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 invented a new form or ordination and commanded that none should give any Orders but in the form prescribed which was repealed by Queen Mary and again renewed by Queen Elizabeth in the 8.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
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
as partly will be more manifest in the next Chapter CHAP. XIII Transubstantiation proved in all the ages of the Church THis terrible word Transubstantiation is much baited at by this learned Doctor even as the word homousion declared and determined by two General Councils was impugned by the Arians because it was new and not found in the Scripture even so this word approved by two general Councils was rayled at by hereticks when they could not disprove what was specified thereby I will not contend for the word but for what is signified thereby the Councils of Trent indeed approves the word sess 13. cap. 4. and explicates it to be the Conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ so also defines it can 2. In this sence I shall produce Fathers and Doctors of all ages and times since Christ and so confirm what the Doctor jeeringly yet most ignorantly affirms when he says that the Masse began with Transubstantiation as indeed it did for the Mass was never without it when the conversion of bread and wine is the essential part of the Masse as it has been fully declared I let passe his plain contradiction when forgetful of what he had said before admitting the Masse to have been in the Roman Church for near 1200. years past he now says that it began with Transubstantiation which he will have to have been begun from the Lateran Council held in the year 1215. where this matter was declared to be of Faith not as if it was then newly invented but as the common Faith of the Church wherein the whole Christian world agreed for there were present besides the Pope Innocent the 3d 412 Bishops the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem the Legates of Antioch and Alexandria Archbishops Primates and Metropolitans 75. Abbots and Priors 800. Legats and Procurators of Bishops and others without number The Embassadours of both the Emperours Roman and Grecian of the King of France England Hungary Jerusalem Cyprus Aragon and many other Princes who all consented to this declaration in opposition to some heresies of those times Now that such was the doctrine of the Roman Church before that Council is manifest by the opposition that was made against Berengarius who for the contrary opinion was condemned in three several provincial Councils several learned men of those times did write against him as Lanfransus Archbishop of Canterbury I. de sacram Eucharist The Church spread in the whole world acknowledges bread and wine set on the Altar to be consecrated and in the consecration to be changed incomprehensibly and ineffably into the substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ In like manner Algerus Guitmans and Petrus Cluniacen who lib. 1. Epist 2. Let them see what foolish incredulity what blinde doubting it is either not to see or doubt that bread is changed into the flesh of Christ and wine into his bloud by divine power when by the same many things are changed into another even in the nature of things which he proves by many examples and concludes It is far more as the holy Fathers of the Church say to create things that have no being than to form other and other things of those things which have a being all these above a 100. years before that Council But nothing more clearly convinces it then the Recantation which Berengarius made in a Roman synod held anno 1079. above a 130. years before the same Council in this form I Berengarius do from my heart believe and by mouth professe the bread and wine placed on the Altar by the Mystery of prayers and words of our Redeemer to be substantially converted into the true and proper and life-giving flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ our Lord and to be the true Body which was born of the Virgin which offered for the worlds salvation did hang on the Crosse which sits at the right hand of the Father and Christs true bloud which did flow from his side not only by signe and vertue of the sacrament but in propriety of Nature and verity of substance In this faith and belief he died A little before this time lived Theophilact Archbishop of Bulgary a Grecian in Joan. 6. Bread by the sacred words and Mystical benediction with the comming of the holy Ghost is transformed into our Lords flesh He has the same in Marc. 14. adding Our merciful God condescending to our infirmity did keep the species of bread and wine but trans-elementated it into the vertue of flesh and bloud And in cap. 26. Mat. He said not This is a figure but This is my body for it is by an ineffable operation transformed as bread in appearance but in very deed flesh Of the Latins about the year 730. Venerable Bede in 6. Joan. Christ dayly washes us from our sins in his bloud when the memory of his Passion is represented on the Altar when the Creatures of bread and wine are by the sanctification of the ineffable spirit transformed into the sacred Meat of his flesh and bloud and about the same time the famous Grecian Father S. John Damascene l. 4. de fide Orthod c. 24. As the holy Ghost working all things whatsoever were made so what then shall hinder but that of bread he may make his body and of wine and water his bloud and even as whatsoever God did make that he did by the work of the holy Ghost in the same manner now also the operation of the holy Ghost does that which exceeds nature and which tannot be taken or understood unless it be by faith only And a little after Verily the body is truly united to the divinity that body which came from the holy Virgin not that the body assumed descends from heaven but because the bread and wine it self is changed into Christs body and bloud If thou ask how is this done it is enough for thee to hear that it is done by the holy Ghost even as from the holy Mother of God our Lord by the holy Ghost did make to himself and in himself flesh there is nothing more manifest or perceptible to us then that the word of God is truly efficacious and omnipotent for the manner of it is such that it cannot be searched or found out by any reason A little after Bread and wine are not figures of Christs body far be it but the very body of our Lord joyned to the Divinity for sith our Lord himself said this is not a signe of body but body nor the sign of bloud but bloud And again If some have called the bread and wine the figure of our Lords body and bloud they did not say it after the Consecration but usurped this word before the oblation was consecrated to be brief In that place the Saint uses these phrases Christ made his body of bread and wine he made these things his body and bloud the bread and wine are changed into
exprimendam sunt accommodata dum per Apostolum Tit. 1. mandavit Christus ut crearentur Ministri mandavit implicite ut inter ordinandum verba adhiberentur Idonea quae dati tam ordinis potestatem complecterentur istius modi autem verba quatenus Datam potestatem denotant sunt illius ordinis forma essentialis If there be no form expressing or determining the power the most essential part is wanting and consequently no true Ordination Doctour Bramhal well considered this defect in all the following words of their form in Ordination and therefore he attributes the giving of this power to the words Accipite spiritum sanctum receive ye the holy Ghost In which is contained the power to consecrate but first these words receive ye the holy Ghost are as indeterminate as the imposition of hands And Act. 8. in order to Confirmation and no wayes to Ordination v. 17. It is said they imposed their hands upon them and they received the holy Ghost Secondly the Apostles were made priests in the last supper without these words and when our Saviour did use these words he specifies and determines the power which was given thereby whose sins ye forgive shall be forgiven c. But Doctour Bramhal will still insist that in saying Receive ye the holy Ghost is understood Receive the grace of the holy Ghost to exercise the office of Priesthood to which thou hast been now presented If this had been expressed the difficulty would soon cease but this is a meer invention of this learned Doctour who tells rather what it ought to be then what it is for during well nigh a hundred years the English Bishops never made such expression Some perhaps will say the Bishops always by those words did intend and so understand those words It is very probable that Bishop of Bramhal did so understand it but neither the meaning nor Intention of the Ordainer can add any force or vertue to the sacrament or be sufficient to produce sacramental effects without words determining and specifying the Ordination which is the most essential part or form of the sacrament No wonder then that we make difficulty in their Form of Ordination when in the late Act of Vniformity The Clergy of the Kingdom as supposing the precedent form of Ordination insufficient and not satisfactory have determined that the true form of Ordaining Priests is Receive the holy Ghost in the office of a Priest which in a manner is the same with what the Grecian Church useth which is The divine grace which always cures the infirm and supplys what is wanting promote N. this venerable Deacon to be a Priest whose office even according to the whole Grecian Church is to offer sacrifice which also in the following prayers they expresly mention Symon Bishop of Thessalonia in Tract de Ordinat affirms that the Priests and Deacons are ordained before the Altar where the Chalice is present whence in the Latin Church their Ordination is admitted because although they use not the same words yet they have words which in a general way express the determination of the material fignifying also the quality and nature and office of the order of Priesthood and distinction from other Orders Now admitting this Form after so long time made choice of not to condemn it for a not-sufficient form or reproving it but only that it is different from the use of the Western Church which always had other words in their Ordination of Priests from whence those who were under the Patriark of the West ought not to differ according to the Decree of the second Milevitan Councel cap. 12. that no ordination should be used but what was approved by the Councel but omitting this I have two things to say the first that from the first Ordination made in the time of King Edward 6. there was no true ordination of Priesthood untill this late Ordinance in the Act of Vniformity by reason that their was no essential form used and by consequence there was not true Priesthood from whence also it follows there were no true Bishops For as Mr Mason well infers in his Preface Cum Episcopum esse nequeatqui non fuerit Presbyter si nos presbiteros non esse probatum dederint De Ministerio Anglico actum est The second thing is that the now Church of England doth plainly reject and renounce the Function or Office of Priesthood insomuch that they have rejected the very name of Priest even in the holy Scripture translating Elder for Presbyter a name signifying antiquity of years and appropriated as well to secular as Ecclesiastical persons in their several callings never used by the Church in the Dignity of Priesthood others retain the name but not the Office whence Mr Mason l. 5. cap. 1. sticks not to say If by the name of Priest you had meant nothing else but a Minister of the Gospel to whom is committed the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments we would profess our selves Priests whence they more commonly are called Ministers Catholicks deny not the name Ministers in regard of the exercise of those functions for Bishops Priests Deacons and other inferiour Orders may be called Ministers so S. Paul Act. 4. calls the office of Apparitor which were sent to visit the Prisons Ministers and Rom. 15. Christ himself is called Minister of Circumcision And again v. 16. S. Paul stiles himself Minister of Christ Jesus in the Gentiles which rather signifies a particular office and vocation for the conversion of the Gentiles whence he is called Doctor Gentium then Priesthood which by office is indifferent to Jew or Gentile 1 Cor. 3. S. Paul calls himself and Apollo Ministers that is instruments of Christ Jesus and therefore in the next Chapter he sayes so let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and the Dispensers of the Mysteries of God that is in the exercise or use of our function or office which we have received by our vocation or ordination whereby we receive power and authority to exercise our Ministery and dispensation in which principally consists the nature and reason of Ordination by which as the same Apostle says they are made meer Ministers of the New Testament so that all Priests are Ministers but all Ministers are not Priests and the word Priest plainly signifies him that hath power to ministrate and may be called Minister in the time of his Ministration The Prophet Jeremy cap. 32. v. 21. calls Gods Priests and Levites his Ministers Phil. 2.25 S. Paul calls Epaphroditus his brother and coadjutor and fellow-soldier and the Apostle and Minister of his necessities M. Mason must give me leave to ask of him a question whether he believes that Priests have no other power then what he specifies to wit a Minister of the Gospel to whom is committed the dispensing of the word and Sacraments if he does not his words are vain if he does how will this stand with what he saith in other places as lib. 5.