MISSALE ROMANVM VINDICATVM OR The MASS Vindicated from D. Daniel Brevents calumnious and Scandalous Tract S. Augustine lib. 2. contra Julianum Pelagium cap. 10. The Catholick Fathers and Doctors have held what they found in the Church have taught what they learned and delivered to their Sons what they received from their Fathers as yet we did not deal with you before these Judges and our cause is judged by them neither we nor you were known to them yet we recite their sentences or Judgments made against you Printed in the Year 1674 TO THE Right Worshipful Grave and Reverend Doctours of the Famous University of OXFORD Health and Salvation THe whole Vniverse worthily admires the Oxonian Academie for its Antiquity and Learning for the great multitude of famous Doctors which have flourished in its bosome Structures in its Colledges rare Library compleatly stored with books of all sorts but principally Manuscripts which if not diminished by the destiny of Funus Scoti et Scotistarum would have far exceeded most of Christendome and now may contend for equality except only the Vatican It s present glory is in no mean way augmented by that magnificent Theater which the late Archbishop of Canterbury to his eternal Glory has erected wherein all may depredicate his Munificence and other Universities envy Oxfords Glory This indeed is Sheldons Trophy and Triumph Vpon reflection of this unparaleld Theater I cannot but deplore that such an excellent and so magnificent a structure should be abused and defiled by such an unseemly Imp as the late Doctour Daniel Brevent has hatched under its roof I mean his Missale Romanum Printed in that Theatre without any license or approbation wherein there is very little appears which may beseem a Doctour of Oxford He begins indeed very briskly acknowledging the Roman Church to have been a true Church in the first five hundred years after Christ but afterwards to have decayed principally for that from that time the Church allowed and approved the holy sacrifice of the Masse which he chiefly labours to reject by Railleries scoffs and jeerings amongst others he grounds himself on two manifestly false impositions the first is that Roman Priests do sacrifice their God imitating the primitive Infidels who imputed it to the Christians that they did eat their God whereas our faith teaches us that Christs body and bloud is sacrificed to God The second is that the Priests at the Altar do work all the Miracles which are wrought in the Eucharist which Miracles by Catholicks are attributed to Christ himself who instituted the holy Sacrament To make his raillery more compleat he spares not to call all Roman Catholicks Adulterers Adorers of vile creatures Idol-worshipers invaders of sacred offices sacrilegiously reproaching them of untruths impieties fearfull and barbarous cruelty Priesthood a most sacrilegious function which in plain terms he admits for almost twelve hundred years the whole Christian world were no better then Idolaters nay as he says worse then all Pagans and Infidels So that the whole Church all Christian Emperours Kings and Princes all Christian Empires Kingdoms Nations and Provinces were enslaved to Idolatry all Popes Primats Archbishops Bishops and Clergy-men were liable to his censures No Church either universal or particular truly Christian no Conversion of any Nation in particular England to the true faith of Christ for those who were converted in those times were most unhappy for they were alwayes taught believed and exercised the sacrifice of the Masse All the Modern Churches as besides the Latin the Grecian Oriental Affrican and Indians in all places of the world except only some of our pretended Reformers in a little Corner thereof have the same and the schoolmen whom he so frequently cites were all Idolaters for they all held maintained and defended the sacrifice of the Masse against all Infidels and hereticks and for the most part were sacrificing Priests Moreover the Glory of your famous Vniversitie is much impeached by this his Calumnie for your Doctors and Professors your Churches Chappels and Schools your Colledges and Chairs were all infected with this pretended Idolatry for within their walls no other doctrine was taught heard or used until these last times the several Comments made on the Master of the sentences on S. Thomas Scotus and other Schoolmen testifies the same nothing can excuse them but grosse ignorance but what shall we say of those famous Doctours who have so learnedly written against Wickliff even on the same score and what of those Reverend and learned Bishops who in Oxford condemned him as an heretick and who were so careful as is manifest in Provinciali veteri reprinted at Oxford in the year 1669. of the Celebration of Mass The Doctor bespatters them all with Idolatry sacriledge and blindness ignorance and blasphemy But he might have considered if malice or Ignorance had not blinded him that under the name of the Roman Church for so many hundred of years he impugns Christs Church within the five hundred years after Christ even as it was established by Christ and his Apostels for the Catholick Church was never without Mass in that time and what Masses or Liturgies were used in succeeding times were delivered from those times as the Roman or Latin Church challenges that of S. Peter as it was declared by S. Clement those of Hierusalem and some other parts that of S. James those of Affirica that of S. Mark or S. Philip The Grecians that of S. Basil who as S. Proclus testifies did not add to any other precedent but contract and abreviate what was formerly used S. Chrysostome did the same to that of S. Basil yet both these liturgies or Masses are in use to this day in all the Grecian Churches if then the Mass be Idolatry and so fond a thing as this Doctor pretends Christ never had a true Church upon earth far as I shall shew in this short Tract the Catholick Church was never without the sacrifice of the Mass if we may believe Tradition practise and custome of all Christian Churches Ecclesiastical or civil histories Councils both General and of several Provinces in the whole world and the unanimous consent of all the holy Fathers and Doctors I dare challenge Doctour Brevent or any of his associates to produce any one Nation that ever roceived the Christian Faith without this sacrifice or publick Divine Service but that which we call Mass or liturgy under the notion of a sacrifice The Grecians as I said before and all those who belong to that Church as Iberians Sclavonians Russians Muscovits and in many parts of Asia and Affrick agree in the sacrifice of the Mass with some difference of Ceremonies The Meridional parts which contain the Nubians the Abissins and greatest parts in Aegypt Arabia and Chaldea under the Patriarkate of Alexandria The Nestorians dispersed in Tartary Persia and the Oriental parts and kingdoms of India the Armenians and Scithians I do not say that all these agree with the Latins
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
witnesses to be acceptable to him those which are done by you and by your priests he reproves Again Malachy did then speak of our sacrifices which are offered in every place that is of the bread of the Eucharist in like manner of the Eucharistical Cup. Many of our adversaries turn this pure or clean Oblation as if it were nothing but a Sacrifice of praise but first that cannot be said properly a sacrifice of the New testament sith it was as proper to the law of Nature and the written law 2. the Prophet distinguishes between a sacrifice acceptable and unacceptable now it is certain that a sacrifice of praise was and is always acceptable 3. he opposes a new sacrifice to the sacrifice of the Jews as they were external 4. The holy Fathers very frequently do either clearly distinguish between them or make the holy Eucharist to be a sacrifice of praise finally they plainly say that the pure sacrifice was of bread and wine and so called Eucharistical §. 3. The Sacrifice of the Mass Ordained and Instituted by Christ THe Roman Church as is expressed in the Councel of Trent sess 22. cap. 1. Derives her Authority of celebrating Mass from the Command of Christ Jesus in his last supper when he said Do this in my Commemoration as the Catholick Church has always understood and taught and such I think is the opinion of the Church of England in as much as concerns the Ministery of the Eucharist for a man might ask by what Authority the Ministers alone do celebrate the Communion with exclusion of the lay-people from that office but leaving this let us see what the holy Fathers of those primitive times did teach in this point 420. I shall begin with S. Augustine in his Manual chap. 11. where he makes this prayer Give me I beseech thee O Christ Jesu Contrition of heart c. whilst I unworthy do stand at thy Altar desiring to offer up to thee that admirable and heavenly sacrifice becoming all reverence and devotion which thou my Lord God Immaculate didst institute and command to be offered for a commemoration or remembrance of thy charity that is of thy death and passion for our Salvation and for the daily repairing of our infirmity Again Ser. 14. de Innocent what more reverent what more honourable can be said then to rest under that Altar in which sacrifice is celebrated to God in which hosts are offered in which our Lord is the priest as it is written Thou art a Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedech with good reason the Souls of the just do rest under the Altar because the body of our Lord is offered upon the Altar the bloud of the just does not undeservedly there ask for revenge where also the bloud of Christ is shed for sinners Conveniently therfore and as it were for a certain society the Sepulcher of Martyrs is there ordained where the death of our Lord is daily celebrated as he himself said As often as ye shall do these things ye shall shew my death untill I come to wit that those who dyed for his death should rest under the Mystery of his Sacrament 398. S. Chrysostome him 83. in Math. For this cause with desire I have desired saith our Lord to eat this pasche with you that is to deliver to you new things and pasche wherby I may make you spiritual he also drank of it lest hearing these words they should say what do we drink bloud and eat flesh and so should be troubled for when formerly he had made some words of those things many only for the words were scandilized lest then also that should happen he first did this that he might enduce them with a quiet mind to the communication of the Mysteries you will say what then must we make the old Pasche by no means for therefore he said do this that he might withdraw them from the other besides if this do work remission of sins as certainly it doth that is altogether needlesse But as in the old so in the same manner he left for a benefit and gathered together a memory of mysteries even thence bridling the mouths of Hereticks for when they say whence does it appear that Christ was Immolated besides many other things producing also these Mysteries we shut their mouths for if Jesus be not dead whose symbole or sign is this sacrifice thou seest how great care he had that we should keep in memory that he died for us for because Marcion Valentine Manicheus and their followers were went to deny this dispensation by this Mystery he always so reduces us into the memory of his passion Again Hom. 17. in Epist ad Hebraeos He is our Bishop who offered an host cleansing us the same we offer also now what was then offered indeed cannot be consumed but that which we do is done only in commemoration of that which was done for says he Do this in my commemoration Not another Sacrifice but as the Bishop we always do the same but we rather work the remembrance of the Sacrifice 380. S. Gregory of Nice Orat. 1. de Resurrect He who disposes all things by his power doth not expect the violence of the Jews as robbers nor the wicked sentence of Pilate that their malice might be the beginning and cause of the common Salvation of men but he prevented by his counsell and by a secret kind of sacrifice which could not be seen by men he offers himself an host for us and being together priest and lamb of God immolats a victim he that takes away the sin of the World when did he do this when he gave to his Disciples assembled his body to be eaten and his bloud to be drunk then he openly declared the sacrifice of the Lamb to be now perfect wherefore when he exhibited to his Disciples his body to be eaten and his bloud to be drunk now by a secret and invisible Mystery his body was Immolated as it pleased the power of him who performed the Mystery 326. Eusebius l. 1. de Demonst cap. 10. After all things working the salvation of us all he offered a certain wonderfull victim and a most excellent Sacrifice to his Father and ordained that in memory thereof we should offer the same to God for a sacrifice After when we have received the memory of this Sacrifice to be celebrated by certain signs in the table and also of his body and salutarie bloud as an institute of the New testament 230. S. Cyprian Epist 6. ad Cacilium Know that we are admonished that in offering the Chalice the dominicall Tradition is to be observed neither are we to do any thing but what our Lord has first done that the Chalice which is offered in commmemoration of him may be offered mixt with wine and water for when Christ said I am the true vine the vine verily is not the bloud of Christ but the wine neither can his bloud by which we are redeemed and
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 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
only adore with Latria the flesh and bloud of Christ Jesus for whatsoever our late Advarsaries have foolishly enough invented Catholicks do not so adore the Elements of Bread or wine or species of them presence or circumstances but only and soly Christ Jesus believing firmly and without the least hesitation that he is really there present from which belief as a necessary sequel follows all true Adoration Our pretended Reformers will not stick at this for the first and chief beginner of this Reformation Luther not only approved it but also left it in practise to all his followers for generally all Lutherans do use it in their dayly practise the Tiguran Calvinists do affirm That if the true and natural body of Christ be in the Eucharist why should not our Lord be adored there if we should teach that the Natural body of Christ were truly there with the Papists we should also truly and faithfully adore It is certain the same errours do follow from Consubstantiation as from Transubstantiation to wit Adoration circumgestation inclusion and oblation Osâ—ander in Cont. 16. par 12. alledges the Divines of Wittenberg saying If Bread in the Lords supper be the substantial body of Christ the sacrifice of the Mass and Adoration of the sacrament may be defended The Divines of Geneva say to the Lutherans that Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation being admitted Adoration necessarily follows Eusebius Alckercherus affirms That from this foundation of the corporal and real presence and eating we must necessarily grant that aswell Adoration as oblation do follow in the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud Chemnitius in his Examin Con. Trident. par 12. plainly says If we believe Christ God and man to be present in a peculiar manner of presence and grace in the action of the supper so that he doth there exhibite to them who cat truly and substantially his body and bloud c. It cannot or ought not to be done but that faith should worship and adore Christ present in that action so Jacob Gen. 28. Moyses Exod. 23. Elias 3. Reg. 19. Truly had no command that they should adore in those places but because they had a general command that they should adore God every where and God was truly present under those extern and visible symbols c. Truly they adore that God whom they believed to be there present c. but they did not adore God as far from them in the Imperial heaven as remote and absent from them c. rightly therefore S. Augustine in Psal 98. S. Ambrose Nazianzene in the Epitaph of his sister from the sentence of Eusebius Emissenus and Luther cont Lovanienses ar 6. call the Eucharist a venerable Sacrament whence he makes this Adoration out of all Controversies between him and the Tridentine Councel From these learned men of the pretended Reformation we may note that although they opposed the Catholick Doctrine of the Church yet they were far from condemning this Adoration or making it Idolatry that they plainly confess that those who believe the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist do constantly affirm that it is our duty to do it since the real and only object of such adoration is the body and bloud of Christ Jesus whence I make this Syllogism 1. They who give the honour due to God to any creatures are Idolaters But Catholicks give no honour due to God to any creatures Ergo Catholicks in this are not Idolaters 2. To adore or worship Christ Jesus in the Eucharist is not Idolatry But Catholicks only adore Christ Jesus in the Eucharist Ergo Catholicks in this are not Idolaters 3. He that believes Christ Jesus in the Eucharist may lawfully there adore him But Catholicks believe that Christ Jesus is in the Eucharist Ergo they may lawfully adore him there The sequel of Adoration to our belief is no way to be reprehended and is admitted by most of our Reformers and only those who deny the Real Presence can with any reason deny it Those who admit Consubstantiation whereof many were of our first pretended Reformers cannot nor do any way exclude it and I see not how those who believe the Real presence in what manner they please can any more for if Christ be there sure he is an Object adorable Our present Church of England plainly admits the Real presence as is manifested in its Catechisme before Confirmation where it is declared that The outward part or signe is bread and wine the inward part is the body and bloud of Christ which are verily and truly taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper the benefits are the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and bloud of Christ and so all ancient protestants in England did believe and accordingly did with kneeling and adoration devoutly receive it The additional note at the end of the form of Communion expounds it That the kneeling is but a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ given to all worthy receivers pray what is this but adoration when the Minister kneels at the Lords table sure he adores not the table but the Eucharist which is to be offered and taken thereon Nay the peculiar form ordained peculiarly for the Communion argues some special honour to the Eucharist and in words can signify no less for therein it is called the sacrament of Christs body and bloud The spiritual food and sustenance of our Lord the Communion of the body and bloud of our saviour Grant us gratious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy son and to drink his bloud that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and washed through his most pretious bloud Again make us partakers of his body and bloud In the Communion The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life and the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy body and soul unto life everlasting and after it is called The spiritual food of the most pretious body and bloud of thy son our Saviour Jesus Christ These words and many such like according to vulgar understanding import a Real Presence and signify no less and moves the hearers to a devout expression of the honour they bear to the holy Sacrament yea to adore it which I speak not to condemn them in it no more then I would condemn Jacob Gen. 28. who seeing nothing of God but by the effects which he felt in himself he gathered that God in a speciall manner had been in that place he adored and worshipped God The Israelites Exod. 35. beholding the pillar of the cloud which was but a sign of Gods presence adored God and 2. Par. 6. the people seeing fire descending and the glory of our Lord on the temple falling flat on the earth upon the pavement paved with stone they adored and praised our Lord they adored not what they saw nor any