in the divine operation of Christs bedy and bloud And c. 8. putting a distinction between Priest and Deacon he says The one consecrates and the other disposes or distributes the one sanctifies the things offered the other distributes the things sanctified S. Cyprian Epist 54. ad Cornel. says Priests do daily celebrate sacrifices to God And Epist 66. ad Furnesses Each one honoured with divine Priest-hood and constituted in Clerical Ministery ought only to serve the Altar and sacrifices and attend to prayers S. Hierome Dialogo cum Lucifer c. 8. Hilarius a Deacon only could not make the Eucharist not having Bishops nor Preists for it is not a Church which has no Priests This is more manifest in the Priests ordination as it is expresly declared in the Florentine Councel the form whereof is Receive the Power of offering sacrifice to God for the living and dead whence we may note this is no new constitution but a declaration to the Armenians of the Roman use and manner of Ordination for which the Roman Pontifical is alledged which was long before this Councel and was in use in all the Western parts and Ordo Romanus made by Pope Gelasius in the year 496. which as Alcuinus notes in 2. par de divinis officiis has the same form which also S. Ambrose insinuates in 1 Epist ad Tim. c. 4. where he speaks of himself saying when I was ordained Priest whereby I was designed for the work and received Authority that I durst in our Lords stead to offer sacrifice to God S. Clement lib. constit Apost cap. 24. Look down upon thy servant elected and fill him with the holy Ghost that he may perform the immaculate sacrifice for thy people but what is more our Saviour himself in his last Supper ordained his Disciples in the same form Do this in my remembrance whereby our Saviour gave power to his Disciples to do that is to make or offer the same sacrifice as he had done as I have declared in the first chapter § 3. Our Reformers have mainly endeavoured to take away the true and proper sacrifice of the Masse and consequently to take away the Evangelicall Priesthood which by continuall succession even from the Apostles times yea from Christ himself hath always continued in the Catholick Church and to this end the Parliament of England in the nonage of King Edward the 6. invented a new form or ordination and commanded that none should give any Orders but in the form prescribed which was repealed by Queen Mary and again renewed by Queen Elizabeth in the 8. yeare of her Reign To speak only of Priesthood which principally makes to our present purpose our Catholick Doctors and Controvertists did oppose against their Ordination of Priesthood by several reasons and first that they had no lawful Ministers of their order that is no proper and true Bishops and consequently no true ordination which is clearly proved by Erastus senior in his Scholasticall Demonstration printed in the year 1662. which I wave and go to the second Reason Which is that the form of Ordination newly invented is no true form nor ever used in the Church nor no essentiall part necessarily required in the act of giving or ministring holy orders to make this more clear we may note that in the Sacrament of Orders there is required a sensible sign which Divines call the materiall part and the application of this sensible sign to the signification of what is signed which is the formal part To our purpose the Imposition of hands by the Bishop may well be said to be the materiall part of the Sacrament for of it self it is indifferent to Episcopacy Priesthood or Deacon-ship nay to other spiritual effects as of Confirmation yea of remission and absolution and is necessarily determined and appropriated to this or that effect by certain words expressing the power and nature of this or that Order In this all Catholicks do agree and some of your Learned Protestants acknowledge M. Mason one who hath written purposely of this Subject lib. 2. cap. 16. Impositionem manuum ut signum ordinis sensibile amplectimur forma sensibilis sita est in verbis quae preferuntur dum signum sensibile exhibetur We embrace Imposition of hands as the sensible signe of order The essential form consists in words which are spoken whilst the sensible signe is used in which also those who reformed the Roman Ordination did agree when retaining the imposition of hands they invented a new form never used before in Gods Church nor yet coming home to the purpose for no words can be said to be the true form of any Sacrament which does not determine the sensible signe to its proper effect or office In the Ordination of Priesthood it must signifie the grace and power which is given to him that receives the Order of Priesthood so the foresaid Mr Mason Istius modo verba quatenus de notant datam potestatem sunt illius forma essentialis The learned Bishop of Derry in Ireland in his book of the Consecration and succession of Protestant Bishops page 226. comes more home saying The form or words whereby men are made Priests must express power to consecrate or make present Christs body and bloud c. for we have no difference with the Romanists in this particular They who are ordained priests ought to have power to consecrate the Sacraments of Christs body and bloud that is to make it present Doctour Sparrow is of the same opinion as is noted in the said Liturgicall Discourse part 1. cap. 26. and Doctour Thorndike in his book of Just weights and measures cap. 21. All Ordination tends to the celebration and communion of the Eucharist as well that of Bishops to the end that they may ordain the other Orders and that of Deacons that they may wait upon the celebration of it As that of Priests that receiving the power of the keyes to warrant the effect of it they may therefore have power to celebrate it Surely the present English Church must be of the same judgment when only those who are ordained Priests have authority to consecrate the Eucharist which is their peculiar proper and principall office belonging to none other the Power and authority to them in this cannot be from any humane authority but divine which comes unto us by the work of the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament Now in the Form of Ordination invented by order of Parliament in the time of King Edward the 6. and used since in Queen Elizabeths time no such power is expressed for all the words savour more of jurisdiction or execution of what follows the nature of the order of Priesthood without which the rest is of no Force for without the power ex vi ordinis no actions ex vi officii are authentical or valuable for as Mr Mason well says l. 2. c. 16. Non verba quaelibet huic instituto inserviunt sed quae ad ordinis conferendi potestatem
the words This is my Body by the word Body which they believe in another sense do not consecrate Matrimony with the same words and matter If by the word Wife they both or either of them understand Concubine is no Matrimony When then the Bishop intends not to ordain as a sacrificing priest but intends the the contrary his act is ineffectual for according to the Doctrine of Christs Church the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Bloud of Christ and the remitting and retaining of sins is so annexed to the order of Priesthood that Priesthood cannot be without it and therefore he that intends to give Priesthood without gives nothing at all To conclude the Church of England has excluded Ordination out of the number of Sacraments and withall rejected the Papall power one may question then what power or authority they have to give Orders but principally from whence they have any authority or power to give them power to execute any offices belonging to Priesthood It cannot be said to be from the words which are not Sacramental and consequently being no Sacrament have no Institution from Christ for that end Moreover it cannot be said to be from the Church for the Church can give no such authority but by the Sacraments and the Reformed Ministers have no authority from the visible Catholick Church or Pope or Metropolitan which they professedly reject and disclaim for Ordination is a spiritual power which tends to spiritual effects Doctor Heylin Eccles Restit in his Preface Queen Elizabeth looked upon her self as the sole sountain of both Jurisdictions and the Act. 1. Eliz. 1. declares the Kings supremacy to use and exercise all such Jurisdictions spiritual and ecclesinstical as by any spiritual and ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be used over the Ecclesiastical state of this Realm yet as Doctor Bramhall well says pag. 63. The power of the Keys was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles and their Successors not to Soveraign Princes Many of our Protestant Divines and learned Doctours did well consider this Difficulty and therefore most of them do admit that Ordination is a Sacrament and consequently they ground their Ordination on the authority of the former Catholick Bishops who in a Sacramental power did ordain them who according to Dr Brevent were all Idolaters and unlawful Ministers of the Sacraments except only Baptism in extreme necessity so that they have no right to any Ordination but by vertue of the Sacrament which cannot take effect unless it be dnely administred by lawful power and in due form From which I inferr that our Reformers in taking away and rejecting the sacrifice of the Mass have also rejected the Priesthood whose principal office is to offer sacrifice and consequently they have no true Ordination In fine no Sacrifice no Priest no Priest no Sacrifice wherefore call the Ministers Priests or what you will if they have not the office and power to consecrate and offer sacrifice they are no Priests properly taking the word priest or according to the common sense and use of the Catholick Church in all ages and times yea among Heathens and Infidels whence it follows that as our Reformers have framed a new Religion so they have invented a new priesthood never heard of before giving no other power then to preach and dispense the Sacraments which may be committed or done by Deacons or Lay-men as all Ecclesiasticall histories do testifie on this ground and other defects in their Ordination the present Catholick Church makes no scriple notwithstanding their pretanded Ordination to ordain or give Orders to those who being converted and reconciled to the said Catholick Church shall humbly defire it I know some will say that this cannot be done without Sacriledge for even in the Doctrine of the Universal Church Re-ordinations as also Re-baptizations are esteemed sacrilegious whence frequently those who were baptized or ordained by heretical priests or Bishops were not rebaptized nor re-ordained In consideration hereof the now Church of England does not re-baptize nor re-ordain priests coming to their communion but permits them to remain in the Order received and approves of them in all their function and power as if they had been ordained by Protestant Bishops This Subject would require a longer Discourse then my brevity will permit I will therefore briefly conclude this Chapter The Catholick Church hath always detested both Rebaptization and Reordination but never made difficulty to Baptize or Ordain some who falsly pretended to have been Baptized or Ordained when really they were not We have a plain Declaration of this in the Councel of Nice Can. 19. where those who were baptized by the Paulianists were absolutely to be Baptized because they were not Baptized in the right Form of Baptism to wit by the Invocation of the holy Trinity The Decree of the Apostles Can. 68. declares that baptized or ordained by Hereticks were neither Baptized nor ordained which as Caranzen notes is to be understood of such Hereticks who did not observe the right Form in ministring the Sacraments The Church whensoever it was manifest that the Ordainers had not lawful power or did corrupt or alter the form of Ordination judged that what they had done was Null and of no force and did simply and plainly ordain them But if upon due examination it were found that the heretical Bishops were formerly ordained by Catholick Bishops who observed the true form of the sacrament those who received orders from them and were otherwise fitting for it were received without any new Ordination only new power was given unto them for the execution of such and such Orers for as the learned Doctour Morinus de sacris Ordinat par 3. Eccercit 5. 6. well notes It may be admitted that such do receive a Character even those who are ordained against the Canons but so that the vertue of the Character is dulled or blunted not capable or not fit for action the Ancients did esteem Ordination Canonically given could never be blotted out but that its force or vertue by deposition might be repressed or dulled that it could not produce any other Ordination which may be confirmed by the common Doctrine of the Church which teaches that a Priest notwithstanding his Character received in some causes cannot give either lawfully or validly absolution As for that which is added concerning the use of the now English Church whch re-ordains not priests coming to it all men know that according to their Opinion it would be very Sacrilegious for no true Protestant will deny but that Catholick Ordination is valid and of Real force giving all power and vertue belonging to a Priest which to deny would be destructive to their pretended Hierarchy which has no other Foundation for its succession then that their Priests and Biships were so ordained The true state of the Case is the Catholick Church in such case Ordains those who were never truly
banquet when thou doest enjoy the bread and cup of life thou doest eat and drink the body and bloud of our Lord then our Lord enters under thy roof thou therefore then humbling thy self imitate the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof 203. Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcionem The bread which he took in his hand he made his body saying This is my body And lib. de Resurrectione carnis The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be replenished and filled with God 186. S. Jrenaus lib. 4. cap. 35. How shall it be manifest to them that the bread on which thanks are given is the body of the Lord and the Chalice of his bloud if they say be is not the son of the Creatour of the wrrld the saint makes an argument of Christ being the Son of God from the holy Mysteries of the Mass and Eucharist 150. S. Justin Martyr in Apolog. ad Antomin We do not take it as common bread nor this as common drink but as by the word of God our Saviour Jesus Christ was incarnate and took both flesh and bloud for our Salvation so also by the prayers of the word of God we are taught that the Eucharist being made our food by him whereby our bloud and flesh may be nourished by mutation is the flesh and bloud of the same Jesus incarnate 71. S. Ignatius Martyr as Theodoretus Dial. 3. in his epist ad Sawnon They do n t admit Eucharists and Oblations because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our sins which the Father through his bounty raised again S. Dionise about the same time I. de Eccl. Hierarch par 3. c. 3. O most divine and holy sacrament vouchsafe to open the coverings of those significant signs which overshadow thee and appear plain to us and fill our spiritual eyes with the singular and clear shining of thy Light By these authorities of the holy Fathers the faith of the Church in those first five hundred years is made manifest so that none with reason can doubt of the real presence of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist unless he will altogether dissent from Christs Church in those primitive times and say that Christ never had a true Church upon earth in which number Doctor Brevent is not to be reckoned for he ingeniously admits a true Church for five hundred years after Christ which admitted the real presence whereto the miracles which he scoffingly rehearses do necessarily follow as I said before to the being of Christ Jesus in the Sacrament To begin therefore with his first miracle which is that the bread is distroyed in a moment pray cannot he who gives it a being take it away when he pleases did not the same God turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt take away or destroy or bring to nothing her humane form and nature in a moment was not the form of Moses â—â—d nature and substance destroyed in a moment was not the water when Christ turned it into wine wholly destroyed moreover this destruction follows the nature of all conversions either partial or total no new form is introduced but as the former is destroyed no total substance is produced but when the total substance precedent is also destroyed If then the body of Christ be by the power of the omnipotent God introduced or produced in the place of bread as the holy Catholick Church always taught us according to the testimonies now alledged and this shall be more manifested in the Chapter of transubstantiation it necessarily follows that the precedent substance be destroyed or brought to nothing so that this decision or not being of bread and wine proceeds ex necessitate miraculi from the real presence of Christs body and bloud in the Blessed Sacrament and so is no new miracle but the same with the former The second miracle which he jeers at is the being of the accidents of bread and wine without a subject which is not only possible but also is actually in the Eucharist as is sufficiently declared in the Liturgical discourse part 2. sect 3. cap. 9. whereto I may add the Authority of great S. Basil hom 6. Hexam S. Gregory orat in Diem Dominic and Theodoret when they affirm that the quality of light in its Creation was without a subject until the Sun was created and certain it is that accidents by the power of God may be preserved without a subject for he that gives a being in such or such manner can give them another as actually he has done in the Eucharist where quantity alone is preserved without a subject in which all other accidents as qualities c. are immediatly although by the same omnipotent power they also may be conserved without quantity and that it is so in the Eucharist has always been believed in the Catholick Church as in the precedent testimonies plainly appears when the holy Fathers affirm that the body and bloud of Christ is contained in the species of bread and wine whence the Councel of Constance sess 8. condemned that proposition of Wickliff who held that the Accidents of the Bread did not remain without a subject as heretical Moreover this miracle necessarily follows the Mystery of the real presence inasmuch as it is a sacrament for it would not be a sacrament if there were not in a visible form the essence of a sacrament consisting in a visible sign of some invisible thing The Eucharist therefore being a sacrament and containing the invisible body of Christ necessarily requires a visible signe S. Chrysostome hom 60. ad Populum Antioch and Hom. 83. in Mat. says If thou wert incorporeal God would have given thee plain and incorporeal gifts themselves but because the soul is joyned to the body he has given thee intelligible things in sensible things and a little before sith the word said This is my body we do assent and believe and with our intellectual eyes behold him for Christ has given 〈◊〉 nothing sensible but all intelligible things inâ—â—â—â— in sensible things It was therefore most congruous to the divine providence most agreeable to the nature of this mystical sacrament and most proper to our humane nature that Christ instituted this sacrament under the form of bread for as Christ is the true bread of life so he gave us his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine whence S. Cyprean Ser. de Coena Domin The bread which he gave to his Disciples changed not in Essigies or resemblance but in nature is made flesh by the Omnipotency of the word as in the person of Christ the humane nature was seen and the Divinity lay hid so in the visible sacrament the divine essence diffused it self Give me leave good Reader to set down the words of Theophilact Archbishop of Bulgary and no mean interpreter of the sacred Text who in Mark cap. 14. This
cap. 1. As often as we celebrate the Eucharist so often we offer Christ in mystery and do immolate or slay him in sacrificing by way of commemoration or representation if this be so I pray let him tell me who doth do this but the Priest for none but such even amongst them have authority or power to do it yet this is not included either in dispensing the word or the Sacraments for to offer Christ in Mystery or immolate him requires other authority and that from his Ordination or not at all In the same book cap. 3. If by an unbloudy manner you mean a mysticall and Sacramentall manner I am not against it because the shedding of Christs bloud on the Cross was reall in the last supper only mysticall and Sacrament all And again cap. 5. The holy supper may be called a sacrifice Eucharisticall or mysticall in which the sacrifice of the Cross is both represented and offered in a mystery that is Sacramentally who does this but a Priest who offers this sacrifice Sacramentally or by whom is the sheding of Christs bloud in a mysticall and Sacramentall manner most of your learned men as is said already attribute to Ordination or the power given to consecrate which is more then M. Mason allows to his Priesthood I know not how M. Mason will reconcile himself lib. 4. cap. 14. where he in the name of the Protestant Church declares We acknowledg no proper external sacrifice of the new Testament besides that which Christ himself in his own person once Immolated on the Cross Insomuch saith he that if a Romish Priest become a Protestant he must renounce the power of sacrificing redeuntes sacerdotes sacrificandi potestatem nostra opinione impiam sacrilegam deponere repudiare debere decernimus We judge or hold that such Priests as return from the Roman to the English Church ought to depose and repudiate the power of sacrificing in our opinion impious and sacrilegious What Sr is it impious or sacrilegious to celebrate the Lords supper to offer or immolate in sacrifice this if you may be believed you often say if the holy supper be a sacrifice sure it is external if Christs bloud be shed in a sacramental way sure it is externally for all sacraments are external signs if all this be impious and sacrilegious all your Ministers are impious and sacrilegious for that they without power do attempt to consecrate and offer and immolate Christ Doctour Sparrow worthily bearing the title of Bishop of Exeter in his Rationale pag. 309. admits this saying According to the usuall acception of the word Priest it signifies him that offers up a Sacrifice and proves it because the Ministers of the Gospel have a sacrifice to offer viz the unbloudy sacrifice as it was anciently called the Commemorative sacrifice of the Death of Christ which does as really and truely shew forth the death of Christ as those sacrifices under the law did foreshew it and in respect of the sacrifice of the Eucharist the Ancients have usually called those that did offer it up Priests who as he says afterward are to offer that holy Bread and Wine the Body and Bloud of Christ he confirms this by the Prophesies of Esay cap. 66. v. 21. I will take of them to be Priests and Levites saith our Lord that is of the Gentills and Jeremie cap. 33. v. 18. And of Priests and Levites there shall not fail from before my face a man to offer Holocausts where sayes the Doctour they prophesy of the times of the Gospel as will appear by the context and ancient exposition to wit of the Interpreters on those places From what has been said it is manifest from the Texts of the whole Fathers above-alledged that the proper office of a Priest is to offer sacrifice the present Church of England hath put in the name Priest in their form of Ordination and consequently must admit a sacrifice which he is to offer otherwise they should take the word Priest equivocally not properly in its right signification or sense of the Catholick Church and consequently it follows that they have no true Prie thood amongst them for it is manifest that neither he that ordains nor he that is ordained do intend to consecrate or to be consecrated a sacrificing Priest for their Intentions are directly contrary insomuch as Mr Mason as is said before tels us that such priests as return from the Roman to the English Church ought to depose and repudiate the power of sacrificing whereas the Councel of Trent Sess 23. Can. 1. puts an Anathema on any one who should say that in the new Testament there is no visible or extern Priesthood or not some power of consecrating and offering the true Body and bloud of our Lord and of remitting and retaining sins but only an office and bare Ministery of the Gospel or those who do not preach not to be Priests at all And Cap. 1. of the same session sacrifice and Priesthood are so conjoyned by Gods ordination that both have been in every law when therefore the Catholick Church hath received from the first Institution in the new Testament the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist we must acknowledge to be in it a new visible and extern priesthood into which the old Priesthood is translated which the sacred letter doth also shew and the Tradition of the Catholick Church hath always taught this to have been instituted by the same Lord our Saviour and to the Apostles and their successors in Priesthood power given to consecrate offer and minister his Body and bloud and also of remitting and retaining fins The same Councel Sess 7. Can. 11. If any shall say that in the Ministers when they make or confer the Sacraments Intention is not required at least of doing what the Church does be he Anathema The Councel of Florence Decreto Eugenij says Sacraments are performed by three things to wit by some thing as matter by words as form and by the person of a Minister conferring the Sacrament with intention of doing what the Church doth if any of these be wanting the Sacrament is not perfect Even natural reason teaching this for as S. Thomas 3. quaest 64. Artic. 8. ad 1. The Minister because he is a living Instrument ought to apply himself by Intention whereby he intends to do what Christ and his Church doth It is also certain that an ill intention vitiates a good work and a perverse Intention alters the nature of humane actions which also is true in Sacramentall actions for example he that pretends to Baptize If his intention be not to baptize or takes the word baptize only as it signifies a lotion or washing from corporal filth does not rightly baptize nor do 〈◊〉 Church doth In like manner he that says the words absolvo te a peccatis If he intends not to absolve him or for sins understands temporal debts absolves not The Protestants who intend not to consecrate Christs Body by