ROME'S CONVICTION; OR, A VINDICATION OF THE Original Institution OF Christianity; In Opposition to the Many USURPATIONS OF THE CHURCH of ROME; And their frequent VIOLATION of DIVINE RIGHT.  
Clearly Evinced, By Arguments Drawn from their Own PRINCIPLES; And Undeniable Matter of Fact.  
By John Savage, Gent.  
London, Printed by T. N. for Gabriel Kunholt, at the King's Head over against the Mews, near Charing-Cross. MDCLXXXIII.   

TO THE MOST RENOWNED MONARCH Charles the II. OF England, Scotland, France and Ireland KING, Defender of the Faith, etc.  
Most Dread Sovereign,  
WHither should This TREATISE of Religion Fly for Protection, but under the Wings of Your Most Sacred Majesty? Duly Entitled to the Glorious Prerogative of Defender of the FAITH; Hither therefore it Connaturally tends: but makes its Approach in an Humble Posture, Dazzled, as it were, with the Glory of so much Majesty. It's Author likewise Falls Prostrate at Your Royal Feet, earnestly Imploring Your PRINCELY Protection of these his weak Endeavours. He comes Full Fraught with a Confident Hope, that where such Power and Goodness Reigns, he cannot suffer a Repulse. And being swayed by the Memory of Your Past Favours, the sense of Gratitude, as well as Duty, hath Immutably Fixed him in this Resolve: That a Deep-Rooted Loyalty, Animated with a Fervent Zeal for Your Majesty's Royal Person, Government, and Prerogatives, shall ever be the Indelible Character of,  
Your Majesty's Most Loyal, Most Submissive, and Most Addicted Subject, John Savage.   

TO THE Reader.  
HAving had a more than ordinary inspection into the Doctrine and PRINCIPLES of the Church of Rome; I have (upon this Account) been earnestly moved by some Persons of Honour, and Worth, to Write something in Opposition to that Church; and at length I was wrought to a Compliance. In the pursuit whereof, I have had no consideration of the Unkindness and Ingratitude of some of the Church of Rome towards me, but have proceeded with all imaginable Candour and Sincerity, wholly devested of all Ranker, Spleen, and Animosity, against their Persons: But, I deemed it no way repugnant to Christian Charity to use my best endeavours, to open a way to Truth. And if sometimes my Pen seems to be Dipped in Gall, yet this only is a product of Zeal for the Doctrine I have undertaken to defend, in opposition to theirs, without the least intending to infringe the Laws of Morality.  
The Heads of Doctrine contained in each Disputation of this Treatise I have several times Proposed to the Learnedest Doctors of the Church of Rome that I could meet with (of several Religious Orders) quasi tentando, by way of Discourse. 
P. Worsleus Soc. Jesus Leodii.  One tells me, That these Difficulties were indeed insuperable, if scanned by the Light of Reason; but yet we were all obliged to captivare intellectum in obsequium fidei, to captivate our Understanding in Obedience to Faith. 
P. Haseur Recollecta Namurci.  Another Answers by way of Admonition, That it was not safe, but on the contrary very dangerous, to penetrate too deep into the Mysteries of Faith. A Third Allegeth, 
P. Derkennis, Soc. Jesus, Lovanii.  That I had as good Question the Verity of Scripture, as submit the Definitions of Councils to the Scrutiny of Reason; because the Scripture also contains very great Difficulties, and seeming Contradictions.  
To all these I Reply, That Divine Faith consists of Two parts; the Material Object, which is the thing we Believe, and the Formal Object, which is the Motive why we Believe, and that is dictio Dei, God's saying, or revealing it. Wherefore, when a Mystery is proposed to be Believed as an Article of Faith, though I have no Evidence in attestato, in the thing Revealed, because I cannot demonstrate the Truth of it by Human Reason; yet if I have Evidence, or Certainty, in attestante, that is, I am sure God says it; then with a Blind Obedience, and with a firm Adhesion, I assent to it: But if it be Doubtful, and Ambiguous, whether it be a Divine Revelation or no; then to Institute a strict Inquiry, Whether it be truly and really attested by Divine Authority or no, is an act of Prudence, and therefore not dangerous, but secure and laudable. But how shall we know assuredly whether it be a Divine Revelation or not?  
First, I Answer, That no New Revelations are to be admitted, but such as are contained in Holy Writ, in the Canonical Scripture.  
Secondly, I Answer, That if the Mystery proposed drive us to such Extremities, that no Assent can be given to it, without denying some one of the Prima Principia Lumine Naturae nota, First Principles known by the Light of Nature, which the Wit of Man cannot avoid, than we may certainly conclude, that if it be a new Doctrine not contained in Scripture, or if it be evidently inconsistent with the Light of Nature, in both cases it comes not from God, but is a mere Human Invention; And we ought not to Believe by Divine Faith, that which is backed only by Human Authority.  
As for the Difficulties of Scripture, those which are Seeming Contradictions, are most Historical, and are Solved by those Authors, who, ex professo, have Written so many Large Tomes of the Interpretation of Scripture. Other Mysteries, which are Speculative and Doctrinal, as a Virgin to Conceive; the Incarnation of the Divine Word, and the Hypostatical Union; the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, etc. there is no one of all these that is destructive of the Light of Human Reason, or that will reduce us to a necessity of denying the Truth of any of the First Principles. Since therefore we admit of all Canonical Scripture as the Word of God, we ought to Believe it by Divine Faith. For certain it is, that as God's Infinite Veracity is uncapable of asserting such things, as are impossible; so likewise, by the same Rule, God (who is the Author of Human Reason) is uncapable of Imposing upon Man's Understanding, a necessity of Believing that which is false, or impossible; for if false, it is destructive of his Veracity, which would un-God him; if Impossible, it is inconsistent with Human Reason. And yet all things are to be granted to the Divine Omnipotence, that involve not a manifest Contradiction.  
And this may serve as a Reply to the Answers of the aforementioned Doctors.  
I shall therefore proceed, in order to examine the Controverted Difficulties, which this Treatise contains, as they are digested under their respective Heads, whereof each hath his Peculiar Disputation, and the Disputations I Subdivide into Sections.  
In the Second Disputation of this Treatise I have Inserted most of the Ancient Rituals and Liturgies of the Latin, Greek, and the Eastern Churches, which Morinus Translated out of the Greek, and Syrian into Latin. And, as this Translator was tied to give the Literal Sense of the Originals, without Mutation; so also I deemed it Illegal to make any change or alteration in the Latin Version, which in some places is obscure, and obsolete, but I have rendered the true and genuine sense thereof in English, to the best of my capacity.  
And because the Pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome is the Foundation and main Prop, which supports their Confidence, Inductive to several Determinations and Decrees, whereby they seem to Wage War with Heaven; I deemed it expedient in the First Place, to Detect the Weakness of this Foundation; but, this being a Negative Design, the most proportionable means to accomplish my end, is, to refel the Arguments which they produce, for the establishing this Non-erring Prerogative.  
And yet the Chiefest Argument they Allege, is but a Fallacious Illusive Circle; for, they prove the Infallibility of their Church by Scripture, and prove the Canon of Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church, without Qualifying either Part, to prove the other, but Rely upon the Support; that these two Administer to each other, which, in effect, is to prove neither.  
Notwithstanding, I Insist not much upon this Argument, but mention it, and so proceed. I should have Instituted a more Minute Indagation and Refutation of it, had I not seen it safely deduced, by a more Learned and Skilful Pen; and, with that Success, that his Antagonists will scarce Attempt another Contest with him, in this Particular; for the Wit of Man, though backed with all their Learning, will never be able to make it out.  
It seems strange, how such Points of Doctrine, as are mentioned in this Treatise, and others also, not here Treated of, could be so Publicly Introduced into a Church of so Large an Extent, without great Contention, and Intestine Broils; yea, without the least Opposition, or Contradiction.  
For it is certain, that they have many amongst them, who are very Learned, and Able Divines, whose Intellects are sufficiently qualified with deep Penetration, and Perspicacity, and yet none Reclaims, nor calls those Strange Dogmatical Points in Question. The reason is, because the Church of Rome is so strongly Immured, and Fenced on all sides, and hath such variety of Arms, and Weapons, to suppress her Opponents, that she seems formidable to all; for, if any one, either by Word, or Writing, should testify any dislike of her Decrees, or Definitions, he is first branded with the Infamous Note of an Heretic; and if he do not Recant, the Church hath other Remedies: next follows Suspension from his Priestly Functions; there are also Ecclesiastical Censures, and Excommunications; there is Excommunicatio Major, and Excommunicatio Minor; some are Latae Sententiae, some Sententiae Ferendae; some are à Jure, others ab Homine; some are Reservatae, others non Reservatae, whereof there is a Long Catalogue in the Bulla Coenae; there are also Interdicts for whole Nations and Kingdoms; And which is worst of all, in Italy and Spain; if the Sancta Mater Ecclesia be opposed by any, there the Inquisition lies gaping for them, and ready to Swallow them up Alive.  
All which strikes the most Audacious of them into a Panic Fear; they dread the Punishment, and therefore Industriously shun the Means of Incurring it.  
Hence the Supine Neglect in their Divines of Attempting to Reform, or prevent such Errors, though never so Repugnant to their Judgements; for, besides the forementioned Penalties, they must also expect (if they be Readers) to be Deposed from their Theological Chairs, and Expelled the Academy, and then Degraded.  
And hence that Profound Severity of their Popes and Councils, in framing their Definitions; for being Conscious of their Immunity from Opposition, they are hence raised to a Confidence of Attempting any thing.  
Wherefore, since none that are Subject to the Roman Jurisdiction have so much Resolution, as to Struggle with the many Obstacles and Arduity, as they will certainly meet withal, to Obviate their Design, of Opposing those Errors.  
I have here undertaken to Refute some of them; in the Prosecution whereof I have taken a Method far different from that, of other Learned, and Worthy Authors, who have Treated of the same Subject; for, my main Scope and Drift, is to Refel the Errors of Rome, by their own Principles; wherefore I lay down their Tenets, before I establish my own Assertions, hereby to make it appear, how little constant they are to themselves; for their Practice and Belief, are wholly inconsistent with the Dogmatical Principles of their Learnedest Divines, and sometimes clash with the Definitions of their Popes, and other Councils, which I shall make appear.  
So that this Bulwark (though against them) is raised by their own Labour and Industry, and furnished with Arms and Ammunition, drawn from their own Magazine; yea, and Manned by their own Oracles, the Divines; for though they dare not apply their Doctrine to oppose the Councils, so to Commence an Intestine War, yet I shall here do it for them, and draw from thence such Illations, as Legally Issue from their Principles, to subvert their Pretended Articles of Faith.  
Hence the Reader (if not Praecautioned) may take occasion to deem me a Defender of their Doctrine; whereas in Reality I only suppose it, according to the Laws of Disputation, Ad hominem, to make such Deductions from thence, as are destructive of each particular Point of their Faith, and Practise, which I Impugn; and this in effect is no other than to pronounce their Destruction by their own Hands. Perditio tua ex te Israel. For, though many of those Principles, (which are the Groundwork of my Discourse) are common to both Churches: yet others there are, which peculiarly are admitted by the Church of Rome only.  
So we all agree in the Notion of a Sacrament, but differ in the Number of Sacraments, etc. yet with them, I Suppose (not Grant) Seven Sacraments; thereby to make it Appear, that they Transgress against Divine Right, by Changing the Matter and Form of Ordination, and by Invalidating Clandestine Marriage, etc. which they Acknowledge to be both Sacraments.  
So that the Proofs of the several Positions of this Discourse, are Reduced to Formal, or Ritual Sillogismes, whose Premises are made up, for the most part, of their own Acknowledged Doctrine, and Matters of Fact, both which are Undeniable; and this Duality is sometimes backed with Philosophical and Theological Principles, or Canon-Law; all which they Admit of.  
And hence, by Legal Deductions, is drawn the Verity of the Assertions, which are Diametrically opposite to their Pretended Faith and Practice.  
In the Prosecution whereof, I have confined myself to as much Brevity, as is Compatible with the Right Understanding, and True Meaning, of the Respective Points of Doctrine here Treated; for Prolix Perorations, in so Serious a Discourse, would be Irksome to the Author, and Tedious to the Reader.  
And now I must Implore the Favour of the Benign Reader, to Indulge me now and then, the use of Scholastical Terms, which, upon some Incident Occasions, are more Pathetical, and Significant, in expressing my Meaning, than others, especially considering, that in order to the stopping of all Gaps, and Starting Holes, I am sometimes Necessitated, to Soar above the Ordinary Strain of Doctrine, to Evince the Coherency of my Positions with the Principles of Philosophy, and Scholastical Divinity, which though Abstruse, and Speculative, yet is Avowed by their own Champions.   

Dispute I. Of the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome.  

The Preface.  
THE natural and acquisite knowledge of Man's intellectual Faculty could never pretend to any specifical degree of Clarity, above those obscure Notions which by foreign Species we draw from several Objects; wherefore the Representation being weak, the Understanding is seldom certainly assured of the true State of the Object. But the Church of Rome pretends to a higher Prerogative, above the rest of Mankind, viz. an Infallibility in her decisions, that is, a determination to Truth, and an incapacity of falling into any Falsity or Error; wherefore I deemed it worth the Examination, whither this superexcellent Faculty be grounded upon any sure Foundation, or an assumed and pretended Privilege, like his Holinesses usurped Power to Lord it over Kings, and to Depose them, and dispose of their Dominions at his pleasure; as if Emperors, Kings, and Temporal Princes were but his Tenants at Will, and he the Proprietor, or Landlord.   

SECT. I. Wherein consists the true Notion of Infallibility?  
TO the end we may with greater perspicuity trace the Divines of the Church of Rome in their Principles, we must first premise a  Knowledge that the Understanding is capable of: There is an abstractive, a quidditive, an intuitive, and a comprehensive Knowledge. The first is a weak and imperfect representation, framed by borrowed Species, gathered first by the external and internal Senses, and thence transmitted to the Understanding, which are but virtual representations, and as it were the Seeds of the Object, by means whereof the Vital Power, together with these Species, as concauses, produce a formal image or representation of the Object: And this abstractive Knowledge, is peculiar to the State of Man in this Life. A quidditive Knowledge is a clearer Representation, framed by the Understanding, instructed with proper Species, by means whereof it penetrates into the essential Perfections and peculiar Faculties of the Prototypon, or thing represented. An intuitive Knowledge is that which, by the proper Species of the exemplar, distinguisheth in what State the Object is, whither existent, past, or to come; and herein it resembles that Science in God, which the Divines call Scientia visionis. A comprehensive Knowledge includes the two former; and moreover represents all the Perfections, Powers and Faculties of its Object explicitly, in order to all its Connotates and Correlatives, explicating distinctly all the variety of effects that may proceed from such a cause, and discovering all and singular the innate Powers and Faculties thereof, with reference to all external Objects that have any connexion, dependence, or relation to it. And because these external Objects are infinite, therefore this comprehensive Knowledge is peculiar to God alone, but the two former are imparted to the Blessed Angels and Souls of the Faithful, who by their Beatifical Vision see God quidditively and intuitively.  
Moreover there are three degrees of clarity, or certainty, whereby various Acts of the Understanding do variously represent their Objects. The first is Probability, which by reason of its weakness and imbecility is always accompanied with a virtual or formal Ambiguity, and Fear that the contrary may be true, because the motives that are inductive to the assent bring no assurance, but only a seeming resemblance with the Truth. The second is a Moral certainty, which, though there be a possibility of its failing, yet seldom or never errs; as one that never was at Rome, yet hath a Moral certainty that such a City is extant, because he hath often heard the concurring Testimonies of so many that have been there. The third and highest degree is the certainty of Infallibility, which is always accompanied with Truth, and imports also an incapacity of Erring, so that all Physical, Mathematical, and Metaphysical demonstrations, and all those Truths which Philosophers call Prima Principia, as Nihil potest simul esse & non esse. Omne totum est majus suâ parte. Quae sunt eadem unitertio sunt eadem inter se, etc. all these are invested with the certainty of Infallibility. To this also belongs all acts of supernatural Faith, which are truly grounded on Divine Revelation.  
This being premised, we now come to inspect the peculiar nature of that Infallibility, which the Doctors of Rome attempt to affix to their Church: And though the word Church, taken in its greatest latitude, include all the Members thereof, wheresoever dispersed, yet their Divines commonly restrain the meaning thereof to an Oecomenical Council, indicted by the Pope, promulged by the Emperor, furnished with a sufficient number of Fathers and Bishops, wherein the Pope, by himself, or his Legate, presides, and confirms the Canons and Decrees of the same, by his Apostolical Authority; so that a Council, with all these Requisites, is that which they call the Church, and assert it Infallible in all its Canons and Decrees, yea and some of the Pope's Candidates affirm, That his Holiness also participates of this high Prerogative, when he speaks ex Cathedra, though no Council be then sitting, which the Jesuits, the Pope's Minions, struggle hard to maintain against others of the same Church.  
Another difficulty hath been started amongst them, How this Infallibility affects their Church? Wither it be an inherent quality, possessing the minds and understandings of the Fathers and Bishops in Council, essentially determining them to truth; or else an extrinsical assistance, whereby the Holy Ghost inspires them with Truth, and protects them from Error. But I leave them to debate these difficulties among themselves, for it is not the scope of this present discourse to examine what they call their Church, and how this Infallibility affects it, but only whither this singular favour be really granted to them, or whither they unjustly pretend a Right to it for the better satisfaction of their Followers, and making a more copious access of Proselytes.   

SECT. II. The Grounds of the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome are proposed.  
GReat Acquisitions are seldom made and maintained without great Art and Industry. A considerable part of this sublunary World, are wrought into a belief, That the Church of Rome is the only Oracle of the Universe, whose Doctrine is always true, and not capable of Error: how many Kings and Princes are swayed by this persuasion? and by this means testify a high Respect and Veneration for the See of Rome, who Commissionates her Emissaries, the Divines, Preachers, and Confessors, to inculcate this Doctrine to the credulous Believers all the World over; and he who writes best on this Subject expects no less than a Cardinal's Cap, or a Bishopric, for his Reward: The Divine Prints it, the Preacher promulges it, and the Confessor takes hold of opportunity, times, and seasons, to settle it in the minds of his Penitents. Princes have commonly Divines, Preachers, and Confessors of their own Subjects and Nation, to whose conduct they presume they may safely trust the regulating of their Consciences; yet these Men, though never so Heterogeneal in Dialect and National differences, make but one complex, or collection, of the Pope's Negotiators, whose main scope and design is to maintain and improve the Prerogatives of their great Master, by all the subtle arts and sedulous industry they are capable of: What plausible Arguments do they use to persuade people that their Church cannot Err? and the illiterate Vulgar greedily swallow this Bait, which confirms them in their servitude and slavery, and makes them prompt to submit to all the Prescripts of the See of Rome, not regarding the arduity thereof.  
And among other marks of the Pope's greatness, this of Infallibility is chief; for upon this Link hangs immediately his Supremacy, his Temporal pretended Power over Kings and Princes, etc. because these Titles are deduced from his being universal Pastor, which the non-erring Councils have declared him to be; so that the Councils Infallibility is the Root of those Prerogatives, it is the main Pillar which supports the Magnificence and Greatness of the Church and Court of Rome, and if this should fail, that Superstructure would fall to utter Ruin and Desolation. This therefore is the great Bulwark which dreads no opposition; this is the main Fort that still remains  against all attempts; this is the Ship of St. Peter, which though tossed and agitated upon the swelling Billows, by Raging and Tempestuous Storms, yet never sinks. Well may there be some attempts upon the outworks, by light Skirmishes and Velitations, in Controversies of less moment, which if by immediate Arguments they cannot repel, recourse may still be had to the main Fort, and if that gins to open upon the Enemy, by Thundering Infallibility in his Ears, Lord! who can withstand it? This will soon defeat him, and dissipate all his attempts.  
But upon what grounds doth the Church of Rome arrogate to itself this high Character, 
First Proof.  in exclusion of all others? Why this is drawn from an irrefragable Testimony, it being grounded on the Promises of Christ himself; for this is the Church to whom Christ hath promised, That the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it: This is the Church, to whom Christ's word is engaged to send it another Paraclite, the Spirit of Truth, that should lead it into all Truth. This is the Church to whom Christ said, I will be with you till the end of the World. And finally this is the Church, committed to the care of St. Peter, first Pope thereof, to whom Christ said, Thy Faith shall never fail, which is meant of all other Popes, that by a lineal descent succeed him. And who dare attempt to evacuate Christ's Promises? Hence it comes to pass that the Bishops and Fathers assembled in a general Council, though of themselves weak and subject to Error, yet being the chief Members of the Church, for Doctrine and Dignity, and being the Representative of the whole, are rendered Infallible, as being backed by Divine Authority, by virtue of Christ's Promise; they do not now determine matters of Faith, and dogmatical points, as mere Men, but are as it were Deified, in order to this Function, by a supernatural quality, infused into them, and inherent in their Intellects, or else by a previous disposition, and concomitant operation of the Holy Ghost, which determines them to Truth, and protects them from Error: They are but the Organ to deliver Truth, but the Divine Oracle is the Dictator; they are but the instruments which convey those Mysteries to the knowledge of Mankind, but the Spirit of God is the principal Agent; so that th●● Canons and Decrees come from them full fraught with the Divinity, which renders them Infallibly certain; for the Holy Ghost, every Session, attends the motion of those great Men, to regulate all their Proceed by the never erring Rule of his infinite Veracity, whence it ensues, that to pick quarrels with their Definitions is a high Temerity; it is to wage War with Heaven, or by the weak scrutiny of humane discourse, to examine the truth of such Mysteries as Heaven hath revealed; which if they should contain any seeming Error or Contradiction, yet our understanding must adhere to them, as infallibly true, because our Reason is guided only by obscure Notions, and abstractive Acts, which draws in foreign Species by the mediation of the Senses, which give but a glimmering light to the Understanding, and often suggest Falsity for Truth: but the Decrees of Councils are sacred, and carry the Seal of the Holy Spirit enstampt upon them, by whose directions they are framed; wherefore it is no less than a Sacrilegious Presumption, to Question the Truth of them, for this is to oppose Human Reason against Divine Authority. This is the substance of their first Proof, drawn from the Authority of Scripture, which at first appearance, seems great and glorious, a specious pretence to work upon the credulity of the ignorant Vulgar.  
The second Proof is grounded in Reason; but before we propose it, we must open the way, by putting the Reader in mind that the Divine Word, the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity, considering the deplorable condition of Mankind, by the Fall of Adam, resolved upon an efficacious Remedy, to assume Human Nature, and by an Hypostatical Union to be Phisically United, and become on with Flesh and Blood, and in that Nature to suffer death, and thereby to offer to his Eternal Father an infinite Treasure of Merits and Satisfaction, to make an atonement between God and Man, and to satisfy for Man's transgressions, even to the rigour of Justice, because the satisfaction was made in the same specifical nature that offended, and it was made to the full equality of the Crime, because the Meritorious Cause thereof was a Divine Person, of infinite Dignity, and therefore his Actions were of infinite Worth. But because it was not permitted to every individual Person to draw from that infinite Mass of Satisfaction and Merit, in what measure he pleased (this privilege being reserved for the Pope alone to grant out of this stock by his Indulgences, what quantity, and to whom he deemed expedient) therefore a Church must be ordained, and a method prescribed how to apply the benefit of Christ's Passion to each one in particular; To this end our great Redeemer instituted Sacraments, to be the organs and vehicles to convey the Fruit of his Passion to the Receiver; and this is secunda post naufragium tabula, whence the Church of Rome saith in her Public Office, O felix culpa quae talem meruit Redemptorem.  
This being supposed, The second Proof is grounded on this consideration, that the principal design of our Redeemer was to draw Souls to Heaven, notwithstanding the loss sustained by Original Sin, for to this end he offered his satisfaction, to this end he merited habitual and sanctifying Grace, transient and actual Graces, prevenient, concomitant, and subsequent Graces, to illuminate the Understanding, to move and incline the Will, to embrace Good, and eat Evil. Wherefore this being the end intended by Christ, it follows that apt and fit means were also appointed, that had proportion with the obtaining of this end; but one necessary means to accomplish what Christ designed, is the Gift of Infallibility, without which the Church might fall into Error, and from one Error into another, and hereby deviate and swerve from its original institution, and at length utterly fall away, and instead of conducting Souls to Heaven, it would lead them to the precipice of eternal ruin and destruction, and so evacuate the Fruit of Christ's Passion, and put an obstacle to the obtaining of that end which he efficaciously intended. And yet we must all suppose that the incarnate word was endued with an illimited Power, his Knowledge and Wisdom was infinite, so that he perfectly knew what means were necessary to accomplish his design, and wanted no Power to effect it, which notwithstanding could never be efficaciously attained, without this Infallibility; whence it necessarily follows, that Christ communicated to his Church this special Preservative of always teaching truth, without being subject to Error. This briefly is the full strength of their second Proof.  
Thus you see the grounds of this Doctrine are seemingly convincing, and plausible enough to induce such to an assent, who either cannot, or will not, by a studious consideration penetrate into the depth of them, but will rather acquiesce, than stretch their understanding by a rigid scrutiny and inquisition to detect the fallacy thereof. But certainly in a matter of such moment we are not to take up all this upon trust, nor blindly to give our assent, till we have industriously weighed and pondered the whole matter, that so we may be the better able to give an account of our belief, which is the drift of the subsequent Section.   

SECT. III. The Decision of the present Controversy.  
THe Assertion is, That the Church of Rome enjoys not this Infallibility which they so much pretend to The first Proof, Such a previous necessity to Truth, would destroy Liberty, and take away the laudability and merit of human actions. Note, That in the progress of this Discourse I shall argue ad Hominem, that is, I shall take along with me their own Principles, and for the most part ground my Refutation upon them. They all grant Liberty and Merit in such human actions as have conformity to the dictamen of Conscience; for in this consists the morality of our Actions, that they are consonant or dissonant to the synderesis of the Agent, but if an action be extorted by an antecedent necessity, there can be no exercise of , nor Merit in it, nor Liberty, because that Power only hath liberty, which after all prae-requisites and causes are put, hath a power to work and not to work; whereas if there be a prae-ordination by God's Decree, that the Members of a General-Council shall be determined to Truth, than their decisions are wholly destitute of Liberty and , because Gods efficatious Decree, that hath a previous influence upon the action, draws with it an indispensable necessity which destroys ; neither can it be meritorious, because Merit supposeth Liberty, and consists in the laudability of the action; and how can that action be laudable, which a fatal necessity forces from the Will? Can any one deserve Praise for doing that which he cannot avoid?  
Hence I conclude, that Merit and  are not compatible with that Infallibility which the Church of Rome pretends to, which is inconsistent with God's Providence, in order to Mankind, who was Created, and Born free, in full possession of the liberty of his will, and therefore shall be Judged according to his own Actions, which could not be, were there any necessity or restraint put upon them; Thus we see how this doctrine inverts the order of Divine Providence, and imposes a necessity, either of contrariety, or contradiction upon Humane actions.  
A confirmation of this Proof may be drawn from the practical proceeding of Councils, who seldom or never determine any thing till after a long and serious Debate, and sometimes with great fervour and animosity of Parties, in opposition to each other (as it happened in the Council of Trent) upon contradictory Points, one Party Affirming what another Denied. All which supposeth a liberty in their debates and determinations; for if by an Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they were all fixed in Truth, What need any Debate or Consultation? for this can only have place in such Resolutions as depend upon Humane Prudence alone. And if each Member of a General Council hath the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost, How comes it to pass, that when two are of different Opinions, the one Denies what the other Affirms; and though they may both speak as they think, yet in reality they cannot both speak Truth, for two contradictories cannot be both true; Must then the Spirit of God be made the Author of both? as though he suggested Truth to the one, and Falsity to the other? if not, than he that contends for the Erroneous part, is deserted by the Holy Ghost, and agitated by some other Spirit of the Prince of Darkness, which always opposeth truth; but hence it would follow, that Satan acts in General Councils, and that some of the Members of Councils are not inspired by the Holy Ghost, and consequently not Infallible.  
The Second Proof is a Refutation of the Grounds of the Adverse Party. A Negative Tenet, as this is, cannot be better proved, than by showing the falsity of the Affirmative Contradictory; First then, as to their Argument drawn from Christ's Promises expressed in Scripture. I demand, Whence they have an Assured Infallibility, that Scripture contains the True Word of God? They Answer, That this Infallible Church of Rome hath Defined it so to be, and proposed it to the People to be so believed. I demand again how they make out the Infallibility of their Church? They Answer, By Christ's Promises in Scripture. A special Argument, no better than a plain vicious Circle; for they prove the Infallibility of the Scripture, by the Church, and the Infallibility of the Church by Scripture; and prove neither Independent of each other. By this way of Arguing Mahomet and his Koran may be proved Infallible. For the Koran saith, That Mahomet was inspired by God, who spoke in his ear in the form of a Dove; and Mahomet saith, That the Koran is the Word of God, manifested by Divine Inspiration; therefore both Mahomet and the Koran are Infallible. This is the same Argument applied to another subject.  
The Protestant Church of England hath as great a Veneration for Scripture, and as strong and firm adherence to it as any can have, yet are not so highly presumptuous as to arrogate to themselves a degree of Evidence, or Infallibility exceeding that which the Motives Inductive to their Belief bring with them: But I shall not need to insist upon the Invalidity of this Argument, because it hath lately been so Learnedly handled by that Worthy and Profound Dr. Edw. Stillingfleet Dean of Paul's, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty, against Mr. Edw. Worsley, a Learned Jesuit, then residing at Antwerp, who had formerly, for many years together, been a Reader of Divinity in the Jesuits College at Liege, where he Taught the whole Body of Divinity, yet could never extricate himself out of this Labyrinth wherein Dr. Stillingfleet had involved him, by this Argument: to which I refer the Reader.  
This Circle being therefore laid aside, let us examine if the Scripture Independent of the Church's Definition, bring with it this Infallibility or no. The Scripture is questionless of itself Infallible, but it is not so to us: for we have but a Moral certainty of the Infallibility of Scripture, and that it is truly, and à parte rei, the Word of God. The reason is, because though we admit that what the Prophets and Apostles have left Written, was truly dictated by the Holy Ghost, yet they who drew Copies from those Originals, wanted that support, they were mere Men, and carried their Humane Infirmities about them, and in after ages, as the Scripture was handed down to Posterity, the amanuensis, by Ignorance, Malice, or Neglect, might commit some Error, either by excess, by defect, or by alteration, whereby their Copies might disagree with the Originals of the first Hagiographers, at least we have no Demonstration, nor Revelation to assure us of the contrary; and when Printing came in, the same difficulty occurs, in relation to them that Corrected the Print. But when it was Translated into several Languages, the difficulty is yet greater; for beside the former casualties, admit the Translator to be an exquisite Linguist, yet the Sense of Scripture is so very nice, that in his Translation he might innocently express, what the Holy Ghost by the Original never meant. Besides, that only part of Scripture is admitted, by both Churches, as the Word of God, which is Canonical, And what Infallible Rule have we to know, what part is Canonical, what Apocryphal? Again, in that part that is received as Canonical, there are so many high Mysteries, some seeming contradictions, not pervious to the Natural capacity of Man's understanding to reconcile; the several senses thereof are so various, some passages are to be understood Literally, some Morally, others Allegorically, some others Tropologically, or Figuratively. How many Volumes have been Written by the Learned in both Churches, to interpret the meaning and true sense of Scripture? and in some places with Contradictions, and Oppositions, to each other, yet after all we fall short of any Infallible Certainty herein: for instance, there have been above Fifty several Senses given by Interpreters of that short Sentence, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body. And one Verse in the Psalms hath puzzled the Learnedest of them all, viz. Increpa feras arundinis, 
Psal. 68 v. 30.  congregatio taurorum in vaccis populorum, ut excludant eos qui probati sunt argento, in English thus: Rebuke the wild beasts of a Reed; the congregation of Bulls in the Cows of the people, that they may exclude those that are tried with silver. Instances of this nature are frequent in Scripture. Humane Tradition hath brought the Scripture down to these our times, yet Humane Authority is not Infallible, wherefore all these particulars being duly pondered, Where will the Romanists find that assured Infallibility which they pretend to?  
As for the Second Proof from the strength of Reason, we admit Christ's Omnipotence, Omniscience, his infinite Prudence, and Wisdom, with all other his Divine Attributes; we also grant that our Redeemers Intention of being Incarnate, Suffering Death, etc. was to save the Souls of Men; but this was to be consistent with, and subordinate to that state wherein the Almighty, by his infinite Wisdom and Providence, had placed Man in his first Creation, that is, with a full possession, and use of his Liberty and , which our Redeemer never intended to infringe, for that would subvert the Order of God's former Providence: So that by the Fruit of Christ's Passion we are furnished with all necessaries to live a godly and a righteous Life, which without the Grace of Christ, would not be in our power to do, for bare Nature hath no proportion of itself to Merit, ne quidem de congruo, nor to any Supernatural Reward, as St. Augustine Teacheth, against the Pelagians and Massilienses: so that the Supernatural Graces that we receive by Christ's Merits, give us a power to do good, and shun evil, but impose no necessity upon us to lay hold of them, and improve them to our own good, for this depends upon our own free election; therefore when we transgress against God's Precepts, it is not for want of all necessary means to observe them, but it proceeds from the Pravity of our own Wills, which choose rather to follow the suggestion of the sensual appetite, than submit to the conduct of Reason, and therefore are blameworthy, for we had the power to do good, and avoid evil, and would not.  
So that although of ourselves we can do nothing in order to heaven, yet every individual Member of the Church, by the Grace obtained by Christ's Passion, is enabled, but not necessitated, to save his Soul. Non ego sed gratia Dei mecum. It is not I, but the Grace of God with me. And if the Church should fall into an Error (as the Church of Rome hath done) the members thereof are not thereby deprived of the usual Means of Salvation, neither doth that Error prejudice them as long as they remain in an invincible Ignorance of the Truth. But if the Church by multiplying error upon error, should fall from being a Church, which could not be, but that the wisest and most learned should take notice thereof, and detect the errors, than these are bound in conscience to desert it, and detest their errors, who consequently would remain constant and faithful to truth, and so would continue the True Church.  
And indeed, the Second Proof proposed in the Second Section proves too much, and is to be solved by the Romanists themselves; for they Assert, that the end of Christ's Suffering was to save all Mankind, that is, every single person of Humane Nature, and therefore apt and proportionable means ought to be instituted, without which this end could not be efficaciously obtained; whence it ensues, that every individual person must have this Infallibility, yea, and impeccability also, lest Christ's design should be frustrated: which is the same way of Arguing as is contained in that Proof, and the illation as evidently ensues; which notwithstanding we all grant false and erroneous, for than none could be damned. Thus you see the grounds of the Romans Infallibility, how specious and convincing soever they appear, yet thoroughly examined, and the fallacies detected, they vanish to smoke.  
The Third Proof: That Church which hath committed Errors, and still perseveres in them, is not Infallible; But the Church of Rome hath committed errors, and still 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 err, hath a power to err, because bene valet ab actu ad potentiam: and it is evident, that that Church which hath power or capacity to err, 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 specified 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 itself; 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 syllogism, 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 extremes are therefore identified between themselves, because they were in the premises identified with a third; wherefore if one extreme be certainly identified with a third, the other only probably, they can but be probably identified with each other, for this identity is destroyed by separating either of the extremes 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 itself, and without the support of that Testimony from Holy Writ, should not be Infallible, yet backed by the Motives of Credibility, it will be rendered 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 Judgement, 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 cooperate 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 Authority 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 Authority, and being subject to many casualties and deceits; and first for the succession of Chief Pastors, whose Jurisdiction, by an Illegal Usurpation, extends itself the facto, over the whole Body, but is limited de jure, to the Diocese of Rome only; and how long together hath the Body been without a head, as if it had been defunct? and then Monsterlike, 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 Heresy, and joined 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 College 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 duly qualified for so high a Prelacy? But, when they have entered 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 choose another, because he is of the French Faction, whose Pensioners they are; Others choose 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 this from Infallibility? As for Austerity, I believe that many out of a true Motive of Piety are wrought to embrace it; But how many more are there that glory in their gross and vile habit, and so are proud of their seeming Humility? and in stead of holiness of life, How many enormous crimes are committed within those private Walls? they have their Pride, Ambition, and Factions one against another, especially among the Female Sex. For Miracles, How many thousands have been cried up as true, and afterwards decried, when the Fallacy was detected? And how many have the repute of Martyrs, who in reality were Malefactors, deserving death? But how many Martyrs have the Romanists made in England, by putting them to death merely in odium fidei? wherefore it is plain and evident, that all these particulars being doubtful and uncertain, no Infallibility can be hence evinced.  
The Third Objection: They whose reason and understandings are convinced of the truth of the Roman Religion, are bound in conscience to believe it as the true Church of God. For there is a Divine Precept still incumbent upon them, which commands them not to sin; therefore it commands them the necessary means to avoid sin: but as they stand convinced, the necessary means to avoid sin, is to believe it to be the true Church of God; but it cannot be, that God should command Men to believe an error, or that which is false; therefore it is an infallible truth, that the Church of Rome is the true Church of Christ: for else God would command us to believe falsity, and error, and so God himself would be the Author of it.  
First, I Answer, by retorting this Argument: The Greeks, for Example, who hear their learned Doctors, and Preachers Explicate and Preach their Doctrine of the Trinity, that the Holy Ghost doth not proceed from the Father and the Son, but only from the Father by the Son, which they propose with so much plausibility, and seeming truth, that the hearers are convinced of the truth thereof, as belonging to Faith; in this case God commands them not to sin; and consequently commands the necessary means to avoid sin, which is to believe that Doctrine as an Article of Faith; which notwithstanding is false and erroneous. I ask the Romanists, Whether in this case God commands the Greeks to believe this error? and if they solve this Argument, they will solve their own.  
Secondly, I Answer, That in the case proposed in the Argument, I admit a Precept of not sinning; but I deny any Precept of believing the Church of Rome to be the true Church of God. Nay, such a belief, upon the first appearance of truth, would be a sin; for such an easy belief, upon ungrounded, though plausible Arguments, in a matter of Moment, is an act of rashness, and temerity, which, I am sure, are no virtues; and consequently not commanded by God's Precept. The reason is, because where there are several means to attain an end, though the end be under Precept, yet no means in particular falls under the same Precept, as in the case proposed, They who seem to be convinced of the truth of the Church of Rome, aught in prudence to suspend their Judgement, to Read Authors that Treat of such matters, to Converse with Men of Integrity, Piety, Knowledge, and Learning, and then seriously to ponder, and maturely to consider the whole matter; this is an act of Prudence, and Discretion, and consequently no sin; so that the Persons in the Case proposed are not restrained to one only means of avoiding sin, but may make use of any that is sit, and apt in order to that end. Else they must acknowledge the Protestant Church to be True and Orthodox: for they who are convinced that this Church is the true Church of Christ, are commanded not to sin; and so to believe that the Protestant Church of England is the True Church of Christ, which must be so, because God cannot command us to believe an Error.  
But you may Instance, That an Infallible Church is certainly better than a Fallible one, and the infinite goodness of God is such, as always to determine him to do that which is best; and consequently in this case hath made his Church Infallible, this being best. I Answer: The Principle on which this Instance is grounded, is commonly rejected by the Roman Divines; 
In 1 partem, D. Thomae.  for though Granado a Spanish Jesuit doth fusely contend to establish a necessity in God to do always that which is best; yet I have heard him earnestly impugned by other Professors of Divinity, of the same order, and in the same College of St. Hermeingildus, where Granado himself Taught it, and Printed it; and though he have some Sectators in this Point, yet a far greater number of Doctors, of several Orders, Teach the contrary.  
The case stands thus: Here are two of God's Attributes, viz. his Liberty, and Infinite Goodness, brought in competition with each other: Granado, to maintain the Goodness of God, detracts from his Absolute Liberty, and Freedom; which notwithstanding is as Essential to God, as his Goodness. Other Authors industrioufly contend to defend the Attribute of Goodness, without prejudice of liberty; for without any such fatal necessity of restraining the Omnipotent, he hath an ample field wherein to display his Goodness. That we have our Being is an effect of God's Goodness; that we are replenished with all Necessaries, and Conve●●…ences in this life, flows from his Bounty and Goodness; that we were Redeemed when we were lost in Adam, was Gods great Goodness towards us; that we are now furnished with all Necessary Means of Salvation proceeds from God's Goodness; and the Ineffable and Eternal Goods of Heaven, which we hope for, are no other than the products of Gods Infinite Goodness and Mercy. Besides, we are no competent Judges whether a Fallible, or Infallible Church be best; for the second in itself seems best to us; yet the Allseeing Eye of God, who perfectly comprehends all the circumstances thereof, together with all the combinations and Subordinations of one thing towards another, in relation to the Divine Intention, it may be, for aught we know, that a Church liable to error, All things considered, may be the best.  
Thus you see, according to my intended purpose, I have delivered the Substance of what I Designed in this matter, Methodically, and with as much Brevity as was consistent with the clear understanding of the same; Wherein, First, I proposed several Principles and Maxims of the Roman Doctors, necessary and useful for the subsequent Discourse. Secondly, I gave you the grounds of their pretended Infallibility, without dissembling any thing of their full strength. Thirdly, I set down my Tenet, and Proofs thereof, destructive of that Infallibility. And Fourthly, I solved their Objections: which Method I shall observe for the future, and hereby we may consider, upon how weak a foundation, this Main Pillar of the Church of Rome is grounded, whereby the whole structure becomes disjoined, and ruinous.    

Dispute II. Of the Intrenchments of the Church of Rome upon Divine Right, by changing the Essentials of their pretended Sacraments.  

The Preface.  
MAny Censures of the highest strain, hath the Church of Rome thundered out against the Protestants, for Separating from her Communion, and deserting her Tenets in that Latitude, as she professeth them; whereas, notwithstanding, the Protestant Church, did most Religiously embrace all the Doctrine and Practice instituted by Christ, and expressed in Holy Writ; and rejected only the Corruptions and Innovations, which had no Authority 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 encroach 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 Controversy.  
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 intent 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 lieth, to make an Essential change in their Sacraments, which they acknowledge Instituted by Christ himself.  
First therefore, They admit Seven Sacraments, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, 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 satisfy 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 than Seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, 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 examine 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 form; 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 applied 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 form which Christ instituted be not applied, than the Sacrament is void, as their Divines Teach: For example, in the Sacrament of Baptism 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 applies the Water to the Baptised; during which action the Essential Form is to be pronounced by the Baptiser in these words: I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In this matter and form 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 Baptised, though performed by the Midwife, or any other person, because all the essential parts of Baptism, instituted by Christ, are duly applied 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 applied 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 signify a present Lotion.  
Fifthly, Of all the seven Sacramentsses 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 enstamped 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 conferred, can be reiterated, or received twice by the same Person, and that it would be a Sacrilege to attempt it; because they frustrate the effect of the Sacrament; yet if there arise any doubt of the validity of the former collation, than a strict inquiry is to be made how grounded that doubt is, and if it be still found ambiguous, than that Sacrament is to be again conferred sub conditione. But if it be evident that there was wanting either the true matter or the true form, which are all the essentials, or the right intention of the Administrer (which is also necessary;) In this case the Sacrament is to be conferred again absolutè. Having thus made a brief reflection upon the Principles, and Practise of the Church of Rome, in what relates to this matter: I now proceed to prove ad hominem, their trespasses against Divine Right, by deviating from Christ's Institutions, and introducing in place thereof their own humane inventions, but shall desire you first to take a cursory view of the ancient Rites of Ordaining Priests.   

SECT. II. The Practice of Antiquity in the Collation of Priesthood.  
ORdination is received amongst the Romanists, not only as a Sacrament, but also as one of those that imprint a Character. So the Council of Trent: Si quis dixerit ordinem, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 23. Can. 3.  sive Sacram ordinationem, non esse verè, & propriè Sacramentum, à Christo Domino institutum, etc. anathema sit. And again, the same Council declares: Si quis dixerit, 
Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 9  in tribus Sacramentis: Baptismo scilicet, confirmatione, & ordine, non imprimi characterem in anima, hoc est signum quoddam Spirituale, & indelibile, unde ea iterari non possunt, anathema sit. If any one shall say, That Order or Holy Ordination, is not truly and properly a Sacrament, Instituted by Christ, let him be Accursed. And if any one shall say, That in three Sacraments, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation and Order, there is not Imprinted in the Soul a Character, that is, a certain Spiritual Sign, not to be blotted out, and therefore cannot be renewed, let him be Accursed. And to this subscribe all their Divines; which their Universal Practice and Belief confirms. There are seven Orders in use among them. 
Albert. Madge Lib. Theolog. c. 36.  Septem sunt ordines, saith Albertus Magnus, Scilicet, Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolytus, Subdiaconus, Diaconus, & Presbyter, qui omnium ordinum est perfectissimus & terminus aliorum: There are seven Orders, saith he, to wit, the Dowkepeer, the Reader, the Exorcist, the Candle-bearer, the Sub-deacon, the Deacon, and the Priest, which is the most perfect of all, and the end of the others. And of this last only we shall here Treat.  
That we may with more perspicuity penetrate the difference between the present Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, and the Custom of all the Christian World, from Christ and the Apostles time, by compering the one with the other, I 〈…〉 expedient here to give the 〈…〉 view of the Ancient Rituals of the Latins, the Greeks, the Syrians, Maronites, Nestorians, Jacobites, Eutichians, the coptics, the Egyptians and the Aethiopians, which were dispersed all the East over as far as China, and incorporated among the Tartars, the Persians, the Turks, etc. and the Nestorians alone had among them above a Thousand Bishops. And first we'll begin with the Latins.  

A Pontisial written Eleven hundred years since for the Ordination of Priests according to the Latins.  
This Ritual was Written in a most splendid and magnificent Character, which from France was conveyed to Stockholme in Sweathland, and thence, by a great price, redeemed, by Christina Queen of that Kingdom, after she had abandoned her Regal Government, as Morinus relates who saw it, and Transcribed it into Latin; which I shall here set down word for word, to avoid Repetition, when the same occurs in other Rituals.   

Allocutio ad Populum in Ordinatione Presbyteri.  
QVoniam dilectissimi Fratres, Rectori navis, & navigio deferendis eadem est vel securitatis ratio, vel timoris, communis corum debet esse sententia, quorum causa communis existit; nec frustra à Patribus, reminiscimur institutum, ut de electione eorum, qui ad regimen altaris adhibendi sunt, consulatur. Quia de actu & conversatione praesenti, quod nonnunquam ignoratur à pluribus, scitur à paucis. Et necesse est ut facilius quis obedientiam exhibeat Ordinato, oui adsensum praebuerit Ordinando. Fratris nostri, & compresbyteri conversatio quantum nosse mihi videor, probata, ac Deo placita est, & digna, ut arbitror, Ecclesiastici honoris augmento. Sed ne unum fortasse, vel paucos, aut decipiat assensio, aut fallat affectio, sententia est expectanda multorum. Itaque quid de ejus actibus, aut moribus noveritis, quid de meritis sentiatis, Deo teste consulemus. Debet hanc fidem habere caritas vestra, quam secundum praeceptum Evangelii, & Deo exhibere debetis, & proximo, ut huic testimonium Sacerdoti, magis pro merito, quam pro affectione, aliquid tribuatis. Et qui devotionem omnium expectamus, intelligere tacentes non possitmus. Scimus tamen quod est acceptabilius Deo, aderit per Spiritum Sanctum consensus unus omnium animorum, & ideo electionem vestram debetis voce publica profiteri. Per Dominum, etc.   

Oratio ad Presbiteros Ordinandos.  
Oremus dilectissimi Deum Patrem omnipotentem, ut super hunc famulum suum, quem ad Presbiterii munus elegit, coelestia dona multiplicet, & quae ejus dignatione suscipiunt, ejus exequantur auxilio, per Dominum, etc.   

Item alia.  
Exaudi nos Deus Salutaris Noster, ut super hunc famulum tuum benedictionem Spiritus Sancti, & gratiae sacerdotalis effunde virtutem, ut quem tuae pietatis suspectibus offerimus consecrandum, perpetua muneris tui largitate persequaris. Per Dominum, etc.   

Consecratio.  
Domine Sancte Pater, omnipotens aeterne Deus, honorum omnium dignitatum, quae tibi militant distributor, per quem cuncta firmantur amplificatis semper in melius naturae rationalis incrementis, per ordinem congrua ratione dispositum, unde Sacerdotalis gradus, & officia Levitarum, Sacramentis mysticis instituta creverunt, ut cum Pontifices summos regendis Populis praefecisses, ad eorum societatis, & operis adjumentum, sequentes ordines viros, & secundae dignitatis elegeris; sic in eremo per 70 virorum prudentium mentis Moysi Spiritum propagasti, quibus ille adjutoribus usus in populo, innumeras multitudines facile gubernavit. Sic & Eleazaro, & Ithamar filiis Aaron Paternae plenitudinis abundantiam transfudisti, & ad hostias salutares & frequentiores Officii Sacramenta sufficeret meritum Sacerdotum. Hac providentia Domine, Apostolis filii tui, Doctores fidei conntes addidisti, quibus illi orbem totum secundis praedicatoribus impleverunt. Quapropter infirmitati quoque nostrae, Domine, quaesumus, haec adjumenta largire, qui quanto magis fragiliores sumus, tanto his pluries indigemus. Da quaesumus omnipotens Pater in hoc famulo tuo illo Preshiterii dignitatem: innova in visceribus ejus Spiritum Sanctitatis, acceptum à te Deus secundi meriti munus obtineat, censuramque morum, exemplo suae conversationis insinuet. Sit providens cooperator ordinis nostri, eluceat in eo totius forma justitiae, ut bonam rationem dispensationis sibi creditae redditurus, aeternae beatitudinis praemia consequatur.   

Consummatio Presbyteri.  
Sit nobis fratres communis oratio, ut his qui in adjutorium, & utilitatem vestrae salutis eligetur, Presbiteratus benedictionem, Divini indulgentia muneris consequatur, & Sancti Spiritus Sacerdotalia dona privilegio virtutum, ne impar loco deprehendatur obtineat per suum, per Dominum, etc.   

Item Benedictio.  
Sanctificationem omnium Autor, cujus vera consecratio plena benedictio est. Tu Domine super hunc famulum ill. quem Presbyterii honori dedicamus, manum tuae benedictionis eum infunde, ut gravitate actuum & censura vivendi, probet se esse seniorem, his institutus disciplinis quas Tito, & Timotheo Paulus exposuit, ut in lege tua die ac nocte omnipotens, meditans, quod elegerit credat; quod crediderit doceat; quod docuerit meditetur, justitiam, constantiam, misericordiam, fortitudinem in se ostendat, exemplum probet, admonitionem confirmet, ut purum atque immaculatum ministerii tui donum custodiat, & per obsequium plebis tuae, corpus & sanguinem Filii tui immaculata benedictione transformet, & inviolabili caritate in virum perfectum in mensuram aetatis planitudinis Christi in die justitiae aeterni judicii, conscientia pura, fide plena, Spirito Sancto plenus persolvat. Per Dominum, etc.   

Consecratio Manus.  
Consecrentur manus istae, & sanctificentur per istam unctionem, & nostram benedictionem, ut quaecunque benedixerint, benedicta sint, & quaecunque sanctificaverint sanctificentur. Per Dominum, etc.   

Item alia.  
Vnguantur manus istae de oleo Sanctificato, & Chrismate Sanctificationis, sicut unxit Samuel David in Regem, & Prophetam, ita unguantur, & consummentur, in nomine Dei Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, facientes imaginem Sanctae Crucis Salvatoris Domini Nostri J. Christi, qui nos à morte redemit, & ad regna coelorum perduxit. Exaudi nos pie pater omnipotens aeterne Deus, & praesta quod te rogamus & oramus. Per Dominum, etc.   

The Speech to the People at the Ordination of a Priest.  
BEcause, most dearly beloved Brethren, the Pilot and Passengers are equally concerned in their security, or fear, their opinion ought to be common, seeing their cause is common: neither in vain do we remember, that it was ordained by the Fathers, That we ought to consult about the Election of those, that are to be advanced to the Regiment of the Altar. Because few men know, what most are ignorant of, a Man's actions and present conversation. And it is necessary that every one will willingly obey him Ordained, to whose Ordination he gave his Assent: The Conversation of our Brother and fellow Priest, as far as I do know, is approved and pleasing to God, worthy, as I Judge, of this Augmentation of Ecclesiastical honour. But lest perhaps one or a few may be deceived by consent, or deluded by affection, we must wait for the opinion of many; therefore God being witness, let us consider what ye know of his Manners and Actions, what ye think of his deserts. Your Charity ought to have this belief, which according to the Gospel, ye own to God and your Neighbour, that ye grant your Testimony to this Priest, rather for Desert than Affection; and we, who expect your Pious Vote, cannot understand those that are silent: Yet we know it to be more acceptable to God, that by the Holy Ghost there shall be an unanimous consent of all, and therefore ye ought to profess your Election by a Public Voice. Per Dominum, etc.   

The Prayer at the Ordination of Priests.  
Most dearly Beloved, Let us pray God the Father Omnipotent, That he would multiply his heavenly gifts upon this his Servant, whom he hath chosen to the Office of a Priest, and what Gifts they receive by his favour they may execute by his help. Per Dom. etc.   

Another.  
Hear us God our Saviour, and pour out the Blessing of thy Holy Spirit, and Virtue of Sacerdotal grace upon this thy servant, and that whom we offer to be Consecrated to the sight of thy Piety, thou mayst assist with the perpetual bounty of thy Gift. Per Dominum, etc.   

The Consecration.  
O Lord Holy Father, Omnipotent Eternal God, the distributor of all honours and dignities to those who fight for thee, by whom all things are confirmed, always enlarging the increase of reasonable nature for the better, through order disposed by an agreeable reason, whence the degree of Priesthood, and Office of Levites, instituted by Mystical Sacraments, increased; that, seeing thou hast placed Archbishops to rule thy people, that thou wouldst choose Men of subsequent Order, and of a second Dignity, for the assistance of their Society and Labour; So in the Wilderness, by the prudence of 70 Men propagated the Spirit of Moses, who using those Assistants among the People, he easily Governed innumerable multitudes; and likewise thou didst transfuse into Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, the abundance of their Father's fullness; and that the Merit of Priests should suffice for saving Sacrifices and Sacraments of a more frequent Office. O Lord, by this Providence, thou hast added to the Apostles of thy Son, Doctors of our Faith, their Companions, wherewith they filled the whole World with prosperous Preachers. Wherefore, Lord, we beseech thee, bestow such Assistance on our infirmity, who by how much we are more frail, by so much the more we stand in need thereof. Give, we beseech thee, Omnipotent Father, that Dignity of Priesthood in this thy servant; renew in his bowels the Spirit of that Holiness, let him obtain the Gift of the Second Merit received from thee, O God, and let him insinuate a Censure of his Manners by the Example of his Conversation, let him be a provident cooperator of our Order, let the form of all Justice shine forth from him, that when he shall give a good account of his Stewardship committed to him, he may attain the rewards of Eternal Bliss.   

The Consummation of the Priest.  
Brethren, Let it be our common Prayer, that he who shall be elected for the help and benefit of your Salvation, may, by the Indulgence of God's gift, obtain the Benediction of Priesthood, and by the Privilege of his Virtues, lest he be found unmeet for his place, he may obtain by his own, the Sacerdotal Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Per Dominum, etc.   

The Benediction.  
O the Author of all Sanctification, whose true Consecration is a plenary Benediction; Thou, O Lord, upon this thy Servant, whom we Dedicate to the honour of Priesthood, pour out the hand of thy Blessing, that by the gravity of his actions, and censure of living, he approve himself an Elder, instructed in the Discipline, which Paul expounded to Titus and Timothy, that, O Omnipotent God, day and night meditating in thy Law, he may believe what he hath chosen, what he hath Believed he may Teach, what he hath Taught he may Meditate; he may show forth in himself Justice, Constancy, Mercy and Fortitude, may approve his Example, may confirm his Admonition, that he may preserve the Gift of thy Ministry pure and undefiled, and may transform, by his Immaculate Benediction, the Body and Brood of thy Son, through the obedience of thy People: that as a perfect Man, with inviolable Charity to the measure of age, of the fullness of Christ, in the day of the Justice of Eternal Judgement, he may acquit himself with a pure Conscience, with a full Faith, being filled with the Holy Ghost. Per Dominum, etc.   

Consecration of the Hand.  
Let these Hands be Consecrated and Sanctified by this Unction, and our Benediction, that whatever they Bless may be Blessed, and whatever they Sanctify may be Sanctified. Per Dominum, etc.   

Another.  
Let these Hands be Anointed with this Holy Oil, and Chrism of Sanctification, as Samuel Anointed David for a King and a Prophet, so let them be Anointed and Completed in the Name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, making the Sign of the Cross of the Lord our Saviour Jesus Christ, who Redeemed us from Death, and brings us to the Kingdom of Heaven. Hear us, Pious Father, Omnipotent Eternal God, and perform what we entreat and pray of thee. Per Dominum, etc.   

A Ritual taken out of the Fourth Council of Carthage.  
WHere these words are contained: Presbyter cum Ordinatur, Episcopo eum benedicente, & manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui presentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant.   

Another taken out of the Fourth Council of Carthage.  
WHen a Priest is Ordained, the Bishop Blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, likewise all the Priests that are present, shall lay their hands upon his head, by the hand of the Bishop.   

The Ritual of Gelatius Pope, Written 900 years since.  
ORdo qualiter Romana sedis Apostolicae Ecclesia, Presbyteri, Diaconi vel Subdiaconi eligendi sunt. Mensis primi, quarti, septimi, & decimi Sabbatorum die in duodecim lectiones ad Sanctum Petrum ubi Missae celebrantur. Postquam antiphonam ad introitum dixerint, data oratione, adnuntiat Pontifex in Populo dicens: Auxiliante Domino Deo, & salvatore nostro Jesus Christo. Iterum dicit: Auxiliante Domino Deo, & salvatore nostro Jesus Christo, eligimus in ordine Diaconi, sive Presbyteri illum Diaconum sive Subdiaconum, de titulo illo. Si quis autem habet aliquid contra hos viros, pro Deo & propter Deum cum fiducia exeat, & dicat: verumtamen memor sit communionis suae. Et post modicum intervallum mox incipiunt omnes Kyrie eleison, cum Letania; hac expleta, ascendunt ipsi electi ad sedem Pontificis, & benedicit eos à quo vocati sunt, & descendunt. Stant in ordines suos benedictione percepta.  
Sequitur oratio de bened require ipsam in quarto aut decimo mense.   

The Ritual of Gelatius the Pope, Written 900 years since.  
THe Order how Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons', are to be chosen in the Roman Church of the See Apostolic. On the Sabbath of the First, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Month, at the 12 Lessons at St. Peter's Church, where Masses are celebrated. After they have said the Antiphon to the Introitus, after Prayer, let the Bishop declare among the People, saying, Our Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ assisting us. Again, he says, Our Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ assisting, We choose into the Order of Deacon, or Priest, that Deacon, or Subdeacon of that Title. If any one have any thing against these Men, for God's sake let him come forth with coufidence and speak: yet let him be mindful of his Communion. And after a small interval, all forthwith begin Kyrie Eleison, with the Litany: this completed, the Persons chosen step up to the Bishop's Seat, and he Blesses them from whom they are called, and they go down. They stand in their Orders the Blessing being received.  
Then follows a Prayer of Benediction, as in the Fourth, or the Tenth Month. What follows is all as above.   

Ad Ordinandos Presbyteros.  
Oremus dilectissimi, etc. the same in substance as above. Then follows Consecratio. Consummatio Presbyteri. Item Benedictio. All the same as above.   

A Ritual of above 800 years standing.  
This Ritual and the next were taken out of a Written Book kept in the Pontifical Chamber of the Vatican, which the Pope used when he Officiated. It may be seen in the Fifth Tome of St. Gregory.  
POstquam antiphonam ad introitum dixerint, data oratione, venit Archidiaconus & offered eum qui ordinandus est, Pontifici, ita dicens: Postulat sanct a matter Ecclesia Catholica, ut hunc praesentem diaconum ad onus Presbyterii ordinetis. Interrogat Episcopus: Scis illum dignum esse? Respondet offerens: quantum humana fragilitas nosse sinit; & scio, & testificor ipsum dignum esse ad hujus onus officii, etc. Tunc annnnciat Pontifex Populo: Auxiliante Domino Deo, etc. the same as in the Ritual of Gelatius, then follows, Oratio ad Presbyteros Ordinandos Consecratio. Hic vestis & casulam: Benedictio Patris & filii & Spiritus Sancti, descendat super te, ut sis benedictus in ordine sacerdotali; & offeras placabiles hostias pro peccatis, at que offensionibus populi omnipotenti Deo, cui sit honour & gloria in secula seculorum. Then Consecratio manus; as above, and nothing else.   

A Ritual of above 800 years standing.  
AFter they shall have said the Antiphon to the Introitus, after Prayer, comes the Archdeacon, and presents him who is to be Ordained, to the Bishop, saying thus; The Holy Mother, the Catholic Church requires, that ye Ordain this Deacon here present to the charge of Priesthood. The Bishop Asks, Do you know him worthy? The Archdeacon Answers; So far as humane frailty is suffered to know, I both know and testify him to be worthy to undergo the burden of this Office. Then let the Bishop say to the People, Auxiliante Domino Deo, etc. By the help of the Lord God, etc. Then the Prayer and Consecration, the Priestly Vestment, etc. The Blessing of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost descend upon thee, that thou mayst be blest in the Priesthood, and mayst offer acceptable Sacrifices for sins and offences of the people to Almighty God, to whom be Honour and Glory for ever and ever.   

A Ritual taken out of a very ancient Manuscript of the Vatican.  
This contains nothing different from the former, but only a word or two here and there changed, without any essential difference.  
There are Three other Rituals, the one belonging to Corbie in France, another is a Ritual that was used in England 800 years since, and now belongs to the Church of Roan. The Third belongs to the Church of Rheims, and was Written about 800 years since, which all agree with that above.  
There is another Ritual 700 years old: This did belong to one Constantinus Caetanus, Abbot of a Monastery near Rome, which contains all that the former Rituals have, but is more ample, and adds more Ceremonies and Prayers, not any way belonging to the Essentials of Priesthood, except that which is specified towards the end; for the Bishop having recited the Consecration, he totally omits that which is contained under the Title: Consummatio Presbyteri, as in the first Ritual; then he puts the Stole on the right shoulder of him that is to be Ordained, saying, Accipe jugum Dei, jugum enim ejus suave est, & onus ejus leve; Receive the yoke of God, for his yoke is sweet and his burden light. Then he puts on his Casula, or Vestment, saying, Stola innocentiae induat te Dominus: God put thee on the Stole of Innocence. Then follows the Benediction: Deus Sanctificationum, etc. as in the first Ritual; which done, Capiens oleum facit crucem super manus ambas, ita dicens: Consecrare & sanctificare digneris Domine manus istas, per istam unctionem, ut quaecunque consecraverint, consecrentur, & quaecunque benedixerint benedicantur & sanctificentur in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi.  
Hoc facto, accipiat patenam cum oblatis, & calic●●● cum vino dicat Accipe potestatem, 〈…〉 sacrificium Deo, Missamque cebb●●re, tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis in nomine Domini.   

Benedictio.  
Benedictio Dei Patris, & silii, & Spiritus Sancti descendet saper vos ut sitis benedicti in ordine Sacerdotali, & offeratis placabiles hostias pro peccatis at que offensionibus populi omnipotenti Deo, cui est honour & gloria per omnia.  
Taking the Oil, he makes a Cross upon both his hands, saying thus; O Lord, vouchsafe to Consecrate and Sanctify these hands by this Unction, that whatever they shall Consecrate may be consecrated, and whatever they shall bless, may be blessed in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
This being performed, let him take the Paren with the Offerings, and the Calais with the Wine, let him say, Receive the Power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to say Mass, both for the Living and the Dead, in the Name of our Lord, etc.   

The Benediction.  
Let the Blessing of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost descend upon ye; may ye be blessed in the Order of riesthood, and may ye offer Atoning Sacrifices for the Sins and offences of the People to Almighty God; To whom be Honour and Glory, etc.  
This is the first Ritual that I can find, which contains the touching of the Chalice with Wine, and the Pattene with an Host, with this Form, Accipe potestatem, etc. as above, which the Church of Rome hath ever since retained to this day.  
Another Ritual belonging to the Church of men's, of 450 years standing, contains all that the former hath: But in the Margin, it is written, that the Bishop saith to them that are Ordained, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum; quorum remiserit is peccata, remittuntur eyes, & quorum retinueritis retenta sunt, etc. post sumptionem corporis & Sanguinis Jesu Christi, antequam dicatur postcommunio, tunc Episcopus trahat unicuique casulam deorsum per scapulas, osculans eum, & dicens: Pax Domini sit semper tecum.  
Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit, are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, are retained. And after the receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, before the saying of the Postcommunion, let the Bishop let down the Vestment from their shoulders, kissing each of them, and saying, Let the Peace of our Lord be always with you.  
This addition is all the difference between this and the last Ritual; and in the perusal of these, and several other Rituals, I never met with any power to Remit and Retain sins, communicated to the Ordained by such plain and express words, after they had received the power of Priesthood. Yet by the Custom of some Churches, this form Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum, etc. is used in the beginning of the Ordination of Priests, and accompanieth the Imposition of hands; But the present Practice of the Church of Rome is to give this power about the end of the Mass, by the Imposition of Hands, as the Matter; and the words, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, etc. as the Form. And because the Modern Rituals of the Latins contain nothing of moment more, than what the Roman Pontifical expresseth I shall therefore wave them, lest it might prove tedious to the Reader.    

SECT. III. A brief Account of the Rituals of the Greeks, Maronites, etc.  
WE begin with the Greeks, and because the Ancient Rituals have no more in them then what is contained in those of a later date: I shall omit the former, for after them, to transcribe the more modern Pontificals, were, actum agere, to do the same thing twice.  
A Greek Ritual, Written 800 years since, kept in the Liberary of Cardinal Franciscus Barbarinus.  

Ordinatio Presbyteri.  
Postquam allata sunt Sancta dona, & in sacra mensa reposita sunt, & completus est Sanctus Hymnus mysticus Cherubicus, charta consueta traditur Archiepiscopo in qua scriptum est: Divina gratia quae semper infirma curate, & deficientia complete, promovet hunc N. Deo amabilem Diaconum in Presbyterum. Eaque lecta ita ut omnes audiant, qui ordinandus est adducitur, eoque genu flectente, tria crucis signa facit super caput ejus, habensque manum et impositam, haec precatur.  
Deus qui es principii & finis expers, qui omni creatura longè es antiquior; quique denominatione Presbyteri eos honorasti, qui digni judicati sunt, in eo gradu sancte administrare verbum veritatis tuae, Ipse omnium Domine, complaceat tibi hunc, quam à me propter politiam irreprehensibilem, modumque agendi inculpatum, & fidem constantem promoveri probasti, magnam illam gratiam Sancti Spiritus tui suscipere. Perfectum redda servum tuum, ut tibi in omnibus placeat & pro data sibi à providente virtute tua, magno illo sacerdotali honore, dignè sese gerat & conversetur: quia tua est potentia tuum est regnum, & virtus, etc.  
Tum facit Presbyterorum unus Diaconi precem in hunc modum. In pace Dominum deprecemur: Pro suprema pace ac salute: Pro pace universi mandi. Pro Archiepiscopo nostro N. ipsius sacerdotio, auxilio, perseverantia, pace, ac salute, & operibus manuum ejus Dominum deprecemur.  
Pro eo qui nunc promovetur Presbytero & salute ipsius Dominum deprecemur.  clemens & hominum amans Deus, immaculatum, & irreprehensibile, largiatur illi Sacerdotium deprecemur.  
Pro piissimo, & à Deo custodito Imperatore Nostro, etc. Et cum à Presbytero haec habetur oratio, Archiepiscopus consimiliter manum tenens super caput illius qui ordinatur sic precatur.  
Deus qui potens es in virtute, cujus prudentiam scrutari nemo potest, qui supra omnes hominum filios, admirabilis es in Consillis, Ipse Domine, & hunc qui Presbyterii gradum subire, & adipisci voluisti, reple dono Sancti tui Spiritus, ut dignus sit sine crimine & querela, assistere Altari tuo, praedicare Evangelium salutis tuae, sancté administrare verbum veritatis tue, offer tibi dona & sacrificia spiritualia, renovare populum tuum per lavacrum regenerationis; ut ipse occurrens in secundo adventu Magni Dei, & salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi unigeniti filii tui, administrationis propriis gradus & officii, bene gesti, secundum multitudinem bonitatis tuae, mercedem recipiat. Elata voce: quia benedictum est & glorificatum magnum, & maxim honorabile nomen tuum, etc.  
Amen dicto, orarii, sive Stolae partem quae posterius est, in partem anteriorem deducit, ipsumque phelonio inducit, & osculo ei dato, cum caeteris Presbyteris sistit. Tunc ait Diaconus: persiciamus preces nostras Domino. Postquam autem levatum est velum à Sanctis donis & populus dixerit, dignum & justum est, tunc tradit Archiepiscopus Presby tero ordinato in manus panem unum è disco, tenentemque manibus panem sibi traditum, & imponentem caput supra ipsum inclinat supra sacram mensam, sicque manet donec dicatur, Sancta Sanctis. Tunc ordinatus restituit Archiepiscopo panem, omniumque Presbyterorum primus communicate, & ab Ordinatore Sancti sanguinis fit particeps.  
After the Sacred Mysteries are brought, and exposed upon the Holy Table, and the Holy Mystical Cherubical Hymn is completed; the accustomed Paper is delivered to the Archbishop, wherein it is thus written: The Divine Grace, that always cures that which is infirm, and supplies defects, promotes this Deacon N. beloved of God, to Priesthood: which being Read, so as all may hear it, he that is to be Ordained is brought forth, and while he is kneeling, the Bishop makes three signs of the Cross upon his head, and having his hand upon him, Prays thus:  
O God, who art without beginning or end, who in Antiquity far exceedest all Creatures, and who hast honoured those with the Title of Priesthood, who are deemed worthy in that quality to be holy Administrators of the Word of thy Truth. Thou Lord of all things, vouchsafe to confer the powerful Grace of thy Holy Spirit upon him, whose promotion, by me, thou hast approved of, by reason of his irreprehensible policy, his unblameable actions, and his constant Faith. Render thy servant perfect, that he may please thee in all things. And according to the gifts issuing from thy provident virtue, let him, by his Conversation demean himself worthily of that great honour of Priesthood, because thine is the Power, thine is the Kingdom, and Virtue, etc.  
Then one of the Priests makes the Deacons Prayer in this manner, Let us pray the Lord in peace: for supreme peace and safety; for the peace of the whole World; for our Archbishop N. for his Priesthood, his help, his perseverance, peace and safety, and for the works of his hands let us pray the Lord.  
For him that is now promoted to Priesthood, and for his safety let us pray the Lord, that God, who is clement and a lover of Mankind, will confer unto him an immaculate and irreprehensible Priesthood.  
For our most Pious Emperor, protected by God, etc. And when the Priest hath accomplished this Prayer, The Archbishop likewise holding his hand upon the head of him that is to be Ordained, Prays thus:  
O God, who art powerful in virtue, whose prudence no Man can penetrate, who above all the sons of Men art admirable in thy counsels. Thou, O Lord, replenish with the gift of thy Holy Spirit this Person whom thou wouldst have obtain, and perform the Functions of Priesthood, that without crime and complaint he may assist at thy Altar, Preach the Gospel of thy Salvation, holily Administer the Word of thy Truth, Offer to thee Spiritual Gifts and Sacrifices, renew thy People by the fountain of Regeneration; that he occurring in the second coming of the Grace of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, thy only begotten Son, according to the multitude of thy goodness, may receive the reward of his proper Administration, degree, and office well performed.  
And then with a clear voice: Because thy Grace and most honourable Name is Blessed and Glorified.  
Then having said, Amen, he takes that part of the Stole that was behind, and placeth it before, and put him on a Casula (that is, a Priestly Vestment) and giving him a Kiss, placeth him among the other Priests. Then the Deacon says, Let us complete our Prayers to the Lord. And after the Holy Mysteries are unveiled, and the People have said, It is worthy and just: Then the Archbishop gives into the hands of the Ordained Priest, one piece of Bread from the Patene, and holding the Bread delivered to him in his hands, and holding his head over it, inclines upon the Holy Table, and so he remains until the Holy to Holies be said. Then the Ordained restores to the Archbishop the Bread, and receives the Communion before all the other Priests, and by the Ordainer is made partaker of the Holy Blood.   

Another Greek Ritual of about 700 years standing.  
This in all things agrees with the former, only in the end it is added, Deinde alios communicate, orationemque post ambonem recitat, & septem diebus Missam celebrat. That is, than he Communicates others, and recites the Prayer standing behind the Bishop's Seat, and seven days together celebrates Mass.   

Another Greek Ritual, or Liturgy of about 300 years standing, belonging to the French Kings Library, differs nothing from the former.  
Another Greek Ritual of a later date, which only differs from the former in this, that when they pray for the Bishop, for him that is to be Ordained, for the Emperor, in this Ritual it is added: Pro hac urbe, pro liberatione nostra ab omni tribulatione. Auxiliare, serva, miserere, custodi nos, intercedente sanctissima immaculata, & super omnia benedicsa Domina Nostra Dei genetrice & semper Virgin.  
For this City, for our deliverance from all Tribulation, preserve, have Mercy and keep us, by the Intercession of the Most Holy Immaculate, and above all things blessed, our Lady Mother of God, and ever Virgin.  
In this Liturgy it is also commanded, that he who is to be Ordained Priest be 30 years of age.   

Another Greek Ritual kept in the Vatican.  
In this there is only this difference: That Post reposita dona, etc. to these words is annexed, Ordinandus à Primo Pre sbytero ducitur ad sanctam mensam, traditque chartophylax Episcopo chartam scriptam, Postea proclamat Archiadiaconus, Attendamus.  
Tum Episcopus exandientibus omnibus circumstantibus, legit quae in charta scripta sunt, sic dicens: Divina gratia, etc.  
Et respondetur Kyrie Eleison; Ordinandus vero utrumque genu flectit super altaris crepidinem. Quo facto, Episcopus ter signo crucis caput ejus signat, manumque super eum tenens impositum precatur.  
Deus qui es sine principio & fine qui omnis creaturae Rector es, & curator, etc.  
He that is to be Ordained is led by the Chief Priest to the Holy Table, than the Keeper of the Archivium (which contains the Writings and Records) delivers to the Bishop a Written Paper, Afterwards the Archdeacon proclaims, Let us attend.  
Then the Bishop, in the hearing of all the bystanders, Reads all that is Written in the Paper, saying thus: The Divine Grace, etc.  
And it is answered, Kyrie Eleison: And the Ordained knelt upon the step of the Altar; which done, the Bishop makes three signs of the Cross upon his head, and holding his hand upon him, Prays.  
O God, who art without beginning or end, who art the Governor and Protector of all things, etc.   

Another Greek Ritual taken out of a later Manuscript.  
This contains a Constitution of Philumenus, in these words; Ego dilectus à Domino vobis Episcopis sic constituo: Repositis supra mensam, etc. Et completo Hymno Cherubico, stat in solea ordinandus in Presbyterum, tum egredientes duo Diaconi ipsum ex utraque parte accipiunt, & deducunt usque ad portas Sanctas, ibique eum dimittunt Diaconi, & excipiunt duo Presbyteri, primus & secundus, terque circumdant Sanctam mensam hymnum canentes: Sancti Martyres qui praeclarè decertarunt. Tum sic incipit magna & elata voce is Presbyterorum, qui lingua est expeditiore.  
Offertur Religiosissimus Diaconus N. frater noster ut ordinetur in Presbyterum Sanctissimae Ecclesiae N. etc. Sciendum autem quod cum canunt Sancti Martyrs, etc. Sedet Episcopus in parva sella ante sanctam mensam; illique gyrando, cum pervenerint ante Episcopi conspectum, inclinationem, reverentiae causa faciunt, ordinandusque genu Episcopi desuper pallium deosculatur. Postea surgit Episcopus, & ad ipsum accedit ordinandus, terque ab eo caput ipsius signatur: Deinde fronti Sanctae Mensae impositus, flectit quoque ambo genua & exclamante Diacono; Attendamus, Episcopus, imposita manu dextra super caput illius, statim exclamat dicens: Divina gratia, quae infirma semper curate, & deficientia supplet, promovet hunc religiosissimum sacrum Diaconum in Presbyterum. Precemur igitur pro eo ut mittat super ipsum gratiam Sancti Spiritus. Dicto postea ter Kyrie eleison, iterum ipsum ter signat, manumque tenens ipsi impositam, Diacono dicente Dominum deprecemur, orat: Deus qui es principii & finis expers, etc.  
Exclamatione sacta, dicit Protopapas voce demissiore, it a tamen ut qui praesentes sunt respondere possint, haec Diaconica. In pace Dominum deprecemur, etc. as above. Amen dicto jubet eum surgere, & transfert orarii partem posteriorem in anteriorem dextri lateris, diceus: Dignus, postea phelonio ipsum induens, exclamat iterum, dignus, idemque canunt ti qui sunt in sanctuario & cantores; & sic osculatus Episcopum & Presbyteros, abiens consistit cum Presbyteris, & legit Contation, sed Diaconus in loco consueto subsistit, dicitque: Compleamus orationem nostram Domino, etc. Cum vero sancta consecrata fuerint, & dicturus est, it a ut fiant participantibus, accedit Ordinatus, eique sanctum panem tradit Episcopus sic dicens.  
Accipe hoc depositum, & illud custodi usque ad adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quia illud à te est repetiturus. Ipse vero eo accepto, Pontificis manum osculatur, & revertitur ad locum in quo prius steterat, manusque ponit super sanctam mensam dicens apud se Kyrie Eleison, & Miserere mei Deus. Cum aeutem dicendum est Sancta Sanctis tum ordinatus reddit Sanctum panem, & ab Episcopo primus communicatur. Dicit insuper orationem post ambonem. In English thus:  
I, beloved of the Lord, to you Bishops give this Constitution, when the Sacred Mysteries are placed upon the Holy Table, etc. and the Cherubical Hymn being ended; let him that is to be ordained Priest stand in the floor, then let two Deacons go forth, and one of each side let them lead him to the Holy Gates, and there let the Deacons leave him, and then let two Priests receive him, the first and the second, and let them go three times about the Holy Table, singing the Hymn: Holy Martyrs who have gloriously fought, etc. Then let one of the Priests that can speak best, with a high and a clear voice so begin.  
Our Brother N. this most Religious Deacon, is here offered to be ordained Priest of the most Holy Church N. etc. but you must know, that when they Sing the Holy Martyrs, etc. the Bishop sits on a little seat before the Holy Table: and they in going round, when they come in sight of the Bishop, bow to him out of reverence; and he that is to be ordained kisseth the Bishop's Knee upon the Pall. Then the Bishop riseth, and he that is to be ordained comes to him, whose head is three times signed by the Bishop with the sign of the Cross; then being placed at the Front of the Holy Table, he knelt down; and the Deacon pronouncing aloud, Let us attend. The Bishop putting his right hand upon the Ordaineds head, pronounceth these words: The Divine Grace which always cures that which is infirm, and supplies that which is deficient, promotes this most Religious holy Deacon to Priesthood. Let us therefore Pray for him, that the Grace of the Holy Ghost may come upon him: and then Kyrie Eleison being three times repeated, the Bishop again signs him three times, and having his hand upon him, the Deacon saying, Let us beseech the Lord, the Prayer is said, O God that art without beginning and end, etc.  
The Pronunciation being made, the chosen Priest, with a loud voice, so notwithstanding as they that are present may answer, Prays thus: Let us beseech the Lord in peace, etc. as above, and Amen being said, he commands him to rise, and removeth the hinder part of his Stole to the forepart of his right side, saying, worthy: then putting on his Priestly Vestment, with a loud voice saith again, worthy: and the same do they say that are in the Sanctuary, and the Singers, and Kissing the Bishop and the Priests, placeth himself among the Priests, reads the usual Lesson. But the Deacon remains in his usual place, and says, Let us complete our Prayer to the Lord, etc. But when the Holies are Consecrated, and he is to say that all is ready for the partakers: He that is ordained approacheth, and the Bishop giving him the Holy Bread, saying thus:  
Receive this Pledge, and keep it till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, because he will require it of thee; he receiving it, Kisseth the Bishop's hands, and returns to his former place, and puts his hands upon the Holy Table, saving to himself, Kyrie Eleison, and, Have Mercy upon me O God. But when the Holy to Holies is to be said, than the ordained restores the Holy Bread, and is first communicated by the Bishop, and moreover says the Prayer standing behind the Bishops Seat.   

The Order of conferring Priesthood by the Syrian Maronites, as followeth.  
THe Maronites, before their Reconciliation, were esteemed Heretics, as holding but one Will, and one kind of operation in Christ, which was the Heresy of the Monothelites. Their Ritual for Priesthood runs thus:  
Primum venit ille quem elegit gratia, & utrumque genu flectit, manus habens ante se junctas, benediciturque ab Episcopo dicens: benedic Domine, tum Episcopus signat eum cruce inter oculos, etc. Interea Archidiaconus thus offered dicitque benedic Domine: stemus omnes pulchrè in oratione & reliqua. Iterum atque iterum continuo & omni tempore Domino supplicemus: Domine pro redemptione, auxilio, ope, & remissione hujus servi tui, N. qui hic adstat, & impositionem manus Divinae accipit. Dona ei Domine gradum in Ecclesia, & sacerdotium perfectum, etc. Oremus igitur, & precemur, & supplicemus, & clamemus, dicamusque tribus vicibus Kyrie Eleison. Episcopus precatur, & dicitur, Sanctificasti Deus, & Symbolum. Interea Archidiaconus ducit eum manu dextra & dicit: Offerimus Sanctitati tuae, O Pater sancte, & electe Dei Domine N. Episcope, hunc Dei amantem qui hic adstat, ut impositionem manus Divinae accipiat, ex ordine Diaconi ad ordinem Presbyteratus super altare Sanctum Ecclesiae Sanctae Sancti Domini N. civitatis benedictae, & amantis Christi N. Est autem subjectus beatitati vestrae, Pro co clamemus & dicamus tribus vicibus: Kyrie Eleison. Episcopus precatur: Divina gratia quae semper infirma curat, & deficientia supplet promovet hunc religiosissimum sacrum Diaconum, in Presbyterum. Diaconus in pace Domino supplicemus. Episcopus precatur, Diaconus proclamat istud Domini Ephrem. Stemus omnes in oratione coram eo qui novit abscondita, etc. Episcopus imponit dexteram suam super caput ejus, & dicit: ordinatus est in Ecclesia. Archidiaconus clamat N. Presbyter ad Altare Sanctum Ecclesiae Sanctae istius loci N. Episcopus N. Presbyter. Archidiaconus Psalmum: Laus huic Pastori. Postea legunt hunc Apostolum: Fratres, posuit onim deus in Ecclesia sua primum Apostolos, etc. datque ei Evangelium ut legat. Sequuntur preces, dein ter Kyrie Eleison. Episcopus precatur, & thus datur ei, circumducuntque ordinatum per Ecclesiam, & adferunt ei Evangelium; dum autem circumducunt eum dicunt Positam: Ascendit Moses in Montem Sinai, etc. Postea instruit eum de officio suo. Explicet ordo Presbyteri.   

Maronites.  
First comes he whom Grace hath Elected, and being on both his knees, having his hands joined, says to the Bishop, Your Bessing my Lord: and is blessed by the Bishop: then he signs him with the Cross between his eyes; In the interim the Archdeacon offers Frankincense, and says, Your Blessing my Lord: Let us all stand in Prayer, and the rest. Again and again, continually, and all the time let us Supplicate the Lord: O Lord, for the redemption, help, assistance, and remission of this thy servant N. who stands here, and receives the imposition of the Divine hand; Give him, O Lord, a degree in the Church, and perfect Priesthood. Let us therefore beg, and pray, and supplicate, and cry out, and say, Kyrie Eleison three times. The Bishop Prays, and saith, Thou hast Sanctified, O God, and the Creed. In the mean time the Archdeacon leads him in his right hand, and saith, We offer, O holy Father, and Elect of God, Lord N. Bishop, to thy Sanctity, this Lover of God, who stands here, to receive the imposition of the Divine hand, from the Order of Deacon to the Order of Priesthood, upon the Holy Altar of the Holy Church N. of the blessed City that loveth Christ N. for he is subject to your Blessedness. For him let us cry out three times, and say, Kyrie Eleison. The Bishop Prays: The Divine Grace, which always cures the weak, and supplies defects, promotes this most Religious Holy Deacon to be a Priest. The Deacon says, In peace, let us beseech the Lord. The Bishop Prays. The Deacon proclaims this Ephrem of our lord Let us all stand in Prayer before him, who knows all hidden things, etc. The Bishop puts his right hand upon his head, and says, He is ordained in the Church. The Archdeacon cries aloud; N. Priest at the Altar of the Holy Church of this place. N. the Bishop. N. Priest. The Archdeacon gins the Psalm: Praise to this Shepherd, etc. After they Read, this of the Apostle: For, Brethren, God hath placed in his Church, first Apostles, etc. and gives him the Gospel to Read. Prayers follow, and thrice Kyrie Eleison. The Bishop Prays, and Frankincense is given to him, and they lead him round about the Church, and bring the Gospel to him; and whilst they lead him, they say,  
Moses Ascended Mount Sinai, etc. After he instructs him in his Office. Here ends the Order of Priesthood.   

The Ritual for Priesthood used by the Nestorians.  
PRimum incipiunt Pater Noster, etc. Et Praesul precatur: virtus tua Domine, etc. compleat media parvitate nostra Ministerium hoc Spirituale doni Sacerdotalis, etc. scito Domine, quod in omni laudi, & in omni prece, & in omni canone adorant ordinandi ad terram usque prostrati. Primum praesul abscindit capillos illius qui ordinatur, & cingulo ligat lumbos ejus, & dejicit cucullam ejus super humerum ejus sinistrum, & ingrediens stat in medio secretarii. Archidiaconus orat, pacem Praesul precatur: Stolam Domine Sacerdotii, etc. O tibi sacerdos quam magnus est gradus cui tu ministras, etc. Venite accedamus ad Sacerdotium, etc. Stola Domine Sacerdotii veteris, & novi, qua induisti veraces tuos, hac indue adorantes te, qui manus suas extendunt coram throno divinitatis tuae, etc. Sacerdotes qui digni facti estis Angelorum statu, cavete ab iniquitate. Oratio. Oleo Sanctitatis Domine unge hos servos tuos, etc. Christ Sacerdos veritatis, cujus Sacerdotium nunquam omnino praeterit, operari erga servos tuos id quod adjuvat, & indue illos splendore & decore ut Sacerdotio fungantur tibi praeclare & cautè, etc. Item: Spiritus Sanctus Paraclitus qui descendit & habitavit super Discipulos, ipse Domine descendat super capita te adorantium, etc. Et accedit ad ordinandos, & utrumque genu eos flectere jubet, simul extendentes manus suas super occulos suos. Et profert Archidiaconus, Oremus. Pax nobiscum. Et repetit Praesul demissè Gratia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui omni tempore, quod deficit supplet, cum beneplacito Dei Patris, & cum virtute Spiritus Sancti sit omni tempore nobiscum, & perficiat manibus nostris ministerium hoc tremendum & excelsum in redemptionem vitae nostrae. His dictis, vocem attollit: Nunc & semper. Deinde signat. Et profert Archidiaconus Pax eum. Repetitque Praesul hanc manus impositionem, manu dextera posita super caput ejus qui ordinatur dicitque demissa voce: Deus noster bone, etc. Et juxta traditionem Domine Apostolicam quae propagata est ad nos usque in ordinatione ministerii Ecclesiastici: Ecce offerimus tibi hos servos tuos ut sint Presbyteri electi in Ecclesia tua sancta, & pro iis oramus omnes. Deinde signat eorum capita; dicitque Archidiaconus: Tollite occulos vestros in excelsa suprema, & postulate misericordiam à Deo clemente, pro his, & his Diaconis, qui ordinantur & constituuntur Presbyteri in Ecclesia Dei cui sunt selecti: Orate pro illis. Et dicit Praesul super eos demisse dum dexteram super eorum capita imponit: Domine Deus fortis, etc. Tu ergo Deus, magnus virtutum, Rex omnium seculorum, respice etiam nunc in hos servos tuos, & elige eos electione sancta, per habitationem Spiritus Sancti: donaque illis in operatione oris sui sermonem veritatis, & elige illos ad officium sacerdotale, etc. Tunc signat capita eorum & imperat eis ut adorant prostrati in terram, & surgent. Postea Praesul cucullam accipit quae posita fuerat super humerum uniuscuiusque eorum, & ea illum induit, tollitque orarium de ejus humeris, & illius pectori imponit. Et accipit Episcopus ipse, librum adorandum Evangeliorum, & tradit eum in manibus illius qui ordinationem accepit, eumque signat inter oculos pollice dextro, dicitque separatus est, sanctificatus est, perfectus est, consecratus est N. in opus Sanctum Ecclesiasticum, & in ministaerium Sacerdotis Aaroniticiae. In nomine Patris, etc. Dein Praesul tollit ab eis Evangelium. Ille vero qui ordinatus est nectit genua: Praesul vero baculum suum accipit, etc. Dum autem dicitur Canon, apprehendit Archidiaconus eos qui ordinati sunt, & jubet eos salutare Altare, & Episcopum, & Sacerdotes, & Diaconos; illi autem osculantur capita illorum. Finit ordo impositionis manus Presbyterorum.   

Nestorians.  
FIrst they begin the Pater Noster. And the Prelate Prays: Thy virtue, O Lord, complete by our weakness this Spiritual Ministry of the Sacerdotal gift, etc. Know, O Lord, that in every praise, and in every Prayer, and in every Canon those that are to be Ordained do adore thee prostrate upon the ground. First the Prelate cuts off the hair of the Ordained, and girds his loins with a Girdle, and casts his Cawl over his left shoulder, and entering, stands in the middle before the Altar. The Archdeacon Prays for Peace: The Bishop Prays; Give him, O Lord, the Stole of Priesthood, etc. Consider, O Priest, how great is the degree to which thou art called. Come let us proceed to the Priesthood, etc. O Lord put him on the Stole of ancient and modern Priesthood, wherewith thou hast clothed thy true believers, with this, cloth these that worship thee, who stretch forth their hands before the Throne of thy Divinity, etc. Ye Priests who are made worthy of the State of Angels, beware of Iniquity. A Prayer. O Lord anoint these thy servants with the Unction of thy holiness. O Christ the Priest of Truth, whose Priesthood never faileth, operate upon thy servants that which may be most helpful, and endue them with splendour and beauty, that they may perform their Priesthood to thee with Perfection and Caution, etc. Item: Thou, O Lord, let the Holy Ghost who descended and dwelled upon thy Disciples, descend upon the heads of those that adore thee, Then he comes to them that are to be Ordained, and commands them to kneel, they extending their hands before their eyes, etc. The Archdeacon says, Let us Pray: Peace be with us: And the Bishop with a loud voice saith, The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which always supplies that which is deficient, with the good liking of God the Father, and the virtue of the Holy Ghost, be with us ever, and perfect by our hands, this dreadful and high Ministry for the Redemption of our life. Having thus spoken, he raiseth his voice; Now and for ever. Then he signeth him with the Cross. And the Archdeacon saith, Peace be to him. And the Bishop again putting his right hand upon the head of the Ordained, saith with a low voice, Our good God, etc. And, O Lord, according to the Apostolical Tradition, which hath descended to us in the Ordination of Ecclesiastical Ministry, lo we offer to thee these thy servants, that they may be elected Priests in thy Holy Church, and for them we all Pray, etc. Then he signeth their heads with a Cross, and the Archdeacon saith, Lift up your eyes to the highest Heaven, and implore Mercy from the God of Clemency, for these, and these Deacons, who are ordained, and confirmed Priests in the Church of God, to which they are set apart. Pray for them: And the Bishop with a loud voice, putting his right hand upon their heads, saith, O Lord God of power, etc. therefore thou O God, the great God of virtue, and King of all Ages, now also look upon these thy servants, and elect them by thy holy election, through the inhabitation of thy Holy Spirit, and in their Preaching, endue them with the Word of Truth; and Elect them to the Sacerdotal Office, etc. Then he again signs their heads with a Cross, and commands them to Worship prostrate on the ground, then to rise. After this the Bishop takes the Cawl which was put upon their shoulders, and puts it on them, and takes the Stole from the shoulder, and placeth it upon their Breast. Then the Bishop takes the Book of the Holy Gospel, and puts it into the hands of the ordained, and with his right Thumb, signs them between the eyes, saying, N. is separated, sanctified, is perfect, is Consecrated in order to the holy work of the Church and Ministry of the Aaronitick Priesthood, In the Name of the Father, etc. Then the Bishop takes from them the Book of the Gospel, and the ordained kneel. Then the Bishop takes his Pastoral Staff. etc. and while the Canon is Read, the Archdeacon takes the ordained, and commands them to do reverence to the Altar, to the Bishop, to the Priests and Deacons, and they kiss the head of the ordained.  
Here ends the Order of Imposition of Hands for Priesthood.   

The Order of conferring Priesthood practised by the Eutichians, and the Jacobites.  
THese two Sects I join together, because they Profess the same Doctrine, and differ only in name; the Jacobites assume their denomination from one Jacobus a Syrian, Disciple of the Patriarch of Alexandria, which was a Professed Eutichian; This Jacobus made it his chief endeavour to settle this Belief; and by himself, and his adherents, did it so successfully, that at length they were numerously entertained in at least Forty Kingdoms, in the East, and in Africa, under the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Eutichians therefore and the Jacobites agreeing in their Doctrine, the same Liturgy and Ritual were common to both. They both held, That there was such mixture and confusion between the Divine and Human Nature in Christ, by reason of the Hypostatical Union, that there resulted a Third Nature distinct from both, if taken apart, which they call a Theandrical Nature. Yet they deny that the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine Nature, for that imports a destruction of the Human Nature, without which no Conversion could subsist. This Doctrine hath no less Conformity with the Monothelites, than opposition with the Nestorians; here being a sure ground for the Monothelites to work upon, for if there be but one Nature in Christ, then there can be but one Will, and one Series of Operation, which is the Doctrine of the Monothelites; but all this is repugnant to the Doctrine of Nestorius, who held Two Persons in Christ; and proved it thus: A Complete Nature, and a Person are the very same thing; but in Christ there are two Complete Natures; and therefore Two Persons. This Argument was very vexatious to the Fathers, and hath puzzled all our Ancient and Modern Divines, and yet to this day there is no Satisfactory Answer given to it. But Eutiches, in his Principles solved it clearly, by Denying the Minor, for he held but One Nature in Christ, and consequently but One Person. But consented to Nestorius in the Major, and so might institute a syllogism against him thus: A Complete Nature and a Person are the same; but in Christ there is but One Complete Nature; and therefore but One Person. But this is to destroy one Error by another.  
Wherefore the Eutychians and Jacobites agreeing in Doctrine, agreed also in their Rites and Ceremonies; and from Three Manuscripts sent from Goa (the Metropolitan City of the East Indies) to Lisbon in Portugal, this Ritual is drawn out.  
Presbyter, quando ordinatur, stat coram Altari, subter gradus ipsius, caput habens apertum & inclinatum donec perficiatur oblatio. Tunc Episcopus tondet in formam crucis, capillos ejus qui ordinatur, traditque eum institutori suo, & praeceptum dat illi, de perfectione doctrinae suae, & ordinis sui, etc. Statim postea apprehendit Episcopus manum ejus dexteram, dicitque Spiritus Sanctus vocat te, cumque introducit ad Altar, & procumbere facit super duo illius genua coram Altari, manus habentem junctas ante se, & orarium Diaconatus super se, etc. Archidiaconus hoc praeconium proclamat: Gratia Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, quae omni tempore perficit defectus nostros secundum voluntatem. Dei Patris, in virtute Spiritus Sancti adsit iis qui hic offeruntur, etc. Ipsa est quae vocat; & offered ex Ordine Diaconorum, ad Ordinem Presbyteratus N. Presbyterum ad Altare Sanctum & divinum domus genetricis Dei Mariae, etc. Precemur igitur omnes, ut descendat super eos gratia & illapsus Spiritus Sancti, etc. ter Kyrie Eleison, & reliqua. Episcopus ponit manus suas super mysteria, & extendit brachia sua, colligitque & contrahit ea tribus vicibus super corpus & sanguinem, accipiens ex calice in pugillum suum dum colligant ea, & cooperiunt peplo, seu linteo Sacro. Postea revertitur ad illum qui est ordinandus, & imponit manus super caput ejus easque illi admetitur: iterumque attollit manus, porrigens brachia sua in altum, easque deprimit tremulas super caput ejus, hocque tribus vicibus facit Episcopus ipse, oculis ipsius desuper cum timore aspicientibus. Post hoc ponit dexteram suam super illius caput, & tegit manus & caput illius qui ordinatur cum Phaina. Dextera illius ponetur super ejus caput, & sinistra hinc & hinc movebitur, circumferetque sinistram suam tribus vicibus super cervicem ipsius & faciem, etc. Invocatio Spiritus Sancti, etc. Postea revertitur Episcopus ad occidentem ad eum qui ordinatur, imponitque dexte. ram suam super caput ejus & eum signat inter oculos, sic dicens: Ordinatus est in Ecclesia Sancta Dei. Archidiaconus dicit: N. Presbyter ad Altare Sanctum domus genetricis Dei. Episcopus addit N. Presbyter ad Altare Sanctum, etc. Episcopus: In nomine Patris, etc. Cum autem confecerit tria crucis signa, tunc qui consecratur Sacerdos, redit ad Altar, hanc mystecè dicens orationem: Suscepimus gratiam tuam Domine, etc. Post haec redit Episcopus ad cum qui ordinatur, eumque apprehendit per manum suam dexteram & erigit, Archidiaconus autem dicit: benedic Domine Episcopus accipit orarium quod super ipsum positum est & traducit illud super humerum ejus dexterum à parte anteriori, dicens: Ad laudem, & honorem, & decorem, & exaltationem Trinitatis Sanctae & consubstantialis, & ad pacem, & aedificationem Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei. Respondent Clerici: Ad laudem, etc. Et cum pompa defert casulam, & tunicam, & zanadas, & singulam, dicitque: Ad laudem, etc. Deinde tradit ei thuribulum, & praecipit ut imponat adoramenta. Apprehendit autem Episcopus manu eum qui ordinatus est, & adducit ut osculetur mensam vitae, eaque salutata, manum Episcopi deosculatur, qui ipse pacem illi donat, jubetque ut caeteri omnes pacem illi donent. Et statim obsignat Episcopus consummationem corporis Sancti cum poculo, eumque communicate, & praecipit ut ipse congregationem communicet. Cruse autem signabit, & finiet Episcopus.   

Eutichians, etc.  
WHen a Priest is Ordained, he stands before the Altar, under the steps thereof, having his head uncovered, and inclined, till the Oblation is performed; Then the Bishop cuts the hair of him, that is to be Ordained, into the form of a Cross, and delivers him to his Tutor, and gives him a Precept concerning the perfection of his Doctrine and Order, etc. forthwith afterwards the Bishop takes him by the right hand, and saith, The Holy Ghost calls thee: and brings him to the Altar, and places him on both his knees before the Altar, having his hands joined before him, and a Deacons Vestment upon him, etc. The Archdeacon speaks aloud this Prayer; The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who always makest perfect our defects, according to the will of God the Father, in the virtue of the Holy Ghost, be present with these, who are here offered, etc. It is it who calls and offers N. from the degree of Deacon, to the degree of a Priest, at the Holy and Divine Altar of the House of the Mother of God, Mary, etc. Therefore let us all Pray, that Grace and the Holy Spirit may descend upon them, etc. thrice Kyrie Eleison, etc. The Bishop puts his hands upon the Mystery, and stretcheth forth his arms, and gathers and contracts them thrice over the Body and Blood, taking out of the Chalice the Particles, whilst they gather them together, and cover them with a Veil or Sacred Linen. After he turns to him that is to be Ordained, and puts his hand on his head, and measures them to him: and again lifts up his hands, stretching out his arms on high, and lets his hands fall trembling upon his head. This the Bishop repeats three times, his eyes looking down with fear. After this he lays his right hand on his head, and covers the head and hands of him that is to be Ordained with a Veil. His right hand is placed upon his head, and his left is moved to and fro, and he turns his left hand thrice about his neck and face, etc. Invocation of the Holy Ghost, etc. Afterward the Bishop turns to the West, towards him that is to be Ordained, and puts his right hand on his head, and signs him with the Cross between his eyes, saying thus: He is Ordained in the Holy Church of God. The Archdeacon saith, N. Priest, at the Holy Altar of the House of the Mother of God. The Bishop adds, N. Priest at the Holy Altar, etc. In the Name of the Father, etc. After he hath made three signs of the Cross, the Priest Ordained returns to the Altar Mystically saying this Prayer: We have received thy Grace O Lord, etc. Then the Bishop returns to him, and takes him by the right hand, and lifts him up. The Archdeacon saith, Your Blessing my Lord. The Bishop takes the Stole which was upon him, and brings it over his right shoulder, from the forepart, saying, To the Praise, and Honour, and Beauty, and Exaltation of the Holy, and Consubstantial Trinity, and to the Peace and Edification of the Holy Church of God. The Clergy Answer, To the Praise, etc. And when he with Pomp carries the Vestment, and Tunick, and Girdle, etc. and saith, To the Praise, etc. Afterwards delivers to him a Censer, and commands him to put Incense therein: Moreover the Bishop takes him by the hand, and leads him to kiss the Table of Life, which being done, he kisseth the Bishop's hand, who gives him his Peace, and commands all the rest to do the like. And forthwith the Bishop signs with the Cross the Consummation of the Holy Body with the Cup, and after he hath communicated, Orders, that he Communicate the Congregation, the Bishop shall sign with the Cross, and conclude.   

The Ritual of the Cophticks, or Egyptians for the Ordination of Priests.  
THe disserence between the Cophticks and the Jacobites is not considerable, only they who lived in Persia, Syria, Assyria, and the East, were called Jacobites. But they who inhabited Egypt and Aethiopia were called Cophticks, whose Ritual differs but little from the Jacobites, which is as followeth.  
Cum volunt praesentare Ordinandum in Sacerdotem, testificantur primo Sacerdotes de operibus ejus bonis, & de scientia ejus, & quod uxor ejus talis sit, qualem lex requirit, quod acceperit inferiores gradus, etc. Deinde prodit foras vestitus veste Diaconi, & haltheus super humerum ejus sinistrum, coram altari. Stet autem Episcopus cum Sacerdotibus. Et qui separatus est incurvat genua sua ante Altar. Episcopus dicit gratiarum actionem, & accipit simul thymiama, & orat super illud conversusque facie sua ad Altare dicit hanc orationem: O Domine Deus qui venire nos fecisti, etc. He prays for the Holy Ghost, and Grace to administer Priesthood right. Ecce venit ad te Ordinandus in Sacerdotem, perfice eum in servum tuum, etc. Dicit Archidiaconus: Gratia Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, &c as above. Ter Kyrie Eleison. Episcopus conversus ad orientem hanc orationem dicit: Queso Domine Deus pone eum dignum vocatione Presbyteratus, etc. ut ministret Altari tuo sancto, etc. ter Kyrie Eleison. Conversus ad occidentem Episcopus ponit manum suam dextram super caput ejus sic orando: O Domine Deus omnipotens, etc. Respice super hunc servum tuum, qui tibi praesentatur ad sacerdotium, per approbationem & judicium eorum qui tibi eum stiterunt, etc. Reple eum Spiritu Sancto & gratia, etc. The Bishop Prays for him, that he may worthily perform the functions of Priesthood, etc. Et conversus ad occidentem signat frontem ejus pollice suo, dicens: vocamus to in Ecclesiam Dei Sanctam. Amen. Alta voce dicit Archidiaconus N. Sacerdos est Altaris Sancti, quod est in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica, & Apostolica, Ecclesia Dei, Amen. Deinde clara voce Episcopus dicit: vocamus te N. Sacerdotem Altaris Sancti, quod vocatur Orthodoxorum, in nomine Patris, etc. Facit Episcopus super frontem ejus tres cruces, significando Trinitatem. Deinde vestit illum Stola, dicens: Gloria & honour Trinitati Sanctae, consubstantiali Patri, & Filio, & Spiritui Sancto. Pax & incrementum Ecclesiae Dei Sanctae. Amen. Conversus ad orientem Episcopus orat sic: Gratias tibi agimus, etc. A thanksgiving to God, and a Petition, that the Ceremonies of Ordination may please him. Then follows an Admonition to the Priest newly Ordained. Et juramento praestito, osculatur Episcopum, Altar, & praesentes. Deinde explicat aliquid de mysteriis. Et Episcopus ponit super eum manum tribus vicibus, & omnes dicunt alta voce: dignus est N. ut sit Sacerdos in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica, & Apostolica. And so it ends.   

The Cophticks and Egyptians.  
WHen they would present him that is to be Ordained Priest, first of all the Priests give Testimony of his good Works, and his Learning, and that his Wife is such as the Law requires; that he hath received the Inferior Orders, etc. Then he comes forth in his Deacons Habit, and having a Stole on his left shoulder, he stands before the Altar. The Bishop likewise stands with his Priests. And he that is separated knelt before the Altar. The Bishop recites a Prayer of thanksgiving, and at the same time takes the Incense and blesseth it; and turning his face to the Altar, he recites this Prayer; O Lord God who hast ordered our coming, etc. Behold he that is to be Ordained Priest comes to thee, make him thy true servant, etc. The Archdeacon saith, The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. as above: Three times Kyrie Eleison: Then the Bishop turning towards the East, saith this Prayer, O Lord God, we beseech thee, render him worthy of the vocation of Priesthood, etc. that he may Administer upon thy Holy Altar, etc. Three times Kyrie Eleison. Then the Bishop turning towards the West puts his right hand upon the Ordaineds head, Praying thus: O Lord God, Omnipotent, etc. look upon this thy servant, who is presented to thee in order to Priesthood, by the approbation and judgement of those that propose him, etc. Replenish him with the Holy Ghost, and Grace, etc. The Bishop Prays for him, that he may worthily perform the Functions of Priesthood, etc. And turning to the West, signs his forehead with his Thumb, saying, We call thee into the Holy Church of God. Amen. The Archdeacon with a loud voice saith, N. is a Priest of the Holy Altar, which is in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, Amen. Then with a clear voice the Bishop saith, We call thee N. a Priest of the Holy Altar, which is called of the true Believers, In the Name of the Father, etc. Then the Bishop makes three Crosses on his forehead, signifying the Trinity. Then he puts the Stole about him, saying, Glory and Honour be to the Holy Trinity consubstantial with the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Peace and increase of the Holy Church of God, Amen. Then the Bishop turning to the East, prays thus, We give thee Thanks, etc. A thanksgiving to God, and a Petition that the Ceremonies of Ordination may please him. Then follows an Admonition to the Priest newly Ordained, who having taken the usual Oath, kisseth the Bishop's hand, the Altar, and those that are present. Then he explicates something of the Mysteries, and the Bishop puts his hand three times upon him, and all say with a loud voice, N. is worthy to be a Priest in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. And so it ends.  
These Rituals were with great trouble and industry Collected from several parts of the World by Morinus, who saw the Originals, and Translated them out of Greek and Syrian, into Latin, as you may see in his Treatise de Sacra Ordinatione, part 2.  
Thus I have given you a Cursary View of the Manner how the Chiefest Professors of Christianity, dispersed all the World over, did Confer the Order of Priesthood; which compared to the present practice of the Church of Rome, it will be obvious how this Church hath deviated, in Essentials, from the Institution of Christ, the practice of the Apostles, and the Primitive Church, which, by considering the particulars of the Roman Pontifical now in use, will plainly appear.   

A Draught of the Roman Pontifical for the Ordination of Priests now in use.  
THe Bishop that is to give Orders, is not to do it but in Mass, and in the several parts thereof, he exerciseth the several Functions of Ordination. They that are to be Ordained Priests being by the Archdeacon presented, and accepted. The Bishop gins by the imposition of his hands upon the head of them successively; but says nothing. Then they return again, and the Bishop puts his right hand upon the head of each of them, and the Priests that are present do the like, putting their hands by the Bishops. Then the Bishop says a Prayer, imploring Grace for them that are to be Ordained, that they may worthily comply with the Functions of Priesthood. This done, the Ordainer takes the Stole of each, that was before upon their left shoulder only, and brings it round the neck, and puts it upon the right shoulder also, with these words, Accipe jugum Domini, etc. Receive the yoke of the Lord, etc. Consequent to this he puts on their Casula, or Priestly Vestment, the hinder part being folded up, and fastened to the upper part, with this Form, Accipe Vestem Sacerdotalem, etc. Receive the Priestly Vestment, etc. Next follows the Anointing of their Heads with Holy Oil. And the Priests that assist, tie the Palms of their hands together with a Linen Hinder, lest the Holy Oil should be profaned. Persuant to this, the Bishop, holding in his hand a Chalice with Wine and Water in it, and upon it a Patene, with an unconsecrated Host on it, exhibits all this successively to them that are to be Ordained; and here great care is taken by the Ordainer, and the assisting Priests, that they at the same 〈◊〉 touch the Chalice, the Pattene, and the Host, to which end (because their hands are bound together) the Priest's place their fore-fingers upon the Pattene, so as to touch both Pattene and Host, and the tops of their middle fingers, being a little separated from the fore-fingers, are applied to the side of the Chalice under the Patene; and the Priests in this posture, press their fingers upon the Vessels altogether, and the Ordainer gins not the form till he be assured, that they touch all, than he pronounceth the form in these words, Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium pro vivis & defunctis, In nomine Patris, & filii, & Spirituus Sancti. Receive the power of offering Sacrifice for the Living, and the Dead. In the Name of the Father, etc. This done, they are esteemed Priests, Quoad potestatem ordinis, for as much as concerns the power of Consecrating, and saying Mass, and therefore they Consecrate together with the Bishop, and say Mass all along with him, having their Missals open before them. Then after Consummation, when they have all received the Communion, the Bishop the third time puts his hand upon their heads with this form: Accipe Spiritum Sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eyes, & quorum retinueritis retenta sunt. Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. Then presently he unfolds their Vestment, and lets it down behind, saying, Stola innocentiae induat te Dominus. The Lord put thee on the Stole of Innocence. And so it ends.    

SECT. iv Showing, That the Church of Rome placeth the Essence of the Ordination of Priests in touching the Vessels, and the Form annexed to it.  
TO make good this Position, I begin with the Authority of the Council of Florence, 
Florent. Instructione Armenorum.  Instructione ad Armenos, where it Treats, ex professo, of the Essential matter of Priesthood, and the Council assigns for this matter, the Tradition of the Vessels, and makes not the least mention of the Imposition of Hands, nor any other matter.  
Gregory the 9th tells us, That if in Ordination the Imposition of Hands be omitted, the Ordination is not to be reiterated: his words are these: 
Greg. 9 C. Presbyter, de Sacramentis noniterandis.  Presbyter, & Diaconus cum ordinantur, manus impositionem tactu corporali (ritu ab Apostolis introducto) recipiunt. Quod si omissum fuerit, non est aliquatenus iterandum, sed statuto tempore, ad hujusmodi Ordines conferendos, cautè supplendum, quod per errorem extitit praetermissum. A Priest and a Deacon when they are Ordained, receive the Imposition of Hands by a Corporal Contact (a Rite which was Introduced by the Apostles) which if it should be omitted, is not forth with to be reiterated, but at the appointed time, for the conferring such Orders, what was omitted, is to be carefully supplied. This clearly supposeth the Ordination to be valid, by the Tradition of the Vessels, and its Form, without the Imposition of Hands, for otherwise the whole aught to be renewed, because the former was all invalid; and yet Pope Gregory saith, That only was to be supplied, that was omitted in the former Ordination, and not till the next time of Ordination, which is commonly three Months after, for the Orders are given but four times in a year, which they call the quatuor tempora. Hence I conclude, that Pope Gregory held the Imposition of Hands to be circumstantial, and accidentary, but not at all belonging to the Substance and Essence of Ordination.  
Next St. Thomas of Aquine, 
Aquinas 3. Parte, q. 35. ar. 3.  their greatest Divine, whose Doctrine, all the Dominicans, and Jesuits, are bound, by their Rules, to follow, holds the same. So also Joannes della Cruz in directoria conscientiae Parte 2. de Sacramento Ordinis. Dub. 2. Conclusione 1. Bonacina de Sacramentis, D. 8. q. unica. Puncto 3. Nu. 2. Gregorius de Valentia, To. 4. D. 9 q. 1. Puncto 5. Gravina Treats it fusely, De 2. de materia & forma Sacramentorum, Sect. 7. Conclusione 3. Dominic Soto in 4. Dist. 24. q. 1. Ar. 4. Didacus' Nugnez Comment. in Sanctum Thomam. Sect. Septimus Ordo. Antonius Diana Parte 2. Moral. Resol. Tract. 4. de Sacram. resolute 187. 
Chamerota Tract. 11. de Septem Sacram: c. 3.  Domitius Chamerota asserts that by the Tradition of the Vessels, the Character is Imprinted, and the Ordained is properly a Priest. The same is Taught by Philippus Gammachaeus, C. 8. de Ordine. Isambertus, Vasques, Silvius, Tannerus, Estius, Puteanus, Meratius, and the greatest part of their Divines, for to cite them all were endless; And especially their Moral Divines, who solve all their Cases, in this matter, by this Opinion. Hence they resolve, that if it be certain that the Ordained did not touch the Chalice, or if he did touch the Chalice, but not the Patene, he must be Reordained absolutely; but if it be doubtful whether he touched them or no, than he is to be Ordained again conditionally, etc. And if there be clear evidence, that one in his Ordination, did not touch those Vessels, I would fain know whether any Divine in the Church of Rome, either Moral or Scholastical, dare assert, that such a one ought not to be Reordained?  
To clear this Point, and remove all doubts of it, 
He gives you one Example out of Bussenbaum.  let us hear what Busenbaum saith, one of their Moral Divines, whose Works are so famous, that the Tenth Edition was Printed at Munster, Anno Dom. 1661. His words are these: Quando dubium occurrit an ordo sit verè collatus, v. g. quia materia fuit dubia, iterari potest, & debet sub conditione. Quandò vero sunt rationes utrinque probabiles pro nullitate, & validitate, ait Diana, p. 5. t. 3. R. 47. ex Grac. posse iterari sub conditione; imo debere, si sit Episcopalis, vel Sacerdotalis; v. g. Si Sacerdos, vel Episcopus non tetigisset vasa sacra, aut illud instrumentum in cujus porrectione imprimitur character; Excipit tamen Sacerdotem, qui immediate tetigit Patenam, sed non hostiam. Cum verò qui non tetigit calicem, & patenam, dum forma proferebatur, sed paulo post, posse quidem, ad majorem animi sui quietem, sub conditione iterum ordinari, non tamen esse necessarium, docet Card de Lugo. Resp. moral. L. 1. d. 31. Recte autem notat Diana, etiamsi quis timeat, ne invalidè ordinatus sit, aut non recordetur se tetigisse vasa sacra, aut non tetigisse imaginetur, non illico iterandum esse ordinem, cum sola oblivio, aut timor non sufficiat ad prudens, ac rationabile dubium, vel probabilitatem: By this Discourse it plainly appears, 
See Bonacina, D. S. q. 2. puncto 3. who confirms this at large.  that they place the whole Essence of the Order of Priesthood, in the touching of those Vessels, which the Bishop tenders to them, which is their Essential matter; and in the words which the Bishop pronounces, while the Ordained touches those Vessels, which is their Essential Form. So that if we consult Authority, this Position must certainly prevail.  
A Second Proof is grounded in this Principle, That not only the matter and form, which are the Essentials, but also a right intention in the Minister is rigorously necessary for the validity of Order. So the Council of Florence: 
Florent●num Instructione ad Armenos.  Haec omnia Sacramenta tribus persiciuntur, videlicet rebus tanquam materia, verbis tanquam forma, & persona Ministri conferentis Sacramentum cum intentione faciendi quae facit Ecclesia; quorum si aliquod desit, non perficitur Sacramentum. All these Sacraments are perfected by three things, to wit, by Things as the Matter, by Words as the Form, and by the Person of the Minister, conferring the Sacrament with intention to do that which the Church doth: whereof, if any be wanting, the Sacrament is not complete. This supposed, I prove my intent; for the Minister of Priesthood ought not, cannot in prudence have any intention to confer this Order by any other matter and form, than the tradition of the Vessels and this form, Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium pro vivis & defunctis, in nomine Patris, etc. Take power to offer Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead, etc. for by these words he is to give the Ordained a Power to offer Sacrifice, wherein consists the Order of Priesthood, according to them. Wherefore, if his intention do not accompany the plain, clear, and explicit sense of his words, it would be a mere fiction; for he saith, Take, Receive, etc. and in the mean time intends to give them nothing: and so without this intention he would be a mere deluder. Hence I conclude, that he must intent to confer the Order of Priesthood by that matter and form; neither can he affix his intention to the Imposition of hands, nor to any thing else contained in the form of Ordination, for than he would attempt to confer the same Order to the same person twice, which is a Sacrilege in all Sacraments that imprint a Character, as the Order of Priesthood doth.  
But it may be Objected, That the Ordainer directs not his intention to this particular matter nor that, but regulates himself by the intention of the Church, without examining particulars, as the Council of Florence directs. 'Tis well that you have exempted the Ordainer from reprehension: But then I must demand, What intention the Church had in introducing this new Matter and Form? so explicitly, and in express terms signifying the collation of Priestly Power to proceed from hence, and consequently the Character to be hereby imprinted? for if these are not intended as Essentials, than you have removed the siction from the Ordainer, and attributed it to the Church; so that the one or the other must be the Author of it, but as to this present controversy it matters not which. And indeed, to solve all, there is but one way, which is, to grant, that the tradition of the Vessels, and the Form of Words thereunto annexed, do Essentially confer the Order, and imprint the Character.  
The Third Proof is made out by induction, which to effect, we must make a strict inquiry into all the parts contained in the Roman Ritual, to deprehend, if any one of them have any proportionable capacity in order to this effect. The first imposition of hands can have none, because there is no Form appropriated to it, neither can a bare Matter without a Form, constitute the adequate Essence of a Sacrament. The Second Imposition of ●ands, though there be a Form accommodated to it, yet it is neither Indicative, or Enunciative, nor Imperative, but only Deprecatory, which is not sufficient to satisfy the See of Rome. But however, as the Roman Ritual for Priesthood is disposed, the Order of Priesthood can never proceed from hence, except the touching of the Vessels with its Form, be wholly left out; for in case Priesthood should be validly conferred by this Imposition of Hands and its Form, than the tendering the Vessels afterwards to him that is already Ordained, with these words, Accipe potestatem: Take a power to offer Sacrifice, etc. would be a Sacrilegious and Fallacious attempt to Reordain him that was before validly Ordained, and had the Character of Priesthood imprinted upon him, and this would be constantly practised through the whole extent of the Church. Besides, this Doctrine is wholly destitute of Authority, for there are few or no Divines that insist upon this. What then remains? only the Third Imposition of Hands, which follows a long time after, about the end of Mass, with these words, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eyes, & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt. Receive the Holy Ghost: they whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and they whose sins you retain are retained. This likewise hath no proportion to confer the Order of Priesthood. First, because it supposeth that Order already conferred; for none but a Priest is sufficiently qualified to receive a Power of Relaxing and Retaining sins. But in the Primitive Church, this power was ever esteemed a branch of Presbytery, necessarily resulting from the Validity of Ordination, so that all Priests had the Radical Power of Absolving, but they were not to practise it without a Deputation from their Bishop: neither is it above Four hundred and Fifty years since this Form was thrust into the Ritual, and by reason of its novelty, as not being instituted by Christ, as Essential to the Ordination of Priesthood, cannot participate of the nature of a Sacrament, nor any way belong to the Essentials of Ordination. Lastly, That this Matter and Form have no influence upon the Power of Consecrating, or offering Sacrifice, is evidently evinced from hence, That all they who receive it, had before said Mass with the Bishop, and Consecrated with him, and to that end the Canon, and especially the words of Consecration (that usually are pronounced with a lower voice) are by the Bishop pronounced aloud, and distinctly, because the Ordained may accompany him, for he that first ends the words of Consecration, doth truly Consecrate, and none of the rest, except they direct their intention to that instant in which the Bishop pronounceth the last lyllable. How then can this last imposition of Hands, or its Form, any way conduce to the Power of Order? It therefore remains, that nothing contained in the Roman Ritual for Priesthood, can be Essential to that Order, except the Tradition of the Vessels with its Form; all the rest being accidentary, and circumstantial, as I shall prove hereafter by their own Authors.  
All this is confirmed by the practice prescribed in the Roman Ritual for degrading a Priest. Ministri tradunt in manus degradandi, calicem cum vino & aqua, ac patena, & hostia, quam Pontifex Degradator, aufert de manibus degradandi. The Ministers deliver into the hands of him that is to be degraded, a Chalice with Wine, and Water, and a Patene and Host, which the Bishop that is the Degrader, takes out of the hands of the degraded; because, by delivering these Vessels to him, he was Ordained Priest: and therefore by taking them from him again, they think him sufficiently devested of that dignity.  
This Truth is so apparent, that it needs no other proof, then to observe in their Ordination, how indifferent and unconcerned they are in all parts thereof, except in delivering the Vessels, and pronouncing the Form that affects them, here one Priest inspects one side, another surveys the other side, and they keep such a pressing of the Ordaineds hands, both on the Patene and Chalice, that no Error be committed in the application of these Vessels, that the beholder will presently conclude, that they esteem the whole substance of Ordination to consist in this. Discourse their Clergy, and you will find, that no one doubts it. Read the Form, Accipe potestatem, etc. Receive the power, etc. and you will certainly conclude, that it signifieth nothing else. And they who live amongst them and converse with them, cannot but know their general and unanimous belief and persuasion, that the Order of Priesthood is validly conferred by the touching of those Vessels, and the Form which accompanies it, and the Character thereby imprinted, and Sacramental Grace conferred.  
Wherefore, as to the thing in substance I offer this Dilemma: either the Order of Priesthood is validly conferred by touching the Vessels, and the Form appropriated to it, and the Character thereby imprinted, or not. If the first be granted, that is the scope of our present intention. If the second, than I declare, that the words which the Ordainer pronounceth, are Nugatory, Delusive, and Fallacious; for the words are Imperative, whereby the Bishop bids the Ordained receive a power of offering Sacrifice (which in effect is Priesthood) and the Ordained, who comes full fraught with an ardent desire of receiving it, consequently accepts it, and yet notwithstanding this offer and acceptation, he is deluded; for that power being Spiritual, and so invisible, as is also the Character, he conceives himself impower'd to offer Sacrifice, and his Soul consequently embellished, with a new, and high Prerogative, in plain and explicit words offered him, and yet is defrauded, and disappointed of his expectation, for that Matter and Form (as we suppose by the second part of the Dilemma) is not capable to confer upon him such a dignity, notwithstanding the Promise.   

SECT. V The Order of Priesthood, according to the present Institution, cannot be validly conferred by touching the Vessels with this Form, Accipe potestatem, etc.  
THe Ordinations and Institutions of Christ, none can attempt to abrogate, or alter, without a Sacrilegious temerity, for they carry with them an irrefragable Authority, they are Juris Divini, of Divine Right; they are Sacred, and therefore no Human Power upon Earth, can make any change or alteration in them; and more especially, when by Divine Institution Supernatural effects are produced by Natural causes; as it falls out in the Ordination of Priests; for when it is validly conferred, there is communicated to the Receiver, a Spiritual capacity, to exercise all the Functions of Priesthood; there is a Power granted to him over the Real Body, and the Mystical Body of Christ; the first by Consecration in the Eucharist; the second by Relaxing, and Retaining sins. There is also imprinted upon the Soul of the Ordained a Character, which is a Real Physical and Supernatural quality; neither is it Supernatural only quoad modum, in the circumstances of producing it; but quoad entitatem, the very Intrinsecal Nature and Essence of it, is Supernatural, because no exigence of Nature can ever challenge it as due, in any circumstances whatsoever. From the same cause also proceeds an increase, of Sanctifying, and inherent Grace in the Soul of the Ordained, as also a plentiful supply of Actual, and Transient Graces, whereby his Understanding is Illuminated, and his Will Fortified, in all occasions conducing to the Functions of his Order, all which are, according to their Intrinsecal Nature, Supernatural.  
And yet the causes from which these strange effects proceed, are of themselves purely Natural, having no proportion to such Supernatural products. They have only a Radical Obediential capacity, to be assumed, and elevated above their Nature, by the powerful hand of the Omnipotent, to produce, jointly with him, any effect that involves not a contradiction. Thus the Natural Element of Water is Instituted by Christ, to produce Spiritual and Supernatural Grace, and to destroy Original Sin. And in our present case, the Imposition of Hands (though Natural in itself) was appointed by Christ our Redeemer to produce the forementioned effects, waving the question, whether the Causality of Sacraments be Physical, or only Moral, which the Divines Dispute.  
And as there is no power upon earth, that can abrogate, or alter Christ's Institutions, or divest those Natural Causes of that Efficacity, which by an Irrevocable Decree, the Author of Grace hath given them, so there is no Created Power, neither Human nor Angelical, that can validly institute, appoint, ordain, or determine any Natural Cause whatsoever, to produce any Supernatural effect, because all Created Power, how great soever, is limited and confined within the bounds of Nature, and so neither formally, nor virtually, nor eminently, contains that Supereminent Virtue, or proportion with Supernatural Effects, which are far above its Sphere: How then can it Communicate to other Causes, that High Virtue, which it no way contains in itself? Hence it ensues, that as all the power of Nature, though it summon, and muster up all its strength, can never deprive those Natural Entities Instituted by Christ, of this Supereminent Prerogative, nor hinder their effects, when duly applied to Subjects capable, according to Christ's Institution; so likewise, neither can it remove, or transfer this operative quality from those causes, to which Christ hath affixed it, and place it upon others of its own invention and determination. For no pure Creature, can alter, change, or abrogate a Divine Law; And in this case, the word Incarnate is the Legislator, or Lawgiver, and therefore none but himself can make any Change in his own Law. Except Man, that is but a mere Creature, will wage War with his Creator, and Usurp to himself a Power that never was, nor ever will be granted him, it being peculiar to God alone.  
The ground of this Doctrine is not New, but Admitted by All, and is common to both Churches. For this is the Argument that St. Augustin used against the Pelagians, who held a proportion in our Natural Acts to Merit Glory; and the Semipelagians, or Massilienses, endeavouring a Moderation, attributed to our Natural Acts, a power of Meriting Supernatural Grace; and this obtained, rendered us capable of Meriting Glory. Which Opinions are both condemned as Heretical, chief upon this Principle, That whatsoever is Natural, hath no proportion, with things Supernatural; which common Reason dictates. Thus far in General: now we'll descend to Particulars.  
The Question in agitation is, whether the touching the Vessels, that is, the Chalice with Wine, and Water in it, and the Patene with an Host, be the Essential Matter and Form of the Order of Priesthood? I Assert that it is not, because it was never assumed nor appointed by the Divine Institutor for that end. This being a thing of Fact, must be made out by the Testimony of those that best knew. None are more competent Witnesses, nor were better acquainted with the Transactions of Christ, than his Apostles, who were eye-Witnesses of his proceed, and to whom Christ communicated such things as chief concerned his Church. And they have left their Testimony in Writing, to be inviolably observed in future times, and yet have not where left the least mention of this Matter and Form. If any such thing had been Instituted by their Divine Master, it is most unlikely, and wholly incredible, that in a matter of such moment, and high concern, wherein the very being of the Church depended, they should have passed it over in deep silence, and never have given the  intimation of it, neither in Word nor Writing, to those of the Primitive Church, that immediately succeeded them. But so it is, the Apostles never mention it; All Antiquity is wholly ignorant of it; search all the Minutest Passages of Scripture, read all the Authors of the Infancy, and Growth of the Church, Examine all the Liturgies, and Rituals of Ordination, the Latins, Greeks, the Syrian Maronites, the Nestorians, the Eutichians, the Jacobites, the Cophticks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Aethiopians, etc. Peruse all the Records of Councils, and you shall find nothing but a profound Silence, and Ignorance of any such thing, till about 700 years since, as you may see above Section II. in the Ritual of Constantinus Caëtanus. In the Ancient Rituals, as well of the Latins, as the Greeks and others, there is frequent mention made of the Imposition of Hands in Ordination, which was ever held Essential to the Order of Priesthood, but of Touching the Vessels not a word. Whence we may certainly conclude, that those Vessels were never Instituted by Christ, as the Essential Matter of Priesthood, nor the Words annexed thereunto, as the Essential Form. Let us now Collect what hath been proved in this Section: Nothing but that which Christ Instituted is the Essential Matter and Form of the Order of Priesthood; But Christ never Instituted the Touching of the Vessels, and the words annexed to it; ergo, the Touching of the Vessels, and the Words annexed to it, are not the Essential Matter, and Form of the Order of Priesthood; the Premises have been here clearly proved, and the Conclusion is legally inferred.  
For a farther Proof of this Assertion, we must drive it a little higher, and consider the fatal consequences that would ensue from their Doctrine were it true. For if the Matter and Form, specified in the Title of this Section, be the Essentials of the Order of Priesthood, than it inevitably follows, that the Greeks, and all the Christians dispersed over all the East, yea, and the Latin Church also, for a Thousand years after Christ, had never any Valid Ordination, because they all wanted the Essentials of Priesthood, for all these never made use of the Vessels nor the Form annexed to them, as appears by their Rituals (And to this day none but the Latins, ever applied this Matter and Form to him that was to be Ordained Priest) and therefore could have no True Patriarches, not Bishops, nor Priests among them. A very sad Illation, and of vast consequence; for no Priest, no Church What then, Must the Church of Rome, to keep up, and Maintain their Innovation, which is a Mere Humane Invention, Un-Church all the Professors of Christianity in the World for a Thousand years together, and a considerable part of them to this day, and leave them destitute of either Bishop or Priest? Where was, all this while, the provident care, that our great Master and Redeemer ever had of his Church, which he had Established by the Price of his Precious Blood? Where was that tender love, that he ever testified to his Endeared Spouse? Can heabandon his whole Church so soon after he had Instituted, and so firmly Founded it, that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it? What Christian can, without a Sacred Horror, entertain a thought, of such a general devastation, and deplorable desolation?  
But this being so obvious, could not but work the Church of Rome into an anxiety and sedulous industry, to find a remedy; wherefore, to salve this Sore, they would never Reordain their Proselytes, that had deserted the Communion of the Greek Church, and embraced theirs; but on the contrary, in all occasions, declared the Ordinations of the Greek Church to be valid; and consequently granted to those Greeks, that were now Incorporated into their Church, the free use of all their Priestly Functions (though they had been created Priests according to the Rites of the Greek Church) and never attempted to Re-ordain them. By this they endeavour to evade this last imputation, which otherwise would lie heavy upon them.  
But in plain terms, this evaasion is no better, than a mere contradiction; for, How is it possible that the Ordination of the Greeks could be valid, without the Essentials of Ordination? which the Roman Church placeth in the Touching of the Holy Vessels, with this Form, Accipe potestatem, etc. Receive a power to offer Sacrifice, etc. for these the Greeks never used. You were as good tell me, That one may be truly and properly a Man, without either Body, or Reasonable Soul, which are the Essentials of Man.  
If you should Reply, That there may be Two Essences of Ordination, so that each taken apart from the other, makes the Ordination valid. So when the Greeks Ordain, they use for Matter, the Imposition of Hands, and for Form, these words, Divina gratia, etc. The Divine Grace, which always heals that which is infirm, and supplies that which is defective, promotes this most holy Deacon to be a Priest. By this Matter and Form, the Greeks do validly confer the Order of Priesthood: And when the Romanists Ordain, they do the like by their peculiar Matter and Form. So that neither is rigorously necessary, but either may suffice. This Doctrine is very Paradoxical, for in substance it asserts, that one and the same thing may have two complete and adequate Essences, specifically, and generically different from each other, which is impossible, for a thing, and his adequate Essence is the same, and nothing can be specifically, or generically different from its self.  
But you'll say, These are not two Essences of the same thing, but two different causes of the same effect. To solve this, I must distinguish between the Order itself, and the Ordination; the Order is that Spiritual Power, which is given to the Ordained, by virtue of his Ordination, from whence results the Order, together with its concomitant Supernatural effects, which are the Character and Sacramental Graces, that are inseparable from it. The Ordination is made up of those Actions and Words, which the Ordainer exerciseth, and applieth to the Ordained, so that the Ordination participates more of the nature of a causality, then of a cause. And the whole Essence of this Ordination, is the Matter and Form instituted by Christ; for whatsoever was assumed by the Original Instituter, and by him elevated, and impower'd to produce such admirable, supernatural, and Sacramental effects, is the Essence of Ordination; So that Order is the Effect, and Ordination the Cause: wherefore, if you appoint new Essentials of Ordination, you not only grant two Causes of the same effect, but two Essences of the same thing, whereby you render Ordination, specifically, and Essentially distinct from its self. And because none but an Omnipotent Power, can raise Natural Causes to such vigour and energy, as to produce such extraordinary effects; therefore that Matter and Form which Christ hath Instituted to this end, is the total Essence of Ordination. And herein the Greeks have the advantage, for they ever used the Imposition of Hands, with the Form above mentioned; which the Primitive Church received from the Apostles, and they from Christ; so the Greeks are sure, that their Ordination hath a legal and valid Institution: But where shall we find another adequate Essence of Ordination, by Divine Institution? That of the Church of Rome hath no such Prerogative, for we know its Origine, and have scanned its Pedigree, whereby we find, that there is nothing but Human Authority to authorize it, which hath no proportion to such wonderful effects which are out of the reach of Nature, and none but an Omnipotent Power can produce. Hence we groundedly conclude, that there is but one valid Ordination, which hath but one certain, and determinate Nature, and Essence, neither is there any power upon Earth that can add to it, or take from it. So that in vain you assign the Touching of the Vessels, with its Form, for a second, total, and adequate Essence of Ordination. For all Antiquity was a stranger to this, the Apostles never heard of it, Christ never mentioned it neither by word nor action. Who then dares obtrude this as belonging to the Essence of Ordination, which is of Divine Right, as all Sacraments are? Certainly none will attempt it, but such whose ambition prompts them to entrench upon Divine Right, and God it here upon Earth, not knowing, or not acknowledging that their power is limited, and confined within its certain bounds.  
Besides, were there two Forms of Ordination, one Instituted by Divine Authority, the other by Human, and both valid; by the same Rule you might institute Two hundred, yea, every Diocese might have one peculiar to itself; there is no more difficulty for the Third, than there was for the Second, nor for the Fourth, than the Third, and so of all the rest. Wherefore if such a power were delegated to mere Humans, What a confusion might they bring into the Church? which would be the ground of Discord, and Dissension, 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 employ my endeavours 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 endeavour 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 wind, and turn, to compose the Difference between both Churches; but, in the execution, they impugn 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 authority 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 Form 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 burden 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 Latins, by relying wholly upon the Touching of the Vessels, and the Form annexed, as the only Essential Matter and Form of Ordination, excluding all other, and yet this Matter and Form 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 Form thereof, but only in general, that the Church should appoint some sensible Matter, and some Form of Words, whereby to signify 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 Form, she should think fit, and by this Power the Church may alter the Matter and Form of Order at her pleasure; she may abrogate what was before in use, and Institute a new Matter and Form, and the Order will still be valid. So Isambertus, the King's 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 applied, as well in reference to the Minister, as the Intention, might signify 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, etc. 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, etc. is Essential, as I have shown 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 conferred by the Imposition of Hands, but now by the Ordination and Practice 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 rendered 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 petitio principii. They assume for proof that which is to be proved. The thing in question is, Whether the Church hath Power to Repeal, Altar, or Change, that which Christ hath Instituted in matter of Ordination? This Objection contends, that the Church hath done it, in Ordination, Matrimony, and Confirmation. I grant, the Church hath done it de Facto, but not the Jure: That is, it hath by its Ordination, and Practise, endeavoured to violate Divine Right, but neither legally nor validly, as we have already proved. It is not that which is done at Rome, that must Regulate our Belief, but that which is well and regularly done. So Durandus, in 4. dist. 13. q. 3. telling us, That the custom of the Priest-Cardinals, jointly Celebrating with the Pope, was not in his time observed. Et si observarctur, non esset necessarium credere quod benè fieret, quia secundùm Hieronimum, non quod fit Romae, sed quod sieri debet, attendendum est. And if that custom should be observed at Rome, it would not be necessary to believe, that it were well done; for according to Hierome: not that which is done at Rome, but that which ought to be done, must be observed, saith Durand. As for Subdeaconship, Matrimony, and Confirmation, they all contain the same difficulty with this. Certain it is, that the Church of Rome (as much as in her lies) hath made a change in the Matter and Form of her pretended Sacraments; and as certain it is, that she hath done it illegally, and invalidly, as having No power, authority, or commission to alter, change, or abrogate the Constitutions of Christ, which are of Divine Right, and especially in our case, where mere Natural Creatures are elevated to produce supernatural effects, which is peculiar to an Omnipotent Power, as is clearly proved in the precedent Section.  
My Second Answer is, That according to the Doctrine of this Objection, we must admit in the Divine Understanding, confused and imperfect acts, such are those which represent Universals, or Objects in General, which the Philosophers call Vniversale; and by such Acts a Created Understanding: cognoscit plura non cognita pluralitate; that is, an Act of Human Understanding, represents a nature common to Many, but doth not represent the plurality, nor the differences between them, and so by a distinction made by the Understanding, that Metaphysical formality which is common to many, is separated, and distinguished from the difference that is between them, and yet they are really identified; this is proper to Human Understanding, and to Angelical, in such Objects as Angels know by foreign species, which are imperfect, but not in those that are known by their proper species, because these species produce perfect acts, that represent the Object as it is, which, of itself, admits no such distinction, but is indivisible. Now, to attribute to God such confused, abstractive, and imperfect notions of Objects, is to destroy his Omniscience, which can admit of no imperfection, and so consequently this Doctrine would Ungod him. Wherefore the Divine Intellect hath for its Object, all those particulars, with all their nicest differences, that are contained under those heads that we call Generals, all which he represents, as they are in themselves, with all their differences, by a clear intuitive, and comprehensive act. The reason is, because God useth no species, no, nor acts distinct from himself; his Essence is his act, and species also, which hath a reference to all things that are possible, and hence he perfectly comprehends them all in their particulars and individuals, and therefore cannot represent a general predicate so as to prescind it from the differential formality, for this would argue imperfection. Now since the Will of God is regulated by his understanding, he can make no decree by way of Institution of a Sacrament, to elevate such or such sensible signs in general, to produce supernatural effects, except he fixeth it upon some determinate particulars, because the Understanding represents no such generals, without the determinate particular differences, for nihil volitum quin praecognitum, the Will can have no Object, but what the Understanding represents; the Understanding of God represents no General without particulars, therefore the Will cannot decree an extraordinary concourse to a General without determining the particulars; for otherwise God would determine himself, by his Decree, to give an extraordinary concourse to he knew not what, but the Church must afterwards determine him; which is a conceit very unworthy of the infinite perfection of God's Understanding and Will. Hence it is manifest, that the Matter and Form of Sacraments can never be capacitated to produce such wonderful and supernatural effects, except the Divine Decree pass upon them in particular, to enable them to it, by his concomitant and extraordinary assistance.  
But it may be alleged, that without affiixing any obscurity or imperfection to the Divine Acts, a Power may be left to the Church to determine some one of those matters, which the Understanding of God represents distinctly, with all their particular differences, and Regulates his Decree by the Church's Determination.  
I Answer, That in effect this is no other than to Assert, That Christ hath Commissioned the Church to Institute Sacraments; for here are no limits prescribed, but they are left to the whole latitude of any sensible Matter. And I demand, Whether any Divine dare assert, That the Church hath Power to change the Essential Matter of Baptism, or Eucharist, for any other specifically distinct from what is now in use? if not, What ground is there to assert such a Power in the Church, in reference to one Sacrament more than another? Besides, in this particular matter of Instituting Sacraments, such a subordination of God's Decrees to Human determination, derogates from the dignity of Christ as Redeemer, for he alone, without any Human Concurrence, is the Sole Institutor of Sacraments, who, without Man's help, hath perfected the Work of our Redemption.  
My third Answer is, That according to this Doctrine, the Church of Rome would have a power to Institute Sacraments; for the Essence of each Sacrament consists precisely in the Matter and Form, so that the Institutor must appoint and determine what shall be the Matter and Form of each Sacrament, which in effect is nothing else but the Sacrament itself, which consists only of these two Essential parts, impowered to produce such effects as are peculiar to each Sacrament. But you will say, It is not the Church but Christ, that enables them to produce the Sacramental effects, by the Church's determination. It is well that the Church will admit of Christ, to be a Constituter with it; but yet the Church still retains the rectum, which is the visible, or sensible sign, and contains the whole Essence of the Sacrament, and leaves to Christ only the obliquum, which is to do the work intended by it. But where was this Divinity ever Taught, to separate the parts of Institution of Sacraments, so as that one part should be Human, and the other Divine? which still makes the Church a joint 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 Church's 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. 'Tis strange, how such a Thought could find admittance into any true Christians understanding, to divest 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 Authority. 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, etc. 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 Sanctified, 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 determined by God; so that it is not lawful to change any thing. All this is confirmed and attested by Suarez, that great Divine, whose Authority bears such sway in the Church of Rome; who first lays his Groundwork 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 form, 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 defined, 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 Authority 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 Form, 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 impugn the common Opinion of Divines, but they also err 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 Form of all Sacraments, which the Authors of this Objection deny.  
To this I'll annex the Judgement 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 chimaeras, 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 aught to be held as an Article of Faith.  
First, Because in Scripture, wheresoever mention is made of Ordination, it is declared 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 Ancient Writers, that the Primitive Church never Ordained without the Imposition of hands; but they make no mention of delivering the Chalice and the Host.  
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.  
'Tis well that some of our Antagonists cannot be swayed neither by hope nor fear, nor any way deterred 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 practice, and persuasion 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 endeavours a Reconciliation, by joining the delivery of the Instruments or Vessels, and their Form, with the last Imposition of hands, and this Form, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, etc. So that of these two Matters they make one entire Matter; and of these two Forms, they frame one entire and adequate Form. Yet so, as that by touching the Vessels with this Form, Accipe potestatem, etc. they affirm the Ordained to receive the Order of Priesthood, with Power to Consecrate and offer Sacrifice; and the Character to be thereby imprinted. But by the consequent imposition of hands, the Ordained receives a Power only to forgive or retain sins, as the Form of words expresseth. So Becanus, Part 3. Theologiae, Cap. 26. de Sacramento Ordinis, quest. 4. who uses his utmost endeavour by this means, to maintain the Validity of Ordination according to the present practice of the Church of Rome, yet so, as not to draw any prejudice upon the Ordination of the Greek Church, and other Christian Congregations, whose Ordinations the Church of Rome ever declared valid. But the Council of Florence seems to obstruct his design, by assigning no other Essentials of Ordination but the Tradition of the Vessels, and their Form, and here Gamachaeus, above cited, in the precedent Section, Cap. 4. joins his forces with Becanus, or rather Becanus with him. So also doth Meratius, D 7. S. 2. who, to the Authority of the Council of Florence, Answers; Concilium non suscepisse ex professo declarandum accurate singulorum ordinum, materiam & formam totalem ac integram, etc. sed solum per cujus rei Traditionem potestas ordinis conferetur. The Council (saith Meratius) did not undertake of purpose, to declare exactly, the total and adequate Matter and Form of each order, etc. but only to declare what those things were by whose Tradition the power of order was conferred. And this Opinion Isamberus also embraces with avidity, as conceiving all helps little enough, in such a hard conjuncture, and therefore joins this Opinion with his own, specified above in the Second Objection. St. Bonaventure holds the same, in 4 d. 7. ar. 1. q. 1. & 2. and before him Alexander, p. 4. Sum. q. 9 Memb. 1. & 2. ar. 2. where he distinguisheth between that which Christ Ordained, and that which the Church Ordained, in these words, Quae enim ab homine Ordinata sunt, ab homine possunt mutari, quae autem à Deo instituta sunt, non nisi dictante Deo debent mutari. These things (saith he) that are Ordained by Man, may be changed by Man, but those things that are Instituted by God, are not to be changed, but by God's appointment.  
As to their Interpretation of the Council of Florence, I Answer, That it is is a mere ungrounded shift, for the Council gives not the least hint of any such sense, but undertakes to assign the Essential matter of Priesthood, and to that purpose, specifies only the Tradition of the Vessels, as the only Essential Matter, and mentions nothing else, which would be a mere delusion, if the Council had judged any thing else to be Essential. But Becanus interprets it thus, Nota, antiqua Concilia assignasse materiam à Christo Institutam; Florentinum verò materiam assignasse quam Ecclesia introduxit. Note (saith Becanus) that the Ancient Councils assigned the matter Instituted by Christ; but the Council of Florence specified the Matter that was introduced by the Church. Be it so; then the Ancient Councils assigned only the Imposition of hands, as the Essential Matter of Priesthood; but the Council of Florence, in the time of those Fathers, signified the Tradition of the Vessels, and nothing else, as the only Essential Matter: So that neither the Ancient, nor Modern Councils, ever joined these two Matters together, as parts of the whole, by their own Confession. But hence it is plain, that the Church of Rome hath introduced a New Matter and Form, which Christ never Instituted, and yet they hold it Essential. Now to their Argument.  
My first Answer is, That this is a mere evasion to save them from Shipwreck. What ground have they, for patching up a Sacramental Matter with two such disparate, and heterogeneal pieces? What time will they appoint to have the Character imprinted? What will this avail them, if it should be all granted; for none of them will admit the Imposition of Hands alone, with its Form, to have a capacity to confer the Order of Priesthood, and Imprint the Character, therefore they must declare the Ordination of the Greeks to be frustrate, who never used any other Matter than the Imposition of Hands. But if this alone be sufficient, Then what need is there of the Tradition of the Vessels? Why should these two parts, so different from each other, be conjoined, if either of them apart were sufficient?  
My Second Answer is; That they could never have made a worse choice then to join these two Matters and Forms together, in order to constitute the entire Essence of Ordination; for both the one and the other are Innovations; the one begun about Seven hundred years since; the other was introduced about Four hundred and fifty years since; so that neither was Instituted by Christ, neither recommended by the Apostles, neither practised in the Church of God before the times specified. From whence then can they derive their Validity?  
My Third Answer is, That the last Imposition of Hands with this Form, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, etc. Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained. This, I say, can no way belong to the Essentials of Priesthood, because this Matter and Form are applied to none but those that have before received the Order of Priesthood, and have the Character Imprinted, which is manifest, because they all said Mass, and Consecrated with the Bishop, before the application of this Matter and Form, which is not performed till after they have all Received the Communion, immediately before the Postcommunion is Read; wherefore this Matter and Form comes too late, to have any influence upon the Order of Priesthood; but I shall not need spend time in the Proof of this; because the Authors of this Objection grant it, and only make use of this Matter and Form, to confer the Power of Forgiving and Retaining sins. Which being supposed, they must rely wholly upon the Tradition of the Vessels, for conferring upon the Ordained the Spiritual Power of Priesthood, and enabling him to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, and to offer Sacrifice, and for Imprinting the Character, etc. all which, the touching of the Vessels, with its Form, can never accomplish, because here is nothing at all of Christ's Institution, no Imposition of Hands doth any way concur to this. So that we have here the Power of Priesthood conferred, with the Character, and yet without any Imposition of Hands; and hereby this Opinion agrees with the First Objection, which excludes all Imposition of Hands; and therefore must of necessity condemn the Greek Church, who never use any other Matter of Ordination, than the Imposition of Hands. And yet the main drift of these Objections is, to save the Validity of the Greeks Ordinations, so as not to destroy their own. And that the Power of Consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ is the Principal Act of Priesthood, they all grant, and it is so asserted by Albertus Magnus. The Act of Priests (saith he) is to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ: 
Albert. Mag. L. 6. Theologie veritatis, C. 36.  and it is the Principal Act; the other is consequent, which is, to Retain and Absolve.  
A Fourth Objection: Nothing can be more significant, nor more proportionable to the Function and chief Ministry of a Priest, than the delivering to him, in his Ordination, those Vessels wherein he is to Consecrate, and Consummate the Mysteries of the Eucharist, which is the Principal and Substantial Act of his Priestly Office; and therefore nothing so fit, to be the Essential Matter of his Ordination. So likewise the Form, clearly, and Explicitly signifieth the Order of Priesthood to be conferred to the Ordained, by the application of this Matter and Form, and therefore is most exactly accommodated to this present end.  
I Answer, That it argues Temerity and Presumption, for mere Men to prefer their judgements before the judgement of the Word Incarnate, who knows and comprehends all things whose judgement and prudence is infi, nite, and consequently he best knew what was most significant, and most expedient for the Matter and Form of such Mysteries, as he himself Instituted. And therefore, to reject that which Christ appointed, and substitute in lieu thereof the products of our own weak invention, under pretence that it is more accommodated to the Mystery then that, is too high an attempt, for hereby we divest Christ of his Omniscience, and consequently of his Divinity, by preferring our own Finite and Limited capacities, before the II-limited Perfections of Christ's Understanding, which is very preposterous and deordinate.  
As to the Form of words which they have introduced, to animate their adventitious Matter, lest their Reformation should remain incompleate: I Answer, That this Modern Form, now in practice in the Church of Rome, to wit, Receive a Power of offering Sacrifice as well for the Living as the Dead, etc. is very different from the ancient Form derived from the Apostles, which is this, The Divine Grace, which always heals that which is infirm, and supplies that which is defective, promotes this holy Deacon to be a Priest. Compare these two together, and you will find a substantial difference between them, that is Imperative, this Indicative; that gives Power of offering Sacrifice; this hath no such expression: That specifies to whose benefit the Sacrifice shall accrue; this makes no mention at all to whose benefit it should redound, etc. These and other differences make those two Forms very heterogeneal, and discrepating, when compared with each other.  
But it may be alleged, That notwithstanding these seeming Differences, yet, in effect, the two Forms are equivalent, and render the same sense, only with this difference, that what the one contains implicitly, the other expresseth more particularly, and explicitly. The second signifies Priesthood conferred, which implies a power of exercising all the Functions and Ministeries that properly belong to a Priest; among which is enumerated the power of offering Sacrifice, which peculiarly belongs to a Priest. This therefore is tacitly contained, and involved under the signification of this Second Form; and the first signifies more distinctly this selfsame thing, and no more. For the intention of the Sacrificator, is  to the Sacrifice, for whether he offer it for the Living, or the Dead, or by way of Satisfaction, Propitiation, or Impetration for himself, or others, makes no change in the Sacrifice.  
This latter part I admit: but, to the rest I Answer, That the offering of Sacrifice in the Law of Grace, is not the only Function peculiar and proper to a Priest, because the Administration of the Sacraments, Preaching, and Explaining the Word of God, etc. are Ministeries belonging to the Office of Priests: all which are contained under the Second Form, but wholly omitted in the First, which only empowers the Ordained to offer Sacrifice, and limits his power to this alone, because this Power is explicitly given him, and no mention made of any other; so that the Second Form having a greater latitude, as comprehending all that is contained under the notion of Priesthood, and the First Form limited to one Function alone, it is manifest that this First Form, peccat per defectum, that it is deficient, for it doth not reach the complete Power of Priesthood, and the Second Form being wholly omitted in the Roman Pontifical, the Ordination consequently is Essentially defective.  
Yet Independent of all this, they acknowledging the Original Matter and Form to be valid: What necessity was there of Instituting this New Matter and Form? Is it Christianlike to be diffident of Christ's Providence? as though the Supreme Power of our Benign Redeemer wanted Ability, or his Omniscience were defective to know our wants; or his Infinite Goodness had not the Will to furnish us with all necessaries conducing to our Eternal Bliss. Is it possible that any understanding, though but meanly instructed with Reason, can conceive, that Human Providence, in these Supernatural Mysteries, can, in the least manner, come in competition with that never failing Providence of Christ himself? They Teach, That the Matter and Form of all Sacraments, are so determined by Divine Institution, 
Bellarm. L. 1. de Sacram. in genere, C. 21.  ut non liceat quidquam immutare, that it is not lawful to change any thing, saith Bellarmine; and Suarez saith, It is an Article of Faith. See the Authors, for this, above, Sect. 6. in the Fourth Answer to the Second Objection; they also hold Ordination to be a Sacrament: Si quis dixerit Ordinem sive Sacram Ordinationem, 
Trident. Sess. 23. Can. 3.  non esse verè & propriè Sacramentum, à Christo Domino Institutum, etc. Anathema sit. If any one shall say, That Order, or Ordination is not truly and properly a Sacrament, Instituted by Christ our Lord, let him be Accursed, saith the Council of Trent. If therefore they stand to their own Principles, the change which they have made, in the Matter and Form of Ordination, can be no less than a violation of Divine Right, which renders the Order of Priesthood Invalid.  
But this is not all; for though their Modern Form should be equivalent to the Primitive Form, yet if it be misplaced, and not applied to the Imposition of Hands, which is the Original Matter, it cannot make one with it; and so on this account, the Ordination will be Invalid. And in effect they have so dismembered the parts of Christ's Institution, and so inverted the Order of them, that it is very remote from being the same thing it was. For though they use the Imposition of Hands (which is the Original Matter) yet they apply not to it, the Original Form, which they entirely omit; nay, they allow it no Form at all, as it were in Contempt; the Ordainer, with Deep Silence only putting his hand upon the Head of him that is to be Ordained, not deeming it an Essential Matter of Order, but only as a preparative thereunto. And the Second Imposition of Hands (which immediately follows the First) hath no Form, but a Precation, neither can it confer the Order of Priesthood, because the Form which follows at a distance, and affects the Tradition of the Vessels, expressly signifies the Order then given, which would be a Sacrilegious Repetition, were it given before. Wherefore the Ancient Form being omitted, and the new one not applied to the Original Matter, I conclude, that here is made an Essential Mutation destructive of the Validity of Order.  
A Fifth Objection, much like the former, is proposed by his Eminence, Cardinal Lugo, who disapproving all other ways of reconciling the Church of Rome with the Greek Church, in matter of Ordination, proposeth, as he conceives, a better expedient, in these words, Verior ergo, & planior conciliandi modus est, quam supra insinuavimm: 
Lugo. D. 2. de Sacram in genere, S. 5. n. 98.  Ecclesiam Latinam retinuisse utique, priscum illum ritum ab Apostolis introductum, Ordinandi Sacerdotem per manus Impositionem, illam tamen materiam magis explicitam reddidisse, adjungendo traditionem panis & vini quod Graeci non faciunt; ita ut ex manus Impositione, & Traditione panis & vini, fiat una integra materia magis explicita, cum forma quae nunc profertur explicante potestatem solam ad sacrificândum. Postea vero adhibetur iterum alia manus impositio cum altera forma explicante potestatem ad Absolvendum. Wherefore a truer and a plainer way of Reconciliation is that which we have insinuated above, that the Latin Church hath indeed retained the Ancient Rite introduced by the Apostles, of Ordaining a Priest by the Imposition of Hands, but hath rendered it more explicit, by adding to it the Tradition of Bread and Wine, which the Greeks do not practise; so that of the Imposition of Hands, and Tradition of the Bread and Wine, there is made one entire Matter more explicit, with the Form now in use, that expresseth only a power of Sacrisicing. But afterwards there follows another Imposition of Hands, with another Form, expressing the Power of Absolving. Thus Cardinal Lugo. The same is held by Gravina. De materia & forma Ordinis. D. 2. Sect. 3. where he saith, That the Vessels are implicitly contained in the Imposition of Hands, wherefore the Greeks do implicitly, and virtually touch the Vessels, but the Latins do it explicitly, and formally.  
I Answer, That the so much desired Reconciliation between the Greeks and the Latins, in reference to Ordination, will never be made, by the Doctrine of this Objection, which is grounded upon a false Principle, that the Touching the Vessels is equivalently the Imposition of Hands, and so virtually contained in it, which is repugnant to common sense. For, What have the Vessels to do with the Imposition of Hands? What analogy or similitude is there between them? The Imposition of Hands being the Action of the Ordainer, wherein the Ordained is but passively concerned. And the Touching the Vessels is the proper Action of the Ordained. Now to prove the difference between them, we must have recourse to the specificativa entium, as the Philosophers term it; that is, by assigning the terms or correlatives, of their intrinsecal and Essential Relations, we may evidently deduce, what their Nature and Essence is. The Touching of the Vessels is an action, whose origine and cause, is the Person of the Ordained. The Object or Term of the same action, is the Thing Touched, which are the Vessels. The Imposition of Hands, hath for its origine or cause, the Person of the Bishop, who is the Ordainer; and for its object, or term, the Person of the Ordained; so that the correlatives of the one, compared with the correlatives of the other, are as different, as the Vessels are from the Person of the Ordained; and from this difference we evidently gather the like difference between the Touching the Vessels, and the Imposition of Hands, by reason of the , and Essential habitude, and reference, which these actions have to their correlatives. But the Essence of the Vessels, and the Person of the Ordained, are not only specifically, but generically different from each other, the one being an Animate Creature, the principle of Vegetation, Sensation and Reason; the other only Inanimate Metals, destitute of Life, Vegetation, Sensation and Reason; which by the first notions of Philosophy, argues a specifical, and generical difference. And consequently the Imposition of Hands, and touching the Vessels, are Essentially, and Substantially different from each other. And by this Discourse, the same difference will result, whether you insist upon the Vessels, or the Substance of Bread and Wine, which they contain, for they are all Inanimate, and destitute of Life. So that the Touching of the Vessels, and the Imposition of Hands, are Essentially, and Substantially distinguished from each other, and consequently the one can neither formally, nor virtually, nor equivalently, nor implicitly, contain the other.  
And yet that the Order of Priesthood is a Sacrament, we have their universal consent; The Council of Trent defines it, 
Tred. Sess. 23. Can. 3.  to be truly and properly a Sacrament Instituted by Christ, and lays a Curse upon those that shall deny it, as we see above. What then remains? but that in the Essentials of an acknowledged Sacrament, Instituted by Christ, they have made a substantial and Essential Mutation. And yet they cannot deny, that whatsoever is Instituted by Christ himself, is Sacred, 'tis Juris Divini, of Divine Right, and therefore not to be altered by the wisest of Mankind. And to attempt a change in things of Divine Right, implies, either an imputation of Ignorance in Christ, or else a distrust of his Prudence and Providence, as if we were not content with what Christ hath Ordained for us, but we must presume to Reform his Ordinances, Detracting one thing, and Substituting another, to Reform, or Complete the Work of the Omniscient.  
A Sixth Objection; That the Order of Priesthood was rightly and validly conferred in the Ancient Church, as well by the Latins, as the Greeks, no Man doubts; but the Church of Rome retains all that was then in use, as appears above, by the Rituals, Sect. 2. Ca 3. and in particular, the Imposition of Hands then used, with a Deprecatory Form, which is the Second Imposition of Hands, contained in the Roman Ritual, with that Ancient Prayer, to which, in the old Rituals is prefixed this Title, Consecratio Presbyteri: the Consecrating of a Priest, whereby Priesthood was formerly conferred; wherefore the Church of Rome, using this Matter and Form in the beginning of Ordination, wants none of the Essentials, and therefore her Ordination is valid. So Morinus, De Sacris Ordinationibus, Part. 3. Exercitatione 7. C. 1. & 2. which he proves, by refelling the Opinions of other Authors, who place the Essence of Ordination in any of the other two Impositions of Hands, or in the Tradition of the Instruments; which in these present circumstances, is no proof at all, especially to one, who impugns them all. For this is no Argument; their Opinions are false; ergo mine is true. How easily is it Answered? that they are all false, both his and theirs, except the contrary be proved. But he endeavours to prove his Opinion by the Authority of the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. C. 3. where the Council Order the Ministers of Extreme Unction to be only Bishops, aut Sacerdotes ab ipsis rite Ordinatos per Impositionem manuum Presbyterii: or else Priests by them Ordained by the Imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery: which refers to none but the Second Imposition of Hands, according to the Roman Pontifical; for, in this alone, the Bishop joins his Right Hand with the other Priests upon the head of the Ordained.  
In this Opinion Morinus is singular, for I find no Author that holds it but himself, neither is it probable, that the Validity of Ordination in the Church of Rome, must rely upon the Authority of one single Author, who is a better Historian than Divine, in opposition to all other Authors.  
Wherefore my First Answer is, That this Imposition of Hands, which Morinus insists upon, cannot validly confer the Order of Priesthood, for want of an intention in the Minister to confer it hereby; For no Bishop that Ordains can prudently intent to Ordain by this Imposition of Hands only, neither can the Church intent it: First, Because there is but one Author that holds it, all the Divines being wholly against it, asserting it to be only an accidental Ceremony, preparative to the collation of Order, but not at all belonging to the Essence of it; For the greatest part of Divines, and common persuasion of the Church of Rome, admit no Imposition of Hands at all, as belonging to the substance of Ordination; but place the whole Essence thereof in the Touching the Instruments, and their Form. Others that allow to the Imposition of Hands a partial concurrence, together with the Tradition of the Vessels, yet none of them make choice of this Imposition of Hands, but they all attribute this partial virtue to the Third Imposition of Hands, after Communion, with this Form, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remiseritis, etc. Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins, etc. Secondly, Because, if the Church, or the Ordainer, should intent Ordination of Priests to be conferred by this Imposition of Hands, and the Prayer that accompanies it, as the total and complete Essence, and substance thereof, they would thereby render the exhibiting of the Instruments and their Form, wholly useless, which would reflect upon the Church's Prudence and Discretion, in introducing them; for no other necessity of this superinduction, contrary to the constant practice of Antiquity, can be groundedly assigned, but to be an adequate, or a partial cause of Priesthood.  
My Second Answer is, That the Form which accompanieth the tendering of the Instruments, doth so plainly, so expressly, and so explicitly signify, the Order of Priesthood to be thereby conferred, that no Ordainer, that is in his right wits, can any way doubt of it, or call it in question, but that the Church, by adding this Matter, and Form, intended thereby to confer to the Ordained the power of offering Sacrifice (wherein they place the Essence of Priesthood) if then this power were given the Ordained before, by that Second Imposition of Hands, the Ordainer (if he understands what he says) must, volens, nolens, confer that power over again, to the same Ordained; which is a Sacrilege; neither can the Church, who introduced it, avoid this inconvenience. For Reordination was, by a never interrupted Tradition prohibited in the Church of God. So in the Canons of the Apostles, 
Canon, Apost. 68  Si quis Episcopus, vel Presbyter, vel Diaconus, Secundam Ordinationem ab alio receperit, deponatur & ipse, & qui Ordinavit, etc. If any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, do receive from another a Second Ordination, let him be deposed, and he that Ordained him. The same is Taught by the Council of Trent, in these words, 
Trid. Sess. 7, Can. 9  Si quis dixerit, tribus Sacramentis, Baptismo scilicet, Confirmatione & Ordinatione, non imprimi Characterem in anima, hoc est signum quoddam Spirituale, & indelebile, unde ea iterari non possunt, Anathema sit. If any one shall say, That in Three Sacraments, namely Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordination, there is not a Character imprinted in the Soul, that is, a certain Spiritual, and indelible sign, by means whereof they cannot be reiterated, let him be Accursed. St. Cyprian, de ablutione pedum, citys an ancient Author speaking thus, Nemo Sacros Ordines semel datos renovat iterum, etc. quia contumelia esset Spiritui Sancto si evacuari posset quod ille Sanctificat, etc. None renews again Holy Orders that are once given, because it would be a contumely to the Holy Ghost, if that should be evacuated, which he hath Sanctified. But I need not insist upon this, because they all grant it.  
Hence it ensues, That though the Roman Ritual should contain all the Essentials of Ordination, yet this would not evince the Validity of it. First, Because they reject that which is Essential, as a mere circumstantial Ceremony inductive to Priesthood, and consequently have no intention to confer the Order by it. Which intention is a necessary condition, sine qua non, without which, no Order can be Validly conferred, as they all Teach, and is defined by the Council of Florence, as you may see above in the Fourth Section, and the Second Proof. Secondly, Because they have introduced a new Matter and Form, never Instituted by Christ, nor ever mentioned by the Apostles, nor the Primitive Church, by which they intent the Collation of Priesthood; Wherefore should the Priestly Power be conferred, by that Second Imposition of Hands, then in every Ordination there would be a Sacrilegious attempt of Reordaining.  
A Seventh Objection: Though the Church of Rome approves of the Tradition of the Vessels, with its proper Form, yet it so allows it, as not to exclude the Imposition of Hands, and therefore the Ordination is Valid, and no way repugnant to Christ's Institution; for this additional Matter and Form, is but a thing indifferent to the other parts of Ordination, and therefore cannot be prejudicial to them; for, as Gratian observes, Vtile per inutile non vitiatur; A useless addition cannot vitiate that which is useful. Wherefore, 
Tridem. Sess. 21. C. 3.  according to the Council of Trent, Agnoscens Sancta mater Ecclesia suam in Administratione Sacramentorum autoritatem. The Holy Mother, the Church, well knowing the power she hath in the Administration of Sacraments, she may add, diminish, or alter, as incident occasions and circumstances shall require, still retaining the Essentials.  
To this I Reply, That this Objection is already Answered, in the Solution of the precedent Objection. Only this lays an Aspersion upon the Church for introducing into the Ritual a needless Addition, though in effect it is destructive of the Validity of Ordination, by rendering the Essentials useless, and drawing from them the intention of Ordaining, as is above declared. But if this Addition be not Essential, Why is the power of offering Sacrifice expressed in it? Surely the Council of Florence and Pope Gregory the Ninth, thought it Essential, as you may see above, Sect. 4. And indeed, that which is added, is used as Essential, and that which Christ Instituted, is rejected as Circumstantial, which vitiates the Ordination.  
An Eighth Objection: The ground of this Discourse, against the Validity of Ordination, according to the Roman Ritual, depends upon that Opinion, which allows to the Sacraments a Physical influence, into the supernatural effects thereof; for, great difficulty is made, how Natural Causes can produce Supernatural Effects, on pretence, that none but an Omnipotent Power can elevate them, per potentiam obedientialem, to render Nature proportionable, to that which is above Nature: wherefore admitting only a Moral Causality, which is a probable opinion, held and maintained by many Divines, this difficulty will cease, for then the Church may Ordain, and determine the Matters and Forms of Sacraments, without communicating to them, that Supernatural Power of producing Physically and really such like Sacramental effects, as are above Nature.  
My First Answer is, That many Grave and Learned Divines, maintain, That the Sacraments do Really and Physically produce their Supernatural Effects; and they prove it by substantial Reasons, wherefore this Opinion, both by Authority, and Reason, claims the preference, especially as being more conformable to the expressions of the Councils, who Teach, That the Sacraments contain Grace, that is, virtually, which signifies a power to produce it, and also, that they confer Grace ex opere operato, etc. that is, the Sacraments by their due application, confer Grace to the Receiver, through the power and virtue wherewith they are endued, by Divine Institution, which is distinct from that Grace which is produced ex opere operantis, that corresponds to the piety and devotion of the Receiver. So the Council of Trent, Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae legis Sacramenta, 
Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 18.  ex opere operato, non conferri gratiam, etc. Anathema sit. If any one shall say, that by the Sacraments of the New Law, there is not Grace conferred, which proceeds from the virtue of the Sacrament, let him be Accursed.  
My Second Answer is, That the Doctrine above delivered, depends not on either of these two Opinions determinately, for admit which you please, yet it cannot be denied, but that the Sacraments, duly applied, bring with them an exigence, and infallible determination, for the conferring Supernatural Graces, Imprinting the Character, etc. by virtue of Christ's Institution. Independent whereof, Pray what power is there in Nature to endue the Matter and Form of Sacraments with such virtue and exigence, which all the force of Nature can never pretend to, or challenge as due? So that an Omnipotent Power is here rigorously necessary, to institute and determine the Matter and Form of Sacraments, (which is all their Essence) and to communicate to them this high Prerogative, which surpasseth all the strength of Nature, as well Angelical as Humane.  
A Ninth Objection. In the Collation of Priesthood, as well the Church as the Ordainer direct their intention to the whole Liturgy, thereby to confer the Order, not determining any one part more than another, and certainly the whole contains all the Essentials, and consequently thereby the Order must be Validly conferred, there being nothing wanting, neither the Essentials, nor the intention of the Minister to the Validity thereof.  
My First Answer is, That though in some cases a denomination may be appropriated to the whole, which cannot be applied to the parts thereof, if taken separately, as the compound of a body, and a reasonable Soul, is a Man, and yet neither the Body nor the Soul, taken separately, and by themselves, is a Man. So likewise, a Number is made up of several Unities, and yet never an Unity by itself is a Number. Yet when there is a real and Physical effect to be produced, and the parts of the whole are applied successively, so as that when one part is existent, the other is past, and not then in being, and the subsequent parts are not yet extant. In this case a real effect cannot proceed from them all, neither by a Physical action, nor by a Physical determination: but this real effect must be produced in the same moment of time, when the cause of it is existent, whether its influence be Physical, or Moral, provided that its determination to such an effect be Physical. Now for application.  
In the same moment of time that the Order of Priesthood is conferred, there is a Spiritual Power given to the Ordained, there are several Real and Supernatural Graces produced, there is a Real Character Imprinted. These are the effects. Now let us inquire into the Cause. The Essential Matter and Form of Ordination, duly applied, are the cause of those real effects, either by a real influence, and principiating the action which produceth them, or by a real determination, or strict exigence of having then actually produced, according to the Divine Decree of Institution, so that the effect cannot be deferred, or suspended, when the cause, either Physical or Moral is sufficiently applied. And certain it is, that the Ritual contains many circumstantial, and accidental Rites, intermixed with the Essentials, and several parts of the Mass, as they successively occur, for they are not all Essentials, neither is the Person to be Reordained if any one action of the whole Ritual be omitted. Whence it ensues, that some one determinate Matter and Form in particular, is the cause of the forementioned effects, and in that cause consists the Essence of Ordination. And yet if we run over all the parts of the Roman Ritual, there is no Matter that can be Essential, except it be the Tradition of the Instruments, or the Imposition of Hands; for nothing else was ever esteemed, in the least, as Essential. The Tradition of the Vessels cannot be Essential, as we have clearly proved above in the Fifth Section; as for the Imposition of Hands, we find it in three places only in the Roman Ritual, and neither of these three Impositions of Hands, belong to the Essential Matter of Ordination, as we have proved in the Fourth Section, by Induction, or enumeration of parts.  
My Second Answer is, That notwithstanding the drift of this Objection, which is to involve all in obscurity and confusion; yet, whether they will or no, their Essential Matter and Form are fixed, from whence they cannot recede; for the Tradition of the Instruments, and the Form that affects them, which they have introduced, can have no other end then to constitute the Essentials of Priesthood. The Form is this, Receive a power of offering Sacrifice, etc. These words, if they have any signification, import a Power of offering Sacrifice then conferred upon the Ordained, and nothing else. And the offering of Sacrifice is the chief action of a Priest, because it empowers 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 conferred. 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 Form, 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, etc. Anathema sit. If any one shall say, That Order, or Holy Ordination, is not truly and properly a Sacrament, Instituted by Christ, etc. 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 Authority. The Ordination consists in the Essential Matter and Form regularly and aptly applied, by the Bishop, which is the Ordainer, to him that is Ordained; and from this Matter and Form so applied, 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 conferred. So that Order, with its concomitants, is the effect; but Ordination is the cause. That is permanent in the Ordained for term of life; this is transient, and passeth away, for it lasts no longer than 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 intent 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, etc. all this is performed by Ordination, not by Order; for nothing can be the cause of itself. 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 itself.  
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 England's 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 links of continuation; Wherefore, if the Church of Rome have no true Bishops, it inevitably follows, that the Church of England must lie 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 merely 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 applied, 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 conferred 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 concur, 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 applied, 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 ruin and destruction of his Church; which would certainly ensue, 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 Superinductions pretended to Correct Christ's Institutions, and thereby rendered 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 reform 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 endeavours 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 place to substitute their own, and hereby to make Ordination void; so likewise is Human frailty subject to many such defects, whereof some are imputable of crime to the first Authors, but not to those that succeed them, for I suppose these to be blinded by invincible ignorance; others proceed only from the weakness, and limited capacity of Human nature, without any deformity or Moral defect in their wills. Wherefore should the Church of God so rely upon our weak capacities, that a secret and clandestine defect in an Ordainer, which no vigilance, nor Human precaution can avoid (when all other requisites are applied, and all have an invincible ignorance of that secret defect?) Should this, I say, render all his Ordinations invalid, when all other requisites are applied? then another such defect, may, on the same account, incidently fall on another, considering our weakness, or Malice in the beginners; and so on a third, and at length no Bishop, nor Priest, that's validly Ordained, will be found in the Church. See how this is inductive to the Church's ruin, which certainly had been long-since destroyed, had not the Divine Instituter thereof maintained it by supplying such defects (which we can neither avoid nor prevent) which he can as easily do, as he first Instituted the Sacraments, and Ordination; for it is he alone that gives the Spiritual Order to the Ordained, and to give it in these circumstances is but congruous, for none concerned in such an Ordination are blameworthy, and not to give it, is absolutely, and (by common providence) inevitably destructive of the whole Church, which certainly the Supreme Lord thereof, will not deliver up to ruin, since with so much difficulty, care, and tenderness, he Instituted it, and to the same it belongs first to Institute, and then to Conserve.  
But, this Doctrine seems to administer the occasion of a reply; for admitting that Titulus coloratus, & bona fides, do supply the defect of Order in the Ordainer; so that one who is by all esteemed, and reputed a true Bishop, yet in effect, by reason of some secret default, is not so, when all other requisites, and essentials, are aptly and duly applied, do validly Ordain: Why then cannot this Doctrine be applied to the Roman Bishops? For if they should be defective in the Power of Order, yet adhibiting all essentials, and other necessary conditions, their Ordinations would also be valid among themselves; for we cannot in Charity presume, that they proceed against their Conscience, or that they want that sincerity, and right intention which we suppose in others. This being supposed, the case is the same; for if the Roman Bishops validly Ordained the Bishops of the Church of England, Why should not they validly Ordain their own?  
I Answer, That they Ordain their own Priests and Bishops according to the Roman Ritual, and consequently they want the main requisite, which is the essential Matter and Form, for they have Innovated a Matter and Form of their own, far different from that which Christ Instituted, and they clearly signify by that Form, that they intent thereby to confer the Order of Priesthood, so that they cannot intent to Ordain by the Essential Matter and Form derived from the Apostles (if any such be contained in their Ritual) except they would be reputed deluders, as hath been proved at large in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Sections of this Disputation. Wherefore according to the disposition of the Roman Ritual, the Essence of Ordination cannot subsist. And certainly nothing can have a being, without its own Essence, as all must grant. For the Church of Rome partly by adding their new reputed Essentials, to which their intention of Ordaining must be fixed, and partly by Inverting the Order, have made so great a confusion, that one part destroys another, and particularly their Essentials, do absolutely destroy the Essentials Instituted by Christ (if their Liturgy contain any such) and hinder their effect.  
But when the Bishops, that were Ordained in the Church of Rome, had deserted their Communion, and Ordained the Bishops of the Church of England, they did it by the English Ritual, which contains the very Essential Matter and Form Instituted by Christ, and delivered to us by the Apostles, which were so duly and regularly applied to the Ordained, as was ever in practice in the ancient Church, so that here nothing at all was wanting, that in the case proposed, was necessary to the validity of Ordination. Wherefore this Ordination is far different from that which the Roman Bishops use, when they Ordain according to the Roman Pastoral. And consequently, the Ordination which the Romans use among themselves is Invalid, but the Ordination of the English Bishops reteins its Integrity.  
A Second Proof hereof is grounded upon the practice of the Greek Church, whose Ordination the Church of Rome ever approved as valid, yet they always used the Imposition of hands, as the Essential matter of Priesthood, with this Form, Divina Gratia, quae semper infirma sanat, & deficientia complete, promovet hunc Deo amabilem Diaconum in Presbyterum. The Divine Grace that always cures that which is infirm, and completes that which is deficient, promotes this pious Deacon to Priesthood. Consider here what precaution the Greeks used in the Essential Form of their Ordination; for knowing, how prone we are all to errors, and mistakes; they, in a matter of such high concern, have recourse to the Author of Grace, to confirm, and strengthen that, which, by Human Frailty, might be weak and unstable; as also to complete the defects, and supply the wants of their Ordination, in case any thing else should be necessary, not known to them; And hereby they used their best endeavours, to prevent the nullity of their Ordinations, which might proceed from their own weakness, or inadvertency, as not being ignorant, how many errors, and mistakes we are subject to, notwithstanding the best of our endeavours to the contrary. Which implies a confidence in them, that using the true Essentials, and a right intention, Christ would supply all other secret defects; whereof the want of the power of Order in the Ordainer is one, especially, when he is generally reputed by all, and by himself also, a true Bishop. For as it is above observed, in the beginning of this Section, the Power of Order in the Ordained, is no Essential part of Ordination, but merely the effect thereof, so that the Ordination is Essentially, and Specifically complete without it; and because Ordination is Instituted by Christ, as a means to determine him to confer this Spiritual Power upon the Ordained, How reasonable and congruous is it, that the cause being complete, the effect should not be wanting? especially since it exceeds our capacity to discover the defect. For when a cause is hindered from producing his effect, either by contrary agents, or by the indisposition of the Medium, or by the incapacity of the Passum, we cannot thence infer, that the agent is incomplete, or wants virtue, quantum est ex se, for as much as belongs to it, to produce its effect. But in this case, the power of Order, is no Physical, but a Moral effect; and in all Ordinations it is given by Christ alone, ad exigentiam Ordinationis, by a determination, which proceeds from the Ordination, by virtue of Divine Institution; for it is Christ alone that empowers the Ordained, validly to exercise the Functions of his Order, which is but a Moral Power, whose immediate cause is not the Ordainer, but only Christ, thereunto determined by the Ordination which doth very much facilitate and confirm the foresaid Doctrine.  
A Third Proof, is drawn from an acknowledged Principle of those of Rome, who, after a vacancy, when a new Pope is chosen, the Cardinals in the Conclave only concur to make the Election Canonical, which being done, all the Power they have, cannot communicate to the new elected Pope, that Universal Jurisdiction over all the Church, which they pretend to, because they have no such Jurisdiction in themselves, every Bishop and Cardinal being confined within the limits of his own Diocese: and one Bishop cannot extend his Jurisdiction to the Subjects of another Diocese. From whence then doth the Pope receive his pretended Universal Jurisdiction? Here they must of necessity have recourse to the Supreme Lord of the Church, which is Christ himself, for the obtaining this Jurisdiction for their new Pope, which neither they, nor their Canonical Election can effect; for this Election is only a Condition, not the Cause of such an illimited Jurisdiction, so that Christ alone is the only cause of this Pretended Papal Jurisdiction. Why then in like case, when the Ordination is completed in foro externo, and no error committed in foro interno? Why I say, in this case, should not Christ in like manner confer to the Ordained the Spiritual Power of Order? for though the Ordination be never so Canonical and complete, yet still it is Christ alone that grants the power of Order, and it is he alone that gives Jurisdiction to every Bishop in his Ordination; and even in the Church of Rome, the Jurisdiction of Bishops comes not from the Pope, but from Christ; and therefore Jurisdictio Episcopalis est Juris Divini; Episcopal Jurisdiction is of Divine Right, because it proceeds immediately from Christ. So that in any Ordination, when no essential nor necessary condition is wanting, though the Ordainer have not the power of Order, yet being universally reputed a true Bishop, and this defect being secret, that Morally speaking, no Human Industry can discover it, and all concencerned in the Ordination do proceed sincerely, and with a good Conscience; What true Christian can frame so hard a judgement of our Great Redeemer, as to deny to the Ordained the power of Order, and thereby permit so great a breach in his Church, which hath an immediate tendency to the utter ruin thereof, when it may be so easily remedied, and when neither the Ordainer, nor the Ordained, can, in the least, have any imputation of blame?  
As to the Point of Succession mentioned in the Objection; I Answer, That this succession is not to be understood in a Mathematical but a Moral Sense, and it is the same in Ordination, as it is in all other Dogmatical points, and Principles of Faith, contained under the Reformation. For though the Latin Church (which is but one Branch of the Universal Church) was Guilty of many Errors in matter of Faith, and for many years swerved from the Doctrine and Practice of Christ, and his Apostles, yet this could impose no necessity upon the Successors of this Branch, ever to be excluded from the hopes of Salvation. For when the Erroneous Principles of the Church of Rome were sufficiently detected, they might, yea they ought, to Reform such abuses, and to conform themselves to the Original Doctrine, and Practise of the Primitive Church, which were the immediate Successors to the Apostles, and so to redintegrate their Faith, and for the future, to regulate their Faith and Practice, by that never erring Rule of the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles. And shall then the Church of Rome Object against them, that they cannot prove their Succession from Christ and the Apostles. Which in plain terms signifies no more than this, That they have not persisted in the Errors of the Church of Rome, but have embraced a new Doctrine. New indeed to them, but exactly conformable to the old Doctrine, which Christ left to his Church, and which the Church of Rome, long since deserted, and so Interrupted the Continuation of Professing the True and Orthodox Principles of Christ, which we, by our Reformation, do Reassume, and choose rather to follow Christ and his Apostles, then to adhere to the False and Erroneous Principles of the Church of Rome; If this be a Crime, than we are Guilty. Must we lie under the Imputation of Blame, because we would not run headlong, to utter Ruin and Damnation, by adhering to the Erroneous Doctrine of Rome? Must that one word of Succession startle us, and be inductive to persuade us, to leave Heaven, and go with them to Hell for Company's sake? They have made a long continued Breach in the Church themselves, and interrupted their own Succession, and, Must they blame us for returning to the Truth, because we will not succeed them in their Errors? So then our Succession in Dogmatical Points, in Practice and Ordination, consists in this, that after a Breach made by the Latin Church, we having clearly Detected the Error, have reunited ourselves again, to the Ancient and True Professors of Christianity, and detested the opposite and Erroneous Doctrine of those that had Apostated from the True Church.  
The last Clause contained in the close of the Objection, that pursuant to this Doctrine, a mere Secular Layman may confer Orders, is easily solved, because this no way follows; for in this case, he could neither Ordain with a colourable Title, nor with a good Conscience, which are both necessary for the validity of Ordination; he wants the first, because he never was esteemed to have the power of Order, and he himself knows certainly that he never was in Orders, nor ever attempted to receive them; so that in presuming to Ordain, he commits a heinous Sacrilege, by a gross contempt of the Holy Ghost; which is inconsistent with a candid, sincere, and conscientious proceeding, so that he wants the second also, and besides, in so doing, he can never have a right intention to confer Orders, because he is conscious, that he cannot have several requisites, without which he cannot Ordain.  
I only add this General Rule; That according to the present Constitution, and Institution of Christ, practised by the Primitive Church, it is impossible to confer Priesthood validly, except the Imposition of Hands be applied as the Essential Matter, and accompanied by the words of the Bishop, signifying Priesthood to be thereby conferred, as the Essential Form, which the Church of England Religiously observeth in their Ordination; for while the Bishop with other Priests, puts his Hands upon the Head of him that is to be Ordained, he pronounceth this Form;  
Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office and Work of a Priest, in the Church of God, now committed unto thee, by the Imposition of our Hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments, in the Name of the Father, etc.  
Here are both the Essentials duly applied, and punctually observed. Whereas the Church of Rome applies neither as an Essential part, and therefore their Ordination of Priests, according to their own Doctrine, can in no way be Valid.   

SECT. IX. Consectaries drawn from the Proofs of the precedent Assertion.  
HOw many false Aspersions, and querulous Cavillations, have been raised by the Jesuits, and other Romanists, against the Bishops of the Church of England, under that frivolous pretence of their being Consecrated at the Naggs head Tavern, in Cheapside, by one single Bishop, or at most by two, and they not Canonically Elected, and Consecrated, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign. All which were false and Malicious Calumnies, invented for no other end, then to depress the Authority of the Bishops of England, thereby to facilitate their access, to draw Proselytes from the Church of England, and seduce them to their Communion. Which scandalous, and ungrounded Comments have been fully Answered, and the Canonical Ordination, and Consecration of the Bishops of England, clearly vindicated from the false Imputation of all such Detractors, by that Worthy, and Learned Prelate John Bramhall, D. D. and late Lord Primate of Ireland.  
But, What judgement shall we frame, of the Ordination of Bishops, and Priests in the Church of Rome? there being at present neither Pope, nor Cardinal, nor Bishop, nor Priest, but such as have been Ordained according to their new Model of Ordination; we shall not need here to have recourse to frivolous, and feigned Stories, where such grounded Truths strike at the very Essentials of their Ordination, and evince the invalidity thereof. Neither can they raise a Battery of Arguments against us, without destroying themselves; for the Proofs of the nullity of their Ordination, are grounded on their own Doctrine. They all Teach, That Ordination is a Sacrament Instituted by Christ. The Council of Trent hath defined it so to be, as we see above, Sect. 7. They all assert the Matter and Form of all Sacraments, to be determined, by Divine Authority, which Suarez saith is the fide. See their words, Sect. 6. They hold moreover, that any substantial change, either in Matter or Form, renders the Sacrament invalid. 
3 Part. Tom. 3. D. 2. S. 4.  Si mutatio materiae aut formae Essentialis, seu substantialis sit, nullum essicitur Sacramentum, saith Suarez, which is the current opinion of their other Divines. It is likewise certain, that the matter which they use in the Collation of Priesthood is essentially, and more than Specifically different, from the matter which Christ Instituted, and which was constantly used in Ordinations many Centuries after Christ, before Ordination was new moulded. It is also certain, that the Form of Ordination determined by Christ, and a long time in use in the Church, is now utterly rejected, and cast out.  
All this being duly pondered, we must of necessity conclude, that their Ordination is invalid, except some other grounded expedient can be found out, and proved, to uphold the validity of their Ordination, which hitherto I cannot discover, but wish I could. But no quibbles, nor quirks, nor nice distinctions, can any way avail them; for the matter of Fact is uncontroleable, and the Doctrinal part is evidenced by their own Words, and Writings, which it is now too late to retract. It is time therefore for them, seriously to consider what expedient may be found out, to reinvalidate their Ordination, and to qualify themselves so, as they may be in a capacity to prevent this grand inconvenience for the future; for this shakes the very foundation, and renders the whole Hierarchy of their Church ruinous. If there are no Priests, there can be no Bishops, since Episcopacy is no new Order superadded, but only a farther extension of the Order and Character of Priesthood, as they teach; well than may the Bishops exercise their potestatem jurisdictionis, but can no way exercise, nor communicate to others their potestatem Ordinis, for none can exercise nor confer upon another, a power which he neither formally, nor virtually, nor radically contains in himself jure communi; but their Jurisdiction they distinguish from the Order of Presbytery, since divers Bishops, and Cardinals in the Church of Rome are only Deacons, or Subdeacons', and yet their Jurisdiction is as ample, and hath as great an extension, as if they were Priests, who commonly make use of other Suffraganean Bishops, to Officiate, Confirm, and confer Orders in their Diocese.  
Hence it ensues, that those putative Bishops, which are presumed to be Canonically endued with Presbytery and Episcopacy (yet in reality are not so) when they personally exercise the Functions of Episcopacy, their Confirmation is void, yea, their very Consecration of Chrism, and other Holy Oils, is of no effect: but after Consecration, they retain nothing but the Natural Elements of Oil and Balsam, as they were before, and so are uncapable of rendering any Spiritual Emolument, to those to whom they are applied; their Imposition of Hands, and Benedictions, are no way available to the Confirmed, no more than if they were performed by a Lay-person; for where the radical power of Order is wanting, none of these Spiritual and Supernatural effects can ensue.  
And when they Officiate in Mass, and attempt to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, and having Consecrated the Host, they kneel down to adore it, and then elevate it, and show it to the People, that they also may adore it; both they themselves, and many Thousands of the People do daily commit, at least a Material Idolatry, though it may be, that Invincible Ignorance may excuse them from a Formal one: for they exhibit a worship of Latria to a supposed Deity, under the species of Bread, when, in reality, no such Deity is there, so as they give to the mere substance of Bread, a Worship due to God alone. And this is daily repeated through the whole extent of the Roman Jurisdiction. And the same happens, when any other inferior Priest Officiates; for the Order of Priesthood is equally defective in them all: and where there is no power of Order, to qualify them for Consecration, this must of necessity be void.  
So when they administer the Communion to the People, who present themselves, in hopes to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and consequently those Graces, which from thence accrue to the worthy Receivers; Poor Souls! How are they deluded, and their hopes frustrated? for, whereas they came full fraught withthe expectation of Spiritual and Supernatural Graces, they are dismissed with a bare piece of Bread, and not the least access made to their inherent and sanctifying, nor to their actual and transient Graces. Neither is it for once or twice, that they are so treated, but constantly, and toties quoties, which certainly is an unworthy abuse, and a Spiritual Cheat, did not the Authors thereof proceed bonâ fide, as not hgving detected the Error.  
Their Power of Relaxing and Retaining sins, participates much of the nature of Episcopacy, in this respect, that neither the one nor the other is a distinct Order from Priesthood, but both of them necessarily and essentially presuppose Priesthood already Conferred, as the groundwork and foundation on which they depend; so that the Power of Absolving, is a superinduction to Priesthood, or rather a consequent faculty that issues from it; and if this Order be wanting, that power can never be validly conferred; wherefore the Penitents presuming upon the validity of this Power, and their easy access to Absolution, hence take occasion to be less circumspect, and to let the reins lose to such sins as their sensual appetite prompts them to; but when they come to make their Confession, and receive Absolution, though they have discovered their Sore, and the nature of the Spiritual Distemper of their Souls, yet no Sovereign Medicine can be applied, in order to their Cure, for want of Ability in their Spiritual Physician; for where the Radical Power is wanting, the Desired Effect cannot be produced: so they return with the clog of their sins, as burdensome to them as before they came.  
And not to insist upon any more particulars, I shall conclude with this General Maxim; that the Invalidity of all other Functions, peculiar to Priesthood alone, is an inseparable companion to the Invalidity of their Ordination.  
But it may be pretended, that Consocration, Communion, Absolution, etc. may be validly performed by one that hath titulum coloratum, & bonam fidem, a colourable title, a good Conscience, etc. though he should want the power of Order; according to the rule above given, in the Eighth Section.  
First, I Answer, That it is not likely, nor probable, that the Incarnate Word, would employ his Omnipotency, to grant such extraordinary favours to the Church of Rome, because he can have no valuable motive to do it. For, Why should Christ bestow such singular Graces on his Enemies? who have deserted his Doctrine, changed his Ordinances and Institutions, robbed him (as much as in them lieth) of his Prerogatives, and usurped to themselves a Power, which is peculiar to himself alone; and these favours to be constantly conferred upon them, and to be continued without intermission, till the World's end, for there is little hope of their Retractation. And I dare aver, that if any indifferent judgement, should seriously ponder their manifold Errors, whereof some are proposed and proved in this Treatise (which I am ready to maintain against any legal opposition) it would plainly appear, that the Church of Rome is but a corrupted branch of the Universal Church of Christ, and consequently sequestered from the True Church. And though I cannot deny, but that our benign Lord, grants to all (out of the Treasure of his Merits) Grace sufficient for their Salvation; yet, I fear, they will scarce render this Grace efficacious, by their cooperation with it; for it must be an extraordinary, a potent Grace, that must incline them to a Recantation.  
Secondly, I Answer, that this Case proposed in the Objection, is far different, from the Rule given above in the Eighth Section; for there the Question was, of the preservation, or utter ruin of a True Church of Christ, which cannot subsist without true Ordination; but here the case only concerns particular persons, and they likewise, by the pravity of their own wills, long since, cut off from the True Church of Christ; neither would these favours (if granted) revive their Church, so as to render its Doctrine Orthodox, or any way to reduce the Members, or Heads thereof to a better sense.  
Wherefore, in this Case, there is no ground, nor motive to induce Christ to grant such an extraordinary concourse; but in the former case it was strictly necessary for the preservation of a considerable part of the True Church of Christ.  
Besides, in the Case here proposed, our Omnipotent Redeemer must have recourse to his Illimited Power, daily to make so many Thousands of Miracles, and this constantly to be continued without interruption; but in the former case, we only Assert, that upon just and congruous grounds, our Gracious Redeemer, only for once, supplied the defect of Order, when no Essential, nor Necessary condition, or Requisite was wanting.   

SECT. X. Of Clandestine Marriage.  
THe Church of Rome, that Sancta mater Ecclesia, pretends to so much Power and Authority, in ordering and disposing of all things belonging to Sacraments, that it not only prescribes the Manner and Method of their Administration, but also penetrates into the very Essence, and Substance of them, Subtracting, Adding, and Changing what she pleaseth; and indeed, in five of them, there might be some seeming pretence for it, they having received the honour of being called Sacraments, from that Church's Institution, without sufficient ground in Scripture for it; whereof this of Matrimony is one; of which we shall here Treat.  
Marriage is a Contract between Man and Woman, containing a Mutual Tradition to each other, by proper words, de presenti; the last words de presenti, distinguish Marriage from Sponsalia, or Betrothing, which is no Marriage, nor Actual Tradition: but a Promise of Marriage for the future. The Council of Trent hath defined Matrimony to be a Sacrament, and Anathematised those that shall deny it. Si quis dixerit Matrimonium, 
Tril. Sess. 24. Can. 1.  non esse propriè & verè unum exseptem legis Evangelicae Sacramentis, à Christo Domino Institutum; sed ab hominibus in Ecclesiam invectum; neque gratiam confer; Anathema sit.  
By the Constitutions of the Church of Rome, there are several Impediments of Marriage, which are distinguished into two Classis. The First are such as render Matrimony Invalid, which they call impedimenta dirimentia; They of the Second Classis are only impedientia, which render the persons inhabiles, to Contract lawfully, yet having Contracted, the Marriage is valid. To Contract clandestinely, without such Witnesses as can give sufficient proof and evidence of the Contract, in foro externo, hath been always prohibited, and therefore held unlawful, but yet valid; though now, since the Council of Trent, it is rendered invalid. The words of the Council are these, 
Tried Sess. 24. C. 1. Reforan. Matrim.  Qui aliter quam praesenti Parocho vel alio Sacerdote de ipsius Parochi, seu Ordinarii licentia, & duobus, vel tribus testibus, Matrimonium contrahere attentabunt; eos Sancta Synodus ad sic contrahendum omnino inhabiles reddit; & hujusmodi contractus irritos & nullos esse decernit; prout eos praesenti decreto irritos facit & annullat. By which Decree, Clandestine Marriage which was before valid, though unlawful, is now made void, and of no effect.  
Were Matrimony only a Civil Contract, and not defined 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 Lawgivers, in matters of this nature. But they acknowledge Marriage to be a Sacrament; and the Matter and Form thereof (wherein consists the whole Essence of it) to be instituted, and determined by Divine Authority, 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 settled, and established 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 Form. The Matter of this Contract is the Internal Consent of the Persons Contracting, expressed by some External and sensible sign: The Form is the words, de praesenti; I take thee, etc. which signify 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 Form are the whole Essence of Matrimony; ergo, the Matter and Form necessarily constitute a valid Marriage. The Major is universally true in all things; for the whole Essence of a thing, and the thing itself are convertible: the Minor is their own doctrine, as appears by their own words above cited. Whence I subsume, The Matter and Form necessarily constitute a valid Marriage; but Clandestine Matrimony contains the Matter and Form, ergo, Clandestine Matrimony contains a valid Marriage. The Major is the conclusion of the last syllogism. The Minor I prove First; because Clandestine Matrimony was valid before the Council of Trent, and yet it contains now the same Matter and Form 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 Form of Marriage, which was Instituted, and determined 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 Form, as they that Contract in fancy Ecclesiae; wherefore if the one hath the same Matter and Form 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 Father's Marrying his own Daughter, or a Mother's 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 Form, 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 settled and established, 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 bereplyed, That if Christ, in the Original Institution, Ordained, that all complexes resulting from such a determinate Matter and Form, 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 endued 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, clearly, 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 determined, are valid Contracts, by Divine Institution, and no others; and, by this means, the cleverness and perspicuity of Christ's understanding, hath partioularly determined 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 merely Human, have no power at all to alter, or change any thing, or to make this valid, and that invalid: these things being already immutably determined by Christ himself in his Original Institution, which consequently is Juris Divine.  
Note, that though there be no warrant in Holy Writ, to conclude Matrimony a Sacrament; yet, because I Dispute ad hominem, I have hitherto supposed it to be a Sacrament, and shall so do for the future, the better to detect their Error, and the inconsequence of their Principles, for the Church of Rome will needs have it a Sacrament, producing Grace, and hath defined it so to be; and argumentandi gratiâ, I suppose it so with them.  
And so I proceed to Answer their Arguments for the Nullity of Clandestine Marriage.   

SECT. XI. The Arguments to vindicate the Nullity of Clandestine Marriage, Answered.  
THe First, and Principal Objection, is, That though the Church of Rome pretends no Right, directly to alter or change any thing appointed by Christ, yet it may have an indirect power, by subtracting the validity of that contract which is the groundwork and foundation of Christ's Institution; for none but a civil contract was elevated by Christ to be a Sacrament; so that the validity of the contract, and the mutual obligation which it induced, was presupposed to Divine Institution; and such a contract Christ elevated to the dignity of a Sacrament, and enabled it to produce Grace. Wherefore the Church of Rome having ample power to declare that, and other such contracts, to be valid, or invalid, The Council of Trent, in persuance to this power, hath declared Clandestine Marriage to be no Civil Contract, by taking away the mutual obligation, and consequently the validity of it. And in all this the Council never toucheth the Ordination of the Primitive Instituter, but precisely altars the contract, which is only, Juris Humani, and therefore intrencheth not in the least upon Divine Institution. This is the full strength of this Objection.  
The First Answer, This is a subtle and a plausible speculation, to vindicate their trespassing upon Divine Right, by pretending nothing but an indirect Power, whereby they wholly evacuate Christ's Institution, as much as if they had a direct power to do it. 'Tis not unlike the indirect power which his Holiness pretends to have, over the Territories and Dominions of Kings, and Secular Princes. For it cannot be denied (as they pretend) but that he hath a direct power to exercise his Jurisdiction, to suppress heresy, and propagate his Church, therefore he must necessarily have a power, to use such means as are requisite to this end, and to remove all obstacles; that may impede the attaining of it. Now suppose that a King, or Secular Prince, connives at Heretics, and permits Heresy within his Dominions; the Legate first admonisheth him of the danger of it, but in vain; then he informs his Master, the Pope, whereupon a gentle Brief comes to the Prince, from his Holiness, minding him of his duty, and endeavouring to stir up his zeal to promote the Holy Church, and suppress its enemies. If this will not do; then comes a Comminatory and Menacing Brief, capable to seize him with a Panic Fear, and dread of what will ensue. If no effect follows, than an Excommunication is thundered out against him, reserved to the Pope himself, and, it may be, is backed by an Interdict. Then the Legate or Nuntius again exhorts him to withdraw himself out of that deplorable condition, and pretends Power from the Pope to absolve him from those execrable Censures, notwithstanding the reservation, and to withdraw the Interdict, if he will at last acquiesce, and comply with his Holiness reasonable intentions. And if he will not yet yield, but perseveres in his first resolution, than the Legate is called home, and then follows Deposition; he is devested of his Right to the Kingdom, his Subjects are Absolved from their Allegiance to him, and he declared Criminal, Laesae Majestatis Divinae, so that to Assassinate him in this State, should not be deemed a Crime. And yet all this argues but an indirect Power on the Temporal Estates of Secular Princes.  
So it is in our present case, they pretend only an indirect power to change the nature of the Contract, and whereas it was before mutually obligatory, they declare, that this obligation ceaseth, and that for the future it shall not be held a Civil Contract, without any reflection made upon the Sacramental Institution, and yet the Council, without any distinction, renders all persons uncapable of contracting Clandestinely, and declares all such Contracts to be void: Prout eos praesenti decreto, irritos facit, & annullat, which, in effect, devests them of their Sacramental Virtue, to which they were, by the Original Institution, deputed, and by this means destroys both Contract and Sacrament, and hinders its production of Grace, which argues a Supreme Power, to annihilate a Sacrament at pleasure, under pretence of an indirect power, and therefore,  
Secondly, I Answer, That this power which they pretend to, is nothing but a groundless usurpation, which I prove evidently: for the original Instituter of Marriage, did not ordain it, by a general and confused notion, leaving the determination of particulars to the Church, to declare some to be void, and others to be valid, as they should deem expedient. But he foresaw plainly, and distinctly, every particular individual, and numerical contract, that in process of time should be made, between such particular and individual persons, with the particular circumstances of time and place, etc. and these very particular Contracts he Instituted so Sacraments, and impower'd them to produce Grace, not conditionally, but absolutely, without having a regard to what the Council of Trent should do, so as that they did not hang in suspense, to expect till the Council of Trent should approve or disapprove of them; for such an imperfect Institution, were unworthy of Christ's Infinite Perfections, and would make his will subordinate to the will of the Council, and his Institution would be subservient to the Councils determination, for by this means Christ would stand obliged to give, or refuse his Sacramental Graces, where, and when, and to whom the Council should determine him: which in effect is no other than to make the Omnipotent subject, and obedient to the Council of mere Men, liable to Ignorance and Error.  
Now supposing Christ's Institution to be of this nature (which none in his right wits can deny) here is an absolute and irrevocable decree, established by Divine Authority, that every particular contract, so Instituted, shall be elevated to a Sacrament, and produce Grace, which no subsequent Council can alter, or frustrate Christ's Decree: and that for Two Reasons;  

First, For want of Power.  
Secondly, For want of due Order.   
The Power is wanting, because all Human power is finite and limited, and therefore cannot be in competition with the power of the Omnipotent; due Order is also wanting, because Christ's Decree was firmly settled, and established above Sixteen hundred years since; so this modern Decree of the Council comes too late to make any change or alteration in it, or any way to repeal or abrogate it. So they may talk of an indirect power of degrading the contract, and depriving it of its wont obligation, and making it no civil contract, but all in vain, for Christ's Institution must stand.  
Yet it may be Replied, That those clandestine contracts, which were to be after the Decree of the Council, are no civil contracts, and therefore not comprehended under the number of those that Christ Instituted as Sacraments.  
I Answer, That the Supreme Legislator, in the Institution of Sacraments, did not regulate himself by any subsequent and human Law made in prejudice of his Institution, but well knowing those Clandestine Contracts to be of their own nature obligatory, he confirmed that mutual obligation in them, by erecting them to the dignity of Sacraments; which not human Decree can change; for otherwise the Councils might prescribe him what Rules they pleased, to regulate his proceeding.  
The Second Objection: Since we are destitute of any certain knowledge what those Contracts were, that Christ Instituted as Sacraments, we ought, in this, to take the testimony of the Church, for the Rule of our Belief; who, by reason of her Infallibility, is best able to inform us, and secure us from Error: Wherefore, since the Church declares all succeeding Clandestine Contracts, to be no Sacraments, nor Civil Contracts, we have no reason, by our own fallible discourse, to call in question the verity of the Church's Declaration.  
I Answer, That the Church of Rome, not only declares those subsequent contracts to be void, but, as much as in her lies, makes them so. Prout eos presenti decreto irritos facit, & annullat; which, notwithstanding, before this Decree were valid, and obligatory. As for the Church of Rome's Infallibility, we have in the precedent Disputation, examined it, and found it defective, and shall hereafter prove it erroneous; and therefore have no grounds to confide in it. But, in this case, we have made it appear, that the determination of those Contracts, which, of their own nature, were Obligatory, was made, by Divine Institution, and that such Contracts were deputed to be Sacraments, long before this Decree of the Council; yea, and are still reputed Sacraments, inducing a mutual obligation, here in England, and other places, where the Council of Trent was never received, which the Church of Rome acknowledges: How then could this subsequent Decree of the Council, have any influence upon those contracts, which were established as valid, and endued with a Sacramental virtue, by a Divine Decree, that was precedent to this human Decree of the Council? This being but a fruitless attempt, to render that invalid, which was constituted as valid, Jure Divino.  
The Third Objection: Clandestine Marriage was ever hold unlawful; and therefore they who contract so, commit a sin in doing it, because they transgress against a precept of their lawful Superiors; and it is not likely that Christ would affix his Supernatural Graces to a sinful action; nay, it is impossible, that a Mortal sin, and Grace, can stand together in the same subject. And therefore the Church might prudently presume, that such sinful contracts were not Instituted by Christ as Sacraments.  
First, I Answer, That the Romanists themselves must solve this Objection; for, they all grant, that clandestine Marriages were Sacraments, and valid contracts, ever before the Council of Trent, and are so still in England, and Saxony; and yet they ever were, and still are unlawful; which circumstance they must reconcile with Christ's Institution; for notwithstanding the sin, they acknowledge them to have been Instituted by Christ as Sacraments.  
But Secondly, I Answer, That the circumstance of contracting clandestinely, is wholly  to the contract, and therefore can never alter the nature, nor essence of it, for circumstances make no change in the substance; and this is common to all Sacraments; for whoever receives any Sacrament, may, out of the pravity of his own will, add some unlawful circumstance to it, or receive it when his Soul is contaminated with sin; but we must not hence conclude, that this deordinate proceeding of the Receiver, lays any infection upon the Sacrament, whose complete substance and essence is wholly independent of the circumstances, which are  to it. True it is, that all Sacraments produce Grace, as also, that Grace and deadly sin are wholly inconsistent, and therefore, whosoever receives a Sacrament when he is actually in sin, puts an Obstacle to the effect of the Sacrament, and cannot then receive any Grace by it; because sin makes him liable to the pains of Hell; and Grace gives him, whose Soul it informs, a right to Glory; and because these two are incompatible, therefore Grace, and Sin, that are the necessary causes of them, mutually exclude each other from the same Soul. Yet they generally Teach in the Church of Rome, That when the obstacle is removed, and the Soul purged from sin, that then the Sacrament revives, and produceth that Grace, which by the original Institution was annexed to it; and this Doctrine they also apply to Moral actions, in reference to Inherent and Sanctifying Grace, which they Merit; for when one falleth into sin, he loseth all that habitual Grace which he possessed before his fall, it being inconsistent with sin; but when he is again restored to the state of Grace, than his Merits revive to render him the same quantity of Sanctifying Grace, which he before had lost by sin. So is it in those that contract clandestine Marriage, if invincible ignorance doth not excuse them; they sin, and receive no Inherent and Sanctifying Grace, till sin, which is the obstacle be removed; and, in the same moment that this is done, the Sacrament revives, and produceth in their Souls its due proportion of habitual, and inherent Grace. See Suarez Opuscul. 5. D. 2. S. 2. & 3.  
And thus have I vindicated the Validity of Clandestine Marriage against the Church of Rome, by the Principles of their own Doctors; and consequently, that Decree of the Council of Trent, is but a vain attempt, to render that void, which, by Divine Authority, is established as valid; which proceeding is originally drawn from a presumption of their pretended Infallibility; And therefore whatsoever they decree, though against Divine Right, is held as Sacred, and not liable to error, as in this case it happens.  
But this is certain, that these private Matrimonial Contracts were by Christ appointed as Sacraments, or they were not; if not, than the Church of Rome erred by ever acknowledging them as such; if they were, than the Council of Trent errs, by endeavouring to repeal them  
You'll say, That those Contracts that proceeded the Council, were Instituted by Christ, because they were civil contracts, but they which succeeded were not, because they were no Civil contracts. Yes, because the Council will have it so. But, Who sees not, that according to this Doctrine, it is the Council, and not Christ, that is the proper Instituter of this Sacrament? for the Council determines what contracts shall be Sacraments, and what shall not; the Council determines to what contracts Grace shall be affixed, and to what not, which is all that Institution imports, for they would have Christ to take his measures from them, and would impose a Law upon the Will of God, to accommodate himself to their will; they order all, and the Word Incarnate must regulate himself accordingly, which makes them the principal Instituters, and Christ only the Instrumental. Which is too great an indignity, and detracts very much from the perfection of Christ's Institution. For I demand, What reason can be alleged, Why Christ could not, or would not determine all this himself? He had a perfect comprehension of all that concerned his Church, which the Council had not; neither can they deny, but that Christ was the Principal, nay the only Instituter of Sacraments.  
Who then can deny, but that Christ, by an Irrevocable Decree, determined all things relating to the Sacraments, independent of the Council of Trent, many Ages before this Instituting Decree was framed? But, an Error once committed, per fas & nefas, must be maintained.  
I might here annex an Account of the proceed of the Church of Rome in some others of their pretended Sacraments; for whereas the Order of Subdeaconship was ever conferred in the Primitive Church, by the Imposition of Hands, this is now wholly omitted; and in lieu thereof they have Instituted the Tradition of an empty Chalice, and an empty Pattene to the Ordained, which argues a total change: So likewise in Consirmation, the Apostles and their Successors ever Confirmed by the Imposition of Hands, without any Unction; but now without the application of Chrism, they deem Confirmation invalid, and the Form would be false, which is this, Signo te signo crucis, & Confirmo te Chrismate salutis. In nomine, etc. I Sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and Confirm thee with the Chrism of health; In the Name, etc. But this I leave to others consideration, for enough hath been already said to my designed end.    

Dispute III. Of Communion in One Kind.  

The Preface.  
ALL Humane Laws, though never so well Constituted, are liable to be subverted, either by the change of circumstances, or by the capricious humours of Governors. How happy were the Lacedæmonians, as long as they were governed by those wholesome Laws which Lycurgus had established amongst them? but when those Laws were gradually repealed, or per non usum, antiquated, than their Commonwealth began to be ruinous, and tended to destruction. But Divine Laws ought to be Sacred, as being framed by an irrefragable Authority, whose Legislator is omniscient; neither hath his wisdom and prudence any bounds, who knows, and foresees, all future changes and circumstances, as perfectly, as if they were present, and whose infinite providence is best skilled in fencing against all adverse accidents that may happen; and yet these Laws also must undergo the Test of Human Policy, and suffer change and Reformation: Our Great Redeemer furnished his Church with such Laws as he thought most convenient, obliging all Christians to receive those Sacred Rites of his Body and Blood in both Kind's, yet, in process of time, the Church of Rome, upon some pretended inconveniences, hath altered that Law, and denies the Laiety the use of the Chalice; but whether groundedly or illegally, is the drift of this Disputation to Examine.   

SECT. I. The Grounds of the Church of Rome for denying the Chalice to the Laity.  
THat Pure and Sovereign Doctrine, which was Taught and Practised by Christ himself, attained its Original Purity for the space of many Centuries after Christ and his Apostles; during which time, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was Administered to the faithful Receivers, under both Kind's; but the continuance of it, drew it insensibly more remote from its Origine, and so exposed it to the danger of being Adulterated; for the Romanists pretend, that it was observed, that when the Communicants lips were separated from the Chalice, some small particles of the Consecrated Species, fell from the Chalice, which it was not possible to prevent, or to collect the Particles so dispersed; wherefore another expedient was instituted, that they who presented themselves to participate of those Sacred Mysteries, should suck the Consecrated Species out of the Chalice by a Silver Quill, fitly adapted, and prepared for that purpose: yet all in vain, for this also was found liable to the same inconvenience; wherefore finding no remedy, for so great a difficulty, it was at last resolved, That none of the Seculars, nor the Clergy, except such as were Priests, should receive the Blood, under the Species of Wine. So the Council of Trent, 
Trid. Sess. 21. C. 2.  Quarè agnoscens Sancta mater Ecclesia, hanc suam in Administratione Sacramentorum Auctoritatem, licet ab initio Christianae Religionis, non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset; tamen progressu temporis, latissimè jam mutata illa consuetudine; gravibus, & justis causis adducta, hanc consuetudinem, sub altera specie communicandi approbavit, & pro lege habendam decrevit; quam reprobare, aut fine ipsius Ecclesiae Auctoritate, pro libito mutare, non licet.  
And then lays a Curse upon those that should not submit to this Doctrine, in these words, Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, non justis causis, & rationibus adductam fuisse, ut Laicos, atque etiam Clericos non conficientes, sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret, aut in eo errasse, 
Sess. 22. Can. 2.  Anathema sit.  
The First Reason: Because it was a great irreverence, and a high Contempt of the Sacred Blood of Christ, which was the price of our Redemption, to see it fall to the ground, and trampled under foot, by those who receive so great a benefit by it, and whereunto they stand indebted, for the Graces they receive here, and the hope of Glory hereafter; wherefore the high Veneration and Adoration which we own to the Incarnate Word, present in this Sacrament, aught to preponderate all other Considerations, which certainly our Redeemer expects from us.  
The Second Reason: Because whosoever receives the Holy Eucharist, under the Species of Bread only, receives all Christ, as well the Blood as the Body, together with the Divine Word, and all the Sacred Trinity: for though ex vi verborum, by the words of Consecration, only the Body of Christ be Sacramentally Constituted under the Species of Bread; yet, per concomitantiam, by a necessary Connexion of the parts of Christ with each other, the Blood of Christ, the Soul, etc. are all rendered present, under the Species of Bread; so that if this Sacrament be once Administered under the Species of Bread, it were a needless repetition to administer the same under the Species of Wine; for this were no other than to Administer to the same person, one and the selfsame thing twice, without addition or diminution, which would not be available to the Receiver.  
The Third Reason: Because by the words of Christ, our Redeemer, Eternal Life is annexed to the Receiving of his Body, under the Species of Bread only; If any Man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever: 
John 6. v. 51.  and again, He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever. 
Vers. 58.  Where no mention is made of Receiving, under the Species of Wine, and yet Eternal life is promised to him that eateth of this Bread; therefore, to Receive Christ, under the Species of Wine, is not necessary to Salvation; not necessitate medii; because the Bread alone is sufficient, as appears by the words of Christ: Nor Necessitate praecepti; because no such Precept is extant; and if there were, than the eating of the Bread alone would not be sufficient to Salvation, which Christ himself affirms to be sufficient.  
The Fourth Reason: Because it hath ever been the practice of the Church, since the Apostles time, to Administer the Communion under the Species of Bread only, to those that were infirm, and reduced to imminent danger of death, for to these the Sacrament was usually carried under one Species only; so likewise in Armies, before a Battle was to be fought, the Sacrament was commonly Administered to them only in one kind; neither is it to be presumed, that the Church, in its greatest purity, would, not only countenance men to transgress against Christ's Precept, but be Instrumental also themselves, to the violating of his Commands: whence it follows, That Christ laid no such Precept upon his Church, nor the Members thereof.  
The Fifth Reason: Because in the Apostles time, one Species was in use, according to the opinion of divers of the Fathers, who hold, that Christ gave the Communion in one kind, to the two Disciples that were with him at Emaus. So Augustin, Hierom, Chrysostom, and Theophylact.  
Others say, That the meaning of that place, And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and Fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers, is of this Sacrament, Acts 2. v. 42. As also that, And upon the first day of the week, when the Disciples came together to break Bread, etc. Acts 20. v. 7. Where, by breaking of Bread, they understand the Receiving of the Sacrament.  
These Texts, and the Reasons above mentioned, we shall examine, when we come to the Solution of their Objections.   

SECT. II. The Decision of this Controversy.  
IN order to the Resolution of this Question, a threefold Precept is here to be distinguished. There is a Positive, a Negative, and a Mixed Precept; The first is a Command of Practice, for some positive action is to be exercised for the fulfilling of a Positive Precept. As by the Fifth Precept of the Decalogue, we are obliged to render that honour and respect which is due to our Parents, which we cannot fulfil merely by abstaining from actions of disrespect and contempt, but by Positive actions of Honour and Duty, though there is no obligation incumbent upon us, to be always in exercise of these actions, but only when occasion requires. A Negative Precept commands us to abstain from doing some positive thing, which is prohibited, and if the action forbidden be intrinsically ill, than the doing of it is prohibitum quia malum; if the action of itself be indifferent, then to do it, is malum, quia prohibitum. This Negative Precept, lays a never interrupted obligation upon us, to observe it; as in the Sixth Commandment, by which we are obliged to do no Murder; the meaning is, that an act of Murder is not to be permitted, neither this time, nor that time, nor any other time whatsoever, neither upon this person, nor that person, nor any other person whatsoever; which is to be understood universally, and by a complete distribution. And herein a Negative Precept differs from a Positive. A Mixed Precept includes both the former, of two different objects; as the first Precept obligeth us to acknowledge God, and not to acknowledge any thing else for God. And in this is grounded that division of sins, into sins of Omission, and Commission. This being supposed,  
The First Assertion is, That the Ordinance of the Church of Rome, never to Administer the Communion to the Laity, in both Kind's, is manifestly against Christ's Precept. For Proof hereof I shall insist upon that saying of our Saviour, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall have no life in you, John 6. v. 53. where those words, Amen, Amen, express the greatest asseveration, that our Great Redeemer ever used, and this adds more force and energy to the subsequent Precept. The words cited contain a severe Commination, of depriving us of eternal Salvation, except we eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood; which by the confession of our Opponents, includes a Precept, though they deny that it extends to Communion under both Kind's.  
Let us now examine what falls immediately under this Precept.  
None but a Creature, endued with liberty, and reason, is capable of a Precept; for i● it be positive, it enjoins the exercise of some free action, regulated by Reason; since necessaries cannot fall under any Precept. If it be Negative, it commands the avoiding of some positive action, which is in the power of  to exercise, or not to exercise: we have here a positive Precept, which enjoins all Christians, to eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of the Son of Man; which affects immediately the free actions of Man, of eating and drinking, and, in obliquo, it determines the matter about which these free actions are to be exercised, namely, the Flesh and the Blood of the Son of Man. This matter, is not in the power of the Laity, to procure, at their pleasure, but is to be tendered to them by the Priest, which done, than it is in their free election to eat and drink, or not to eat and drink; wherefore these actions are that exercise, which the Precept immediately obligeth them to.  
Neither is it left to their choice, how they are to receive this matter; for as the Legislator determines the matter, so likewise doth he determine the manner of receiving it; he doth not say indesinitely, or indeterminately, except you take or receive this matter; but explicitly, plainly, and distinctly, Except you Eat the Flesh, and Drink the Blood, etc. So that by this Precept, they are tied up, and determined to the very particular manner of doing it; neither doth the Lawgiver say, Except you eat the flesh, or drink the blood, etc. but, Except you eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood, etc. by a Copulative, not a Disjunctive. So that he who eateth the Flesh, under the Species of Bread only, though he fulfil the first part of the Precept, yet he complyes not with the second part; for though by eating the Flesh, under the Species of Bread, he receives the Blood also, and all Christ; yet he doth not drink the Blood, which notwithstanding, is as rigorously commanded as the first, and in as express terms.  
To confirm this, I shall, in the next Assertion, make it appear, that in drinking the Chalice, there is a different signification, and a peculiar benefit; which accrues to the Receiver, very distinct from all that which issues from the receiving under the Species of Bread. Which much commends the great love of our dear Redeemer to Mankind, in Commanding us to Receive under both Species, that so he might give us an entire, and complete repast, and refresh us with all those Graces, which correspond to each part thereof: he doth not invite us to this Banquet of all Delicious Rarities, with intention to feed our Souls by piecemeal, and by halves; but abundantly poureth forth the Treasures of his Merit, and Satisfaction, so to replenish our Souls with a full and complete refection.  
And to make us the more sensible hereof, he chose to suffer that Ignominious Death upon a Cross, and to permit the effusion of his most Sacred Blood, though he could have wrought our Redemption without either; for though, as purely God, he was not capable of Satisfaction, nor Merit; yet that Divine Word, having by the Hypostatical Union, assumed Humane Nature, all his actions became Theandrical, the least whereof was of an infinite value, capable (without Death or Passion) to Redeem a Thousand Worlds; for though he assumed the Nature of Man, yet he took not upon him the Personality of Man; there was but one Suppositum which was the Divine Hypostasis of the Word of God; and this gave the poise and value to all his actions, which proceeded from one Person that was both God and Man; as they proceeded from Man they were capable of Merit, and Satisfaction; and as they proceeded from God, they were infinite in both kinds, and so never to be exhausted. So that by one act of love, or any other Moral Virtue, he might efficaciously have Redeemed us; and yet he chose to do it, by a bitter Death, and Passion, the better to accommodate himself to the weakness and imbecility of our capacity; for this more efficaciously strikes our fancy, and imprints upon our Souls a more sensible feeling of his infinite Love towards us. And for a more ample testimony hereof, he hath left us his Sacred Body and Blood, to participate thereof; and to taste of the fullness of his Graces and Mercies, thereby still renewing the Memory of his Passion.  
Who then shall abridge us of these Favours, by prescinding the one half, and mincing the benefits bestowed upon us, by so liberal and munificent a Hand? How great is the presumption of some Men? who call all Christ's Actions in question, and submit them to the scrutiny of their weak indagation. They usurp his Infallibility, they altar and change his Sacraments, they Repeal his Laws, they dispense in his Precepts, and Impose upon him what he never Ordained: Christ saith, Except ye drink the Blood of the Son of Man, ye shall have no life in you. The Church of Rome saith, Though ye drink not the Blood of the Son of Man, so you eat his Body, ye shall have life in you. Whom shall we believe, Christ, or the Church of Rome? Shall we desert a certain Infallibility, to adhere to an uncertain and presumptive one? Can not the All-knowing Word of God (whose Prudence and Wisdom hath no bounds) foresee all the Inconveniences, that could, or would come to pass? And, Can not his Infinite Providence order and dispose all for the best? Is it to be presumed that Christ left his Work imperfect, or not duly ordered, to be completed, or reform by the weak industry of Man? Wherefore, by what hath been said, I conclude, That the practice of the Roman Church, in denying the Chalice to the Laity, is an express violation of Christ's Precept.  
The Second Assertion: This kind of half-Communion, Prohibiting the Sacrament under both Kind's, is a high Injustice, and very prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver. This Assertion I prove first, because all the Laity, yeà and the Clergy also, that are not Priests, are rendered uncapable of fulfilling Christ's Precept, at least as long as they shall remain in their Communion; and though the Authors of this Prohibition are highly culpable, and very unjust, in denying the Faithful what Christ hath left them, yet the Receivers also are transgressers for not fulfilling Christ's Precept. But you will say, How can they help themselves, if the Priest refuseth to exhibit the Sacrament to them in both Kind's? which is not in their power to procure; neither can they be obliged to impossibilities. I Answer, That they who seriously endeavour to fulfil Christ's Precepts, are bound in Conscience to forsake the Communion of that Church, and to Embrace the Communion of the Protestant Church, where these Sacred Mysteries will be completely Administered to them, for by this means they are capable of complying with Christ's Command, which they are strictly obliged to do.  
The Second Proof: They who never receive those Holy Rites but in one Kind, not only transgress against Christ's Command, but also incur the penalty that is annexed to it, which is no less than the privation of eternal happiness, Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall have no life in you. And what is consequent hereto, they are liable to the everlasting torments of Hell. How enormous therefore must the Injustice be of those that are Instrumental: What do I say, instrumental, that are the principle cause of reducing men to that extremity, that unavoidably they must violate Christ's Command; and thereby incur eternal damnation; and all this by denying them that, which by Christ's Institution, they have right to? Can any Injustice be compared to this? Can any damage be more prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver?  
The Third Proof: The Sacramental products of Communion, under the Species of Wine, are very different and heterogeneal from all the Graces and Favours conferred upon him, that participates the Sacrament, in the other kind only; for this Spiritual refection hath a great analogy, and proportionable similitude, with the natural repast of the Body, and their respective operations, are reciprocal correlatives (by way of similitude) with each other; and therefore the Original Instituter, adapting these Mysteries, to the procedure of Nature, congruously Instituted them under the Symbols of Bread and Wine; the Bread we esteem to be the Staff of Man's Life, because it Administers such vital and animal Spirits, as are the substantial support of Man's Life: and thereby it gives aliment, vigour, and growth to the body, which is the principal part of nutrition. The Wine makes the heart glad, and enlivens it, to exercise the functions incident to human employ, with more life and expedition; it also supplies the radical heat and moisture with seasonable accesses of its innate qualities, it delibutes the vessels and organs, which are the vehicles of the Spirits, and furnishes them with such proportionable qualities, as are most accommodated to expediate the exercise of their nutritive Functions, by completing the disposition, which the oeconomy of Nature intends for nutrition, by their attractive, dispositive, conversive, and expulsive faculties; and so conduceth in a high degree, to nutrition, augmentation, and sensation. So the Bread administereth the substantial matter, that is to be wrought upon, but the qualities of Wine give their immediate assistance, in all the elaboratories which it passeth through, to dispose it, and bring it to its intended end.  
In like manner, by the primary Institution of this Sacrament, those Graces that are drawn from the Mass of Christ's Merits, are not inconsiderately distributed, but in pondere & mensura, with a due regard to the exigency of circumstances; for though increase of Inherent and Sanctifying Grace, be common to both parts of this Sacrament, yet the Actual Graces, which are annexed to the one part, are far different from those that correspond to the other; for Communion under the Species of Bread, Communicates to the Receiver such Actual Graces, as tend to the substance of the Spiritual, and Supernatural Life of the Soul; they incline the understanding to a firm adhesion to the Principles of Faith, they move the Will to the practice of Moral Virtues, Piety, and Religion, both towards God and Man. But Communion under the Species of Wine, giveth proportionable Graces, which though they are versed about the same matter, yet their tendency towards those virtues, is in a different manner, for they excite the faculties of the Soul, to the exercise of Christianity, with cheerfulness and alacrity; they give perseverance and longanimity; they induce the Will to practise Virtue, and Religion, out of the highest Motive, of the Love of God above all things. These are the Graces, which put the last accomplishment to our Spiritual Actions, without which, the former, though they come full fraught with the substantial and consistent Element of a Spiritual Life, yet in the execution thereof, they are dull and flaccide, and for want of a more vigorous excitation, are the sooner defeated by adverse Temptations, and Suggestions of the Sensual Appetite.  
Hence we may gather, how much more a whole and adequate Communion, conduceth to the accomplishment of a Spiritual Life, than an inadequate, and half one; for what emolument is it to one to receive a strong, and substantial food, if his vital faculties are not duly qualified to digest it, and converte it into his proper substance? And I would have it observed, that this Doctrine of the different Graces corresponding to the receiving this Sacrament, under the two different Species, is no product of my weak invention, but is the constant Position of divers Learned and Approved Divines of the Church of Rome; and without which, their Principles of the Sacrisice of the Mass cannot be well managed, as I shall show anon.  
And in this is grounded the substance of this Third Proof: For if we duly ponder, of how great a consideration, and value, these special Graces are in themselves, which correspond to the Chalice, and how conducing they are to the perfection of a Spiritual Life, and sencing the Soul, against the subtle attempts of its Enemies, it will be the manifest ground of a clear illation, that to deprive so many thousands of such unspeakable benefits, is a great Injustice, and a considerable prejudice to those, in whose favour, the Meritorious cause of them, had with so much bounty and liberality, left them as a Legacy, to all such as should worthily receive his most Sacred Blood, under the Species of Wine. The Pope in his Oeconomy, and the Administration of his Jurisdiction seems wholly unmindful of Distributive Justice; for to some, by his Jubilies, Pardons, and Indulgences, he very liberally disposeth of Christ's Satisfaction, upon consideration of their compliance with the Orders of His Holiness; though he be sparing enough to others. But in arrogating to himself a Power of dispensing Christ's Merits, and the fruits of his Passion; yea, and to alter Christ's own Institution, by refusing them to such, as the Author himself, had ordered to receive them, is too high a presumption: Must we, by Human Authority, be deprived of what, by the Divine Giver hath been consigned to us? this stands in high opposition with all equity, and is besides, an illegal usurpation of Divine Right. But we now come to solve their Objections and Allegations, specified in the precedent Section, in defence of this partial refusal.   

SECT. III. The Objections Solved.  
THe first Objection is grounded on the Irreverence, of permitting some Particles of the Chalice to fall to the ground, as is specified in the first reason of the contrary opinion.  
First, I Answer, That this Prohibition removes not that inconvenience, except they forbidden Communion under the Species of Bread also, and so utterly exclude the Laity from any part of this Sacrament; for there are more Particles lost from off the Bread, then from the Wine; it being not Morally possible to handle the Bread, without separating from it several Minute Particles, which did adhere to the Mass, and yet were not continued, but only contiguous to it, which, on the least motion, fall off, whereof many are so small, that sugiunt visum, and especially, when a Priest in Mass, divides the Host, in order to Consummation; then by reason of the Elastic Virtue of the Air, and the resisting quality of the Wafer, these Minute Parts must of necessity be carried beyond the extent of the corporal, and so lost, which no human care, nor diligence, can prevent.  
Secondly, I Answer, That this, and all other circumstances, which occur in practice, were clearly and certainly foreseen by Christ himself, who, notwithstanding, deemed it expedient, if not necessary, to issue forth his Command, of receiving this Sacrament in both Kind's, who knew full well how far the weak industry of Man could reach, to prevent such inconveniences: and for aught we know, may send his Angels from Heaven, to collect and take care of such Particles; as some of the adverse Party affirm. And this may serve for an Answer to the first Reason.  
The Second Objection: He that complies with a Precept, quoad substantiam, though he should not be so circumspect as to be punctual in all things, quoad circumstantias, yet he may truly be deemed to have complied with the command, and is no transgressor; but he who receives in one Kind only, receives all Christ, as well the Body as the Blood, which is the whole substance of the Precept; therefore he is no Transgressor.  
I Answer, by distinguishing the Major; He that complyes with the Precept, quoad substantiam, although he observe not the Circumstances, fulfils the Precept, if the Circumstances be the Object of the Precept: I deny the Major: If the Circumstances fall not under the Precept; I grant it: but in the present case, the eating and drinking compared to the Precept, are the very substance thereof; though in reference to the Body and Blood of Christ, they are but Circumstances; for the Body and Blood of Christ, in relation to this Precept, are, materia circa quam, the eating and drinking are materia quae: this is the very thing that is commanded, for they are the Human actions, which are immediately under Precept: the Body and Blood of Christ are the Matter about which these actions are versed, for to fulfil this command, it is not sufficient to eat and drink any thing, but it is necessary to eat the Body, and drink the Blood of Christ: it is not in the power of the Seculars, to procure or Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, but when it is exhibited to them, it is in their free election, to eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood; which by this Precept they are obliged to. As by the Fourth Command of the Decalogue we are enjoined to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is, to abstain from servile labour, and to exercise acts of devotion, but the Precept doth not determine what acts of devotion we shall in particular exercise, for this is left to our free election, either to hear Divine Service, or hear the Word of God explained, or to employ our time in Spiritual Reading, or in Prayer and Meditation, etc. here the alteration of the Circumstances, hinders not the fulfilling of the Precept; and therefore in this case the Argument proceeds rightly.  
But our Case is far different, wherein the Legislator determines us to particular actions, and leaves it not in our election to change them, or to omit either of them. So he that takes the Body and Blood of Christ, and doth not eat the one, and drink the other, fulfils not the Precept. And this answers the Second Reason.  
The Third Objection: He that receives under the Species of Bread, receives all Christ, and may be truly said to eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of Christ, and so satisfies the Precept; according to that of Cyprian, 
Sermone de Coena Domini.  Potus & esus ad eandem pertinent rationem.  
I Answer, That he who receives only under the Species of Bread, though he receive the Blood as well as the Body, yet cannot be said to drink the Blood, under that Kind; for that which is eaten, is commonly solid and consistent; but nothing can be taken by way of drinking, except it be a sluid and a liquid matter; wherefore, to receive under the Species of Bread, is not to drink the Blood of Christ; except you grant, that one may drink dry bread.  
To the Authority of Cyprian I Answer, That in the same Sermon he endeavours to prove the Evangelical Precept of eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of Christ, by the same Text; Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood, etc. where he hath these words, Lex esum sanguinis prohibet, 
Ibid.  Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur: whereby he expressly declares his sentiments, to be coherent with ours. In the words above cited, he rather confirms than impugns this Doctrine; for he declares, that eating and drinking belong both to this Sacrament, which is the Spiritual refreshment of the Soul, in the nature of one complete Banquet, which without Drinking would be imperfect, and incomplete.  
The Fourth Objection: Admit the Hypothesis of a Precept to receive in both kinds; yet to avoid the inconveniences , the Superiors of the Church, according to the prudential dictates of a right Government, may, and aught to frame an Epikeia, by a grounded interpretation of the Will of the Lawgiver, that if he were present to be consulted herein; he would declare his intention, not to have his Law executed on such hard circumstances; which excuses the Governors, in denying the promiscuous use of the Chalice, and exempts the Subjects from being transgressors.  
First I Answer, That upon the same ground, they may also prohibit Communion under the species of Bread, for the same difficulties are militant for this, as well as for that, as hath been proved.  
Secondly, I Answer, That Divine Laws admit of no Epikeia, nor interpretation of the Divine Will, but when God commands, Man must obey. The reason is, because we cannot suppose any defect in the Omniscience of the Divine understanding, who perfectly penetrates all future events, and circumstantial emergencies, before they come to pass, with as much infallible certainty, as if they were then present; so that here is no ground at all for the prudential dictates of humane Reason. But humane Laws upon extraordinary accidents, may admit of an Epikeia; because the wisest Legislator among Men, is supposed to be ignorant of future contingencies, and yet such may happen, wherein a rational Judgement, not biased by sinister Motives, may deem it imprudence, hic & nunc to have the Law put in execution, and therefore may rationally interpret the Will of the Lawgiver, to suspend the execution of the Law, under such arduity.  
But however such casualties may occur, yet humane Laws suffer no detriment thereby; for upon removal of such hard circumstances, the Law revives, and obliges to its observance as much as before. How then can it be consonant to Reason, that mere Men should not only suspend the execution of a Divine Law, upon an incident occasion, but prohibit the observance of it to all, but Priests, constantly, and for perpetuity; so that all but Priests are debarred from the observance of this Law for ever? This is an attempt of a higher nature, for hereby they endeavour to abrogate and repeal this Law, as much as in them lies, for ever, which argues a bold and daring presumption, very injurious to the Divine Conditor Legis.  
The Fifth Objection is grounded in those say of Christ, where he only mentions the Bread, and promiseth Eternal Life to them that eat it, 
John 6.  as the Third Reason proposeth. I Answer, That in the same Chapter, our Lord having distinctly explained his meaning more than once, of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood, thought it needless to repeat all the particulars, as often as he mentioned this Sacrament: so that the meaning of those Texts is, he that eateth this Bread worthily, and in the manner as I shall prescribe, or as I have prescribed, shall live eternally; otherwise, if the mere eating of that Bread were sufficient to Salvation, than an unworthy Receiver might be sure of Eternal Life, which illation all must reject. And this answers the Third Reason.  
The Sixth Objection is drawn from the practice of the Church, in its primitive and purest times, which was to administer this Sacrament to those that were to fight a battle, and to such as were in danger of death by infirmity, in one kind only, whence it ensues, that both kinds are not necessary, nor under precept, which is the Fourth Reason.  
I Answer, That the precept which we insist upon being positive, it doth not oblige to receive under both kinds, toties quoties, neither doth it determine how often we are to receive under both kinds, but leaves this to the determination of the Church, and the Piety and Devotion of the Receiver; so that by Receiving some times in our Life, or so often every year, under both kinds, we fulfil the precept, and that being done, the receiving afterwards under one kind, can be no violation of the precept, it being an act of Devotion not prohibited; but he that never receives under both kinds, all his life time, is a manifest transgressor. And so the Fourth Reason is answered.  
The Seventh Objection is in substance the same with the former, only this induceth the authority of the Fathers, upon the Texts cited in the Fifth Reason; where by breaking Bread, they understand this Sacrament. I Answer, That the Disciples in those times lived in common, and gave up their Temporals into the common stock, and took their refection in common, so that their coming together to break Bread, means, their Meeting together to take their Corporal repast. However the Receiving under one Kind, upon particular occasions, proves just nothing, in order to this question, because the Precept may, at other times be fulfilled, by receiving under both Kind's, which the Fathers no way impugn.  
But if you consult the Fathers, you shall find many of them abetters of this Opinion. Chrisostom speaking of the practice of the Old Law, wherein it was not lawful for the people, to participate of that part that was reserved for the Priest, adds these words, Sed nunc non sic: verum omnibus unum corpus proponitur, & unum poculum. 
Chrisost. Hom. 18. in poster Corinth. Gelasius apud Gratian Cap. Comperimus de Consecrat. dist. 2.  Gelatius Papa speaking of the Manachaeans, saith thus, Comperimus quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis Sacri portione, à calice Sacri cruoris abstineant, qui proculdubio, quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur, obstringi, aut Sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius & ejusdem mysterii, sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire.  
And of the same Opinion is Leo Papa, 
Leo. Serm. ●●de Quadrages.  with others.  
And this proves the Fifth Reason In●●●eient.   

SECT. IV. Corollaries drawn from the Romanists Doctrine of their pretended Sacrifice of the Mass.  
IT is the usual practice of our Antagonists, when they apprehend any Dogmatical Point conducing to their intended design, they cast about them, and summon all the strength of Arguments they can muster up, to establish that Principle. But if the same Position, in another occasion, stand in their way, and obstruct the evincing of some other Thesis, than they, with all sedulous industry, apply themselves to depress, and cry down the same Point, which they had before, so elaborately strove to make good. As in this subject, to make out the legality of their half Communion, How do they endeavour to divest the drinking of the Blood, of all its Prerogatives, and particular Graces, peculiar to that kind alone, as though it were superfluous; and after receiving under the Species of Bread, it were but actum agere, to Administer the Chalice? Yet when they treat of their Sacrifice of the Mass, than the consummating of the Chalice is held in great veneration, and esteemed to necessary, that rather than omit it, they must lay hold of any hard shift, and have recourse to extremities; for which no reason can be alleged, except they grant the Chalice its due, and allow its efficacy and operation, as proper to itself, which in this Discourse we shall make plainly appear.  
The approved notion of a Sacrifice is this, Immutatio facta circa rem aliquam creatam in agnitionem Supremi Dominii. It is a change made about some created thing, in acknowledgement of the Supreme Dominion; and according to this definition they infer the Mass to contain verum, 
Council. Trid. in profession. s●●●i.  proprium, & propitiatorium Sacrificium, as the Council of Trent declares, A true, proper, and Propitiatory Sacrifice; for in the Consecrating of the Bread and Wine, there is a proper Conversion, or Transmutation, of the same, into the Body and Blood of Christ, and these are also consummated by the Sacrificater; all which is performed, by way of a Commemoration of that bloody Sacrifice, whereby the Author of Life offered himself upon the Cross, to his eternal Father, as a Propitiation, for the sins of Mankind.  
Yet to complete this unbloody Sacrifice, it is not sufficient, that the Priest do consummate the Host, under the Species of Bread, but it is also rigorously, and indispensably necessary, that he also consummate the Chalice, under the Species of Wine, and therefore, in case a Priest, after having Consecrated the Bread and Wine, and Consummated the Host, should by any sudden accident, or indisposition of Body, fall down at the Altar, and be rendered wholly unable of Consummating the Chalice, under the Species of Wine, in this case they are to use all possible means, suddenly to procure another Priest, and if none could be found that are fasting, yet rather than fail, they must appoint one that is not fasting, to Consummate the Chalice (and yet without such an immergent necessity, it is esteemed a heinous crime, for any one to presume, to receive this Sacrament, except he be fasting) the reason hereof is, because the Sacrifice should not remain imperfect; for the Offering up an incomplete Sacrifice to the Author of all Being, is held a great abomination, and a disrespect to God, and therefore a less inconvenience must yield to a greater; for, ex duobus malis, minus est eligendum.  
This being so, I now come to examine the ground of this indispensable necessity. Why is the Consummating the Chalice so rigorously required? They Answer, To complete the Sacrifice. I again demand, What is wanting, to the completing the Sacrifice? They Answer, The Receiving under the Species of Wine, which, in this Sacrifice hath been Consecrated. Here I must allege their own Arguments, which they so industriously urge, to excuse their denying the Chalice to the Laity For, say they, he who receives under the Species of Bread, receives all Christ; not only the Body, but the Blood of Christ, the Natural Union, the Divine Word, the Hypostatical Union, and the whole Trinity; therefore to receive again under the Species of Wine is superfluous; it is actum agere, he had all before, and more he cannot have; so that the second reception, is but a bare repetition of the former, without addition, or diminution.  
This Doctrine (which is their own) I apply to their Sacrifice. When the Priest hath Consecrated in both Kind's, and Consummated the Host, I still press to know, What is wanting to complete their Sacrifice? Nothing can be assigned, but the Consummating the Chalice. But I Reply, The Sacrificater hath already Received all Christ, nothing excepted, What would he have more? for, to Consummate the Chalice, is but to receive the very same again; it is but an unnecessary Repetition; it is actum agere, whereby nothing is received, but what was received before; and therefore if any thing be wanting to Complete the Sacrifice, it must be some Spiritual Benefit, or Emolument that the Chalice brings with it. In fair Arguing, some reality should be assigned, for bare words are not satisfactory; and if they pretend, that there are any, peculiar Graces, or Spiritual Favours, which accrue to the Receiver, under the Species of Wine, distinct from those that are received by Communion, under the Species of Bread (as many of their great Divines affirm) than they give a Legal Reason of Christ's so much inculcating the receiving of this Sacrament under both Kind's. Amen, Amen, dico vobis, 
Johannis 6 v. 53. Mat. 26. v. 27. Luc. 22. v. 17.  nisi ma●ducaveritis carnem fi●●● fortinis & biberit▪ ejus sanguinem, non habelitis vitam in unhis. Bibite ex hoc omnes. Accipite hoc & dividite inter vos etc. And by this, they may give a rational account, why they so strictly exact the consummating of the Chalice, in their Mass.  
But if they grant this, How then can they excuse their Injustice of denying the Cup to the Laity? for these Graces are of a high value, and of right belong to them, as is more largely declared above, 
Sect. 2.  in this Disputation. So that they are here reduced to this perplexity: If they grant these Spiritual Graces to the Chalice, they cannot excuse their Injustice to the Laity. If they deny them, they cannot make out their practice and Doctrine of their Sacrifice of the Mass. These are hard shifts to defend a bad Cause; but certainly they have most reason, who candidly acknowledge, the Graces conferred upon us, by receiving the Blood of Christ, under the Species of Wine, which so much conduce to the right Institution of a Christian Life, and perseverance in it.  
Let us therefore cast a glance of compassion, on the deplorable condition of those, that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome, who not only are deprived of such Spiritual Graces and Favours, but by a constant Rebellion against Christ's Commands, are become refractory and incorrigeable in their disobedience, and which is worst of all, hereby incur the penalty threatened to the disobedient, by Christ himself; which is no less than eternal Damnation; neither is it possible (as long as they remain in those circumstances) to make their Peace or Atonement with All mighty God; which can never be effected but by a valid Absolution, or a true Repentance; but if they resolve to continue in that Communion, they are neither capable of a valid Absolution, nor a true Repentance; for two essential impediments that cannot be removed; obstruct and render inefficacious all their endeavours. The one is an incapacity of retractation, the other an impossibility of a purpose of amendment: for, How is it possible for any one to retract his sin, or purpose to amend, as long as he is deliberately, and firmly resolved, to continue in the same sin? for such a resolution, is wholly inconsistent with a retractation, and with a purpose to amend, and yet these two are both necessary to a valid Absolution, and to a true Repentance, which is allowed by all.  
I shall therefore conclude this Disputation with this ensuing syllogism: They who are transgressors, and uncapable of a valid Absolution, and true Repentance, cannot be saved: but they who are resolved to continue in the Church of Rome, are Transgressor's, and incapable of a valid Absolution, and true Repentance; ergo, They who are resolved to continue in the Church of Rome cannot be saved. The Major none can deny, it being consonant to the Doctrine of both Churches, and evident in itself. The Minor hath been sufficiently proved in this Disputation. But, How dismal, and fatal is the consequence, to those whom it concerns? They have no remedy but one, which is, to separate from that Church, which reduceth them to such extremities, and then they may be in a Capacity to Repent, and exercise Acts of Attrition, and Contrition, so to reduce their Souls to a better state.    

Dispute IV. Of Transubstantiation.  

The Preface.  
AMong all the Dogmatical Points wherein the Roman and Protestant Churches differ, none is Controverted with more Fervour, and Animosity, than this of Transubstantiation; the Romanists earnestly defending it, and the Protestants as vigorously denying it. Besides the Method and Manner, which the Church of Rome useth in the Explication and Proof of this Mystery, leads them into such a labyrinth of insuperable Difficulties, yea, and Impossibilities (as shall be here proved) that all their Pretended Infallibility, will not be able to protect them from Error; for they make so great a Breach, in the Laws of Nature, and so impose upon Human Reason, as if rightly understood, the most credulous could never stretch their Belief to an Assent. For they move Heaven and Earth, to accomplish their Design; they bring in the Divine Omnipotence, to their support, and yet still need more help to make out their Undertake; the particulars whereof the following Sections will declare.   

SECT. I. The Romanists Doctrine relating to Transubstantiation.  
WHoever intends to make a strict Inquiry, into all the Parts of this strange Mystery, must of necessity Consult the Grounds of Natural Philosophy, on which it depends; where, in the first place, they adhere to Aristotle, whose Principles are more accommodated to their Design, than any other; for they absolutely except against the Doctrine of Cartesius, and reject his Principies, who composeth this sublunary World or one simple Complete substantial Body, admitting of no substantial Composition, either of Matter, or Form, or any other equivalent parts, but divides this Body into integral parts, which he reduceth to Three Classes;  
The One he calls, Globulos Caelestes,  
Another, Materiam Subtilem;  
And the Third, Particulas Striatas.  
All which, though according to their own Entities, are Homogeneal, yet by reason of their different Figures, Motions, and other Modifications, produce all that variety, and those Hetorogeneal effects, which this World proposeth to our Corporal Senses. And though he often mentions Local Motion, Moods, and Modisications, yet he would never admit any accident, either absolute or modal, no first or second qualities, entitatively, and really distinct from the substance; as his Writings sufficiently declare; and also, as I have been several times informed, by Doctor Gutscoven, a Doctor of the University of Louvain; and Canon of the Cathedral of Liege, who was Des Cartes his bosom Friend, with whom he Communicated all his Principles, before he Printed them. Who assured me, that Des Cartes was an irreconcilable Enemy to all Accidents, Moods, and Qualities, really distinct from the Substance.  
This therefore being waved, they stick close to the Peripatetics, who admit Moods, Qualities, and Accidents, really distinct from the Substances which they affect.  
Secondly, In all Complete Bodies, in this Sublunary World, they admit a Substantial Composition, of Matter and Form, so as that the first Matter, being produced by a creatain Action, is indifferent to all Forms, but depends on no one in particular; and therefore since the first Creation of the World (if we Consult Nature) no Matter hath been produced, none destroyed. But on the contrary, the substantial Forms have a strict dependence on the first Matter, as their proper Subject, and on several qualities and accidents, as their Natural disposition, so that if their Matter should be Annihilated, or their disposition destroyed; by the Law of Nature, they could not subsist, though many of them Teach, that the Heavens, Planets, and Fixed Stars, admit of no such Composition, but are Complete, yea simple substantial Bodies, which cannot be dissolved but only into Integral, and Homogeneal parts.  
Thirdly, They Assert, That though according to Nature, the same Individual Body, cannot be in more than one place, at the same time; yet that by Divine Power, one and the same Body, may be collocated in several and distinct places, the same moment of time, how distant, and remote soever these places are, the one from the other. Which is far different from the Manner, how the Soul of Man exists in the Body, for though the same Soul be at the same time in the head, and in the foot, and because it is a Spirit, and hath no substantial, nor integral parts, it must of necessity be all in the head, and all in the foot, and other parts of the Body, the same instant, because it is indivisible; yet, in this Case, the whole Body is but one adequate place of the Soul; for if the head should be severed from the Body, the Soul could not in that state of Separation, be both in the head and the Body, no not for one moment of time.  
Fourthly, They agree in the notion of Substantial Conversion, that it is a Transmutation of one Substance into another, which they distinguish into two Members; the one is a partial, or inadequate Conversion; the other a total or adequate Commutation. The first is common, and proper to the present order of Nature; for in all the Changes that we observe, of several Substances destroyed, and others produced, there never happens but a partial Conversion: for example, We see Wood, or other Combustible Matter, Converted into Fire, the Form of Wood is destroyed, but the Matter, as being susceptible of any Form, remains under the Form of Fire, that was before under that of Wood: So that you see, in all these Conversions, one part is destroyed, but the other persists in being; so in that which succeeds, one part is newly produced, but the other was extant before. But in a total Conversion, the precedent substance is wholly destroyed, the Matter is Annihilated, and the Form Corrupted, and the subsequent substance, which succeeds in place of that which is destroyed, both Matter and Form, is all Collocated under the same Collection of Accidents, either by a new production, or else by an adduction; for if this substance, into which the former was Converted, were before extant, then there needs only a new Ubication in the place, where the Conversion is made, without relinquishing its former Vbi, or place where it was existent; and so is now in two distinct places at once; and this total Conversion can never be made, without infringing the Laws of Nature: for nothing in Nature can ever lay a disposition, determining to the destruction of the first Matter, which depends upon no dispositions, but is produced by a Creative action, independent of all things else. And therefore its destruction exceeds the power of all Natural Causes. Then the Constituting of a Body, in two distinct and adequate places at once, is not in the power of Nature, as all grant.  
Fifthly, They grant, That Quantity, Qualities, Dispositions, and all other Accidents, cannot naturally subsist without a Subject, or Receptacle to support them, and keep them in being; for, as Aristotle saith, Accidens est ens in alio, or entis ens; it is ordained by Nature to be subservient to substance, and so is not intended for itself, but to dispose the substance to several Changes and Mutations, upon which it hath consequently a strict dependence; neither can it have any use in Nature, without the Substance. So that Accidents cannot remain without a Substance, but by the Miraculous assistance of a Supernatural Power, and where this intervenes, they maintain, that all Accidents, except Moods, may be conserved, in being without a Subject.  
These several Points of Doctrine being premised, they conclude, That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by the words of Consecration, which are these, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body; which are pronounced by the Priest, assuming Christ's Person, there is wrought a total, substantial Conversion, which they call Transubstantiation; so that the whole substance of Bread, both Matter and Form, is totally destroyed: and the whole substance of Christ's Body is really placed there, in lieu of the Bread, which is really Converted into the Body of Christ, yet so, as that the Species of Bread (which is the collection of Accidents, that were before in the Bread) keep their state of being (though the Bread be destroyed) and are Miraculously preserved without a Subject; though they are Sacramentally united to the Body of Christ: And though, ex vi verborum, only the Body of Christ be rendered present, nothing else being signified by the words of Consecration, nor requisite to verify Concomitance, and Connexion, whereby all the parts of Christ are united with each other, there is also put, under the Species of Bread, the Blood of Christ, the Soul of Christ, with the Natural Union between his Body and Soul, the Divine Word, the Hypostatical Union, which Connects the Divine Word to the Humanity, and consequently all the Sacred Trinity, are all there really Existent, under the Species of Bread; which Species or Complex of Accidents, were produced and conserved before the Bread was destroyed, by an Action called Eduction; that is, a production dependant on another, to wit, the Substance of Bread, to which they were the natural disposition; but that substance being destroyed, they are now conserved by another action, which they term Creation; that is, a production independent of all others. By the Species of Bread they understand, the Heat, the Cold, the Drieth, the Moisture, the Quantity, the Rarity, the Density, the Colour, the Odour, the Taste, etc. which were all appropriated to the Bread.  
They also Affirm, That these strange Wonders are wrought by the words of Consecration, which are Instituted by Christ, to this purpose, and by their Obediential Power, are elevated to effect, what of themselves they are uncapable of, the Divine Power Cooperating with them, to accomplish this design; so that these few words, pronounced by a Priest, who assumes Christ's Person, and Officiates in his Name, are not only representative, but also practical; they effect what they signify, and so reduce themselves to a Conformity with their Object, which makes them true.  
But it may be demanded, In what Critical Moment of time this great Change is made? For the words, though few, yet are pronounced by the Priest successively, whence the doubt ariseth, Whether this strange Conversision, be made in the beginning, the middle, or the end of the words of Consecration? To this they Answer, That during the time that the Priest is pronouncing those words, nothing is done, till he pronounceth the last Syllable of the last word meum, and in that moment the whole business is effected, and the Priest no sooner hath spoken that last syllable, but he knelt to Adore Christ then present, and Elevates the Host, to show it to the People, that they also may adore it.  
Another Query may be proposed, How long the Body of Christ remains in the Host, under the Species of Bread? Their Answer is, That as long as the dispositions of Bread remain there, so long is Christ present; but when by contrary Causes, these Qualities, and Accidents are so far Changed, that the Form of Bread could not Naturally there subsist, than the Body of Christ is withdrawn.  
This is a short, but true Account of their Tenets: whence they Conclude, That by such a Transubstantiation, as is above explicated, the substance of Bread is truly and really Converted into the Body of Christ; and this they propose to all to be Believed, as an Article of Faith.  
The Grounds of this Paradoxical Doctrine we shall propose in the Objections, against those Assertions which we are going to establish in the next Section.   

SECT. II. The Orthodox Doctrine against Transubstantiation proposed and proved.  
THe First Assertion: The Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as it is Taught by the Church of Rome, is de facto, false, and Erroneous. I add those words de facto, because in this Conclusion, I only design to prove, That no such Transubstantiation is actually to be admitted, waving the possibility of it; but I shall afterwards prove that it is wholly Chimerical, and Impossible, and the Proofs of that Assertion, will confirm this.  
The First Proof: Christ came not into the World to destroy, but to edify, and therefore was so zealous to fulfil the Old Law; and certainly he stood not in opposition with his Eternal Father, who was the great Framer, and Conserver of the Universe, who constituted it in its due order, by providing for the proper Nature, propensions, and inclinations of each part thereof, by ordaining the Natural Causes, Effects, Proprieties, and Passions of all things, and by that provident subordination of one thing to another, in relation to the good and conservation of the whole. But this Doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be defended, but by violating those Laws of Nature (established by God himself) in a high degree, for in every Consecration, there are as many Miracles, which infringe the Laws of Nature, as there are Minute Accidents, and Qualities existing without their Subject; it is a Miracle that the Form of Bread should be destroyed, and its disposition entire, contrary to the exigence of Nature; it is a Miracle, and against Nature, that the first Matter should be annihilated, nothing in the Universe determining to it; it is a Miracle that the Body of Christ should be in so many places the same time; it is a Miracle, that the Words of Consecration (a mere Sound from a Man's Organ) should be elevated to effect such Prodigies. And in most places subject to the See of Rome, there is a never interrupted continuation of all these Miraculous products, by keeping the Consecrated Host in a Cyborium, within the Tabernacle, which is never intermitted. Nay, What a Prodigious Number of Miracles are daily and hourly multiplied, by so many Millions of Hosts as are continually Consecrated, in the whole extent of the Universe? Who can be so impious, as to impute so horrid a Fraction in Nature, to Christ himself? as though he waged War with his Eternal Father, by endeavouring to subvert the Order, and Nature of this Universe, contrary to its first Institution; all which being duly considered, who can be so great a Contemner of his own Reason, as blindly to enslave it to such incredible Doctrine?  
The Second Proof: If the Substance of Bread were really Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, and the Species of Bread should remain without a Subject, that Collection of Species would be wholly incorruptible; and consequently Christ's Body would never be separated from that Host, where it is once present. The Illation I prove evidently, for if that Collection of Accidents exist independent of any Subject, and are preserved by a Creative Action, than no Natural Cause, nor Agent, could have any influence upon them, for no Natural Agent can operate, but in order to some Subject, which must receive and support the effect produced: wherefore admit that a Consecrated Host were applied to the fire, the Species of Bread extant in the Host, would suffer some Change, or Alteration, by the influence of the fire; suppose then one degree of heat to be produced in the Host, than one degree of cold must be expelled from thence, which is the contrary to heat; if so, than that degree of Heat which the fire produced, must be Created, and not Educted, because there is no subject at all to receive it, and so it must exist as the rest of that Complex doth, independent of a Subject: and that degree of cold that is destroyed, must be annihilated, not corrupted, for it is destroyed independent of any Subject. What then, to maintain this Doctrine, Must we admit that a mere Creature, and a Natural cause, as the Fire, hath a power to create, and annihilate? you were as good say, that a Creature may be Omnipotent, for hitherto I never heard but of one Creator, God himself, who alone hath power to Create, and Annihilate: What is this but to rob God of his Prime Attributes, and communicate them to his Creatures? But, What remedy? for manifest experience showeth, that a consecrated Host is as liable to alteration, change, and corruption, as another that is not consecrated; so there is no way but one, to salve all these inconveniences, which is, by denying Transubstantiation, out of which those gross errors inevitably follow.  
But it may be Objected, That the proper Subject of the Species of Bread, is the quantity, and not the substance itself, for the quantity is the subject of other qualities, and common accidents, and that alone is Miraculously conserved in the Eucharist, without a subject.  
First, I Answer, That the proper function of quantity is to communicate impenetrability to the Bodies that it affects, for two Bodies meeting together, resist each other, and cannot be both penetrated in the same place, as our Soul is with our Body. This proceeds from quantity, which is the root of impenetrability. Besides, that is the subject of the common accidents, which is by them disposed for several Forms; but it is only the substance that is so disposed (for quantity is of itself but an accident) therefore the common accidents are received in the substance, and not in the quantity.  
Secondly, I Answer, That all the School of the Thomists, all the School of the Scotists, and a great part of the Jesuits, and other Authors, of the Church of Rome, do absolutely assert, that the substance, and not the quantity, is the proper subject of the common accidents, and consequently the Argument proceeds in its full strength against all these.  
The Third Proof: Insisting upon the Principles of Transubstantiation, an irreconcilable difficulty will occur; when that complex of first, and second qualities, and other accidents is so altered, and changed, that it becomes an apt disposition to a new specifical Form. As for example: A Communicant receives a consecrated Host, which is lodged in the Stomach of the Receiver, and by the natural activity of the Stomach is fitly disposed to receive the Form of Chyle, then there is a strict exigence in nature, that the Form of Chyle be introduced; What is to be done in this case? Nature may spend itself in clamoring to have this Form introduced, but alas, here is no subject, nor receptacle to receive it. Some expedient must here be found, you will say, that in this case the Author of Nature must create new Matter, to receive this Form, and to relieve the Accidents from that violent state wherein they have been detained.  
Most excellent Philosophy! How absurd would this seem to any of the Ancients, but meanly versed in this Science? Aristotle never dreamt of such anxieties and distresses of Nature. And the Divinity is yet worse; which makes God subject to submit to the extravagant exigences of his creatures, no way grounded in his own Providence, and Disposition; for the great Author of Nature, Created the whole Mass of first Matter, independent of any thing else, and since that original creation, no Matter hath been destroyed, none produced, but the same succeeds indifferently, to all the variety of Forms that are produced and destroyed. But now here comes a strict exigence of a substantial Form, to be produced dependant on the Matter, and yet there is no matter to receive it, but the Supreme Creator must be summoned by his creatures to supply this defect, by Creating new Matter, as though he had been ignorant in the Beginning, what quantity of Matter was sufficient, who created all things by his Infinite Wisdom, and Providence, in pondere, & mensura, out of his own , without any exigence, or determination of his creatures.  
Must then the Order of this Systeme be inverted? and God, (as it were) necessitated, to exercise his Omnipotence in a New creation, not grounded in his former Instituon?  
But here it may be Alleged, That the drift of all these Proofs, is no other than to make it appear, that the whole business of Transubstantiation is Supernatural and Miraculous, which the Church of Rome freely acknowledgeth, and are induced to this belief, by the Authority of Christ himself, who, holding Bread in his hand, in the Last Supper, plainly told his Apostles, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body: If Christ affirms it, Who dares gainsay it? We all know, that the Substance of Bread cannot, by Natural Means, be converted into the Body of Christ, but by the illimited power of God, it may be done; and Christ tells us, That it is done, Why therefore should we not believe it?  
First, I Answer, That what is possible, though Miraculous, and Supernatural, may be believed, yet not slightly, and without sufficient reason; but if by an urgent and indispensable necessity, or an irrefragable authority, which brings with it a perfect assurance, of the true sense, and meaning thereof, we are pressed to an assent, this is a sufficient Motive to induce us to believe  
But, in the next Proof, I shall make it appear, that here is no such inductive, no necessity of yielding our assent to such a prodigious number of Miracles, not once only, but daily and hourly repeated, and constantly continued, and so to last till the World's end.  
Secondly, I Answer, That in the Second Proof of this Assertion, it appeareth, that from this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, it unavoidably follows, That all Natural Causes, both can and do actually create, and annihilate, who promiscuously have their insluences, when duly applied, upon a consecrated Host, as much as they have upon one that is not consecrated; which plain experience maketh manifest; and to have such a power to create and annihilate, or to produce something out of nothing, is so peculiar to God alone, as wholly depending on an Omnipotent Power, that it is absolutely impossible, that it should be communicated to any pure creature.  
The Fourth Proof: There is no necessity, neither from Scripture, nor Reason, nor from any other Revelation, to admit Transubstantiation. The greatest necessity that hath been hitherto alleged, is drawn from those words of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum: but from hence no necessity can be derived; for, they that hold Consubstantiation, and assert, That Christ's Body exists in the Sacrament, together with the Substance of Bread, these, I say, as rigorously stand to the literal sense of Christ's words, and as properly verify them, as they who hold Transubstantiation; for the words of themselves imply no conversion, or change of one substance into another; but, if taken in a literal sense, they only signify Christ's Body there present: wherefore there is no necessity, from these words, to multiply so many Miracles, yea, and Impossibilities, as are inferred from Transubstantiation, because the literal sense of the words may be saved without them.  
But in reality there is no more necessity of understanding those words of Christ in a literal sense, then when he saith, I am a Door, I am a Vine, etc.  
For, since the Scripture is capable of so many Senses and Interpretations, there is no Reason, nor Necessity, of wresting it to that sense alone, which brings with it the greatest difficulties of any, especially when by congruities, and other places of Scripture, it may be connaturally understood in another sense; and since it was usual with our Great Redeemer, to speak by Allegories, Parables, by Tropes and Figures, it is most likely he spoke so here; which is sufficiently intimated by Christ himself, telling his Disciples, John. 6. vers. 63. that, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, are Spirit and Life; and yet the words that he then spoke were concerning his Body.  
Hence I Conclude. That the words of Christ above rehearsed, can ground no necessary inference of Transubstantiation.   

SECT. III. Of the Possibility of Transubstantiation, as held by the Church of Rome.  
IN order to the determination of this difficulty, I must first premise, That according to the Rules of Logic, no affirmative proposition, or enunciation, can be true, except it have a conformity with its Object, that is, the Object must be in its self, as the act represents it.  
All Enunciations consist of two parts, the subject, and the predicate; the subject is that of which it enunciates; the predicate is that which it enunciates of the subject: if the proposition be negative, it separates the predicate from the subject; but if it be affirmative, it intentionally identisies the one with the other, as in this Proposition: Angelus est Spiritus; Angelus is the subject, and Spiritus is the predicate; the act being affirmative, represents these two as identified; and because in the Object they are identified, therefore the Proposition is true: But if the two extremes were not identified, yet possibly might be, than the act were in materia contingenti, that is, contingently false; but if they were not identified, nor by any power could be identified, than the Proposition were in materia remota, that is, necessarily false. This being supposed,  
The Second Assertion is, That Transubstantiation, as grounded on the literal sense of this Proposition, Hoc est corpus meum, is impossible, and Chimerical.  
That I may be rightly understood in the Proof of this Assertion, I desire it may be observed, that in the progress of this discourse, I shall always take the Proposition in question, in a literal sense, according to the natural and plain signification and meaning of the words, as understood by the Romanists themselves, who take it literally; wherein I shall first prove the true signification of the Subject, and then of the Predicate, whence I shall clearly deduce the truth of this Assertion.  
The Subject of this Proposition, Hoc est corpus meum, is that which is signified by the word Hoc, which I thus prove to be the substance of Bread: That which was actually present when the word hoc was pronounced, is the Object or thing signified thereby; But the substance of Bread was the only thing present, when the word hoc was pronounced; ergo, the substance of Bread is the Object, or thing signified thereby. The first Proposition, or Major, cannot be reasonably doubted, for that particle hoc being demonstrative, it indicateth and shows its Object as present; for that which is absent or not existent, cannot, in any propriety of Speech, be signified by the word hoc, or this: as if the Author of a Book should hold one of the Copies in his hand, and show it to those that were present, saying, This is my Composition: Can any one in his right wits doubt, but that by the word this, he signified the Book which he held in his hand? wherefore, that which Christ held in his hand, and shown to his Apostles, when he said, Hoc est corpus meum, must necessarily be the thing signified by the word hoc.  
The Minor, or Second Proposition I prove thus: That which was present when Christ pronounced the Word hoc, was that which he held in his hand, and shown to his Apostles, which was only Bread, under its proper Species, for in that moment, the Body of Christ was not there, under the Species of Bread, as our Antagonists themselves confess, who constantly affirm, That the Body of Christ is not rendered present under the Species of Bread, till that instant wherein the Proposition is completely ended, and the reason is, because till that instant, there is nothing that signifieth the Body of Christ, which is made present by the force and energia of the signification of that Proposition, which they say, is elevated to be iustrumental in producing its object, and by that means concurs to its own verity. Therefore Christ's Body not being present under the Species of Bread in that instant, it remains, that only the substance of Bread was then present in Christ's hand, and consequently that alone was the Subject of that Proposition, whose Predicate was affirmed, or enunciated of it.  
The Predicate of the forementioned Proposition, which is, Corpus meum, my Body, plainly and explicitly signifieth the Body of Christ, who pronounceth the Proposition, and saith of that Bread, which he then held in his hand, that it was his Body, and therefore I shall not detain you in proving the Body of Christ to be the thing signified by the Predicate, especially since our Opponents grant it, to make good their Tenet.  
Having proved the true meaning and signification of the Subject of the forenamed Proposition to be Bread, and our Adversaries granting the thing rerepresented by the Predicate to be the Body of Christ, let us now examine the sense and meaning of the whole act: Christ holding Bread in his hand, saith, This is my Body: that is, this Bread is my Body, as hath been proved; and the Proposition being Affirmative, intentionally affirms Christ's Body to be really identified with that Bread, signified by the word this, because no Affirmative Proposition can be true, except the Subject and Predicate thereof be identified, ex parte objecti, for without this identity, the act can never be conformable to its object, wherein consists the truth of it; whence it comes to pass, that the Proposition in Question, taken in a literal sense, according to the true and genuine signification of the words, without Tropes and Figures, cannot possibly be true; which I prove thus,  
An identity between Bread, and the Body of Christ, is impossible and Chimerical; but the Proposition in Question affirms an identity between Bread and the Body of Christ; ergo, the Proposition in Question affirms that which is impossible, and chimerical. The Minor, or Second Proposition, is plain and evident, by what hath been already proved, and granted. The Major or First Proposition, I shall here prove; all identity between two Substances specifically and individually distinct, is as impossible, as a hyrco-cervus, or hypocentaurus, as they call them, that is, a downright Chimaera: the reason is, because it involves a contradiction, whereof one Member formally destroys the other; for the notion of identity between two objects, consists in this, That the one hath omnia & sola illa quae aliud habet, all the perfections and predicates of the other, and nothing more; but the substance of Bread hath not all the perfections and predicates of the Body of Christ, for it wants Organizations, Life, etc. and hath a specifical form, which Christ hath not; therefore if these two were identified, the one would have all that the other hath, (which idenity implies) and the one would not have all that the other hath, by reason of their specifical distinction, which is a plain contradiction, wherein the Affirmative formally destroys the Negative; and, econtra, the Negative destroys the Affirmative. Again, that Bread, and the Body of Christ, are individually distinct, and an individuum is that which is indivisum in se, & divisum à quolibet alio; indistinct in itself, and distinct from all others; but if those two individuals were identified, each of them would be distinct from all other, and would not be distinct from all other, which is a formal contradiction, and therefore all such identities between two, are impossible, and chimerical, and so I have proved the Major of the last Syllogism; whence I conclude, that this Proposition, Hoc est corpus meum, taken literally, affirms that which is impossible, and chimerical; and therefore cannot ground a real change, or conversion; and so Transubstantiation, as grounded on this Proposition, is wholly impossible, and a mere Chimaera.  
This Proof I efficaciously confirm thus: Either that Particle Hoc signifies the substance of Bread, or it doth not; if the former, than it affirms an identity between Bread, and the Body of Christ, which is a Chimaera, and all the foregoing discourse stands firm and ; If the latter, then with assured confidence I declare, that there is not the least ground or appearance of Transubstantiation to be drawn from that so often reiterated Proposition, Hoc est corpus meum, which I prove evidently.  
All Conversions, and Transmutations, whether partial or total, whether Transubstantiations, or Transaccidentations, essentially import two extremes, the one is terminus à quo, the other, terminus ad quem, and a Medium that passeth from one to the other, as in our present case the Bread is terminus a quo, the Body of Christ is terminus ad quem, because the Bread is said to be Converted, or Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, so that the Bread is destroyed, and the Body of Christ succeeds in heu thereof; the Medium is that collection of Accidents which are proper to Bread, and under which the substance of Bread existed before it was destroyed, and after, the Body of Christ, exists under the same collection of Accidents.  
Now, if the foresaid Particle Hoc do not signify the substance of Bread, than it is most manifest, that in the whole proposition, there is not the least mention made of Bread, but only of the Body of Christ, which the Predicate expresseth; and the Copula, or Union, represents nothing, but only intentionally unites, or identifies the two extremes; and there is nothing else in the whole proposition but the Subject, which is the Particle Hoc; therefore if this do not signify Bread, than there is nothing that signifieth it in the whole proposition.  
Whence I infer, That the aforesaid proposition, doth no way signify, import, or make the least mention of Transubstantiation, no, nor doth it afford the least ground to infer it from thence, because it mentions no extremes really distinct, no terminum à quo, no terminum ad quem, no Change, nor Transmutation, but only signifies the Body of Christ there, not as terminum ad quem, for this is correlative to another extreme, which is terminus à quo; but this it not at all signifieth. How then can it administer any the least ground to assert Transubstantiation? Here I appeal to the Judgement of any indifferent, or impartial Reader, though but meanly capacitated, how a Proposition can be capable to administer such an assured belief of Transubstantiation, which notwithstanding it doth not in the least signify.  
It ensues therefore, That as the Rabbis in those times did usually speak in Parables, Tropes and Figures, etc. So our Great Master (who in most things accommodated himself to the present times) did frequently express himself by Parables, Emblems, Tropes, and Figures, and particularly in this passage, whereof the words, as you see, can in no ways bear a literal sense, especially, because we find so much congruity for it, in other passages of Scripture, where our Saviour calls it Bread, John 6. v. 51. I am the living bread, if any Man eat of this bread. The bread that I will give you is my flesh: And, How can it be understood in a literal sense, that Bread should be the flesh of Christ? v. 58. This is that bread which came down from Heaven, etc. These, and divers other say of our Redeemer, can in no ways be understood in the rigour of the Letter, but are to be expounded according to the congruity of the Subject; for the Bread was a fit Emblem of the Body of Christ, and equivalently the same, because it was by Christ himself, elevated to be a Sacrament; and, as Bread feeds the Body of Man, so the Sacramental effect thereof feeds the Soul, by such Spiritual Graces as incline to Virtue and Piety, and by fencing the Understanding and the Will against all Suggestions of Vice and Iniquity.  
Again, the Body of Christ, by Offering itself in that Bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross, was the Meritorious Cause of those Graces, and Spiritual Food of our Souls, and so it was congruously Figured by Bread, which feeds the Body; and for this reason it was fitly Instituted in this Sacrament, as a Commemoration of Christ's Passion; and therefore our Lord himself tells us, v. 63. That it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: And again, The words that I speak unto you, are spirit and life; and so ought to be understood, in a Mystical sense, and not according to the sound of the Letter; for by participating of this Sacrament, we become Members of the Mystical Body of Christ, and are, as it were, made one with him; so that the Bread being Instituted as a Sacrament, and thereby adapted to produce all these effects, it is equivalently the Body of Christ.   

SECT. IV. Objections for Transubstantiation Solved.  
THe First Objection: In this Proposition, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body: the Subject, which is the word Hoc, hath no determinate signification; for when it is pronounced, it neither represents the Bread, nor the Body of Christ, but its true meaning is suspended, till the Proposition be completed, and then whatsoever is the object of the Predicate, must also be the object of the Subject; so that the Predicate signifying explicitly the Body of Christ, the Subject, or the Particle Hoc signifies the same implicitly; and so the Predicate being identified with the Subject, the Proposition is true. And in this manner all definitions are predicated of the things defined; for that which the definitum signifieth implicitly, and obscurely, the definition declares explicitly and distinctly.  
This is a strange kind of new Logic, which will not bear the Test of the weakest Sophister, nor ever get admittance into any Academy: wherefore my First Answer is, That in all vocal Propositions, the subject hath its certain and determinate object then, when it is pronounced, whether it expresses the same clearly, or absolutely, which is not material; for if the predicate could determine the subject to have the same object with itself, no affirmative proposition could be false, because the subject, and predicate would be always identified. But, in case of equivocation, as in this proposition, Canis est animal latrabile; where the subject canis equally signifieth more things than one; for it indifferently signifies an Animal called a Dog, it signifies the Dog-Star, and it signifies a Dogfish: In this case, I say, the indifference of the word canis must be determined, either by the present circumstances, or by the predicate; as if one with his finger should show an Animal called a Dog, and say, hic canis, than the indifference would be determined to that Species only, and the Equivocation would be taken off. So likewise by the predicate, Animal latrabile, the indifference of the word canis would be determined to one kind only; but note, that the predicate can never draw the subject to signify any thing beyond the extent of its proper signification, for the word canis must of necessity signify one of the three kinds above specified, and nothing else. So in the Proposition in Question, Hoc est corpus meum, the word Hoc is determined of its own nature to signify that which it then indicateth as present, be it what it will; but can never signify a thing absent, or not then in being; much less can its signification be suspended, when it is once pronounced, for here is no equivocation; but this hath no place in the Mental Proposition of the Understanding, which regulates the Vocal, because in ment nulla datur aequivocatio, there can be no equivocation in the understanding, to whose act the Vocal must correspond. And if we could see the internal Act of him that speaks (as the Angels do) all equivocation would cease. What is added of a definition, in relation to the definitum, or thing defined, is of no force, for the definitum hath its determinate signification, before the definition is enunciated of it; but the definition declares distinctly the genus and disserentiam of the thing defined, which the definitum involves in obscurity.  
Secondly, I Answer, That insisting upon the Doctrine of this Objection, no Conversion, nor Transmutation can be any way grounded in that Proposition; for if the Subject, when pronounced, signify nothing, and when the Proposition is completely ended, it should signify the same with the Predicate, Where then could they find the extremes of Conversion? when there is but one and the same thing signified by both; no Medium expressed, not the least intimation of a transitus, or passing from one extreme to another. This would ruin their main design, of Asserting Transubst antiation as a legal inference out of that Proposition.  
But it may be Replied, That by the aforesaid Proposition, the Body of Christ is asserted as present, which was not so before, for it passeth à non esse ad esse, from not being, to being.  
I Answer, That all Conversions require two positive terms, the one à quo, the other ad quem▪ but all things that are ceated, or produced, which imply no Conversion, yet the first instant of their production, is primum quod sic, and the instant immediately before, is the ultimum quod non, as the Philosophers term them, which denotes, a passing from not Being, to a state of Being; yet this imports no Conversion of one thing into another, and is therefore impertinent to ground Transubstantiation.  
The Second Objection proceeds against the notion of identity, as it is explicated above, Sect. 3. where it is said, That they are identified, whereof one hath all the predicates and perfections of the other, and nothing else. Whence it would follow, that no affirmative Proposition would be true, but only definitions, as this, homo est animal cationale. Man is a reasonable sensible Creature; which is the whole Essence of Man. But the other four predicables, as genus, differentia, proprium & accidens could have no place, because they produced but part of the Essence, and so the one hath not all the perfections that the other hath; as, Homo est Animal, Homo est Rationalis, Verbum sactum est caro, etc.  
First, I Answer, That this Controversy depends not upon that notion of identity; for any other proper explication of identity, would be as subservient to it, as this, and the Arguments would retain their full force; for the substance of Bread, can in no proper sense, be said to be identified with the Body of Christ.  
Secondly, I Answer, directly to the Objection: And deny, that any prejudice would hence accrue to the Predicables: for this Proposition, Homo est Animal, contains two Metaphysical concreats, videlicet, Homo, and Animal; and it must be thus resolved, Habens Humanitatem est habens Animalitatem, where the rectum of the predicate, is identified with the rectum of the subject, for it is the same habens in both cases. As in Physical concrets; Album est frigidum; which is thus resolved, Habens albedinem est habens frigiditatem. Where the habens, which is the rectum of the subject, hath omnia & sola illa, which are contained in the rectum of the Predicate; and so of all others of the like nature. That Proposition, Verbum factum est caro, is much of the same nature; for the Subject Verbum, and the Predicate factum caro, both signify in recto, the Divine Hypostasis, whose perfect identity renders the Proposition true. But such Propositions, as enunciate a Physical Abstract of its concrete; as this, Album est frigiditas, etc. such acts, are all false, for want of identity. But this Discourse is purely Logical, and therefore I leave it.  
The Third Objection: If one should present another, with a Box of Jewels, saying, This I give you: the word this, signifies that which is in the Box, but expresseth it not; so that the Proposition renders this sense, That which is in this Box I give you: So when our Redeemer said, This is my Body, the word this only signifieth that which was present under that Collection of Species, but expresseth it not: as if he should have said, That which is contained under these Species is my Body. Where no mention is made of Bread.  
I Answer: This is the same that hath been already Solved, though Proposed in a New Dress: which notwithstanding a great Divine of the Society of the Jesuits, much insists upon, 
Edw. Worsley in Manuscript.  and renders Christ's Proposition thus, Contentum sub his speciebus est corpus meum. My Answer is, That whatsoever was contained under the Species of Bread then present, when the word Hoc was pronounced, was the true Object thereof; but nothing but the substance of Bread, was then contained under the Species of Bread, then present; ergo, nothing but the substance of Bread was the true Object thereof. For in order to the assigning the true Object to that Particle Hoc, it is not pertinent to examine, whether that Object be explicitly and distinctly, or only implicitly and obscurely signified.  
The Fourth Objection: There are other concurring testimonies of our Saviour in Scripture, besides that already mentioned, which sufficiently prove Transubstantiation; as, The Bread that I will give you is my flesh; Except you eate the flesh of the Son of Man, etc. all which signify the Flesh of Christ to be given in the Sacrament, the Bread being destroyed.  
I Answer. The first Text signifieth, in a literal sense, that Bread is the Flesh of Christ, which is already proved impossible; the second makes no mention of the Bread, but only of the Flesh of Christ, which concerns the Real Presence, but not Transubstantiation; which is the only question now in hand.  
And to avoid unnecessary Repetitions, I Averre, That no one Text of Scripture doth declare any Conversision, or Commutation of the Bread into the Body of Christ; which is the main thing to be proved, in order to Transubstantiation, for this cannot subsist without such a Conversion.  
The Fifth Objection: The Divine Power of Christ hath converted Water into Wine; hath fed Five Thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes: where he either Converted the Air into Bread and Fish, or else replicated the Loaves and Fishes, and so put them in several places at once.  
And by the Power of God's Omnipotence, Aaron's Rod was turned into a Serpent: Why then should we refuse our Assent to his turning Bread into his Body?  
The Answer: We do not at all Question the Power of the Omnipotent, who can work greater Wonders than these; nay, the Creation of this Globe of the Universe, which he produced out of nothing, was a greater Proof of God's Omnipotence; but, we deny the thing of Fact; that Christ hath actually changed Bread into his Body; which we have no ground to Believe; and as our Opponents defend it, we conceive it impossible.  
Another Objection may be taken from the Authority of the Fathers; whereof some seem to affirm, others to deny. But their Opinions make no Articles of Faith; and though we reverence their Authority, yet we deem it not expedient, in this place, to scan the drift of their respective say.  
Only this in General: Their usual expressions of this Sacrament, are, That it contains the Symbol, the Figure, the Type, the Antitype, the Resemblance, the Sign, the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ; which certainly must stand in opposition with the Real Presence of the thing itself.    

Dispute V Of the Real Presence.  

The Preface.  
HAving Treated of Transubstantiation, which imports a real Conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of Christ, I now come to Institute a Discourse of the Real Presence. For though a Conversion of that nature, by force of the words of Consecration, which should verify the same words, in a literal sense, be wholly impossible, as hath been proved; yet I do not deny, but that in the Treasury of God's Omnipotency, there is contained a Power to Constitute the Body of Christ Really Present in the Sacrament, praescinding from the manner how it is done; which if it be by a Conversion, it would invert the Order of Nature in a high degree, and multiply a prodigious number of Miracles, without necessity. But in this Discourse I shall only inquire into the Matter of Fact; whether the Body of Christ be Really Present in the Eucharist, or not, and not at all examine the manner, how it is there, and so proceed equally againct. Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and Impanation. For I take Companation to be the same with Consubstantiation. And by the Real Presence, I understand, a Real, Actual, and Local Existence, whereby the Body of Christ is locally present, not only in Heaven, but also in the Eucharist, the same time, as the Church of Rome Teacheth; waving any other peculiar presence besides this, that the Body of Christ may have in this Sacrament: for my present design, is only to examine the truth of that Assertion, which affirms the Body of Christ, to be Properly, Really, Physically, and Locally Present in the Eucharist, by a Homogeneal ubi with the Consecrated Host, whether this ubi be Circumscriptive, or Definitive.   

SECT. I. The Church of Rome's Definitions concerning the Real Presence.  
IN these later Centuries from Christ, various Questions, and Difficulties have been agitated, concerning the Eucharist, wherein both contending parts might prudently have spared themselves the trouble, of raising such contests, no way beneficial to a Christian Life, nor necessary to Salvation.  
As First, Whether the same Body of Christ, which is in Heaven, be Truly and Really, or only Virtually, and Figuratively, present in the Sacrament? What need so Hot a Debate of this Question, to perplex the Minds of the Well-meaning Vulgar? who might as soon obtain Heaven, by their Implicit Faith, as after so long a protracted Contention, with such Heat and Animosity, on both sides, in order to the decision of this Question; which notwithstanding, neither is, nor ever will be determined, so as both Parties will Acquiesce.  
For, supposing the Body of Christ, to be only Virtually, and Figuratively present; yet, by its being there in Virtute, there are as many degrees of Grace, both Habitual, and Actual, produced in the Soul of the Faithful, and Worthy Receiver, as if it were Really, and Corporally present: there are the same Spiritual Benefits, and Emoluments, to advance its progress in Virtue, and its tendency towards Eternity, in both cases.  
For, as in Baptism, the Lotion, which is duly applied by the Baptizer, according to Christ's Institution, Sanctifies the Soul of the Baptised, expels Original Sin, and gives him a Right to the Inheritance of Glory; and yet the remote Matter still remains a mere Natural Element of Water, as it was before: and the Immediate Matter, which is the Application of that Water to the Baptised, is of itself a pure Natural Action: though by Virtue of Christ's Institution, these Natural things acquire a Power, to produce such Supernatural effects, as pure Nature cannot pretend to. So likewise in the Eucharist, the Natural substances of Bread and Wine, have the same capacity, of being elevated to a Sacrament, by Christ's Ordination, and consequently of being instrumental, to produce those Spiritual effects, which, by Divine Institution, are annexed to the due receiving of this Sacrament, as well as the Natural Element of Water; for whether the Body of Christ be really present or not, yet certain it is, that he is there by his Virtue, by his Divinity, and by his Omnipotency, and will as assuredly confer upon the worthy Receiver, those Spiritual Gifts, which he hath promised, as if he were in verity, and reality present by his Body.  
Notwithstanding, the Church of Rome tenaciously asserts the Real Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, and hath raised it to an Article of Divine Faith, Fulminating an Anathema against all those who shall deny it. So the Council of Trent; Si quis negaverit, 
Trident. Sess. 1.3. Can. 1.  in Sanctissimae Eucharistiae Sacramento, contineri vere, realiter, & substantialiter, corpus & sanguinem, unà cum anima, & Divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum; sed dixerit tantummodò esse in co, ut in signo, vel sigura, aut virtute; Anathema sit. This definition is consonant to the Canons and Decrees of other Councils, and divers Texts of the canon Law. As Council Constant. 2. Lateran. Con. etc. C. Panis. de consecrat. D. 2. C. Cum Marthae de celebrat. Miss. etc. So that they have made it an Article of Faith, and thrown their Curse upon all that shall deny it; and yet many Thousands there are, among the ignorant Vulgar, of both Sexes, who, after this definition, cannot give an account of the difference, between the Real, Virtual, and Figurative being of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, and so must still have recourse to their Implicit Faith, as much as if there were no such definition. And how much this Belief of the Real Presence, conduceth to Salvation, I leave to the judgement of the impartial Reader; supposing what hath been already said.  
But this is not all; for out of this decision of their Councils, there issueth another Quaery; for supposing the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, a Natural doubt ariseth. What is become of the substance of Bread that was there before? Here Authors are divided, into three different Classes; some place the Body of Christ here by Transubstantiation, others by Consubstantiation, others by Impanation. The first Teach, that the substancee of Bread, as well Matter as Form, is destroyed, by a Natural Exigence of Christ's Body being placed there, because two complete Corporeal Substances, cannot be naturally, in the same place, the same time. The two last Opinions Teach, That the substance of Bread remaineth together with Christ's Body, and differ only in this, That they who hold Consubstantiation, assert the Body of Christ to be with the substance of the Bread; whereas the Authors of Impanation Teach, The Body of Christ to be contained in this Sacrament invisibly, because the substance of bread, with its proper accidents, as it were, covers and veils it so, as to render it uncapable of being perceived by any Corporeal Sense. So that the body of Christ being Miraculously Superinduced, is imbibed within the substance of the bread, and penetrated with it, and therefore not pervious to Sensation.  
In this variety of Opinions, Who shall be the Umpire? Certainly none more accommodated for this Function, than the great Oracle of the Universe. The Church of Rome, whose grand Prerogative of Infallibility, will take off all ambiguity of the truth of her decisions. Thus then speaks the Council of Trent. Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster, corpus suum, id quod sub specie panis offerebat, verè esse dixit; ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta haec Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis & vini, conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis, in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, & totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus quae conversio convenientèr & propriè 〈◊〉 Sancta Catholica Ecclesia, Transubstantiatio est appellata. The same is contained in other Councils and Texts of the Common Law, as Council Rom. 6. Council Lateran. 2. In cap. Qui manducant de consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Iteratur. Cap. semel Christus. cap. singulis, with other Texts above cited for the Real Presence.  
And this definition of the Council, is backed by a severe Canon, able to strike terror into the disbelievers. The Canon runs thus, Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis & vim unà cum corpore & sanguine Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem illam, & singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus, & totius substantiae vini, in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxit speciebus panis & vini; quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia optissimè Transubstantiationem appellat; Anathema sit: Here is a heavy Curse fulminated against all those that shall deny any part of this Canon, which not only condemns the two former Opinions, but is likewise extended to all these that deny the Real Presence. And to make it the more plausible, the ●ens of their best Divines are industriously employed, to work their Adherents, and Proselytes, into the Belief of it. So Valerius Reginaldus in part fori p●●ni. L. 29. n. 36. Vasque 3 Part. To. 3. D. 180 nu. 108. & alibi. Ledasn. tra●●. de Euch. C. 6. Concil. 2.3. & passim alii. For is it hereby made an Article of Divine Faith, and all are enjoined to believe it as such, under the most rigorous Commination of being Condemned to the Eternal Flames of Hell Fire, if they call in question this Decree, and Canon of the Council, or any part thereof.   

SECT. II. Other Subtleties arising from the former Decisions not fully determined.  
OTher Difficulties of like nature are frequently discussed by their Divines, but not yet determined by the Church; as First, By what means the Body of Christ is made Corporeally present in the Eucharist? Whether by a new production, really distinct from that which conserveses his Sacred Body in Heaven; or else by a new ubication, which they call adduction? if the first, than the Body and Soul of Christ must be created anew, and the Natural and Hypostatical Unions must terminate new eductive actions, really distinct from those whereby they exist in Heaven. I remember to have Read a Book Written by one Tho. Barton, alias Anderton, an English Jesuit, wherein he earnestly contends to establish this Opinion; but I also heard others of the same Order, to object against him, That according to his Opinion, the Divine Word, would be as often Incarnate again, as there should be Hosts Consecrated; for every Consecration argues a new Incarnation because, though the Hypostatical Union be still the same, yet the action which produceth it, is wholly new. So that the common Opinion of their Divines, is, That all the parts of Christ in the Eucharist acquire only new ubies, or ubications, whereby the Body, the Soul, etc. together with their respective actions (the very same that are in Heaven) are rendered present in the Sacrament, and without leaving their Station in Heaven, they do by every Consecration acquire a new place, and whereas they existed but in one place before, they now exist in two places at the same time.  
Hence ariseth a Second Difficulty relating to the nature of this ubi, whereby the Body of Christ is existent under the Species of bread; and the Question is, Whether it be ubi circumscriptivum, or ubi definitivum? that is, Whether the body of Christ exist in the Eucharist, as it doth in Heaven, having all its parts duly ordered and collocated in their distinct stations, with their natural distances, conjunctions, and contiguities to each other, as human bodies are here framed, so as that the Hand employs one part of the space, the Foot another part, the Head another, etc. or else whether the whole body be in the whole space of the Host, and the same whole body in every distinct part and particle of the Host, as a reasonable Soul is wholly in every part of a Human body: if so, than the Body of Christ, in the Sacrament, hath a definitive ubication, whereby all its parts are penetrated, and so involved and implicated within each other, that an Angel cannot cull out a particle of the Host, how small soever it be, and that no sense can perceive it, but it contains all Christ. And this Opinion they incline to.  
A Third Question occurreth: How long the Body of Christ, together with the Soul, the Divinity, etc. remain in the Consecrated Host? There are various Answers to this Question; but the common gives this Rule, That as long as the natural Species of bread remains in the Host, so long, and no longer the Body of Christ is there present; so that what alteration soever is made in the Host, by natural causes, if the disposition suffer not so much change, as would render it uncapable to sustain the substantial form of bread, so long the Body of Christ remains there; but when by contrary Agents, the last disposition of the form of bread is expelled, than the Body of Christ withdraws, and relinquisheth its ubi, not by a local motion, but by a mere destruction of that ubication, without acquiring any new one, but is reduced to his former ubication, without passing from Earth to Heaven. And though before the destruction of the accidents of bread, the Body of Christ was existent in Heaven, and here on Earth, the same time, yet after that destruction, it exists only in Heaven, and yet never tended, by a local and successive motion, from Earth towards Heaven; nor ever penetrated, the Air, nor the Heavens, to obtain his place in the Imperial Heaven, because it had that place before. This is the sum of their Doctrine.  
These Three Difficulties, though much agitated by their Divines, yet are not fully determined by their Church. Only the Council of Trent touches upon the Second, and Third, but leaves the First to the litigation of the Schoolmen. Of the Second, 
Trid. Con. Sess. 23. Can. 3.  it saith, Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie & sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum contineri, Anathema sit. If any one shall deny in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, all Christ to be contained under each Kind, and under every part of each Kind, after Separation, let him be Accursed. The same is declared, Sess. 23. Cap. 3. & Sess. 21. Cap. 3. which is conformable to the Council of Florence, In Decreto Eugenti ad Armenios'; yet none of these places define the manner how Christ's Body exists in this Sacrament, whether definitively, or Circumspectively, but only assert all Christ to be in each part.  
As to the Third, The Council of Trent decrees the Body of Christ to be present, immediately after Consecration, but resolves nothing, how long it continues there; for thus saith the Council, 
Trid. Sess. 33. Can. 4.  Si quis dixerit peracta consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento, non esse corpus, & sanguinem Domini Nostri Jesus Christi; sed tantum in usu, dum sumitur, non autem ante, vel post, & in hostiis, seu particulis consecratis, quae post Communionem reservantur, vel supersunt, non remanere verum corpus Domini, Anathema sit. If any one shall say, That after Consecration, in the Admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not there, but only in practice, when it is received, yet not before, nor after; and that in the Hosts, or Particles, that are Consecrated, which after Communion are reserved, or left, the true Body of Christ doth not remain, let him be Accursed. This declares when the Body of Christ gins to be present in the Sacrament, but determines nothing, how long it remains there. But since there is no more necessity of defining the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, etc. then of determining those difficulties here proposed; we may groundedly expect in the next general Council a full decision of these nice Questions, by new Canons, and Decrees, and new Articles of Faith, to be framed for the resolution of these and the like doubts.   

SECT. III. The Inutility of Multiplying Definitions of this nature.  
ANd now, if some impartial, and  Judge, were to deliver his Opinion of these, and the like proceed, of the Church of Rome, I would propose to his Consideration,  
First, What Grounds, or Footsteps can be found in Scripture; in the Practice, or Doctrine of Christ, or his Apostles, or in all the Transactions of Antiquity, or the Primitive Church, for so Rigorous, and Comminatorious decision of such subtle and nice Points, under so great a Penalty? and I am sure none can be found.  
Secondly, Cast a glance upon the effects of these new-framed Articles of Faith. What Benefit, or Emolument, doth accrue to Christianity by them? Do the Graces of Christ, flow from the Sacraments, more plentifully, by virtue of those Definitions than they did before? This cannot be alleged; for the measure of Grace, was taxed and determined by Christ, in his Original Institution, with reference to the disposition of the receiver. Do they conduce to the better institution of a Christian Life? Do the Faithful the more adhere to the due observance of God's Law? Do they promote Virtue and Good Life? Do they check the illegal progress of the Licentious? Do they cry down Vice, and Wickedness? Do they add any new Motives to abandon the Old Man, and shun Sensuality? Do they excite to the regulating our Actions, by the Conduct of a just Synderesis, instructed with true Reason, and to reject the suggestion of sense? not the least of these products do issue from them.  
Nay, on the contrary, Do they not add more load to the Consciences of the Faithful? who are bound to Believe what they comprehend not. Do they not enthrall and enslave their Souls to be liable to the Belief of such a long Catalogue of niceties, or else be damned? What a dreadful thing it is, to implicate men's Minds, and Consciences into such an unextricable labyrinth of solicitude, anxiety, and confusion, when they shall consider, that of so many definitions, if they disbelieve but one, though they believe all the rest; nothing remains for them, but the eternal slames of Hell Fire? And yet they are wholly ignorant what it is they ought to believe, for you were as good endeavour to wash a Blackamoor white, as to go about to make the common vulgar of both Sexes capable of the true meaning of those points, which are so remote from sense.  
And, How can they exercise themselves in Virtue, while such anxious scruples, and confusion, clouds their understanding, and casts a damp upon all their vital faculties? Nay, this hath an immediate tendency to despair, for when they consider themselves uncapable of complying with such a Mass of Implex Articles of Faith, and considering their own imbecility, they will be apt to conceive, that they are lost, and that Eternity of Bliss is out of their reach; for, qui erraverit in uno factus est omnium reus: he that errs in one, is made guilty of all; and hence they connaturally fall into desperation.  
Besides, What more hinders the Propagation of the Gospel, than such a multiplicity of Tenets, pretended necessary to Salvation, and yet so full of arduity, and so repugnant to the common course of Nature, which are apt to startle the most credulous? Who would embrace Christianity, if such a bundle of incredible Mysteries were candidly proposed to them, as all necessary to Salvation? which are so destructive of the Laws of Nature; and no Proofs of any of them, but only because the Church of Rome hath defined them. Few or none would deny their Reason, and yield a blind conformity to such, and so many irregular Pardons, as they ought to believe.  
These, and many other such inconveniences, are the products of multiplying so many new Articles of Faith, these are the fatal consequences that thence ensue. And if you consult your Reason, to suggest to you, what benefit is hence expected, or what Motives might induce them, to impose so hard a task upon the Believers: I know none, but a strong propension in the Authors, to carry all things on, with a strong hand, to make their Empire known, and to Lord it over the Flock of Christ.  
But it may be Objected, That the Illiterate shall not need to perplex themselves, for they have a sure refuge to their Implicit Faith, by believing what the Church believeth.  
First, I Answer, That this is a very deordinate and irregular point of Doctrine, to Teach them to regulate their Implicit Faith by the Belief of the Church of Rome; as if this were a surer Rule to walk by, than the Doctrine, the Practice, the Ordination, and Institution of Christ himself. How hot doth this smell of Blasphemy? to put ignorant Souls upon such a preposterous way of Faith, as to prefer the Belief of the Church of Rome, before the Institution of Christ, whereby the Faith of the Church ought to be originally regulated.  
Secondly, I Answer, If any Implicit Faith be sufficient after the definition, than the explicit declaration of so many Articles availeth nothing; for the very same Implicit Faith, that was sufficient before the definition, is sufficient after; then the Councils labour in vain, or rather not in vain; for though their numerous definitions, produce no good effect, yet they have an ample power in producing bad effects, as hath been declared. And thus far I go with them, that in matters of Divine Faith, an implicit in most cases, is sufficient to Salvation, provided it have a reference to that never erring Rule of Christ's Doctrine and Institution; and, What Romanist dares deny this? For, I confidently assert, That an Implicit Faith, regulated by the belief of the Church of Rome, is not sufficient to Salvation; for this Church hath erred, and may err again, as is in this Treatise sufficiently declared, and proved.  
But to show yet more groundedly, That the multiplying of so many Articles of Faith, are wholly useless, and pernicious; let any rational person consider, what strange wonders the Supreme Creator of all things hath wrought, to bring about this great Work of Man's Redemption. The Divine Word took Humane Nature upon him, God became Man, and, a● Man, suffered great indignities, and opposition, and at last suffered death upon a Cross. What was all this for but in order to the Redemption o● Mankind. And after all this, he settled his Church, Instituted Sacraments and Ordained what he deemed necessary, to accomplish his final end. I● it then credible, that having accomplished all other means necessary to this end, he should at last be deficient in the application of those means which would render them all useless Had he no care of his Church, no● Providence for it, in future Ages?  
What need is there then of so many new Articles of Faith? Christ had 〈◊〉 perfect prospect, and a full comprehension of his Church, and all circumstances belonging to it, for all particular times, and ages; and wanted n● power to provide for it in the bes● manner; How then is it possible, tha● any person, endued with Reason, can conceive, that this Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Infinitely Wise, and Provident God, should be deficient, in a work of this Nature? that he should leave this great work of our Redemption imperfect, that he should fail in the complete accomplishment of his Masterpiece? especially considering, that he could with ease provide tunc pro nunc, he could then have provided for all future events, whensoever they should happen.  
And it is as impossible, that he should leave any defects in a design of so high a nature, to be corrected, or supplied by mere Men, that carry their human frailty and imperfections about them; for by this means, such Men would be concauses in the work of our Redemption; and yet Christianity never yet acknowledged any Redeemer but one.  
Wherefore, it is a high presumption to attempt to complete, or perfect Christ's work, or to supply the defects, which we falsely suppose he hath left in it. Nothing is more repugnant to Reason, and nothing more derogates from the infinite Attributes, and high Prerogatives of our Great Redeemer.  
Whence I conclude with this Dilemma: Either Christ Instituted all things necessary to Salvation, or he did not. If not, What then became of all the Primitive Christians, for Eight Hundred years together after Christ? for, in their time, none of those new Doctrines, which are now defined, were yet started.  
Would Christ permit so many Millions, that were all Members of his Church, to perish, for want of necessary means to Salvation? This would reflect upon the Author of Life, and make him a Deluder.  
They must therefore acknowledge, That Christ did Institute in his Church all things necessary to Salvation. If so, Then what necessity is there of so many new definitions? which only serve to pester and encumber men's Minds; because, forsooth, Eternal Damnation must be the reward of them, that deny any one of them, yea, or so much as doubt of the Truth of any them.   

SECT. iv The Objections Solved.  
THe First Objection: According to the Principles of this Discourse, all Councils would be useless, or rather pernicious; for, the main design of Councils is, to decide such doubts, as are promiscuously discussed among the multitude, of whom (without the Authority of a Council) none have power to give a final determination; and therefore Councils have been always in use: there was a Council in the Apostles time; there were several Councils in the Primitive Church. So that this Doctrine wholly swerves from Reason and Antiquity.  
The First Answer: I am no Enemy of Councils, but on the contrary, conceive them of great use, and sometimes necessary for the right Administration of the Church; for certainly many great and good effects depend upon them, when they take their measures right, and truly conceive how far the limits of their power and authority extend. But if Councils transgress their bounds, and submit Christ's Actions to their scrutiny, and therein presume to add or diminish, to alter or change, to correct or amend, any of Christ's Ordinances or Institutions, and so entrench upon jus Divinum, which is above their sphere; and in effect to cry out, in coelum conscendam, similis ero Altissimo: this is a pernicious abuse of their authority; wherefore,  
The Second Answer is; That when Virtue gins to decline, and Vice to abound; when the Clergy grows dissolute, and the Laity stubborn and refractory against their Spiritual Leaders, and Pastors; when the Doctrine and Practice of Christ, and the Primitive Christians, is not fully upheld in its Original Purity, but gins to be offuscated, and to lose its efficacy, by Innovations, and in many other cases of like nature, then are Councils both profitable and necessary, as a Physician is to a sick Patient; then ought they, by their opportune Remedies, to salve the Sores, to make up the breaches, to reform the abuses, and to redintegrate the whole body of the Church, and purge the Wheat, from the Cockle, and Darnel, which by the depraved will of Man, and the suggestion of Satan, began to take root.  
But if Councils should spend their endeavours, 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 Virtue, nor curbs Vice, nor any way conduceth to the institution of a Moral and Christian Life; but on the contrary it puts men's Consciences upon the Rack, it disturbs the peace and quiet of their Minds, it hinders their due application to Virtue and Morality, it perplexes their Souls with Scruples, and disposeth them to despair. In this case, I appeal to the Judgement 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 practice, and manners, etc. 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 Heresiarches 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 Anathematise the Authors, and condemn their Errors, as Heretical, which hath been always practised in the Church with good success, for the extirpating of Heresy, and establishing Orthodox Doctrine.  
To this Objection I Answer, First, That when the Definitions of Councils are grounded in Scripture, in the Doctrine and Practice of Christ, and his Apostles, or otherwise by true Revelations made manifest, to be of Divine Authority, such definitions are warrantable, and useful to extinguish Heresy; but nothing of all this will quadrate with the forecited definitions, of the Church of Rome; which are no way proved by Authority, 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 Heresy, is to evince the Error of it, by solid and convincing Arguments, drawn from Divine Authority, or evident Principles of Reason.  
These are the Arms with which the Ancient Fathers waged War against the respective Heresies of their times: So St. Ambrose with his Preaching, and solid Principles, drew the great St. Augustine from his Heresy, to embrace the Orthodox Doctrine of Christianity; and the same Augustine being fully convinced thereof, with no less industry and zeal, than learning, efficaciously refelled the Errors of the Manichaeans, the Pellagians, the Massilienses, the Donatists, etc. he alleged not the Authority 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 Authority, and strength of Reason, refeled 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 undertake, 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 allege 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 Proof he reduced to this one syllogism:  
Omnis Natura Rationalis Completa est Persona; sed in Christo sunt duae Rationales Naturae completae; ergo duae Personae.  
In English thus:  
All Complete Rational Natures are Persons; but, in Christ, there are two complete Rational Natures; ergo, in Christ there are two Persons.  
With this Argument Nestorius perplexed 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 Heretic, is to Instruct his Reason, and Convince his Judgement, that his Principles are Erroneous; to this end Arguments are to be drawn from Scripture and Divine Authority, seconded by clear and evident Reason, and from these two Premises you may infer a conclusion contradictory to the Error.  
And hereby you increase the Author's Adhesion to his Error: for there are none so obstinate as to deny that which is established by known Divine Authority, 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 backed by Divine Authority, and therefore must be traced immediately from Christ himself; or else attested by those Hagyographers, the old Prophets, Apostles, etc. who were immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, and so could not err; by whose Mediation it must ultimate be resolved into Divine Authority.  
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 mere probability, grounded on a weak foundation of Reason, cum formidine partis oppositae; it is always accompanied with an ambiguity, either formal, or virtual, that the contrary may be true: But Faith, if it be Divine, relies upon Divine Authority; if Human, on Human Authority. For instance; we believe that the Divine Word is Incarnate, because God hath assured it; this is an act of Divine Faith, whose material Object, is the Incarnation of the Divine Word. The formal Object, is Gods asserting of it.  
Whence it ensues, that though Faith have a greater certainty than Science, yet it is destitute of Evidence, as well in attestato, as in attestante, that is, can neither demonstrate by Human Reason, the Revelation itself, nor the Mystery revealed.  
We all agree, that those words, Hoc est corpus menm, were spoken by Christ himself: But we differ in giving the true sense and meaning of them. The surest Rule that may guide us herein, is to consult the Belief of the Primitive Church, they certainly received from the Apostles the true Interpretation of them. For it would derogate from Christ's goodness, and providence, to imprint an erroneous belief, upon the first Professors of Christianity. What then remains? but that we consult Antiquity, and inquire what their belief was of this Mystery. And when this appears, it would be a vain attempt of any one, after a long continued series of Centuries, to start a new Interpretation of those words, for that must needs be an Erroneous Innovation, and Adulterated Doctrine, as repugnant to the general belief of all Christians from Christ's time.  
I should swerve from my intended brevity, should I here cite the several Texts of the ancient Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, in opposition to the Real Presence; for, speaking of the Eucharist, they frequently call it the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; and St. Augustine tells us, 
Aug. de Civit. Dei L. 10. C. 5.  That a Sacrament signifies a Sacred Sign, which cannot be the thing signified. They also call it the Resemblance, the Similitude, the Type, the Antitype; the Symbol, the Sign, the Image, the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ, and consequently not the Body itself.  
Consonant to these expressions of the Fathers, was the Universal Belief of the Church, none positively affirming for above 800 years after Christ, that the Body of our Saviour was really contained in the Sacrament; Though in the year 637, A Monk of Mount Sinai, one Anastasius, among other Contemplations which he had in his Cell, would needs disapprove of the former way of speaking, which had been ever used till his time, and so rejected the expression of Figure, and Antitype; but used no attempt to settle any point of Doctrine, repugnant to the belief of Antiquity.  
Yet, what Anastasius began, by way of altering the Terms, another Monk of Corbie in France, one Paschasius Ratbert, completing by his Doctrine, Taught, That the Body and Blood of Christ, were truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which he declares in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, which he Composed in the Ninth Century after Christ, in the year 818. And for this we have Bellarmine's own Testimony, 
Bellarm. de Script. Eccles.  who acknowledgeth, that Paschasius was the first Author that ever Wrote a serious Treatise of the Truth of the Body and Blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist.  
This Doctrine being then new, (never any before attempting to assert it by any set Treatise) it found great opposition; so that most of the Learnedest Men in those times, employed their endeavours, severally, to oppose it, and cry it down; which Paschasius himself acknowledgeth; for being moved by his intimate Friend Frudegard, 
Paschasias' Epist ad Frudegard. Pag. 623.  about this Doctrine; he Answers him; You question me about a difficulty, whereof many People do doubt (to wit, of the Real Presence) so in his Letter to Frudegard. And in his Commentary upon the 26th of St. Mark, 
Idem. in 26 Matth. L. 12. pag. 1094.  he says, I have Treated of these Mysteries more amply and expressly, because I have been informed that I have been Censured by many; as if in the Book which I Wrote of the Sacrament, and Published, I had attributed to the words of Christ, more than the truth of the words would permit.  
This being a thing so well known in History, I shall not here enlarge upon it; but only reflect upon the Doctrine of one of our own Nation, which is venerable Bede, 
Bede in Luc. C. 22. Idem in Ps. 3. Idem hom. de Sanc. in Epiph. Idem. in Ps. 133. To. 8. Idem de Tahern. L. 2. C. 2. & asibi.  who, in several places of his Works, declares his Opinion against the Real Presence; for he tells us, That our Saviour hath given us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine. And that our Saviour gave to his Disciples, in the Last Supper, the Figure of his Body and Blood. That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, by the ineffable Sactification of the Holy Ghost. That our Saviour changed the Sacrifices of the Legalia into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. And that in lieu of celebrating the Passion of our Saviour in the Flesh and the Blood of Victims, as the Ancients did, we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine.  
These, and the like expressions, (which are frequent in the Works of this Author) do manifestly declare, that in those times, none held the Real Presence, but all believed the Eucharist to be a Figure, or a Sacrament, (that is, a Sign) of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
Hence there arose in the Church a high debate about this new Doctrine; Paschasius got some Abetters of his Opinion; but the greatest number, and the most considerable, vehemently opposed it, as a Novelty; others stood indifferent, expecting the issue; others again held a third Opinion, which, in substance, was Consubstantiation; for they Asserted, The Body of Christ in the Eucharist, to be united to the substance of Bread. The contest about these several Opinions grew fervent, some adhering to the one part, others to the other: and this mutual Contest lasted all the Ninth Century. Whereupon that Great Emperor Charles, Surnamed the Bald, who was then Emperor of Germany, and King of France, finding his Subjects dissected into opposite Parties, and contending against each other, with so much rancour and animosity, resolved to Consult the Learnedest Men he had in his Dominions, upon the Question, which was the ground of the debate. Pursuant to this Resolution, he calls to him one John Scot, whose right Name was Erigene, by Nation an Irishman, or a Scotchman, I am not certain which; This was a person of profound Learning, and eminent Virtue, and therefore highly esteemed by the Emperor, and was vulgarly called, The Holy Philosopher. Another, which the Emperor designed for his intended purpose, was one Bertram, but, by the Writers of his time, was called Retram, which was his true Name. He was a Monk and Priest of the Church of Rome, of the Monastery of Corbie; and afterwards, for his Fame, and rare Parts, was created Abbot of Orbais, who Wrote several Books; and among others, one of Predestination, against Paschasius, whom he Learnedly impugns, and censures him of Heresy. 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 than 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 Virtue 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, etc. 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 Virtue 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 Virtue 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 brief 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 censured, and severely handled, by several Authors, and great Prelates, and especially by the Council of Valentia, for some Dogmatical Points, which he delivered 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 merited 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 infused from Heaven.  
His Fame daily increasing, he was at last called into England by Alfrede, than 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 enriched with wonderful Doctrine, and in the end had the honour 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 Authority 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 Emperor's 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 perished. And consequently it was often moved to have him expunged from the Catalogue of Saints, but without effect, till the time of Baronius, who, alleging, 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 Learnedest, 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 reached 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 Compliance to the Emperor's 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 Monk of the Monastery of Corby: soon after, there arose great difficulties, between Nicholas the First, than 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, than 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 honour, 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 endeavours to establish.  
First, Then, he tells us, That the Bread, which by the Mystery of the Priest, is made the Body of Christ, doth show one thing to the External Senses, and another thing soundeth inwardly to the Mind of Faith. Outwardly the Bread remaineth as it was before, etc. and then he adds of the Wine; The Wine also, which by the Consecration of the Priest, is made the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ, etc. What other thing is superficially looked upon but the substance of Wine? Where he affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to remain in the Sacrament after Consesecration. To this he subjoins: For notwithstanding that after the Mystical Consecration, Bread is not called Bread, nor the Wine, Wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ; yet after that which is seen, neither is any kind of Flesh known in the Bread, nor in the Wine any drop of Blood. Before, he told us, that the Bread and Wine remained in the Sacrament after Consecration, as they were before; now he tells us, That after Consecration, there is not any kind of Flesh, nor one drop of Blood, though the Bread be not called Bread, nor the Wine, Wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ; where he granteth the denomination of the Body and Blood of Christ, but denyeth the verity and substance thereof; for he acknowledgeth nothing but the Bread and Wine, though they be not called so. This in substance he often repeateth, for after the verity (saith he) the kind of creature which was before, is known still to remain. What more conspicuous?  
Then addressing his Discourse to his Adversaries, he tells them, That under the veil of Corporeal Bread and Wine, is the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ. So that the Bread and Wine remain Corporeally, but the Body and Blood of Christ, Spiritually, by their virtue of Sanctification. And then presently, compares this Sacrament to Holy Baptism, wherein the natural Element of Water, which of itself hath only power to wash and cleanse the Body, yet by Christ's Institution is impowered to cleanse and sanctify the Soul, and yet still remains the Natural Element of Water, subject to corruption; and then applies the Water in Baptism to the Bread and Wine in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence he proceeds to another similitude, telling them, That the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea, which produced a Spiritual effect, and yet suffered no Mutation: This again he parallelleth to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Then he tells them, Likewise Manna given to the People from Heaven, and the Water flowing out of the Rock, were Corporeal, and Corporeally they fed the People, and gave them drink; yet the Apostle nameth that Manna, and that Water, Spiritual Meat, and Spiritual Drink; and then he applieth it to the Bread, and Wine, as before, which takes off all ambiguity of his meaning, for he drives at this, that the Bread and Wine, which remain in the Sacrament, though Natural, and Corporeal things, yet by the powerful operation of Christ, they are enabled, to produce in the Souls of the worthy Receivers, the same Spiritual Grace, and Sanctification, as if the Body and Blood of Christ were there really present; and therefore the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ.  
He proceeds farther, saying, Here also we ought to consider what is meant by these words, except you shall eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink his Blood, you shall have no life in you. He said not, That his Flesh which hanged on the Cross, should be eaten in pieces, and eaten of the Apostles; nor that his Blood which he shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink; for it were a wicked thing, if his Flesh should be eaten, and his Blood drunk, as the Infidels took it. And to confirm this, he citys St. Augustine, upon the same Text of Scripture, 
Aug. de Dodr. Christ. L. 3.  of Christ's commands, in these words. He seemeth to command a wicked thing; therefore it is a Figure, etc. Thus St. Augustine affirmeth the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, to be celebrated of the Faithful, under a Figure; for he saith, It is no point of Religion, but rather of Iniquity, to take his Flesh, and his Blood, as they did, which understood not Christ 's words Spiritually, but Carnally, and went back. Then he gives many examples in other like cases, to show, Why the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ, because of the Similitude they have with the things Signified, and so concludeth: Wherefore the Mysteries be named, the Body and Blood of Christ, because they take the appellation of things, whereof they be Sacraments.  
Then he citys several passages out of St. Isidore, to confirm the same Opinion; of whom he saith, Afterwards he declareth, what Sacraments are to be Celebrated among the Faithful; that is, the Sacrament of Baptism, and of the Body and Blood of Christ. And here I desire the Reader to take notice, by the way, that for above Eight hundred years after Christ, there were but these Two Sacraments acknowledged in the Church of Christ, and consequently no more were Instituted by Christ himself. Yet the Church of Rome hath introduced Five more, which Antiquity never heard of, under the notion of Sacraments. Is it credible, that Christ should Institute for his Church Seven Sacraments, and yet communicate to the first Professors of Christianity, and their Successors, for Eight Centuries, the knowledge only of Two of them? This cannot be. The other Five were therefore Instituted by the Church of Rome; for the Council of Trent names Seven, and makes it an Article of Faith to believe them all Sacraments, and lays its Curse upon the Disbelievers. Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis, 
Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 1.  non fuisse omnia à Jesus Christo Domino Nostro Instituta, aut esse plura vel paucior a quam septem, videlicet, Baptismum, Consirmationem, Eucharistiam, Poenitentiam, extremam, Vnctionem, Ordinem, & Matrimonium; aut etiam aliquod horum septem, non esse vere, & propriè Sacramentum; Anathema sit. Which was formerly defined by the Council of Florence, 
Florent. Decr. Eugenii a Arm.  under the same circumstances. What judgement can we here frame? Examine Antiquity for Eight or Nine hundred years after Christ, that can give us no Intelligence of any more than Two Sacraments, and yet the Church of Rome strictly commands the belief of Seven. Certainly the Subjects of that Church must have recourse to their blind obedience, to submit to such Canons and Decrees as these. For if Christ did not Institute those Five pretended Sacraments, (as it is plain he did not) than the Church of Rome must have attempted to institute them, not by appointing the matter, but by giving them the virtue of Sacraments, which is highly presumptive, and a manifest violation of Divine Right; for none but Christ can ordain the means, and the vehicles, whereby he intended to convey his Spiritual Graces (which were the fruits of his Passion) to the Souls of the Faithful; this is his peculiar Prerogative. But this being a digression from the matter in hand, I desist, and leave it to the consideration of the Judicious Reader.  
Bertram now draws to the close of his First Question, Whether the Body and Blood of Christ be contained in the Holy Sacrament in Verity, or in Figure? and concludes with these words, Hitherto have we declared, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are received in the Church, by the mouths of the Faithful, be Figures. And so terminates this First Question.   

SECT. VIII. An Account of the Doctrine of Retram, in reference to the Second Question.  
THe Second Question that was to be resolved by Retram, or Bertram, was this, as he himself declares, Whether the same Body that was Born of Mary, that Suffered, Dyed, was Buried, and sitteth on the Right hand of the Father, be that Body which is daily received in the Church, by the mouths of the Faithful, in the Mystery of the Sacrament, or no? 
Ambr. L. 1 de Sacram.  And first he discourseth out of St. Ambrose, That the substance of the Creatures suffer no Mutation, in these words, For after the substance of the Creatures, they be even the same things after the Consecration, that they were before. For before the Consecration, they were Bread, and Wine, and after they appear to remain in the same kind still. Where his Position is, That the substance of the Creatures are the same after Consecration, that they were before; which he proves thus; Before Consecration, they were Bread and Wine, and after Consecration, they not only appear to remain, but really do remain, in the same kind, still of Bread and Wine; this must be the drift of his Argument, for else it would not prove his intent.  
Then having said, That the Body and Blood of Christ, are not present in form, but in virtue; he applauds a distinction of St. Ambrose: How diligently, and how wisely hath he made a distinction, where be saith, touching the flesh which was Crucisied, and Buried: this is the true Flesh of Christ; but touching that which is received in the Sacrament, he saith, This is the Sacrament of the true Flesh; so dividing the Sacrament of the Flesh, from the very Flesh, etc. But he affirmeth the Mystery which is done in the Church, to be the Sacrament of the very Flesh, in which Christ Suffered, instructing the Faithful, that the Flesh in which Christ Suffered, and was Crucified and Buried, is not a Mystery, but the very Natural Flesh; but this Flesh which now containeth the Similitude of the very Flesh in Mystery, is not Flesh in Kind, nor in Form, but in Sacrament. For, in Kind, it is Bread, etc.  
Hence he proceeds to the Authority of St. Hierome. 
Hieron. in Epistolam Pauli ad Eph.  The Flesh and the Blood of Christ (saith he, St. Hierom) are understood two manner of ways; which he explicates, the one Corporeally, and the other Spiritually. Therefore (saith Bertram) the Spiritual Flesh, and the Spiritual Blood, which are daily received of the Faithful, do differ undoubtedly from the Flesh Crucified, and the Blood shed, as the Authority of this Doctor doth witness. Much to this purpose he discourseth upon the Authority of St. Augustine, 
Aug. in Evangelium Sancti Joan.  distinguishing between the Spiritual Food and the Corporeal Food of the Fathers of the Old Law, comparing them with us. Where he affirms, out of St. Augustine, that their Spiritual Food was the same with ours, the Body of Christ, but the Corporeal Food was very different, as much as the Manna, the Cloud, and the Sea differ from Bread and Wine: Which he confirms by the Authority of St. Paul, speaking of the Ancient Fathers that were Baptised in Moses, in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and they all did eat the same Spiritual Meat, and drank the same Spiritual Drink, which he concludes to be Christ in a Figure, as it is with us in the Sacrament, where he saith Christ is, in a certain manner, and this manner is in Figure and Image. Hence he draws this Illation; Wherefore the Body and Blood, that we now celebrate in the Church, do differ from the Body, and the Blood, which are now known to be glorified by the Resurrection; This Body is the Pledge, and the Figure, the other is the very Natural Body. And presently he adds, And as the Figure differeth from the verity, thus it is plain, that the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is received of the Faithful, in the Church, differeth from the said Body, that was Born of Mary the Virgin, etc.  
Then he citys St. Austin's words, Preaching to the People of the Body and Blood of Christ. The thing which you see in the Altar of God (saith St. Austin) was seen of you the last night; 
Aug. Serm. ad Populum.  but what it is, or what it meaneth, or of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament, ye have not yet heard. The thing which you see is Bread and Wine. He than tells them, That by Faith they ought to believe, the Bread to be the Body, and the Wine to be the Blood of Christ. And then he makes them object, that the Body of Christ that was Born of the Virgin, etc. with his Blood, Ascended entirely into Heaven, where he now is; How then can this Bread be his Body, and this Wine his Blood? St. Austin Answers, These, good Brethren, be called Sacraments, because that one thing is seen in them, and another thing understood; that which is seen, hath a Corporeal form, and that which is not seen hath a Spiritual Fruit. Whereupon Bertram adds, In these words, this worshipful Author instructing us, what we ought to think of the proper Body of the Lord, that was Born of Mary, etc. Also what we ought to think of the Body set on the Altar, whereof the People be partakers. The very Body is whole, and not divided with any Section, neither covered with any Figures; but this Body set on the Table of the Lord, is a Figure, because it is a Sacrament. And again, Therefore St. Austin hath Taught us, that as the Body of Christ is signified in the Bread, which is on the Altar, so is the Body of the People that receive it.  
Then Addressing his Discover to the Emperor, he saith, Your Wisdom (most excellent Prince) may perceive, that I have proved, by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture, and of the Holy Fathers, that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ, and the Cup called his Blood, is a Figure, because it is a Mystery. And that there is no small difference between the Mystical Body, and the Body that Suffered, was Buried, and Rose again; for this which suffered, is the proper Body of our Saviour; neither in it is any Figure, or Signification, but the manifest action of the thing itself, etc.  
And thus he concludes his Answer to the Emperor, insisting all along upon this Truth, That in this Holy Sacrament is contained the same Bread, and Wine, that was before, which are called the Body and Blood of Christ, because they Mystically, and Figuratively, signify the same, and are Received by the Faithful, by way of Commemoration of Christ's Passion, and by virtue of Christ's Institution, they Sanctify the Receiver; but still denies, that the True Body and Blood of Christ, which was Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered, etc. is in Verity, or Reality, present in this Sacrament, but only Figuratively, and Mystically.   

SECT. IX. Animadversions on the Premises.  
WE have seen the Opinion of those Two Champions of the Church of Christ, which were Consulted by Charles the Emperor. To whom I might add many more Abbots, Bishops, and Archbishops, and the most eminent Persons of those times, for Learning and Virtue, but this would be too prolix, and contrary to my Design.  
But, in the First place let us reflect, that after Retram had Written his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ, How all the Bishops and Prelates of France, could precedently elect him, in a matter of so great consequence, to defend the Latin Church against the Pretensions of the Greeks, and rely chief upon his management of it? Especially since Pope Nicholas the First (who had excited them to this Debate) approved of their Choice; for, had they found any flaw in his Doctrine, as not conformable to the Ancient Belief of the Church, they might with Reason have suspected, that he might have vented some other error in his Disputes with the Greeck Church, which would utterly have ruined their Cause. But no such thing was surmised of him, nor objected against him: whence we may certainly infer, That all the Bishops and Prelates of the Gallican Church, yea, and the Pope also, were of his Opinion in the Doctrine of the Eucharist. To this we may add, That Pope Adrian the Second (who also Governed the Church, during this Debate) never opposed himself against the Doctrine of Retram, nor never Reprehended him for it, which, notwithstanding, he ought to have done, had he deemed it any way Heterodox. 
Gratian. in in Decret. dist. 82. C. Error.  For, as Gratian tells us, He approves an Error, which he doth not oppose: especially if by his Office he ought to do it. And because during this Ninth Century, there were so few that adher'd to the Doctrine of Paschasius, it seemed very inconsiderable, and like to die of itself, for want of support, and therefore was prudently not reflected upon. Whence we may safely conclude, that the General Belief of the Church, till almost Nine Hundred years after Christ, was conformable to the Doctrine of Retram, and of John Erigéne, who denied the Existence of Christ's Body and Blood, in the Holy Sacrament, in Verity and Reality; and admitted it Virtually, Figuratively, and by way of a Sacrament. Which belief maugre all the Anathemaes of the Church of Rome, is lineally descended from Christ, and his Apostles, to these our times, and is the general persuasion of the Protestant Church of England, and conformable to the Nine and Thirty Articles.  
Seconly, Consider, which of these two Dogmatical Assertions is most like to be the genuine and legitimate offspring of Christ, either that which drew his Origine immediately from Christ and his Apostles, and hath kept possession ever since; or the other, that was not started till Eight Hundred years after, and knows no other Progenitor but Paschasius? The first certainly will appear to the  judgement of all, to be Legitimate; and the second Spurious, and Adulterate.  
But Thirdly, Here is yet a higher Point, which presents itself to our consideration. We all believe that the Divine Word, pursuant to his efficacious Decree, became Incarnate chief for this end, That, in Human Nature, he might Redeem Mankind; he accomplished this end, by a cruel Death, and other Indignities, which he suffered, and thereby satisfied for our Transgressions, and Merited for us an infinite Treasure of Graces; and to the end that Mankind might participate of this ineffable benefit, for all future ages, he instituted a Church, ordained Sacraments, to convey those Graces to our Souls. He Instructed those, that were to initiate his Church, in his Divine Doctrine; he gave them his Heavenly Precepts, etc.  
Whence I appeal to the impartial and  judgements, both of Men and Angels, whether it be probable, or credible, that this Supreme Artificer instructed with all his infinite Attributes of an illimited Knowledge, Power, Wisdom, Providence, etc. should leave this great Work of our Redemption (which was his Masterpiece) imperfect, and incomplete; yea, contaminated with gross Errors, and Heresies, in its first Foundation, in a matter of such high moment, which concerned his most Sacred Body, and Blood, and was destructive of the Essentials, of one of those two Sacraments, which he had ordained, and the Principal for Dignity, and permit its progress in this erroneous Doctrine, for Eight Hundred years together, which would have had a direct tendency to confusion, and finally, to the utter ruin and dissolution of his Church, and so frustrate the final end of his Incarnation? And that after so many Centuries, one Paschasius Rathert, a Monk, should start up from his Cell, and pretend to Correct this Error, and hereby to perfect and amend the work of the Omnipotent, as if Christ would not, or could not have done it of himself. Is this, I say, credible? or, Would it not highly derogate from the Dignity of the Divine Person, and the infinite Attributes of our great. Lord and Master? What then must we conclude? But that this belief of the Body, and Blood of Christ, which took its Origine from the Primitive Institution of Christianity, was True, Orthodox, and Catholic Doctrine; so that Christ accomplished the design which he had undertaken, perfectly and completely, and so remitted it to Posterity, without either spot or blemish.  
And if you desire Precedents, do but cast a compendious glance, upon all the former products of the Omnipotent hand of God. The Frame of this Universe was Projected and Created by God himself, who having produced it, he saw that it was very good; that is, perfect, and complete. He Created the Angels, with all the Natural Perfections due to the excellency of their Nature; no accomplishment was wanting: and moreover, in their first Creation, imbued them with Supernatural Grace, and gave them a Title to Glory, Simul in eyes condens naturam, 
Aug. l. 12. de Civit. C. 9  & largiens gratiam, saith St. Austin. The same saith St. Gregory, in his Morals, and others. Man was likewise produced in his full perfection, and his Soul, in its first Creation, was embellished with Sactifying Grace, and Original Justice. The Superior Orbs were Created, and placed in their respective Spheres, with all the Accomplishment of Perfection proper to their Nature, with due Subordination, conducing to the good and preservation of the Universe; their Natural Motion was imprinted into them in their first Creation, which still remains immutable, though probably their rapt motion be regulated by the Ministry of Angels. And in this sublunary World, there is not one Species, but in its first being, received all the Perfections, which were appropriated to its kind. So that all the Works of God were perfect and complete; though some of the Angels, 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 Abridged, nor his Will Changed; 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 beginning till that time.  
And hence is evinced the falsity of that Erroneous Doctrine, that asserts the Literal, and Oral Manducation of Christ's glorified Body in the Communion; for if that Glorified Body be not Actually, Really, Physically, and Locally present in the Eucharist, than the Receiver cannot exercise any such Oral Manducation of it. Wherefore this Position is repugnant to Authority of Scripture, and Fathers; it is against Antiquity, and Reason.  
The Church of Rome was once Immaculate, and retained 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, Usurped 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 confused Chaos, retaining some things of Christ's Institution, commixed with others of their own Human Invention, and so have lost that Purity and Perfection, which once they enjoyed; 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 Practice 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 Controversy.  
Sect. IU. 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 Controversy.  
Sect. II. The Practice of Antiquity in the Collation of Priesthood.  
Sect. III. A brief account of the Rituals of the Greeks, Maronites, etc.  
Sect. iv Showing, that the Church of Rome placeth the Essence of the Ordination of Priests in touching the Vessels, and the Form annexed to it.  
Sect. V The Order of Priesthood, according to the present Institution, cannot be validly conferred, by touching the Vessels, with this Form, Accipe potestatem, etc.  
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 Proofs 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 Controversy.  
Sect. III. The Objections Solved.  
Sect. IV. Corollaries 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 Rome's Definitions concerning the Real Presence.  
Sect. II. Other Subtleties arising from the former Decisions, not fully determined.  
Sect. III. The Inutility of multiplying Definitions of this Nature.  
Sect. IU. The Objections Solved.  
Sect. V. When, and from whom, this Doctrine of the Real Presence took its first rise.  
Sect. VI A Brief 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.