* Plat. in vita John 18. When we thus see some owned for Popes who have never been duly elected and do know how much tirannical compulsion may force an outward compliance we cannot judge the submission and silence of the Church as Suarez holds Can be any certain ground that the election was lawful The sum of this argument is this if it be uncertain whether the essentialls of a just and true election be performed then it is vncertain whether this be a true Pope and ex consequenti it cannot be de fide that this Pope is the true sucessor of Saint Peter secondly we cannot be certain absolutely that the things essentially required in the consecration of the Pope are duly performed I do not mean of such things in the consecration which are only required by the cannon but I speak of those things which they account essential that there can be no consecration without them first I instance in the qualification of the person to be consecrated without baptisme there is no ordination and pro. who have not been baptized cannot be ordained nor consecrated and are jure divino uncapable of orders but we cannot be absolutly certain that this person hath been baptized pro. we cannot be absolutly certain that some thing essential to his consecration is not wanting Secondly In the intention of the consecrators for that is essentially necessary in conferring of orders by the Councells of Florence * Decret de Sacram. and the council of Trent * Sess de Sacram. Can. 2. requires an intention of doing that which the Church doth but it may fall out that the consecrators have no intention of doing any such things either through negligence or malice either they may intend to do nothing or not to do that which the church doth i. e. to consecrate or they may intend to do this outward act in sport or merriment or if then they cannot be certain that there is either an actuall or virtuall intention in the consecrators then they cannot be certain absolutly that the essentialls of consecration are duly performed Thirdly Without intention in the person to be consecrated there is no true consecration so Innocent the third determines * C. majore Extra de Baptisms and Suarez call's it the common opinion of Divines that to the value of a sacrament is required intentio suscipientis but no man can be absolutly certain that the Pope either in any moment foregoing or during the act of consecration did any way intend to receive it for ti 's not the bare outward performing or doing or receving which are required but the intending in the mind to do or receive and of that inward intention in the mind we cannot be certain Many more things might be added concerning the consecrators whether they were baptized whether they were Priests whether there is no defect in any thing essentially required to their baptisme or ordination whether the intention in the consecration was directed to that present person for that Filliucius * Cas Consc tract 1. c. 5. n. 79. requires now in these things since ti 's Possible some essential may be wanting it follows no man can be certain absolutly that this is the true Pope and if he cannot be so absolutly certain that this is the true Pope because ti 's possible some essential has been wanting then he cannot own it to be so de fide nor swear that the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches because of its Union with him Secondly I instance in the Article of Trausubstantiation according to the Creed of Pius 4th they swear that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly really and substantially the body and blood with the Soul and Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and there is a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body and of the whole substance of wine into the blood which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation and in the Council of Trent there is an Anathema pronounced against those who shall deny that wonderfull and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood the Species of bread and wine onely remaining which Conversion the Catholick Church most fitly calls Transubstantiation now though according to the Letter the Decree seems plain and they will all cry up this wonderfull miracle this August mistery yet in the explication of it and of the grounds whereupon they believe it they are perplexed For First although they pretend to derive this Doctrine from Scripture yet it is not certain that there is any place of Scripture which necessarily infers this doctrine so Scotus * In 4. lib. sent dist 11. q. 3. saies and how the body of Christ is there whether by Conversion of something into it or without Conversion the substance and accidents of bread remaining non invenitur in Canone Bibliae saies Gabriel Biel †In Canone miss lect 40. and notwithstanding that they usually insist on the 6th of St. John and the words of Institution this is my body yet others of great note among them conclude that it is not exprest in Scripture so Canus * Loc. Com. l. 3. c. 3. fund 2. holds and Cajetane maintains †the 6th of St. John no way pertains to a Sacramental * In 3. part q. 80. art vet eating the same is held by Jansenius Tapperus and others cited by Suarez and first some of them confess they should not have believed it unless the Church had declared it to be de fide for the Church by the spirit of truth did explain those things which were obscure in Scripture * Canus Loc. Com. l. 3. c. 3. fundam 2. but then it would be still in vain to endeavour to prove this conversion from Scripture because there is no argument from thence which can sufficiently convince and to argue with us from those Texts which they think are not sufficiently cogent without their Churches explanation is altogether impertinent for we are as uncertain of the infallibility of their Church in explaining those Texts as we are whether those Doctrines be contained there 't is first as to us uncertain whether this Doctrine be delivered in Scripture Secondly though they affirm that by the words of institution the bread is turned into the body and the wine into the blood yet they are perplexed about the meaning of them First As whether there be any figure in the words or no For if they be construed figuratively then they cannot certainly infer any transubstantiation and first sometimes they tell us there is no figure or trope yea there ought to be none in the words of Institution but then how can the Cup be the New Testament there the Cup must be put for Wine in the Cup. Again How can the Cup be the New Testament properly For a Testament is the Testators
vohis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum * Canon miss in missali Rom. Paris 1631. which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins now if these words be understood significatively then they are utterly false as Durand argued because the body of Christ must suffer no more nor the blood be shed thus whether these words shall be taken narratively or significatively or joyntly their Doctors cannot agree and are wholly perplexed to solve the difficulties and yet maintain their Ground Fourthly they are perplexed whether this conversion be productive or adductive or Conservative and so Bellarmine acknowledges that though they agree there is a transubstantiation i. e. conversion of the bread into the body and of the wine into the blood for the authority of the Councils and Church yet in the manner of explaining it they differ for they find so many difficulties in stating the manner of this conversion that though they maintain the decree in the termes of it yet they are perplexed to find the sense i. e. they professe to believe transubstantiation but when they come to tell us what they mean by it they then confesse they believe they know not what For first If this conversion be productive then the body of Christ should be made by these words hoc est eorpus meum but that which already hath it's being cannot by that action receive it's being for it is supposed to have its being before that action Again Every new reall action must have a new reall terme but there can be here no new reall terme because the terme was praeexisting as Io. de Rhada * In 4. lib. sent Con. 7. Art 2. Concl. 3. argues again Albertinus * Coroll tom 2. Cor. 3. dub 3. concl vins § 13. urges this argument if the word doth produce the body then the body of Christ did concurre as an instrument to the production of it selfe but that is a contradiction that the body should be made substantially by it self for then it should be both before and after it self before it self for it is presupposed to that Action by which it should be produced after it self as it is made by that Action and by this means the same thing would be both effect and cause in the same kind i. e. the body of Christ would be the cause of the Action by which it was produced and that Action is the causality or manner by which the body is produced This way of Conversion productive they now dislike though it most agree with the Letter of the Canons for they say the bread is substantially turned into the body of Christ * Conc. Rom. sub Nicol. 2. Greg. 7. they compare this to the turning of water into Wine but the Wine was produced in that miracle they have been used to say the Priest in the Sacrament creates his Creator yea Pope Vrban in the Roman Council makes this his pretence against doing Homage to the Laity for Ecclesiastical honours because it was nimis execrabile manus quae in tantam eminentiam excreverint ut Deum cuncta creantem suo ministerio creent c. because it was abominable that those hands which are advanced to that honour to create God who created all things should be the Servants of those hands which are daily defiled with obscene infection this way of production though it was not defined yet was thus publiquely pleaded by a Pope in Council but is now rejected Secondly If this Conversion be conservative then it will be wholly unintelligible for conservation is the continuance of creation or a continuance of that which already hath its being either first they meant that by the words of Consecration was wrought a Conservation of the body of Christ which was in heaven or a conservation of it under the Sacramental species it cannot be meant that there is wrought a conservation of it under the species unless there had been first an action creandi for it cannot be thought that a thing is conserved there where it is not supposed first to exist but according to them before these words the body did not exist there so it could not be conserved there nor can it be meant of a conservation of the body in Heaven for conservation is the continuance of an Action but here is a new Action and a new dependence wrought by the force of the words of consecration as Albertinus argues * Tom. 2. Corol. 3. dub 3. n. 7. This pretence of conservation hath few maintainers first let us consider the third way which Bellarmine calls communiorem tutiorem viam the more common and safe way of Thomas and other grave Divines I mean adductive conversion i. e. by the words the body of Christ is not made to exist simply but to exist under those species that the bread ceases to be under those accidents and the body begins to be under them that the body succeeds to exist under those accidents not by having a new substance but only a new presence but here they are all together perplexed for if it succeed here where the bread was it must either change place or be produced as Thomas instances in fire if it begin to be in the House where it was not before either it must be brought in hither or be generated here that it doth not change places is plain for then it should leave Heaven when it was adduced under the species of bread on Earth if they say it must be produced here how can that be how can it be produced and not have its being produced or how can it be said that the substance of bread is turned into the substance of the body when no new substance is made but only the substance exists in a different ubi or that one substance passes into another when the one onely succeeds the other or how should it be the most perfect manner of Conversion as Bellarmine saies when there is no change in the Nature of the body but only it is vailed under other accidents when there is no new substance but only a new presence yea Rhada saies out of Scotus * Part. 4. Cont. 6. Art 1. Concl. 3. there is no proper change at all or how can it be most fitly cal'd Transubstantiation yea properly and conveniently as the Council of Trent saies when this conversion of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of the body is no more then that the one existed where the other did and the term ad quem of this conversion is not any substance but an accidentalis modus a presence where it was not before There are some other inventions wherewith they labour to solve these perplexities but what one thinks that he builds another soon pulls down and there be so many contrary opinions in stating this conversion that 't is easy to see they could not satisfie others who are so wholly unsatisfied themselves Thirdly there
Sancta Trinitas c. And in this the Priest saies he offers this oblation for the memory of our Saviours Passion Resurrection and Assention and in the honour of the Blessed Virgin St. John Baptist and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul that it may profit them for their Honour and us for our Saâ—vation now of what doth the Prayer mean take it either of the Elements or of Christs body yet I understand not how they can offer for the Saints honour how they can intreat God to receive Christs body in honour of his Saints how an immediate act of adoration to God can be said to be profitable for their Saints honour or if it may be profitable to increase their glory how it can stand with their own tenents that it is impious to pray for a Martyr when yet they pray for St. Peter and Paul ut iis proficiat ad honorem but of this more afterwards Thirdly After the Consecration it is said we offer unto thy excellent majesty of thy own gifts a pure Host a holy Host the holy bread of Eternal life and the Cup of Eternal Salvation super quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris upon which things vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance c. Now this is absur'd that we should pray that God would look propitiously on his own Son in whom he is allwaies well pleased or that God would accept this Sacrifice of Christ when it is that sweet smelling Sacrifice which God allwaies doth accept Indeed Bellarmine gives us an excuse for the harshness of these words and faies the offering in respect of the thing offered and of Christ the principal offerer alwaies pleases God yet in respect of the minister or people who offer with him it may not please God and ê‘o they pray that God would look propitiously on this gift as it is offered by them but this evasion will not serve for they tell us that the value of this Sacrifice is not ex opere operantis from the condition or worth of the minister but ex opere operato from the nature of the thing it self because it is done as the Law requires * Bell. l. 2. c. 4. de Missa ◠〈◊〉 â— sâ—cundo and ê‘o it pleases God though he who offer it do not please him †§ tertium est so that since the value of the Sacrifice is wholly from the thing that is offered ê‘o as it is offered by us or not offered by us doth no way alter the acceptableness of it to God but still the prayer must remain absur'd for they pray that God would look propitiously on the body and blood of Christ and accept them when God allwaies doth accept them and can never be displeased with them Fourthly There is a fourth prayer which begins supplices rogamus c. There they pray that God would command these things to be carried by his holy Angels unto the high Altar in the sight of his Divine Majesty c. Now what are these things if they say the prayers of the faithfull that cannot be meant for this prayer is to the thing spoken of in the former prayer and that was the body and blood of Christ the holy bread of Eternal life and the Cup of everlasting Salvation if they say that they are the body and blood of Christ as it is plain from the words that they are then these have been long since in Heaven and Christ lives there to make intercession for us how then can they be carried up into Heaven and ê‘o he fixes another sense * l. 2. de Missa c. 24. Sect. respondâ—â— that those expressions must be understood spiritually and signifie only this that the Angels by their prayers commend our obedience to God but still he forgets that the things here in the prayer are not our obedience and service but the body and blood of Christ that there is no mention of our obedience and service in that prayer but both this and the former prayer are connected with those words we offer to thee a pure Host an holy Host an undefiled Host the holy bread of Eternal life and the Cup of everlasting Salvation for they subjoyne in the next words upon which things vouchsafe to look propitiously c. and then follows this prayer we humbly beseech thee command these things to be carried c. it must then be meant of his body and blood but how unreasonable is it to desire the Angels may commend the Sacrifice of Christ with their prayers or that their prayers should assist to render the Sacrifice of Christ acceptable as if any thing should add any worth to Christs Sacrifice but if this will not remove the incongruities of this expression Durand * Rational Div. Offic. l. 4. c. 44. â—it E. tells us tantae profunditatis sunt haec verba ut intellectus humanus vix ea sufficiat penetrare These are such profound expressions that humane understanding can hardly pierce into them well said a good excuse for non-sense to call it a profound expression or to condemn the weakness of our understandings when 't is the absurdity of their words these are fine things to please them who are wont to admire every thing in the Romish Church like those Courtiers which cry up the Princes stammering for a grace in his speech a strange thing that those expressions must pass for most Divine which have least reason and sense Thus I have instanced in several absurdities untruths and impieties in the Offices of the Romish Church which justifie my third argument That it is unreasonable to be obliged to believe that to be the purest Church whose publique Offices are very corrupt but the Offices of the Romish Church are so ê‘o CHAP. IV. MY fourth Consideration shall be drawn from the Irreconcileable opposition of their prayers to their publique Doctrine very many prayers which are contrary to their present Innovations are expunged and many prayers yet retained cannot be reconciled with their present Doctrine ê‘o we have no reason to adhere to the present Romish Church First Many prayers which were contrary to their present innovations are expunged this is not only our complaint but of one that lived and died in the Roman communion Johannes Marsillius * Defesadis Gio. Marsilio Della 4. prop. contra iâ— Cardâ— Bellarminoâ— â—aies it is a thing known by all that in the books of Councels of Canons and of the Doctors yea in the Breviaries and Missals those places are expunged which speak in favour of the Laity that they might see if they could establish from Antiquity the opinion of the Popes illimited power in temporals so that he who compares the Books Printed in 1530 and 1550 and those at present i at the time of the interdict of Venice will wonder that we have found after such a vintage any gleanings in defence of our Prince and ê‘o first I will give you his Instance
in the prayer concerning St. Peter in the commemoration of St. Paul June 30. where it was anciently said qui B. Petro animas ligandi solvendi pontificium dedisti this he saies he saw in Breviaries which had been written above 200 yeares and which had been printed about an hundred and yet the Reformers of the Roman breviary have left out the word animas will you see Bellarmines answer in his reply to Marsillius he saies forsi la divina providentia ha inspirato li reformatori c. Perhaps the Divine Providence hath inspired the reformers to take it away but why must it be taken away because as Marsilius states the case the Pope designing the advancement of his Power that he might Challinge as St Peters successor a power in temporals saw that this restriction was no way consistent with his design for if the binding and loosing be properly of Souls it must be a meerly Spiritual Power and so no way consistent with that supereminent power in temporals which the Pope and his Courtiers claimed a good reason then to take this away and a fine excuse to justifie it Gods providence must inspire these reformers such an inspiration indeed as the Trent Fathers had when if we believe the Proverb the Holy Ghost came from Rome in a cloke-bag Secondly I will give that Instance which the Arch Bishop of Spalato * De. Rep. Eccles. 〈◊〉 c. 5. n. 164. had observed in Bertram's book when Bertram would prove that the bread and wine are figuratively the body and blood of Christ and though they are call'd the body and blood of Christ yet there are such things said of them which are Celebrated by the Church in a mistery as cannot be said according to that manner they are known to exist and ê‘o they must be understood to be the body and blood of Christ in a figure he proves this by two prayers in the Missal which were said after the Communion the first is Pignus aeternae vitae capientes humiliter imploramus ut quod imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifestâ participatione sumamus taking the pledg of eternal life we humbly beseech that what we touch in the Image of the Sacrament we may also receive by manifest participation from hence Bertram gather'd that a pledge and an Image only signifying the things which they belong to but not manifestly shewing them ê‘o that which is now made in the Sacrament is different from that which shall be afterwards manifested ê‘o that which the Church Celebrates is the body and blood of Christ but yet as a pledge as an Image and when there is no more pledge or Image the truth it self i. e the body of Christ will apear now this Prayer is not to be found in the Missal saies Sspalato Another he mentions Per ficiant in nobis Domine quaesumus tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie geramus rei veritate capiamus let thy Sacraments O Lord effects in us what they contain that what we now hold in shew we may receive in truth from this he argues there being a difference betwixt species and veritas i. e betwixt what is in shew and what is according to it's true nature ê‘o that body blood of Christ which is here held by the Church differs from that which shall be glorified in the resurrection this prayer is clipt saies Spalato instead of specie they read spe yet since that is opposed to truth in this place it shews that we do not receive that which is truly the body of Christ according to its proper nature and so it was read in their reformed Missals in Antiquitates Liturgicae * Sabbato 4. tempotum per Balthas Beller 1605. printed at Doway 1605. which the author saies he took à capite ad calcem out of the Roman Misal the prayer runs ut quae nunc spe geramus c. but I wave this latter for the word specie is now restored in the Paris edition of the Missal 1631. Many more alterations in their Offices might be produced which will evidence the innovations in the Doctrine of their Church and which I hope will be effected by by some industrious person who hath the opportunity of variety of choice Missals and Breviaries and their other books of devotion whereby to discover those alterations of their present from their ancient Offices Secondly I will rather instance in those passages yet retained and are not reconcileable with the grounds of their present Doctrine As First I instance in the private Masses when the Priest communicates alone for many are bound by the Statutes of their foundation as the Chantry Priests to say Mass for the Souls of their founders many persons for affection some by agreement and the highest ordinary rate in these Countries saies Fitz-Simon * Of the Mass 1 book 2 part 12 chapt is a shilling say a Mass and ê‘o whether there be any to Communicate or no yea though but one to answer the Priest and sometime none †Gavant part 2. tit 2. n. 1. yet he saies Mass and the Council of Trent though it wishes all who stand by would not only communicate by spiritual affection but Sacramental participation of the Eucharist yet it doth not condemn those Masses in which the Priest communicates alone but approves them and commends them now the prayers and rules of the Mass are no way reconcileable with this Doctrine and practice for First If there be none to communicate how can the Priest use this exhortation which is in the Ordo Missae after the prayer suscipe Sancta Trinitas Orate fratres ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium fit acceptabile c. pray bretheren that my Sacrifice and yours may be acceptable this exhortation saies the Rubrick must be said by the Priest with his voice toward the people and his Tone a little raised and in their private Mass all this is done though there be none present the exhortation supposes some communicating or at least some present why must he say Brethren if he supposes there needs be none or at least but one why should he raise his voice when he can expect none to answer unless the stones say Amen why must he turne to the people if it suppose a Mass where there are none or but one present Lastly why must he say my Sacrifice and yours if it did not suppose some joyning in the sacrifice Secondly I instance in that exhortation lift up your hearts with the response habemus ad dominum if we lift them up to the Lord c. so the Priest saies dominus vobiscum the Lord be with you the answer is and with thy Spirit now if in the framing this Office it were not supposed that others were present to whom the Priest might direct the exhortation and that they should return the answer it had been foolish to have appointed the use of these words for it s altogether vain
disposition of his Estate but the Wine in the Cup or the thing contained under the species cannot be so in any proper sense Again 't is uncertain how the blood in the Cup can properly be called the New Testament in his blood for the blood is a physical a Testament is a moral thing yea 't is uncertain whether Bellarmin's * Explanation of the L. 1. de Eucharist c. 11. words be sense This blood under the species is the New Testament under his blood so that 't is doubtful when they have done all they can whether they can explain these words without a figure Secondly They are perplexed about the meaning of these words as what is meant by hoc est corpus meum for if they cannot resolve what is meant by this Pronoun hoc then they cannot determine what is the full meaning of this Proposition indeed Bellarmin * L. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. tels us Vera est Catholicorum sententia qui volunt illud Hoc non demonstrare panem sed rem contentam sub speciebus panis c. That the opinion of Catholicks was true who say this Pronoun Hoc doth demonstrate not the Bread but a thing contained under it which although it was Bread before yet it is now the Body of Christ But he that consults the Romish Writers will find that Bellarmin only hides their quarrels and obtrudes his own opinion for a general Doctrine Johannes de Rhada * Controv. 5. de Sacr. Euchar. Art 4. acknowledges the perplexity of their Doctors some say the Pronoun Hoc demonstrates the species of bread because the Pronoun must signifie a sensible thing which exists when the designation is made and remains when the signification of the word is finished but there is nothing in the Sacrament which is sensible when the words began to be pronounced and when they are ended besides the accidents first it must signifie the Accidents Some say that this Pronoun demonstrates the body of Christ as it is in it self or intending the body of Christ in Heaven which when the words are spoken begin to be in the Host * Occam quod lib. vet q. 2. and so the words signifie this body is my body Some say it designs the substance of bread under those accidents and so the sense is The bread passes into the body of Christ hoc est * Bonavent q. 1. Art 1. in 2. part dist 8. lib. 4. ad hujus verbi prolationem hoc totum transire in corpus Some say it designs something common to the substance of bread and the Body of Christ under this reason of being contained under the species and so the sense should be hoc quod sub his acccidentibus continetur est corpus meum that which is contained under these accidents is my body and this he pretends both Thomas and Scotus holds But still the perplexity remains what that is which is contained under these accidents when they first say Hoc for 't is not the body till the words are ended If it were the bread then the Proposition is true this bread is my body and that they will not gâ—ant Again the subject of the Proposition must have a distinct sense when first our Saviour took the bread into his hand and said this is there must be some meaning of that part of the Proposition that Demonstrative pronoun Hoc must refer to some thing present * Bellar. l. 1. de Sacr. Euchar c. 11. § h. â—c expl and that which is evident to the senses and not barely apprehended by the imagination what can that be but only bread which they confess was existing during the speaking of the words Thirdly they are perplexed whether this Transubstantiation be wrought by the Prayer of Consecration or the words of Institution that it was wrought by the Prayer as well as the words was the opinion of some that the Consecration was the same with the blessing and giving of thanks was the opinion of Thomas Durand Hugo Cardinalis c. yet still how this can be is wholly intricate and perplexed for if our Saviour Consecrated by blessing and giving of thanks then he consecrated by Prayer but that they will not say for they now conclude he Consecrated by those words hoc est corpus meum as it is determined by the Council of Florence * Conc. Flor. in Instruct. Armen that our Saviours words by which he made the Sacrament are the form of it and that by the virtue of those words the Consecration is wrought and so it is explained in the Roman Catechisme We are taught saies the Catechisme by the Evangelist's Mathew and Luke and by the Apostle this is the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist hoc est corpus meum well but still they are perplexed in what sense the Priest uses these words for some think they are only repeated Historically * Salmero tract 13. tom 9. Soto Art 5. q. 1. dist 11. but they cannot work this change for so they only shew what was done by our Saviour in the first celebration of the Sacrament others say that they are spoken significatively i. e. that the Priest speaking in the person of Christ signifies the turning of that bread into the body so saies the Florentine Council Sacerdos loquens in persona Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum but this will not agree with the Canon of the Mass where they are repeated Historically for after the Prayer that God would make that offering to be to us the body and blood of his Son Jesus Christ 't is immediately added in imitation of the Apostles recital of the Story who the day before he suffered tooke bread into his holy and venerable hands and lifting up his eyes unto Heaven to thee his Father God Allmighty gave thanks he blessed brake and gave to his Disciples saying take eate all of this for this is my body now what connexion can there be betwixt these latter words and the former unless they be joyned as part of the History or what sense in the former words he brake and gave to his Disciples saying take eate all of this if they break off abruptly the repeating of the Story and do not add these words hoc est corpus meum Thus they are perplexed on either hand and first to avoid this intricacy they have divised a new way that these words should both be taken recitativè and significativè both as part of the Story and as the Priests words in the person of Christ by virtue of them turning the bread but still how can this be that the same words should be both a repetition of a former Story and the production of the like effect how is this intelligible that the same word without any variation should be used for these different purposes both to relate what was done and to work the same thing over again and further in the Consecration of the blood 't is added qui pro
and rediculous to say lift up your hearts when there is none to hear him or to say let us pray when he prayes by himself or the Lord be with you when he speaks to the bare walls Thirdly I instance in the commemoratio pro vivis where the Priest desires God to remember all those that stand by whose faith and devotion are known to thee for whom we offer or who offer to thee this Sacrifice of praise c. Now this expression supposes there must be some that stand by or else the Priest should be bound ridiculously to pray for them that stand by when there are none at all Fourthly I instance in the prayer Supplices te rogamus c. there he prayes that as many of us as receive the body and blood of thy Son from this participation of the Altar may be filled with all Heavenly Benedictions and Grace here the Prayer supposes some receiving or if there be none to receive with the Priest how can he say that as many of us as receive c Bellarmin * l. 2 de Missa c. 10. resp ad object 10. thinks to solve this scruple by telling us that these words are used for those who communicate at present and if there be none then it must refer to those who are absent who communicate elsewhere but this will not serve for the Prayer refers to those who communicate here and not elsewhere for else how can it say as many of us and as many as receive from this participation of the Altar for the words this participation ex hac altaris participatione restrain it to those who are now to receive Lastly I instance in the prayer after the Priest hath received quod ore sumpsimus c. what we have O Lord taken with our mouthes let us allso receive with a pure mind c. Now how can they say this unless they suppose some receiving for if they only Communicate spiritually as the Council of Trent saies assisting with their prayers then they cannot be said to receive it with their mouthes besides he desires that what they have received with their mouthes they may receive with a pure minde And ê‘o this receiving doth suppose that former receiving so that we may from hence judge this to have been the Primitive institution that some should Communicate with the Priest and that as Walafrid Strabo saies it was only a lawfull Mass in which there was the Priest those that answer and those who offer and communicate sicut ipsa compositio precum evidenti ratione demonstrat as the frame of the prayers saies he evidently shews and I add as I have now instanced that the expressions yet retained are contrary to their present Practice and Doctrine Secondly I instance in the Doctrine of merit in this indeed I cannot see much difference betwixt the moderate Romanists and us as Spalato * De Rep. Eccles l. 〈◊〉 c. 7. u. 8. and Forbes †Consid Modest a. l. 5. c. 4. observe for they will tell us that they account good works meritorious not for the value and worth of the work it self but from Gods acceptation promise and appointment and so Cassander * Consult ad Art 6. de operibus bonis saies that the Schoolmen and other Ecclesiasticks did not differ from this opinion for they placed the force of the merit of their righteousness in Gods free acceptation and liberal promise and that their righteousness what ever it was was Gods gift and due by right of service to him c. yet if we consult the Jesuits and rigid writers among the Romanists they will tell us that our works do merit from the dignity of the work so Bellarmine saies †De Iustif l. 5. c. 16. that it is communis verissima Theologorum sententia that there is a meritum de condigno that there is a strict equallity betwixt the worth of the work it self and the reward and from Vasquez * In 1 secundae Tom. 2. Q. 114. Disp 214. 〈◊〉 5. we have this assertion that good works of just persons are of themselves without any covenant or acception worthy of the reward of Eternal life and have an equall value of condignity to the attaining Eternall glory This opinion they think is backt by the Council which Anathematizes * Conc. Trident Sess 6. Can. 32. them who deny that good works done by the grace of God and merit of Christ do truly deserve increase of grace and Eternall glory and the interest of this opinion hath so far prevailed that whereas in the ordo baptizandi cum modo visitandi c. Printed at Venice 1575 there was this question proposed to the dying man Credis non propriis meritis sed passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi virtute merito ad gloriam pervenire dost thou believe that thou shalt come to glory not by thy own merits but by the virtue and merit of Jesus Christs passion and this was also proposed to him dost thou believe that Jesus Christ died for our Salvation and that none can be saved by his own merits or by any other means but by the merits of his passion both these are commanded to be expunged by the Index expurgatorius of Card. Quiroga * Index Expurg per Card. Quirog Madrit 1584. recus Hanoviae 1611. 1584. and also by that of Cardinal Sandoval 1612. This expression is also expunged out of Erasmus Annotations in the first Chapter of St. Luke on these words they shall call me blessed Then Gods name is glorified when nothing is ascribed to our own merits but the whole to Gods mercy this Doctrine of merit though disliked by the moderate sort and hardly owned where they converse with Protestants is yet stifly maintained as the common opinion in those Countries which are intirely Popish seems to be countenanced by the decree of the Council and more fully by those who have been imployed in purging Heretical books yet notwithstanding all this the prayers which may be found in the Offices are no way reconcileable with it for though in their disputes with men they pretend the merit of their works yet in their Prayers to God they fly to his sole mercy so they sing * In dediâ— Sancti Mich. Archang ad vesperas in Hiâ—â— â—ibâ— Christe mundo corde corpore Paradiso redde tuo nos solâ clementiâ bring us by thy alone mercy to thy Paradise with clean heart and body and in the Prayer which begins nobis quâ—que in the Canon of the Mass they beg that God would bring them into the society of Saints non aestimator meriti sed veniae largitor not esteeming their merits but pardoning their offences if there could be any exact merit which from its own dignity deserves glory why do they then fly to his sole mercy and if the whole be not ascribed to Gods mercy but mans merits why do they beg that God would not weigh their