential Matter and Forme of Ordination excluding all other and yet this Matter and Forme are wholly uncapable of giving any validity to the Order of Priesthood because they want the Essence the very life and soul of being Instrumental to Ordination which is the Divine Institution as I have manifestly proved in the precedent Section A Second Objection The Divine Institutor of the Order of Priesthood did not determine the specifical Matter and Forme thereof but only in general that the Church should appoint some sensible Matter and some Forme of Words whereby to signifie the collation of Order by their application So that here is a latitude in Christ's Institution and a Power left to the Church to determine what particular Matter and Forme she should think fit and by this Power the Church may alter the Matter and Forme of Order at her pleasure she may abrogate what was before in use and Institute a new Matter and Forme and the Order will still be valid So Isambertus the Kings Professor of Divinity at Paris Treating at large of the Sacrament of Order Disput 3. art 3. his words are these Christus Dominus instituendo Ordines determinavit tantum eorum materias in genere nimirum ut ea esset legitima cujuslibet Ordinis materia quae existens sensibilis sui Traditione debitè sufficienter facta tam ex parte Ministri quam intentionis significaret tune de facto potestatem tali Ordini propriam dari ei qui materiam istam sensibilem seu signum istud sensibile acciperet in sua Ordinatione particularem autem istius signi determinationem seu imponere veluti affigere significationem practicam illius potestatis huic vel illi rei sensibili in particulari reliquit faciendum Ecclesiae prout quando illa judicaret esse conveniens Our Lord Christ Instituting Orders did only determine their Matter in General which being sensible duly and sufficiently apply'd as well in reference to the Minister as the Intention might signifie then in effect the power proper to that Order to be given to him that in his Ordination should receive this sensible Matter or Sign But to determine this Sign in particular and to Impose and as it were affix to it a Practical Signification of that Power given to this or that Sensible Thing in Particular he hath left to be done by the Church when and how she should judge it convenient And having Proved out of the Constitutions of Clement and the Fourth Council of Carthage That the Imposition of Hands by the Bishop and the assisting Priests used in the beginning of Ordination was formerly the Essential Matter of Priesthood he adds Igitur cum hoc nostro tempore haec Impositio manuum sit tantum accidentalis illa posterior quae fit à solo Episcopo simul dicente ei quem Ordinat Accipe Spiritum Sanctum Quorum c. sit nunc Essentialis ut supra ostendimus aliqua mutatio est facta per Ecclesiam in ista materia Ordinum Therefore since in this our time this Imposition of Hands is only accidental and that last which is performed only by the Bishop saying to him whom he Ordains Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins c. is Essential as I have shewn above some change is made by the Church in this matter of Orders Thus he The same saith Gammacheus de Sacramento Ordinis Cap. 4. Hallerius S. Bonaventura Prepositus Atrebas de materia forma Ordinationis n. 109. There are Three Reasons that this Objection is grounded on Lugo D 2. de Sacramentis in genere S. 5. n. 85. The first is because the Church hath changed the matter of Subdeaconship which was formerly conferr'd by the Imposition of Hands but now by the Ordination and Practise of the Church that Imposition of Hands doth not at all belong to the Essence of Subdeaconship Secondly Clandestine Marriage was ever valid before the Council of Trent but now is rendred invalid by that Council Thirdly The Apostles Confirmed by Imposition of Hands without Unction but now if the Unction be omitted the Confirmation is invalid To this Objection my first Answer is That it is all gratis dictum it is said without ground It is mera
Divine which still makes the Church a joynt Institutor with Christ and so as that the Church hath the greatest hand in it for the Church Orders Appoints and Determines all and Christ is to be ready at the Churches beck to execute what she appoints as though the Omnipotent Power of the Divine Word were subservient to the Church for it is the powerful hand of Christ that elevates the sensible Signs to produce Sacramental effects which are out of the reach of nature But the Church determines what the Signs shall be and summons the Divine Words Omnipotency when and where to elevate them and so she hath the greatest share in the Institution of Sacraments 'T is strange how such a Thought could find admittance into any true Christians understanding to devest Christ of this Prerogative and give it the Roman Church which so much derogates from the high Power and Wisdom of the Incarnate Word My Fourth Answer is grounded on Autority And first I begin with the Council of Trent in these words Trident Sess 7. Can. 1. Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino nostro Instituta c. Anathema sit If any one shall say that the Sacraments of the New Law were not all Instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord let him be Accursed St. Thomas of Aquine their great Divine saith Aquinas 3 Part. q. 60. ar 5. corpore In Sacramentis novae legis quibus homines Sanctificantur oportet uti rebus ex Divina Institutione determinatis In the Sacraments of the New Law by which Men are Sanctify'd it is necessary to use things that by Divine Institution are determined Consonant to this is the testimony of Bellarmine Bellarminus L. 1. de Sacramentis in genere C. 21. Ibid. in these words Res certae determinaiae ab ipso Deo in Sacramentis esse debent Things certain and determined by God himself must be used in the Sacraments And again saith he Non solum res sed etiam verba in Sacramentis novae legis à Deo determinatae sunt ut non liceat quidquam immutare Not only the things saith he but also the words in the Sacraments of the New Law are determin'd by God so that it is not lawful to change any thing All this is confirmed and attested by Suarez that great Divine whose Autority bears such sway in the Church of Rome who first lays his Ground-work in these words Suarez 3 Part. To. 3. D. 2. S. 2. citans D. Thomam Omnia Sacramenta quae consistunt in usu constant rebus verbis seu materia forma tanquam ex partibus quibus componuntur All Sacraments which consist in use contain things and words or matter and forme as parts whereof they are composed And afterwards he adds these words Ibid. S. 3. Dico 1. materias formas Sacramentorum determinatas esse ex Christi Domini Institutione eo modo quo definitae sunt esse necessarias ad Sacramenta conficienda First I assert saith Suarez that the Matters and Forms of Sacraments are determined by the Institution of Christ our Lord and in that manner as they are defin'd they are necessary to the validity of the Sacraments But this is not all for of this very Opinion he adds these words Est communis Theologorum absolute loquendo est de fide This is the common Doctrine of the Divines and absolutely speaking it is an Article of Faith Ile adds one Text more out of Suarez because his Autority is so renowned In the Fourth Section he thus declares his Opinion Ibid. S. 4. Si mutatio materiae aut formae essentialis seu substantialis sit nullum efficitur Sacramentum If any change be made in the Matter or Forme that is Essential or Substantial it renders the Sacrament void and ineffectual Hence I conclude that the Authors and Abetters of the Doctrine contained in the Objection do not only impugne the common Opinion of Divines but they also erre in matter of Faith as Suarez observes And it is to be observed that all these Autorities agree in this That Christ not only Instituted but also Determined the Matter and Forme of all Sacraments which the Authors of this Objection deny To this I le annex the Judgment of Maldonatus Maldonatus Tom. 2. de Sacramentis Tract de Ordine q. 3. part 2. a Famous Divine of the Jesuits whose words are these Impositio manuum non est habenda tanquam ceremonia non necessaria scd tanquam pars Essentialis Sacramenti idque videtur tenendum side Catholica Primum quia in Scriptura ubicunque fit montio de Ordinatione declaratur per impositionem manuum Et videtur mihi esse temerarium scripturam deserere consectari chymeras id est rationes naturales Secundò quia veterem Ecclesiam nunquam ordinasse sine impositione manuum ex omnibus autoribus antiquis perspicuum est De traditione autem calicis hostiae nulla est mentio apud illos Tertiò quia videtur durum nimis esse ceremoniam quam nobis perspicuè tradunt Apostoli excludere à natura Sacramenti inducere illam de qua nulla mentio fit in Scriptura In English thus The Imposition of hands is not to be esteemed as a Ceremony not necessary but as an Essential part of the Sacrament and this ought to be held as an Article of Faith First Because in Scripture wheresoever mention is made of Ordination it is declar'd by the Imposition of hands and it seems to me temerarious to desert the Scripture and follow Fictions that is Natural Reasons Secondly Because it is evident by all Antient Writers that the Primitive Church never Ordained without the Imposition of hands but they make no mention of delivering the Chalice and the Hoast Thirdly Because it seems too hard to exclude from the nature of a Sacrament a Ceremony which is clearly delivered to us by the Apostles and to induce that of which there is no mention made in the Scripture Thus Maldonatus 'T is well that some of our Antagonists cannot be swayed neither by hope nor fear nor any way deterr'd from uttering Truth He tells us That it is an Article of Faith that the Imposition of hands is Essential to Ordination and that it is a temerity to deny it and he proves both by solid Arguments So that they who adhere to the practise and perswasion of the Church of Rome must to defend this Doctrine desert both Scripture and Tradition SECT VII The Solution of other Objections against the same Doctrine A Third Objection endeavors a Reconciliation by joyning the delivery of the Instruments or Vessels and their Forme with the last Imposition of hands and this Forme Accipe Spiritum Sanctum c. So that of these two Matters they make one entire Matter and of these two Forms they frame one entire and adequate Forme Yet so as that by
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
and the First Man Adam which were Created free fell from the happy State they were Created in by the perverse use of their Free-wills Who then shall dare presume to asperse the Last Work of the Incarnate Word with any Pretended Imperfection and render it Heterogeneal from the rest For he is the same Omnipotent God that Created all those things mentioned and his Power is not Abridg'd nor his Will Chang'd for he is Essentially uncapable of any Error Mutation or Imperfection It remains therefore that the Opinion of Paschasius Teaching the Real Existence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist was a New Heterodox and Erroneous Doctrine discrepating from the constant Belief of the Church from the begining till that time And hence is evinced the falsity of that Erroneous Doctrine that asserts the Literal and Oral Manducation of Christ's Glorisied Body in the Communion for if that Glorified Body be not Actually Really Physically and Locally present in the Eucharist then the Receiver cannot exercise any such Oral Manducation of it Wherefore this Position is repugnant to Autority of Scripture and Fathers it is against Antiquity and Reason The Church of Rome was once Immaculate and retain'd its Original Innocency for many years But as the Angels though perfect in their Creation yet by their Swelling Thoughts Aspired to Sublimer Prerogatives not allowed to their Limited Perfections fell from that happy State of their Primitive Creation so the Church of Rome when many high and Soaring Spirits met together in Councils Relying upon their Pretended Infallibility Usurpt a Power of Swaying all things belonging to the Church and Religion according to their own fancy then they began to Abrogate some things of Christ's Institution and Superinduce others of their own they made several Commutations and Reformations exceeding the limits of their Power as hath been proved in this Treatise So that now their Church is like a confus'd Chaos retaining some things of Christ's Institution commixt with others of their own Human Invention and so have lost that Purity and Perfection which once they enjoy'd And which the Protestant Church of England still retains in its Primitive and Original Purity and Integrity And here I close up this Discourse of Religion wherein whatsoever I have delivered I humbly submit to the Censure and Correction of those upon whom it is incumbent to Regulate the Belief and Practise of the Protestant Church of England AN INDEX OF THE Disputations and Sections Dispute I. Of the Pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome SEct. I. Wherein consists the true Notion of Infallibility Sect. II. The Grounds of the Pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome are proposed Sect. III. The Decision of the Present Controversie Sect. IV. An Answer to the Objections proposed against the Nullity of the Church of Rome's Infallibility Dispute II. Of the Intrenchments of the Church of Rome upon Divine Right by Changing the Essentials of their Pretended Sacraments SEct. I. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome relating to this present Controversie Sect. II. The Practise of Antiquity in the Collation of Priesthood Sect. III. A brief account of the Rituals of the Greeks Maronites c. Sect. IV. Shewing that the Church of Rome placeth the Essence of the Ordination of Priests in touching the Vessels and the Forme annexed to it Sect. V. The Order of Priesthood according to the present Institution cannot be validly conferr'd by touching the Vessels with this Forme Accipe potestatem c. Sect. VI. An Answer to the Objections proposed by the Divines of the Church of Rome against the Invalidity of their Ordination Sect. VII The Solution of other Objections against the same Doctrine Sect. VIII An Illation drawn from the Premises of the Invalidity of Ordination in the Church of England solved Sect. IX Consectaries drawn from the Proofes of the precedent assertion Sect. X. Of Clandestine Marriage Sect. II. The Arguments to vindicate the Nullity of Clandestine Marriage Answered Dispute III. Of Communion in one Kind SEct. I. The Grounds of the Church of Rome for denying the Chalice to the Laity Sect. II. The Decision of this Controversie Sect. III. The Objections Solved Sect. IV. Corallaries drawn from the Romanists Doctrine of their pretended Sacrifice of the Mass Dispute IV. Of Transubstantiation SEct. I. The Romanists Doctrine relating to Transubstantiation Sect. II. The Orthodox Doctrine against Transubstantiation proposed and proved Sect. III. Of the possibility of Transubstantiation as held by the Church of Rome Sect. IV. Objections for Transubstantiation solved Dispute V. Of the Real Presence SEct. I. The Church of Romes Definitions concerning the Real Presence Sect. II. Other Subtilties arising from the former Decisions not fully determin'd Sect. III. The Inutility of multiplying Definitions of this Nature Sect. IV. The Objections Solved Sect. V. When and from whom this Doctrine of the Real Presence took its first rise Sect. VI. A Briefe Account of some passages of the Life and Death of John Erigene Sect. VII Some Passages of the Life and Doctrine of Retram Sect. VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question Sect. IX Animadversions on the Premises FINIS
persists in them as I shall prove in the following Disputations of this Treatise ergo The Church of Rome is not Infallible for that Church that actually doth erre hath a power to erre because bene valet ab actu ad potentiam and it is evident that that Church which hath power or capacity to erre is not Infallible for Infallibility excludes a power of failing There yet remains to solve such Objections as may be proposed against our Assertion contained in the beginning of this Section SECT IV. An Answer to the Objections proposed against the nullity of the Church of Rome's Infallibility THe first Objection None can Question but that such Promises as our Redeemer hath truly made to his Church shall be fulfilled but we have a Moral certainty that the Promises specifyed in the Second Section were truly made by Christ for we admit a Moral certainty That the Holy Scripture is truly the Word of God Whence it ensues that we are Morally certain that the Church of Rome is Infallible First I Answer That this Objection destroys it self for it contends for an Infallibility and proves it by a Reflex act of Moral certainty whereas Infallibility excludes a power of Erring and Moral certainty includes that power so that the result of both would be a Fallible Infallibility which involves a Contradiction This is much of the nature of a Sillogisme wherein the conclusion semper sequitur debiliorem partem so that if one of the premises be scientifical the other only probable the conclusion will be only probable the reason is because in the conclusion the two extreams are therefore identifi'd between themselves because they were in the premises identifi'd with a third wherefore if one extream be certainly identifi'd with a third the other only probably they can but be probably identifi'd with each other for this identity is destroyed by separating either of the extreams from the third For application The Infallibility of the Church depends upon these two Principles First That we are Infallibly certain that Christ's Promises are performed Secondly That we are Infallibly certain of the thing of fact that Christ did Promise if either of these fail the Infallibility faileth and if either of these be only probable the Infallibility is reduced to a probability only now though Moral certainty be the highest degree of Probability yet it comes as far short of Infallibility as this Argument doth of proving it Secondly I Answer That the Church of Rome is too forward in arrogating to themselves alone such Promises as Christ made to his Church for to say nothing of the Church of Rome in Primitive times yet since their manifold Innovations and Superstructures the Protestant Church is the purer and freer from Error and consequently hath more right to lay hold of those Promises then the Church of Rome The Second Objection Though the Church taken barely by it self and without the support of that Testimony from Holy Writ should not be Infallible yet backt by the Motives of Credibility it will be rendred absolutely unerrable for these Motives do so peculiarly affect it and as it were point it out to be the True Church of Christ that it dissipates all the Clouds of Ambiguity which blind the incredulous For who can consider the lineal descent and succession of Chief Pastors the austerity and holiness of life exercised in Monasteries of both Sexes the Miracles wrought by the Members of this Church with the Blood of so many Martyrs the effusion whereof doth daily irrigate the same and renders it more fertile with other Motives of this nature which all are the Badges of this Church Who I say can seriously ponder this without framing an Infallible Judgment that the Church of Rome is the True Church of Christ There is certainly a strict and Metaphysical connexion between these Motives and the True Church for it is not consistent with the Divine Goodness and veracity of God to co-operate to such a Delusion as this would be if these Motives should indicate a False Church subject to Error which would make God himself the Author of this Error We may therefore hence conclude the Church of Rome in which such great Wonders are so frequently wrought to be the True and Infallible Church of Christ The First Answer Among all the Doctors and Divines of the Church of Rome I never knew of any that asserted this strict and metaphysical connexion of the Motives of Credibility with the True Church but only Cardinal Lugo Yet I have seen a whole Torrent of Autority of other Doctors of the same Church of the contrary opinion who all affirm that the collection of these Motives may possibly affect a false Church wherefore let these Authors solve this Objection The Second Answer All these Motives of credibility are fallacious as depending upon Humane Autority and being subject to many casualties and deceits and first for the succession of Chief Pastors whose Jurisdiction by an Illegal Usurpation extends it self de facto over the whole Body but is limited de jure to the Diocess of Rome only and how long together hath the Body been without a head as if it had been defunct and then Monster-like it appeared with two heads it being hard to decide which of them had most right And what is to be said of Liberius Pope who subscribed the Arians Heresie and joyned with them and of Vigilius who approved and condemned the same Doctrine in the three Chapters Must these also be links of continuation in the Succession Surely they were not Infallible Consider the manner of their Election when there occurs a vacancy there will not be wanting those in the Colledge of Cardinals who have ambition enough to aspire to such a dignity whereto is annexed a Temporal Principality a Triple Crown with many splendid Titles which makes the Succession sure But how few are there in the Consistory who are swayed by Piety and Religion to give their Suffrage only for such a Person as is duely qualified for so high a Prelacy But when they have entred the Conclave What a Bundle of Ambition is there shut up together How many are there that take their Measures from By and Sinister ends some from Ambition others from Humane Policy others again from Self-interest some give their Votes for such a Cardinal because he is of the Spanish Faction they having a Pension to uphold that Faction Others chuse another because he is of the French Faction whose Pensioners they are Others chuse one who is most addicted to themselves hoping that by his Promotion they shall become great and powerful another again who conceives himself fit to be elected casts away his own Vote upon one that is most unlike to be chosen lest his Suffrage by making access to the Party of his Competitor should promote him and deprive himself of so high a Dignity What stuff is this to have an influence upon the Electors of a Chief Pastor nay How remote is all
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
Heresie He was of the most eminent repute of his time He was a great Opponent of all Novelty and Innovation and for his Merits very dear to the Emperor These then were the Persons which the Emperor consulted and required them to give him in Writing the True Sense of the Church concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Whether it were contained in the Sacrament in Verity and Reality or only in Vertue and Figure as also whether it were the same Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary Suffered upon the Cross Rose from the Dead c. that we receive in the Sacrament for to both Questions Paschasius Answers That it was the same Body present in the Eucharist in Verity and Reality and not only in Vertue and Figure To these two Questions the forenamed Doctors gave in their Answer in Latin to the Emperor in Writing and their Resolutions were contrary to the Doctrine of Paschasius as to both Questions For to the First Whether that which we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be truly and really the Body of Christ or only a Figure and Type thereof They both Answer That the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in this Sacrament only in Figure and Virtue and not in Reality As to the Second Question Whether it be the same Body that was Born of the Virgin Mary that suffered on the Cross that was Buried and Rose again that Ascended into Heaven they Answer That we Receive the Figure and Verture of that same Body And not wholly to omit the Transactions of these two Doctors I shall here briefly relate some passages of each of them SECT VI. A briefe account of some passages of the life and death of John Erigène THis Learned Doctor how dear soever he was to that Great Emperor Charles yet he was sharply censur'd and severely handled by several Authors and great Prelates and especially by the Council of Valentia for some Dogmatical Points which he deliver'd in a Treatise that he Wrote of Predestination and the state of the future Life as deviating from the Orthodox Principles of the Church yet none reprehended him for his Doctrine of the Eucharist And certainly he meritted eternal renown for Translating the Hierarchy of Dionysius of Areopagyta from Greek into Latin by Command of the Emperor Charles which Work added no small access to the Opinion formerly conceived of his zeal and eloquence for hence he was esteemed a Saint and that his Doctrine and knowledge was infus'd from Heaven His Fame daily increasing he was at last called into England by Alfrede then King where he was Barbarously Murdered by his own Disciples in the Monastery of Malmesbury in the year 883 or thereabouts and was decently buried in that Church but his Body was afterwards with great Pomp and Magnificence translated to the Cathedral and there placed before the Altar with this Epitaph Here lies John the Holy Philosopher Gulielm Malmesb. L. 2. C. 5. who in his life time was inriched with wonderful Doctrine and in the end had the honor to ascend by Martyrdom to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign eternally as William of Malmesbury relates And after his decease by the Autority of the See of Rome he was put into the Catalogue of Martyrs His Treatise of the Eucharist remained extant about 200 years after he Wrote it by the Emperors Command but about the year 1050 it was read in the Council of Verceils where Pope Leo the Ninth presided and there condemned to be Burnt as being repugnant to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Eucharist which was accordingly put in execution and so this Treatise perish'd And consequently it was often moved to have him expunged from the Catalogue of Saints but without effect till the time of Baronius who alledging That he had Written against the Real Presence upon this account got him excluded from that rank wherein he had been formerly placed by Gregory the 13th and other Popes Histor Ecclesiast Angliae L. 2. P. 119. as Fuller relates SECT VII Some Passages of the Life and Doctrine of Retram THis Doctor was one of the Learnedst and of the fairest repute of his time and upon this account was chosen among the rest by Charles the Emperor together with John Scot or Erigéne to give him an account what was the true meaning of Christ's Word 's and the true Doctrine of the Church in relation to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist By this means to allay the heat of that turbulent Contention and Animosity which had reacht the utmost confines of his Dominions and dissected his Subjects into violent Factions occasioned by the Writings of Paschasius wherein he Asserted the Real Presence These two great Men in Complyance to the Emperors Command gave their Answer in two distinct Treatises in Latin upon this Subject wherein they both agreed that the true Orthodox Doctrine never admitted of any Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament but that it was there contained Virtually and Figuratively by means of Christ's Institution which they proved out of the Scripture and Fathers alleging several parallel examples out of Holy Writ concluding that the adverse Opinion was a Heterodox novelty contrary to Scripture Fathers and the Universal Belief of the Church till that time Retram when he Wrote this Treatise was a Priest of the Church of Rome and Monck of the Monastery of Corby soon after there arose great difficulties between Nicholas the First then Pope and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople whereupon Pope Nicholas implores the Assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks The Clergy of the Gallican Church knew not where to find a more able and expert Champion to carry on this great design then Bertram or Retram and so unanimously chose him to defend the Pope and the Latin Church against their Antagonists Retram undertakes it and discharges his trust with a great deal of honor and applause and was afterwards created Abbot of Orbais But to come to his Doctrine his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ was providently preserved and at length Translated into English and Printed here in England about a Hundred Thirty and two years since in the year of our Lord 1549 whereof there have been several Editions since and it was lately Printed in France both in Latin and French But now come we to give you a Specimen of the Tenets which by this Treatise he endeavors to establish First Then he tells us That the Bread which by the Mystery of the Priest is made the Body of Christ doth shew one thing to the External Senses and another thing soundeth inwardly to the Mind of Faith Outwardly the Bread remaineth as it was before c. and then he adds of the VVine The Wine also which by the Consecration of the Priest is made the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ