sacrifice which is used by Christians on the holy Altars is not only offered to God the Father but also with common devotion to the Son 239. S. Fabian Pope and Martyr declared that the sacrifice is not to be admitted from the hands of a Priest who cannot perform the prayers or actions or other observances of the Mass according to the rites of the Church 175. S. Soter Pope and martyr determined that when the Priests consecrated the holy Mysteries in the time of the Masses if it happened by any accident of sicknesse that the Mystery began could not be accomplished it should be supplyed by some other Priest Again he ordained that none should presume to celebrate Mass after meat or drink how little soever it were as also that none of the Priests should presume to celebrate the solemnity of Masses without two being present to answer him 273. Foelix Pope and Martyr Epist 2. ad Episcop Galliae declared that in a synod he had commanded them and all Churches that Masses should be celebrated on the memory of Martyrs 145. S. Higgine Pope and Martyr ordained that all Churches should always be consecrated with Mass Evaristus also Pope and Martyr witnesse Ivo and Burchard had ordained the same 142. S. Telesphore Pope and Martyr in his Epistle to all Bishops Cap. 2. ordained three Masses to be said on Chrismass day one at midnight 121. Alexander Pope and Martyr Epist 1. ad omnes orthod sayes Veritie it self has instructed us to offer the Chalice and bread in the Sacrament when he said Jesus took bread and blessed and gave to his Disciples saying take ye and eat for this is my body which is delivered for you In like manner the Chalice c. for by these sacrifices offered to our Lord crimes and sinns are blotted out and therefore his Passion is to be remembred whereby we are redeemed and often recited and these offered to our Lord our Lord is delighted and pleased with such hosts and great sins are demitted for can there be in sacrifices a greater thing then the body and bloud of Christ Neither can there be any Oblation better then this for this excells all which is to be offered to our Lord with a pure conscience and to be taken with a pure minde and to be honoured by all and as it is better then all other so it ought rather to be honoured and worshiped The same Saint sayes In the Oblation of the Sacraments which are offered within the solemnity of Masses the Passion of our Lord is to be added that the Passion of him whose body and bloud is made may be celebrated so that setting aside all superstitious opinions Bread only and wine mixed with water are to be offered in the sacrifice for as we have received from our Fathers and reason it self teaches wine alone or water alone is not to be offered in the Chalice of our Lord but both mixt because we reade that both did flow from his side in his Passion To omit others I shall conclude with S. Clement Pope and Martyr l. 6. constit Apostat 23. for a bloudy sacrifice Christ gave a rational and Incruental and that Mystical sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lord which is celebrated as a symbole of his death I know some of our adversaries will call in question some of these Decrees but setting aside all other disputes the practise of the Church from thence even to our times and the use of most of them in the liturgies before mentioned will sufficiently convince the truth of them let us now see whether the holy Councells of those times will manifest the same Councels 505. I Shall begin with the Agathen Councel within the fifth hundred year which can 14. ordains that the Altars are to be consecrated not only with the unction of Chrism but also by the sacerdotal benediction Can. 21. allows Masses in private Oratories but commands that in principal feasts all should hear Mass in the Parochial Churches and can 47. commands all seculars to hear Mass on Sundays 482. The first Councel at Tours Can. 2. forbids married or luxurious priests to offer sacrifice to God or to minister to the people 420. The last Councel of Carthage cap. 3. declares that it is not lawful for a priest to reconcile any one in the publick Mass 416. The second Melevitan Councel cap. 12. ordains that none should celebrate prayers or Orisons or Masses or Praefations or commendations or Imposition of hands which were not approved in Councels 398. The fourth Councel of Carthage in the first 6. Canons plainly shews the holy Orders to have reference to the due celebration of Mass Can. 33. Bishops or Priests if on cause of visiting the Church they come to the Church of another Bishop they are to be received according to their degree and invited to preach the Word and consecrate the oblation that is the Mass Can. 79. Penitents who have diligently performed the laws of Penance if accidentally they die in their journey or on the Sea where they could not be assisted let the memory of them be commended both in prayers and oblations Can. 89. it is ordained that the Bishop should prohibite none whether Gentile or Heretick or Jew to enter into the Church or to hear the Word during the Mass of the Catechumens All such were not to stay in the Mass of the faithful 397. The third Councel of Carthage Can. 23. When one is at the Altar the prayer is alwaies to be directed to the Father and Can. 24. Nothing more is to be offered in the Sacraments of the body and bloud but what our Lord himself has delivered that is bread and wine mixt with water nor nothing more offered in the sacrifices than of grapes and wheat 393. The Councel held at Hippon has the same Decrees and ordains that the Sacraments of the Altar should be celebrated by those who are fasting 352. In a Roman Councel Athanasius was accused for having consecrated a Church built by the Emperour without his knowledge and was so bold as to celebrate the synaxis therein S. Athanasius denies the first but grants the second wherein he prayed for the Emperour and was drawn to do it by the Multitude 324. The Gangrane Councel cap. 24. declares Anathema to those who through pride esteeming themselves perfect did condemn the Assemblies made in the places and Churches of the Saints or believed the oblations which are there celebrated to be despised and the memory of the Saints to be contemned 320. The ancient Councel of Laodicen cap. 58. Bishops are not to make the oblations in private houses without Priests But what makes more to our purpose the same is gathered out of three of the first General Councels which the present Church of England admits now in their Articles In the 4. General Councel of Calcedon Act. 3. Blessed Ischirion Martyr accused Dioscorus Bishop of Constantinople 251. that amongst other things he had taken away the wheat that
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
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
examples here alledged A sacrifice sayes he though offered by a man is a divine thing whereupon a man consecrated wholly to Gods name to live to him and die to the world is a sacrifice 2. when we chastise our bodie by abstinence it is a sacrifice 3. works of mercy being referred to God are true sacrifices We Catholicks do confesse and acknowledge those and such to be metaphorical improperly in a general sence true sacrifices but Protestants will not only deny them to be proper sacrifices but also will not believe them to be sacrifices at all for they will not allow the two first to be acts of vertue and the best word they will give them is that they are effects and fruits of Popery Moreover the Saint in the same place insinnuates another sacrifice by which the whole and holy society of the redeemed and sanctified City is offered to God by that great Priest who gave up his life for us to become members of so great a head in so mean a form this form he offered and herein he was offered in this he is our Priest our Mediatour and our sacrifice all in this and after concludes This is the Christians sacrifice we are one body with Christ as the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of the Altar so well known to the faithful This alone is the proper and peculiar sacrifice which Christ has instituted and left in his Church as formerly hath been declared But our Doctour to prove his conceit cap. 11. towards the end cites Durandus l. 2. de sacerd fol. 29. which is cap. 10. In fine The Doctours words are Durand himself is full of this that is to prove the only sacrifices of the Cross for Christ sayes he performed excellently the office of a priest when he offered himself on the Cross for the sins of Mankind and performs it yet more gloriously now when sitting at the right hand of his Father he intercedes continually for us We acknowledge this as Catholick doctrine for this is true but no way excluding the sacrifice of the Mass but with the same Durandus in the precedent words this Office to wit of priest Christ did exercise when after supper he converted the bread and wine into his body and bloud saying to the Apostles Take ye and eat this is my body The Doctor omitted this either ignorantly or maliciously It hardly can be believed but that he did read the place except he took it from others notes and so little cared for the truth if he did little credit is to be given to what he says God defend us from such Doctors It is strange how the Doctor in the beginning of his 3. chapter should acknowledg that the Mass according to the primary Notion as it was anciently taken for that part of divine worship where the elements of bread and wine were by the priest both consecrated to God and distributed to the People which is the supper of our Lord in S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.20 for this he cites Ordo Romanus made by Gelasius and reprinted in Rome 1591. or thereabouts whereby is manifest the Conformity of the Present Romans with the Church in those primitive times for this sacrifice for which we contend to wit that we take it even in this Notion he assignes and accordingly imitating the primitive Church not inventing any new Mass but continuing still the same I could not but smile when for this he alledges Durandus for legitima Missa lib. 4. cap. 1. n. 39. and interprets it the only due and lawful administration of the holy Sacrament in the old latin Church whereas Durand interpreteth that to be a legitimate Mass in which are Priest and respondent offerer and communicant as the composition of the prayers demonstrates this by evident reason perhaps he means the order and manner of celebrating the Mass which Durand doth learnedly and solidly declare in every particular particle of the Mass which if the Doctour beleives as he does his legitima Missa he labours in vain against the Roman Church The Question in that place propounded was whether a Priest might celebrate Mass when less then two were present and after disputing pro and con he concludes That is a lawful Mass which hath one present besides the Priest at Mass O how much is this to the Doctours purpose Now the Doctour will solve all by putting instead of the sucrifice of the Mass Christian duties as evidently true Evangelical Oblations and sacrifices which in order to publick worship were made before Communion and which the holy Fathers commend as the general Christian sacrifice that succeeded Jewish offerings which he confirms by a prayer which he finds in the Roman Missal Dom. 5. post Pentecosten It cannot be denied but that such Oblations were made in the time of Mass at the offertory as is declared in the Liturgical discourse p. 2. sect 2. cap. 2. which also is declared in the 4. Canon of the Apostles in these words It it not lawful to offer at the Altar besides new corn and grapes and oyle for the lamps and perfumes that is Incense in the time wherein the holy oblation is celebrated many ancient Canons have been made concerning these oblations in all which we may see that these oblations were of things which belonged to the Sacrifice or to the things which belonged to the Altar or to the poor and sometimes to the Priests by way of Alms the present Church of England takes it in the fence of Alms and only prayes for the givers but never thought it as an essential point of Communion which may be distributed without alms as alms may be given without Communion Add to this that such Oblations are common to the old law and yet were never reckoned amongst the sacrifices Deut. 16. a law is made There shall not appear before our Lord any empty but every one shall offer according to that he hath but this was not by way of sacrificing which only did belong to Priests In the new law S. Paul 1 Cor. 16. calls them Collections S. Clement l. 4. constit Apostol cap. 7. supposes this when he advises the Priest to refuse at the Altar the Oblations which come from an ill conscience Pope Fabian an 239. Decreed that on Sundays men and women should make offerings of bread and wine S. Cyprian blames the rich misers of his time who brought nothing to this offering saying Dost thou who art wealthy and rich think to have part of the Mass without vouchsafing to put any thing into the bason Tertullian calls such Oblations pledges of piety Moreover taking the prayer of the Missal in that sence which the Doctor takes it the most that can be gathered thence is that such oblations were made in the time of Mass for that prayer immediatly follows the offertory but it may be better expounded of the oblations which the people do make of the sacrifice of the Mass together with the Priest as it is said in the first
the Christians for that they did eat their God But it is as foolish sport that he goes about to vilify the sacrifice of the Mass out of the Roman Missall which as he ignorantly conceives wholly destroys the essence and nature of this sacrifice for it shews that there may be many defects and abuses committed in the use of the Holy Eucharist Imagining that Christ may fall on the earth be torn in pieces eaten by catts and doggs devoured by beasts corrupted and burnt and that he lies there as a dead man or as one on a dunghill with innumerable such like frequently reiterated It is true the Roman Missal mentions some such abuser but by way of prevention and to give the Doctor more scope we will admit that some such abuses have happened either through casuality or negligence of those whom it might concern or by the perversity of men or instigation of the divell I must also tell the Doctor that he needs not talk so much of Christs being in so base and vile places for I can tell him that there is no place more vile and base nor more abhominable and odious none more loathsom and stinking then the mouth or stomack of a sinner yet such is the immense goodnes of Christ Jesus that he left this holy Sacrament to us and permitted it to be taken by sinners otherwise the Apostle S. Paul would never have said 1. Cor. 11. He that eateth this bread or drinketh the Chalice of our Lord unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself S. Crysostome on that place sayes such an one is guilty of our Lords death as if he had killed our Lord on shed his bloud and in cap. 10. by this sin the body of our Lord is troden under foot S. Cyprian ser de coena Dom. Violence is offered to our Lords body and by their mouth and hand our Lord is offended The Doctor need not talk of Jakes or sinks for one shall hardly find a more loathsome place then the stomack or belly of man S. Crysostome in Opere imperfect in Mat. said well If thou comparest an ill man to beasts thou shalt sind him worse yea a wicked man is worse then the devil With all this or whatsoever can be said of this kinde none can be so foolish as to think that Christs body or bloud suffers at all in any such abuses or defects for all such happens only in the species for Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist is as a spirit by an indivisible and secret manner and so no more defiled then the soul of man is hurt defiled or sullied by whatsoever filth ordure or excrement the body is insected Christs body being now glorified is impassible immutable and unalterable suffers no more proportionably then the Deity replenishing all places of what nature soever or how loathsom soever whence one said not amiss God who according to nature is no less in the sink then in the heavens cannot be hurt nor defiled The body of Christ in heaven is impassible notwithstanding that he remains there with all his natural dimensions but in the Eucharist it is in a sacramentall and spirituall manner without any quantitative or corporal dimension or situation or sensitive motion I believe the Doctor never understood these circumstances or if he did he makes himself a pratler and contrary to his knowledge wilfully seeks to gull the people who for the most part are ignorant of such mysteries Moreover if such scurrile arguments may have place in divine things may not the Infidel and Jews use the same against Christ himself nay some have done it already saying Can any Imagine Josephs Son to be a God was he not subject to all mankind Miseries he lay nine months as a prisoner in his Mothers womb in all uncleanness was born in a loathsome stable and as a childe might have been devoured by the wilde beasts as he might have been torn out of his mothers womb some sow or Swine might have eaten him some ravenous Wolf or other cruel beast might have torn him to peeces He might have fallen into the saw-pit ditch or pond and so be made food for toads frogs or snakes or other venemous beasts if drowned at Sea meat for fishes they made difficulty also in that he was subject to the devil who earried him too and fro at his pleasure with a thousand such like If God then did permit his only son in person to be thus subject to so many casualties abuses and defects what shall we wonder that such may or have followed him in the Eucharist Christ's body then was possible and capable yea susceptible of all imaginable abuses pains and cruelties of humane malice or diabolical inventions what wonder is it that God should leave Christs body to such accidental and extrinsecal abuses by which it receives no damage at all To conclude the Doctor in alledging the Rubrick of the Roman Missal does little consider that he gives no light argument against himself for in all times since Christ there have been such rules meerly to prevent such abuses and defects as manifestly appears in the ancient penitential Canons also in the several Decrees of Popes and Councils besides the great care that no Infidels Jews or Hereticks should be present at the Mass the continual care that the Church has always had that the holy bloud should not fall on the Altar or ground according to the constitution which Pope Pius the 1. an 158. set down in the Roman Missal de defectibus according to which S. Chrysostome hom 21. Operis impers in Mat. tells us that it is not to be given to beasts or Infidels and S. Augustine l. 50. Hom. 26. We observe with great care when the Body of Christ is administred to us that nothing of it do fall out of our hands to the ground Origen hom 13. in Exod. Ye that are accustomed to be present at the divine Mystery do know how when ye receive our Lords body ye observe with great carefulness and veneration lest any thing of the consecrated gift should fall down for ye believe and that rightly that ye are guilty if any thing do fall through your negligence Surely all this care and folicitude could not be but on some motives more then natural for if there were only pure bread and wine they would have no more care of it then the Protestants have in the Communion of bread and wine but because as I have proved before the Church always believed that the true body and bloud of Christ Jesus was in the Eucharist they laboured by all convenient means to avoid such abuses CHAP. IX The Doctors Raillery concerning Miracles wrought in the Sacrifice of the Mass THe Doctor very frequently scoffs and jears at the many Miracles which are wrought in the sacrifice of the Mass thinking thereby to diminish the credit and belief of it whereas if they be Miracles the multitude makes them not less to be Miracles nay if we will
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
ordained if the English Church should attempt to ordain Priests they should ordain those who were formerly rightly and fully ordained CHAP. XV. Whether the Sacrifice of the Masse be Idolatry THat the Masse hath been held and esteemed in all times a divine and holy Sacrifice is sufficiently proved so that to question whether it be Idolatry is in a manner to condemn the whole Christian Church of which that prudent and gave D. Thorndike in his book of Just weights and measures chap. 1. They who professe the only true Christ and therefore the only true God do necessarily professe to detest all Idolatry which the profession of Christianity effectually rooted out of the world wheresoever it prevailed and so doth the Church of Rome still as seriously professe and therefore cannot easily be convinced to professe Idolatry for without expresly renouncing this profession they cannot expresly be Idolaters without renouncing it by such consequence as may convince common reason that they contradict themselves and renounce all of them that which all of them professe they cannot be Idolaters by consequence And therefore it is not easie to make it appear to common reason that they are Idolaters because then it must appear to common reason that so great a part of Christendom doth by their profession contradict that which themselves professe In the margent he says They that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters are thereby Schismaticks before God The reason is clear for the pretence of Idolatry in the Romane Church is no sufficient ground for any one to separate himself from it And that which Dr. Brevent attributes to Idolatry in the Mass is meerly framed in his own fancy and it is purely a conceit or blinde ignorance or malice that imputes Idolatry to that which all Christians have believed to have been the greatest honour that humane nature can give to God If Masse be a sacrifice as is fully proved before it cannot be called Idolatry for either the act or object must make it so sure not the act which is approved by Gods word and to give to God all supreme honour cannot be reproved much less the object which is only the true God S. Augustine said well that the act of sacrifice is given only to the true God or to an imagined or to a feigned God So that according to the sense of the whole world sacrifice is only given to God the sole object of this sacrifice is the only true God not to any imagined or false God both which were true Idolatry but the sacrifice to the true God cannot be said to be Idolatry which according to Its Etymologies is to give Latria or supreme and soveraign honour to an Idol which as Saint Paul saith is nothing but only in the esteem of the Idolater I think that there is none who have understanding and reason can or dare say that the papists in their sacrifice do give any honour or worship that is Latria or supreme honour to any false Imagined God for they cannot but know that their constant belief is that there is but one true God as an absolute article of their faith their forms of Liturgies or Masses both in their prayers rites ceremonies and publick belief are testimonies of the same and do plainly manifest that the whole sacrifice is directed and intended only and soly to the true God The Mass liturgie or divine service consisting principally in the oblation made to the true God cannot be said Idolatrous whence I have often admired that men of understanding learning or judgment should so imprudently call it Idolatry when the Church of England in imitation of the Roman Church has framed a form of Communion which some of them have termed with the name of Divine service Liturgy or sacrifice and oblation and has the best part of its Prayers Prefaces and such like But some will say that this sacrifice was not instituted by Christ at least has no ground in the Scripture I answer first that this may be retorted against their form of Communion which is but of late Invention and has no more ground in Scripture Secondly admitting this to be true yet the Mass cannot be said to be Idolatry for the Church intends not thereby to give any honour to any feigned or imagined God but only to the true God the worst that can be said is that the Church erred in exercising that power that she hath not or was deceived in her decrees but this will never reach to Idolatry Thirdly the Church has always believed that Christ himself instituted this sacrifice in his last supper as it has been clearly proved before as also that it is grounded in the old and new Testament Others object that the Mass admits of the Adoration of the Host which is plain Idolatry for such Adoration cannot be said to be exhibited to God who is not in the Eucharist whence M. Thorndike in his book above-cited cap. 19. makes this Demonstration They who give the honour proper to God to his creature are Idolaters They that worship the Host give the honour due to God to his creature the conclusion follows ergo they that worship the host are Idolaters I answer M. Thorndike calls it a Demonstration as it seemed to others but not to himself and therefore says But will any Papist acknowledg that he honours the Elements of the Eucharist or as he thinks the Accident of them for God will common reason charge him to honour that which he believeth not to be there A little after He that worships the Host believes our Lord Christ to be the only true God hypostatically united to our flesh and bloud which beiag present in the Eucharist in such a manner as it is not present every where there is due occasion to give it that worship in the Eucharist which the Godhead in our Manhood is to be worshiped upon all occasions They who know that the Godhead of Christ is the reason for which his flesh and bloud is worshiped in the Eucharist cannot take that worship for Idolatry because his flesh and bloud is not present in the Eucharist as they who worship it there think it is for they know that the flesh and bloud of Christ is no Idol to Christians wheresoever it is worshipped If Jewes Mahometans Infidells and Ethnicks and those who deny the Incarnation should take Christians for Idolaters in wirshiping Christ in the Eucharist I should not wonder for they excluding the true object of such adoration consequently do reject such adoration for if Christ be not God Adoration or Latria is not due to him But Christians who believe Christ Jesus to be God and man cannot with any reason deny but that he is adorable and to be adored in the highest manner So that all Adoration to him is not only free from Idolatry but also is the general duty of all Christians and therefore it is a strange madness to accuse Catholicks of Idolatry when in the Eucharist they