MISSALE ROMANƲM VINDICATƲM. 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 Ʋniverse 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: Its 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.

Ʋpon 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 [Page]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 [Page]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 Ʋni­versitie, 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, [Page]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 [Page]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 in the manner or forme of Mass, or in their opinions; but in the sub­stance [Page]of a Sacrifice according to the Evange­lical law, they all agree; deriving their form, rites, and ceremonies from the primitive times, that is, from the Patriarchal, Churches, foun­ded by the Apostles, and their immediate suc­cessours: In sine, all the patriarchal Sees of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Hierusalem, together with that that of Constantinople have used, maintained, and approved the sacrifice of the Mass. It would be little less then Blasphe­my, to make them all Mistresses and fomenters of Idolatry: and consequently, that the Church which Christ and his Apostles had erected, founded, and established, was Idolatrous, and the true Christian Church never appeared in any Nation of the Ʋniverse.

But what do I insist in this manner; when I speak to learned and understanding men, who well know the truth of what I say, and to whose judgments I humbly remit what I write; tru­sting they will not condemn my boldness, but attribute it to the Zeal I have of the honour of that reverend Ʋniversity, which I so much re­verence and esteem; and for whose true glory and happy progress, I offer up my continual pray­ers, remaining alwaies

Your hearty well-wisher and Beads-man. R.F.

Missale Romanum Vindicatum.

CHAP. 1. Mass proved out of the Sacred Scripture.

THe ancient and most learned Inter­preter of the sacred text, S. Hierom teaches us, that the Gospel is not in the word, but in the sence; not in the bark, but in the sapp, not in the leaves of the words, but in the root of the meaning; whence the 6. Councel of Constantinople, can. 19. tells us, If any Controversy pertaining to the Scripture be raised, let not the preachers other­wise interpret it, then as the lights and Doctors of the Church in their writings have expounded it. Conformable to this is that Decree of the Meldelsen Councel, In the expounding or preaching of holy Scriptures, let every one fol­low the sence of the holy Catholick and most ap­proved Fathers, in whom, as S. Hierom says, verity of faith never fails or wavers.

I shall not therfore follow humane sence, judgment or opinion; neither will I for the present, make use of Schoolmen, nor of the Doctors or learned men for almost twelve hundred years, which without doubt, may [Page 2]counterpoise whatsoever exposition, our pretended Reformers can any way claim, in a 150. years at the most; let us now wave all these, and search out the truth from the first five hundred years.

It was a bold saying of this Doctor in his 12. Chapter, that Roman Priests, nor Ro­man sacrifice, have not so much as any pro­bable ground in Scripture, this he has in the text of his Chapter, but in the body, of the proof is most weak, for he confesses, that Catholicks do alledge Scripture for both, the question then is, which side does best un­derstand the true sence of the sacred text; I might alledge innumerable places which the holy Fathers of that time did understand or apply to the sacrifice of the Mass; in parti­cular that of Dan. 12. of the continual sa­crifice, which S. Irenaeus, S. Hierom, and Theodoretus affirm to be no other then the sa­crifice of the Mass; which shall cease to be publickly celebrated; as also S. Hippolitus teaches in the time of Antichrist: but I shall only insist on those places which the Doctor impugns, to wit, on the figures of it, as that of Melchisedech, of the prophesy of Malachy, and of the Institution of it, made by Christ himself which I shall divide into three Paragraphs.

§. 1. Mass proved to be a Sacrifice, accor­ding to the Order of Melchisedech.

THe holy Council of Trent, Sess. 22. c. 1. first grounds it self on the figure of Melchisedech, Gen. 14. God by the mouth of the Prophet David Psal. 109. did de­clare, that Christ was a priest for ever, accor­ding to the Order of Melchisedech, which also S. Paul alleages, Heb. 7. and thence proves, a translation of the Law from the translation of the Priesthood: let us now hear what the holy Fathers of those primitive times do understand by this; I might well produce Cassiodorus, Remigius and Euthemius in Psal. 109. who were not long after the fifth century, and expound it of the sacrifice of the Mass; but let us make a step higher, within that time and begin with Theodoret 430. on the same Psalm, who affirms, that Christ began his priesthood accor­ding to the order of Melchisedech, in his last supper, when the consecrated bread and wine.

420. S. Augustin Epist. 95. ad samos: Melchisedech did prefigurate the Sacrament of our Lord's supper with bread and wine, that is, the sacrifice of Melchisedech, being brought forth did know to prefigurate his eternal priesthood, and lib. 16. de civit. Dei, cap. 22. alledging. Melchisedech out of S. Paul to the [Page 4]Hebrews, he says, There the sacrifice which the whole Church offers now unto God did first appear, and that prefigured which was long af­ter fulfilled in Christ, of whom the prophet said before he came to the flesh, Thou art a priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedech, lib. 17. c. 17. he repeats the same, giving the reason: because Aarons Priesthood and Sacri­fice are abolished, and now in all the world un­der Christ the Priest, we offer that which Melchisedech brought forth, when he blessed Abraham, and cap. 20. God has prepared the table with bread and wine, that is, the Sacrifice of Melchisedech; a little lower, The partici­pation of that table is the beginning of life. for in Ecclesiastes, where he saith: It is good for man to eat and drink, we cannot understand it better, than of the participation of that table, which our Melchisedechian Prlest instituted for us in the New testament; the text in lattin is, quam Sacerdos ipse mediator novi testamen­ti, exhibit secundum ordinem Melchise­dech de corpore & sanguine suo; for that Sacri­fice succeeded all the old testament Sacrifices, which were but shadows of the future, for his body is offered and sacrificed now instead of all other offering and Sacrifice: and in Psal. 32. he says, Christ of his body and bloud instituted a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchise­dech: the same he has in Psal. 32. in psal. 100. and in Psal. 109. and in many other places.

[Page 5] 390. S. Hierom. Epist. 17. ad Marcell. Have recourse to Genesis, and thou shalt find Melchisedech King of Salem, and prince of that City, who even then in the type of Christ, offered bread and wine and dedicated the Christian Mysterie in the bloud and body of our Saviour. The same Father Epist. 126. ad E­vagrium, so Melchisedech for that he was not a Cananite nor of the race of the Jews did goe before us, as a Type of the Priest the Son of God, of whom it is said psal. 109. Thou art a priest, &c. and a little after he tells us what sacri­fice he dedicated, to wit, the Sacrament of Christ in bread and wine, in a sincere and pure Sacrifice: Again in Gen. 14. Our mysterie is signified in the word of Order by no means in Aaron by immolating unreasonable creatures, but in offered bread and wine that is the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus: Again Aarons priesthood had an end, but Melchisedechs, that is, Christs and the Churches, is perpetuall, both for the time past, and to come. To omit other places I will conclude with his words on Mat. 26. After Christ had fullfilled the typicall pasche, and eaten the flesh of the Lamb with his Apostles, he took bread which comforts man and passing to the true Sacrament of the Pasche, that even as it was in the Prefiguration of him in Melchisedech, as a Priest of the most high God, had done, offering bread and wine; he also presented the verity of his body and bloud.

[Page 6] 373. S. Ambrose in his Mass, Our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son has instituted the rite of Sacrificing in the New testament to be celebra­ted when bread and wine (which Melchise­dech Priest had offered in prefiguration of the future Mystery) he transformed into the Sacrament of his body and bloud: and lib. 3. de Sacram. cap. 1. we know that the figure of those Sacraments, did go before in the times of Abraham, when the holy Melchisedech did of­fer Sacrifice.

370. Epiphanius her. 55. Then Melchise­dech met him ( that is Abraham) and set be­fore him bread and wine prefiguring the enig­ma's and exemplars of the Mistery, when our Lord said, I am the living bread, and of his bloud which did flow from his side.

326. Eusebius l. 5. de Demonst: cap. 3. The issue of that Oracle is admirable to him, who contemplates in what manner our Saviour Jesus, who is annoynted of God according to the rite of Melchisedech, doth perform by his Ministers, these things which belong to ful­fill the priesthood among men: for as he who was a priest of the gentiles was never seen exercis­ing any corporal Sacrifices, but only bread and wine, when he blessed Abraham, so truly first our Saviour and Lord himself, then those who come from him as priests, in all nations, do re­present in performing their function according to Ecclesiasticall functions the Spirituall office [Page 7]of priesthood, in the wine and bread the myste­ries of his body and Salutary bloud.

290. Lactantius l. 14. Instit. Christ must needs have in this Church his external Priest­hood, according to the order of Melchisedech; and before him his Master Arnobius in psal. 109. by the mysteries of Bread and Wine he was made a priest for ever.

250. S. Cyprian l. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecili­um. Who is more a priest then our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to the Father, and offered the very same that Melchisedech did offer, that is bread and wine to wit his body and bloud.

In fine, I challenge all our Adversaries to produce any holy Fathers teaching the con­trary Doctrine or that ever questioned any of these Fathers cited, and desire that all good Christians will note that the Fathers here cited do speak positively according as they believed and taught, and as the Church ever since received.

§. 2. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved out of the Prophet Malachy.

The Prophet Malachy cap. 1. said, In eve­ry place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a clean Oblation; because my name is great among the Gentils. Which place the holy Council of Trent, Sess. 22. cap. 1. cites [Page 8]for the holy Sacrifice of ths Mass. Let us see now what the holy Fathers of those Primi­tive times said of it.

420. Let us begin with S. Augustine, who, l. 10. de civit. Dei, cap. 35. Now Ma­lachy prophesying of the Church (which we see so happily propagated by our Saviour Christ) hath these plain words to the Jews, in the per­son of God: I have no pleasure in you, neither will I accept an offering at your hand, for from the rising of the Sun unto the setting, my name it great among the Gentils; and in every place shall be Incense offered unto me, and a pure of­fering unto my name, for my name is great a­mong the Gentils; saith the Lord. This we see offered in every place by Christs priesthood after the order of Melchisedech: sith in every place from the rising of the Sun, unto its setting, we do see it offered unto God. These last words are omitted by our English translatours, al­though they be in the Latin text, lib. 19. cap. 23. it is his City whose mysterie we cele­brate in such oblations, as the faithfull do well understand, for the ceasing of all the typicall Sacrifices that were exhibited by the Jews, and the ordaining of one Sacrifice to be offered through the whole world from East to West (as now we see it is) was prophecied long before from God, by the Mouths of holy Hebrews.

326. Eusebius de Demonst lib. 10. cap. ult. From the rising of the Sun, &c. we sacri­fice [Page 9]to the most High, a sacrifice of praise, we sacrifice a full Sacrifice to God, yielding sweet odour and holy: we sacrifice after a new man­ner, a Clean host according to the new Testa­ment. S. Cyrill of Alexandria, S. Hierome, Theodoret, and all other ancient Expositors of this place do expound and apply it to the Sacrifice of the Mass.

398. S. Chysostom in Psal. 91. citing the words of Malachie, sayes, See how plainly and clearly he interprets the mysticall table, which is the Incruentall host, but the pure In­cense he calls holy prayers, which are offered with the Sacrifice, for this Incense is pleasing to God, not that which is taken from earthly roots, but what proceeds from a pure heart: thou seest that in all places, that Angelicall Sacrifice is granted to be famous; ye see nei­ther Altar nor canticle circumscribed with any bounds. In every place Incense is offered to my name, therefore the pure host, the chief indeed mistical table is the caelestial and above all things honoured Sacrifice. A little after, re­citing many other sacrifices of the New testa­ment, he infers, we have the first sacrifice, that salutary gift. 2. of Martyrs; 3. of pray­ers. 4. of Jubilation. 5. of Righteousness; 6. of Alms. 7. of Praise. 8. of Compunction. 9. of humility. 10. of preaching or fructifi­cation.

108. S. Jrenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. alledging [Page 10]the words of Malachy, infers manifestly signifying by those that indeed the former people have ceased to offer to God, and this is a pure one, so that the name of God is glorified among the Gentils: and chap. 33. In every place incense is offered to my name and a pure sacrifice but the Incense S. John in the Apocalipse sayes to be the prayers of Saints.

150. S. Justin Martyr in Dial. Tri­phon: God himself is witnesse, who saith Mal. In every place among the Gentils acceptable and pleasing sacrifices are offered, but God re­ceives not sacrifices from any one but from Priests. Therefore Christ Jesus has left all sa­crifices which are to be offered to his Name, in the Eucharist of the bread and Cup, which is made in all places by Christians. God using by anticipation, 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 [Page 11]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 lay­people 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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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 vi­vificated, be seen to be in the Chalice, when wine is wanting to the Chalice, wherby Christs bloud is declared, which is openly published by the sacrament and testimony of all the scrip­tures; which the Saint proves there at large. Again in the same place he says, If Jesus Christ our lord and God, he the high priest of God the Father, first offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and commanded this to be done in his commemoration: verily the priest executes in the stead of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did do and offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he goes a­bout to offer according to that which he has seen [Page 16]Christ himself to have offered. Lastly in Ser. de coena Domini, which is commonly attribu­ted to him: sith our lord has said. Do ye this in my commemoration, this is my flesh, and this is my bloud; as often as it is done with these words and this faith, that substantiall bread and cha­lice consecrated by solemn benediction is profi­table to the life, and Salvation of the whole man, being also a medicine and holocaust to heal our infirmities and purge our iniquities.

203. Tertullian l. 5. advers. Marcionem, after having declared what Christ did in his last supper, he concludes fieri semper quod postea Jussit: he commanded the same to be done always afterward.

180. S. Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. He took bread and gave thinks, saying, this is my body: and in like manner the chalice, which he declares to be his bloud, and taught the new oblation of the New testament, Which the Church receiv­ing from the Apostles Offers to God in the whole world, and cap. 34. The oblation of the Church, which our Lord has taught to be offered in the world; is reputed before God, a pure sacrifice: and a little after, The kind of Oblation is not reproved: for Oblations were there and Oblati­ons here, Sacrifices in the people sacrifices also in the Church: and beneath, he makes an ar­gument against the Hereticks of his time: How is it manifest to them, that bread in which thanks are given, to be the body of our Lord and [Page 17]the Chalice his bloud, if they say not him to be the Son of the maker of the world; that is his World.

130. S. Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad An­tonium. The Apostles in their Commentaries which are called Gospells, have so declared that Christ commanded them, taking bread and gi­ving thanks, he said, do this in memory of me: This is my Body; and also taking the Cup, and giving thanks, he said; this is my Bloud, and gave to them only.

S. Martial Epist. ad Burdigal. He (that is Christ) having a body, both immaculate and without sin, for he was conceived by the holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, permitted himself to be immolated on the Altar of the Cross▪ but what the Jews through envy did im­molate, hoping to abolish his name from the Earth; we for our Salvations sake, do set up­on the sanctified Altar, knowing that by this only remedy life is to be given us and death avoided, for he our Lord commanded us to do this in his commemoration.

100. S. Dionise Eccless Hist. cap. 3. wherfore (the venerable Bishop) reverently and according to his pontifical office, by holy praises of the divine works, excuses himself that he sacrifices the salutarie host (which is a­bove him) first in a decent manner exclaming to him, Thou hast said, do this in my commemo­ration, next he asks that he may be made wor­thy [Page 18]of so great a Ministery, ordained in the imitation of God, and to become according to his forces like to Christ, and that he may de­voutly consecrate the Sacraments, and purely distribute them.

99. S. Clement l. 5. Apostol. constit. cap. 18. Our Lord being risen from death: make ye your sacrifice which by us he has Constituted, saying do this in my commemoration: and l. 6. cap. 23. for one sacerdotal tribe, he hath commanded, to choose some of the best of every Nation, to the Priesthood, not regarding the defects of body, but their religion and life; for cruental sacrifice a rational and incruental; and that mystical sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lord, which is celebrated in symbole of his death, for worship determined by circum­scription of place: he hath commanded to cele­brate the same with praises, from the East to the West in every place of his Dominion.

These might suffice to shew the Authority of the Catholick Church in celebrating the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and therfore I omit several other places of the holy Scrip­ture, and I will therfore make it more clear by the continual Tradition of the Church in those first 500. years.

CHAP. II. The sacrifice of the Mass proved by Tradition and practise of the Church, within the five hundred years after Christ.

SAint Augustine Epist. 118. ad Januarium. cap. 5. affirms, that whatsoever the Church in all the world uses, carries with it full authority: insomuch that to dispute whether it might be done; is most insolent madness: and lib. 1. contra Cresconium c. 33. to do that, which the whole Church ap­proves; cannot be questioned, for as the holy Scripture cannot deceive us; so he who fears to be deceived, by the obscurity of any question, let him consult of it, the Church, which without any ambiguity, the Scripture demonstrates or makes mani­fest.

Let us therfore now see what hath been the Doctrine of the Church within these 500. years after Christ, wherto as I said be­fore the Doctour appeals.

This cannot be made more manifest then by the Tradition and practise of the Church, in her Liturgies or Masses, for what the Grecians call liturgies, that the Latin calls Missa, and we in English Mass. Now these [Page 20]Liturgies do come from S. Peter, S. James, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose and others of those times, and within the times from five hundred years, we hardly find any forms of Masses; but what are deduced from them: I will not say but that there have been some difference in their rites or ceremonies, some diminutions and some additions, yet none of them differ in the substance or nature of a sacrifice, all agree in their forms, in as much as concerns the due celebration of the Mass. Now because the Doctour alledges the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, and S. Chrysostome, I shall take a brief view of these in particular.

§. 1. of S. James Liturgie.

SAint Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, l. de Traditione divina Liturgiae, about the year 430. assures us, that amongst the Apost­les, S. James did set forth a form of liturgie or Mass; which Baronius ad an. 63. confirms, out of S. Cyril Bishop of Hierusalem, Cate­chist. 6. an. 365. who Catch. 5. explicates the most part of S. James Liturgie, as of the pax or, kisse of peace, the sursum corda; and Pre­face; the cherubical hymn, sanctus sanctus san­ctus, prayers before the consecration; In which, says he, we pray our most benign God, that he would send his spirit on what is set before [Page 21]us, that he indeed would make this bread, Christ's body, and the wine Christ's bloud: for what the holy Ghost teaches is altogether sancti­fied, and transmuted; but then when that spi­ritual sacrifice is made, we pray for the living and dead, &c. all which is found in S. James liturgie. S. Dionise and S. Clement have made the description of S. Peters Mass, where are many things also like to those of S. James, and what now are in use in the Latine Church, S. Epiphanius an. 370. Haeres. 79. calls S. James the Principal leader of the Mysteries and sacrifice. For the satifaction of the Reader I shall make a brief observati­on of what I find in his liturgie, as I find it in Claudius de sanctis, printed 111. years past.

The glorious Apostle S. James composed for his people of Hierusalem his liturgie or Mass, wherin he frequently calls it a divine and supercelestial mysterie; a sacred and dread­ful Mysterie, made at the holy Altar; a dread­ful and incruental or unbloudy sacrifice, In which commemoration is made of the most holy Immaculate, our most glorious lady Mother of God and alwaies Virgin Mary, with all the saints and Just; in another place, he has the same, concluding that by their prayers and intercession we may obtaine Mercy. In another place the Priest prayes; that he would grant that this our Oblation may be grateful [Page 22]acceptable, sanctified by the holy Ghost; for the propitiation of our sins, and for the Rest of our friends who have slept before us.

Before; we ask of our Lord, the Angel of peace our faithful guide keeper of our souls and bodies; the Catechumens and others are dis­missed: then the priest, uses Incense, say­ing, Receive, O Lord from our hands who are sinners this Incense as thou didst receive those things which Abel, Noe, Aaron and Samuel, and all thy saints have offered.

Let all humane and mortal flesh be silent, and stand with fear and trembling, and con­template with it self no terrene thing, for the King of kings, and Lord of lords, Christ our God comes forth to be Immolated: and given for food to the faithful.

The consecration is the same with some little difference with that of the Roman Mass, and in the prayer following, We offer to thee, O Lord, this venerable and incruental sacrifice; and a little after, let his descending, holy and good and glorious presence, sanctifie and make this bread, the holy body of thy Christ and this Chalice the precious bloud of thy Christ, and when he breaks the bread he puts part into the Chalice, saying, The union of the most holy body & precious bloud of our Lord and God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Before Communion he has this prayer, O Lord our God, celestial bread, life of the Ʋni­verse, [Page 23]I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am not worthy to be made partaker of thy immaculate mysteries, but thou as a merci­ful God, make me worthy by thy grace, that without damnation I may be partaker of thy ho­ly body and precious bloud, unto remission of sins and life everlasting: and after; We give thee thanks O Christ our God for that thou hast vouchsafed us, to be made partakers of thy body and blond in remission of sins, and to eternal life.

Moreover, he that peruses this Mass of S. James, may find most things which are in use in the Roman Church, as Incensing the Altar, Salutation of the people with Pax vo­bis, or peace be with you, at least 7. times, the oracles of the Old Testament and do­ctrine of the new, for which now is Epistle and Gospel, Domine miserere, or, kirye elei­son, at least 15. times; the Gloria in excelsis, Creed, and our Lords prayer: Inelination at the prayers, often signing the gifts with the sign of the Cross, and dismission of the people with benediction. I cannot omit that in the Consecration of the Chalice, the Apostle particularly declares that the wine should be mingled with water: from these we may fee what the Mass was in those Apostolical times.

§ 2. Of the Liturgy of S. Basil.

SAint Proclus aforesaid says, that many more divine Pastors who succeeded the Apostles and Doctours of the Church, ex­plicating the reason of the holy Mysteries, of that divine Liturgie or Mass, have deli­vered and committed it in writing, and then naming S. Clement and S. James: but Great S. Basil seeing the slouth and negligence of men, and that they thought of nothing but terrene, and abject things, and that there­fore they were weary of long Mass, not that he thought it to contain any superfluous thing, or over-long, but to prescind the dul­ness and slackness of the Prayers, and hea­rers: for that they spent much time therein, he gave a shorter to be recited; for after that our Saviour was assumpted into hea­ven, the Apostles before they were disper­sed through the whole earth, assembling with conspiring minds, were converted to prayer, the whole day, and when they found much conso lation to be placed in the Mysti­call sacrifice of our Lords body, they did sing the liturgie or Mass, abundantly and long prayer: Since they esteemed these divine sacred things joined together was to be pre­ferred before all other things; and they were inflamed with a greater study and desire of [Page 25]divine things, and the holy sacrifice, and earnestly embraced it, which they alwaies had in memory, the word of our Lord, say­ing, This is my body, and do ye this in my com­memoration: and he who eats my flesh, and drinks my bloud, abides in me, and I in him: wherefore also with a contrite heart they did sing many prayers, vehemently implo­ring the divine Majesty, &c. by these pray­ers they expected the comming of the holy Ghost, that by his divine presence he would make the bread and wine mixt with water, ordained for the sacrifice, the very body and bloud of our Saviour Jesus Christ; which re­ligious rite verily is observed to this very time, and shall flourish even to the end of the world. I have the more willingly reher­sed the words of this holy Bishop, highly commended by St. Cyril a Grecian, and teaching purposely of the divine liturgie or Mass, and explicating it in each particular, according to the two liturgies or Mass of S. Basil and S. Chrysostome, not much more then 30. years, after S. Chrysostome had composed his form of Mass.

In this Mass of S. Basil, we find most of those things mentioned before, in that of S. James, and frequent memory of our blessed Lady, of the most holy our undesiled Lady, Mother of God, and alwaies Virgin Mary, with all the saints; And in a prayer before [Page 26]the hymn, Sanctify our souls and bodies, and give us grace to serve thee in sanctity all our dayes, by the intercession of the holy Mother of God, and all saints, who have glorifyed thee from the beginning of the world.

The Bishop in secret, prays, Reeceive us, approching to thy holy Altar, according to the multitude of thy mercyes, that we may be worthy to offer to thee, that rational and unbloudy sa­crifice for our sins, and ignorance of the People.

The Consecration is some what different, but by the action and words of our Saviour; after which, the Bishop prayes in secret, Therefore O most holy Lord we also sinners and they unworthy servants, who are ordained to minister at thy Altat; not for our righteous­nesse; for we have not done any thing good on earth; but for thy mercies and miserations, which thou hast abundantly poured on us, we con­fiding draw near to thy holy Altar; propounding the things consigurating the holy body and bloud of thy Christ: we beseech thee, and ask thee, O holy of holies, that by thy wel-plensing benigni­tie, thy holy spirit may comt upon us, and on these guifts which are set before us, to bless and sanctifie them, and declare this bread to be the honour able body of our Lord God and Suvicur jesu Christ, and that which is in the Chalice, the very bloud of our Lord God and our Saviout Jesu Christ, which is shed for the life of the world.

[Page 27] Again, Make us all, partaking of one bread and Chalice to be united together, in the Com­munion of one holy Spirit, and receive the holy body and bloud of thy Christ, &c.

Before Communion, the Bishop said, O Lord Jesu Christ our God, behold from thy ho­ly tabernacle, and come to sanctifie us, who sittest above with the Father, and here invisibly art joyned to us, vouchsafe with thy pawerful hand, to give us thy holy and undesiled body, and precious bloud, and by us sinners to thy peo­ple.

Prayer for the dead; Be mindful of all who sleep in the hope of Resurrection to eternal life: and as for Altars, Vestments, Incense, some prayers in secret; Kyrie eleison, very fre­quently. In like manner Pax vobis: the Epistle and Gospel; signing the bread and wine, and the people, with the signe of the Cross; turning to the people; washing of hands, ele­vation of the bread, to shew it to the people; dismission of the people, with many other things which we now use in the Roman Mass; the like I may say of S. Chrysostomes Mass of which in the next Paragraph;

§. 3. Of S. Chrysostom's Liturgie or Mass.

NOt long after S. Basil, S. John Chry­sostome on the same reasons did abbre­viate the form of Mass, which the Grecians [Page 28]do observe to this day, and besides the pra­ctise, many Expositors, as Proclus Bishop of Constantinople within 30. years after. S. German Bishop of the same place, in his Theorie of holy things, wherein he expli­cates all the ceremonies and substance of the Mass. Nicolas Cabasilus Archbishop of Thes­salonia, in his explication of the liturgie. The holy Martyr Maximus, in his book de Ecclesiastica Mystagogia, of the Ecclesiasti­cal Mysteries and ceremonies: Bessarion Bishop of Nice, and afterward Cardinal; and others all agreeing in the same Myste­ries, and others all agreeing in the same Myste­ries, with S. Chrysostome in his Liturgie. Add to this, that we may find the self same dis­persed in his several works, as Clandius de sanctis, has pithily collected in the end of his book de Liturgils; Let us briesly set down what S. Chrysostome has in his.

We find all the Ceremonies now used in the Lattin Church, as all along are noted in the second part of the liturgical Discourse, par­ticularly of Altars, Vestments, signing the bread and wine, the book of the Gospel, Incense, and Peoples Inclinations, adorations, some prayers in silence, prayer for the Pope, parti­tion of the host, whereof one piece is put into the Chalice; Elevation of the holy Sacrament; Pax, benediction at the end; of offering at the Altar.

Mention is made of the Ineruental host, [Page 29]and the Priest prayes; We give thee thanks, O Lord God of vertues, who hast thought us worthy to assist now at thy holy Altar, and to prostrate to thy mercies, for our sins, and ig­norance of the people; O Lord God receive our supplication, and make us worthy in offering prayer, and the Incruental host, to thee for all thy people. And again in another prayer, Make me annointed with the grace of Priest­hood, to assist at this holy table, and consecrate thy holy body, and precious bloud: A little af­ter, Grant that these Sacraments may be offe­red by me a sinner, and thy unworthy servant, for thou art he that offers and is offered, the re­ceiver, and distributer, Christ our Lord: The words of consecration are a little different from those of the former Liturgies: After the Priest sayes, We offer to thee this rational and Incruental dutie, and we pray and suppli­cate and ask, that thou wouldst send thy holy Spirit upon us, and on these thy gifts, and make this bread indeed the precious body of thy Christ; and what is in the Chalice, the Preci-bloud of thy Christ: The Deacon saying, A­men, the Priest adds, Changing, by thy holy spirit.

And after, Look down O Lord Jesu Christ our God, from thy holy Tabernacle, and from the seat of Glory of thy kingdom; and come to sanctify us, thou who sittest above with the Fa­ther, and assists us invisibly, here beneath: [Page 30]vouchsafe to give us by thy powerful hand, thy Immaculate body and precious bloud, and by us, to all the People.

Besides in this Liturgie, the priest fre­quently calls upon our Blessed Lady, cra­ving her Intercessiion, as also of the Angels and Saints, and for the living and Dead: In sine, there is nothing in the now Roman Mass but Order and Decorum that was not in the former Mass in the primitive times: so that we may say, if the Mass was good in those times, the Roman Mass is now good; and if this the now Roman Mass be Idola­trous and sacrilegious, the Liturgies, Mass, or publick prayer of the Church of those times, were so also; so that there never was a true Christian Church.

CHAP. III. The Sacrifice of the Mass proved out of the testimonie of Popes and Councels in the first 500. years.

NExt to this, of the practise of the Church, the authority of the holy Popes, who have been within those 500. years, ought to have a great weight and cre­dit, wherefore I shall begin with S. Leo; 440. under whom was celebrated that [Page 31]famous Councel of Chalcedon, admitted by the now English Church; and for his great acts, was surnamed the Great: he I say Epist. 81. to Dioscorus, Ordained, that for the necessity of the people a priest might say more then one Mass in solemn feasts: and Epist. 88. to the Bishops of Germany and France he gives a command that Coriepiscopes or Priests should not reconcile any penitent publickly in Mass.

367. Pope Damascus Epist. 4. made the same Decree, and in his Pontifical speaking of Alexander Pope and Martyr; he sayes; that he did mingle our Lords Passion in the priests prayers, when Masses were celebra­ted; and that Sixtus Pope and Martyr or­dained that the priest beginning the action of Mass, the people should sing the hymn, holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.

297. S. Marcelline Pope and Martyr. Epist. 1. The 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, [Page 32]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, [Page 33]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 [Page 34]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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36]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 [Page 37]other things, he had taken away the wheat that was sent by the Emperour to the Church of Libia; for to make the Eucharist, that by that occasion the Incruent al sacrifice of the Mass, was not for long time offered: he adds moreover, that those goods which Pe­risopia a most noble woman, had bequeathed by Testament to Monasteries, and to the poor, to the end that the sacrifice might be offered for the health of her soul, he had given to prophane persons; sure these actions were then esteemed great Crimes; or else, he durst not to have presumed to propound them in the face of so great a Councel.

431. In the great Councel of Ephesus, the Epist. of Cyrill, Patriarck of Alexan­dria, and synod of that place to Nestorius; was read cap. 3. and highly approved, and commended, as agreeable to the Councel of Nice, or containing nothing ambiguous, no­thing dissentaneous, but agreeing to our setled faith, without any noveltie. Now this Epistle was a profession of the Catholick faith, and to our purpose in these terms; Announcing the death of the only born Son of God, that of Jesus Christ, according to the flesh, and his Resurrection, and in like manner, confessing his ascension into the heavens; we celebrate in the Churches; the incruental verity of sacrifice; so also we come to the Mystical Benedictions, and are sanctified and made partakers of the [Page 38]holy body, and precious bloud of Christ, redee­mer of all of us; not receiving as common flesh (farr be it) nor as of a sanctified man, and as of one joined to the word, according to the uni­ty of dignity or of one possessing the divine habi­tation, but as truely life-giving and made pro­per to the word it self, being life naturally as God, for he is united to proper flesh, and has declared that to be life-giving, and therefore as he said to us, Amen, Amen, I say to you, un­less you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his bloud; yet we ought not to think that to be as a man one of us (for how can the flesh of man according to his nature be life-giving?) but truly made proper to him, who for us, both is and is called the son of man; I cannot con­ceive but that this was then the common be­lief of the whole Church, when from this Mystery of the Mass they proved the God­head of Christ.

325. I shall conclude with the 18. Ca­non of the first General Councel held at Nice, where it is said, That there was brought to the holy & great Council, that in some places and Citties, the Deacons did give the Grace of holy Communion to Priests; which neither Rule, nor custome, hath delivered, that those who offer Christs body, should receive from them who have no power to offer, also it was decla­red that some Deacons did touch the holy thing offered, (that is the Eucharist) before the bishops.

[Page 39] These might suffice to any rational man, for a clear attestation of the holy sacrifice of the Mass, even in those primitive times; nevertheless I shall by way of addition pro­duce the testimony and judgment of the holy Fathers and Doctours of those times.

CHAP. IV. The testimony and judgment of the holy Fathers and Doctours, for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that within five hundred years after Christ.

430. I Shall begin with the foresaid S. Cyril, even in the first Councel of Ephesus, in his Declaration of the 11. Anathemati­cisme. We celebrate in the Church, the life-giving and incruental sacrifice, beleiving that which is set before us, to be the body, and in like manner precious bloud, not of some man-like and common, but rather we receive it, as the proper body and bloud of the life-giving Word, for common flesh cannot vivificate, and our Sa­viour testified this, saying, the flesh, profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickeneth, but because it is made proper to the word, therefore it is understood, as is life-giving: as our Savi­our said, As the living father sent me, and I live by the Father; and he who eats me, the same also shall live by me.

[Page 40] 430. Theodoret about the same time cap. 20. of the History of the holy Fathers, In the life of holy Maris, says, When divine Maris had a long time desired to sea the spiritu­all and mystical sacrifice to be offered, he asked, that the oblation of the divine gift might be made, I willingly yielded to him, and comman­ded the holy vessells to be brought, when the vil­lage was not far distant, and for an Altar used the Deacons hands, and offered the mystical divine and salutarie sacrifice.

420. S. Augustine Epist. 23. ad Benifaci­um, Was not Christ once immolated in himself, and yet in the sacrifice not only through all the Paschall solemnities, but every day, for the people. l. 20. oont. Faustum. c. 21. Who of the Bishops assisting, at the Altar in the place of the holy bodies, at any time said? I offer to thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian, but what is offe­red is offered to God, who crowned the Martyrs. Afterward, We most frequently sacrifice to God, in the Memory of Martyrs, only with that Rite, with which in the manifestation of the New testament, he hath commanded to be sacri­ficed to him, which pertains to that worship which is called Latria, and is due only to God. And a little after, The flesh and bloud of this sacrifice, before the comming of Christ was promised by victims of similitudes; In the Passi­on was given by truth it self; and after Christs Ascension, is celebrated by a Sacrament of me­mory. [Page 41] Ser. 91. de temp. he makes mention of some lessons which were read in the Masse, Ser. 32. cap. 1. It is not to be doubted, but that the dead receive help by the prayers of the Church; and by the Salutarie Sacrifice, and almes, which are given for their souls; that God may deal more mercifully with them; then their sins have deserved, for this is delivered to us by our Fathers. The whole Church observes when she prayes for those who are dead in the communion of Christs body and bloud, when in their place they are remembred at the Sacrifice; Ser. 251. On Sonday let none absent themselves from the celebration of Masses; where he al­so complains, that some do force the Priest to abreviate their Masses, lib. 10. di civitate Dei, cap. 20. The man Christ Jesus, was made Mediatour between God and man, when in form of God he takes sacrifice with the Father, with whom also he is true God, yet in form of a servant he had rather be, then take Sacrifice, by this he is both a Priest himself, the Offerer, and he himself the Oblation, the Sacrament of which he would have to be the dayly sacrifice of the Church; which being the body of that head, learns to offer her self by him. The ancient sa­crifices of the Saints, were manifold and va­rious signs of this true sacrifice, when this one was figured by many, and to this high and true sacrifice all counterfeit Sacrifices did give place: and lib. 22. cap. 8. A house being haun­ted [Page 42]by evill spirits, the man of the house entreat­ed one of our Priests to go thither, and expell them by prayer, one went and offered there the Sacrifice of Christs body, and by Gods mercy the divells did leave the place. lib. 9. confess. cap. 12. the Saint tells us, that he was pre­sent, when the Sacrifice was offered for his Mothers Soul.

398. S. Chrysostome in 2. ad Tit. 1. hom. 2. That holy oblation which Peter or Paul or a Priest of whatsoever merit he be, who doth of­fer, is the same which Christ gave to his Dis­ciples, which now also Priests do make; this has no less then that: hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. God hath prepared here a much more admirable and more magnificent Sacrifice, and when he had changed the Saccrifice, for the slaughter of bruit beasts; he commanded himself to be of­fered: hom. 69. ad Populum Antioch. It was not unadvisedly ordained, by the Apostles, that commemoration of the dead, should be made, in the dreadfull mysteries, for they know that from thence much gain and profit, comes to them; for when the whole people with hands stretched forth, the sacerdotall plenitude, and the dread­full Mystery is propounded, how praying for them, shall we not be heard of God? To these we may admit what the same Saint hath left to posterity, in his liturgie, of which we have spoken already, cap. 1. §. 3. and remit the Reader to Claud. de Sanctis, at the end of [Page 43]his book of the Liturgy who hath made a Collection out of S. Chrysostoms works, not only in general, but also in every particular of the Masse.

390. S. Jerome Epist. ad Theophilum ap­plauding his book sayes, In thy work we have beheld the verity of the Churches that those who are ignorant may learn and be taught, by the testimony of the Scriptures, with what venera­tion, they ought to receive holy things, and serve in the Ministery of Christs Altar, and to have the holy Chalice and holy veils, and o­ther things which belong to the worship of our Lords passion, from the participation of our Lords body and bloud. Again in cap. 1. ad Tit. If lay-men be commanded to abstain from their wives for prayer, what shall we think of a Bi­shop, who must dayly offer immaculate sacrifices unto God, for his own sins and for the sins of the people.

380. S. Gregory of Nice, orat. de Resur­rect. Our Lord preventing the violence of the Jews, offered himself a sacrifice; being himself both priest and Lamb; but thou wilt say to me, when was this done? even then when he gave to his familiar friends, his body to eat, and his bloud to drink, and what he himself did, the same he commanded his Ministers to do.

374. S. Ambrose in his prayer before Mass, which the Church to this day uses, exclaims, O with how great confusion of heart, [Page 44]and fountain of tears, with how great reverence and trembling, with how great chastity of body and purity of mind; is that divine and celestial sacrifice to be celebrated, where thy flesh in ve­rity is taken, where thy bloud in verity is drunk­en, where lowest things are joyned to highest things, earthly things to Divine: where is the presence of the holy Angels, where thou art wonderfully and ineffably Sacrifice and Priest? Again, I, O Lord, mindful of thy venerable Passion, do come to thy Altar, although a sin­ner, that I may offer to thee the sacrifice, which thou hast instituted, and commanded to be offe­red in remembrance of thee, for our Salvation. And in his Mass, he has this prayer, How can we despair of thy mercy, who receive so great a gift; that we should deserve to offer such an host to thee, to wit, the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ, who delivered himself, for the redemption of the world, to that pious and venerable passion; who instituting the form of everlasting sacrifice of Salvations, first offe­red himself a sacrifice, and first taught it to be offered? And again, Our Lord Jesus Christ thy son hath ordained the Rite of sacrificing in the New testament, when he transformed bread and wine, which Melchisedech Priest had offered in prefiguration of the mystery to come; into the sacrament of his body and bloud. and l. de officits cap. 48. Now Christ is offered as man, as receiving his passion, and he offers himself as [Page 45]Priest, that he may forgive our sins: And in Psal. 38. We have seen the high Priest, com­ing unto us, we have seen and heard him offer­ing his bloud for us; let us Priests follow him as much as we can, that we, though weak in merit, yet honorable by the Sacrifice, may offer sacrifice for the people; for although Christ is not now seen to offer, yet he is offered on earth, when the body of Christ is offered, yea, he is manifestly offered in us, his word sanctifies the sacrifice which is offered.

370. S. Gregory Nariazene, orat. 4. makes mention of Altars, having their name from the most pure and incruental sacrifice.

340. S. Athanasius, Ser. de Defunct. The Oblation of the unbloudy sacrifice is our propitiation.

328. Eusebius l. 1. de demonst. cap. 10. Af­ter all things Christ working our salvation of­fered to his Father a certain wonderful victim, and excellent sacrifice for the salvation of us all, and ordained in memory thereof, that we our selves should offer it to God for a sacrifice.

318. S. Cyrill of Hierusalem, Catech. 5. explicates the most parts of the Mass, I will only note his words on the Consecration: We pray (sayes he) the most benign God, that he would send his holy spirit on the things set be­fore us, that he may indeed make the bread, the body of Christ, and the wine the bloud of Christ, for that on which the holy spirit comes upon, is [Page 46]altogether sanctified and transmutated, or changed from one thing to another.

350. S. Cyprian, Epist. 63. ad Clerum. The Bishops our predecessours religiously consi­dering, and wholsomely providing, that no bro­ther departing this life, shall name a Clergy-man to be tutour or guardian over pupils; If he doth, no offering is to be made for him, nor sacrifice celebrated for his rest; because he deserves not to be named at the Altar, in the prayer of the Priests, who would withdraw Priests and Mi­nisters from the Altar: for which he alledges the authority of Pope Victor, and Sermone de coena Domini. This sacrifice is a perpetual, and alwaies a permanent holocaust, no multitude consumes this bread; it becomes not old by anti­quity.

180. S. Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 34. the Churches oblation, which our Lord taught to be offered in the whole world, is reputed before God, a sacrifice pure, and acceptable to him. And a­gain, The kinde of Oblation is not reproved, for oblations were there, and also oblations are here: sacrifice in the people, and sacrifices in the Church: And after, he makes an argument a­gainst the hereticks of those times: Now will it be manifest that the Bread whereon thanks­givings are made, is the body of our Lord, and Chalice his bloud, if they say, Christ is not the word of the Father; see him cap. 32. above cited.

[Page 47] 220. S. Hyppolitus Bishop and Martyr, Orat: de cansummatione Mundi: brings in Christ speaking thus, Come ye Bishops and Priests, who have dayly offered my precious bo­dy and bloud, and speaking of the time of antichrist, he sayes, The holy houses of the Churches, shall be like Cottages; and the preci­ous body and bloud of Christ shall not be extant, in those dayes, the liturgie or Mass, shall be abolished; the singing of psalms shall not be heard, that is, publickly: With him agrees S. Chrisostome, hom. 49. operis imperfecti, ac­cording to that of Dan. cap. 9. & 12.

203. Tertulliam lib. de Oratione, cap. 14. speaking of the stations, very many do think that they are not to be present at the prayers of the sacrifices, because the station is to end, by taking the body of our Lord, therefore the Eu­charist doth finish the devout service to God: were not thy station more solemn, if thou did also stand at Gods Altar? the Body of our Lord being taken and reserved, both are safe, both participation of the sacrifice, and execution of Offices. And l. ad scapulum: We sacrifice for the health of the Emperour, but to our God, and his, but by pure prayer, as God has commanded.

S. Martialis, Epist. ad Burdegal: cap. 3. Sacrifice is offered to God, the Creatour on the Altar, not to men, nor to Angels, not only on a sanctified Altar; but every where a clean ablation is offered to God, as he has testified, [Page 48]whose body and bloud we offer unto life ever­lasting, saying, Joan. 4. God is a spirit, and they that adore him must adore in veritie, for he having been both immaculate aend without sin, because he was conceived of the holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, permitted him­self to be immolated on the Altar of the Cross: but what the Jews through malice did immo­late, thinking themselves to abolish his name from the earth; we propound in a sanctified Al­tar for the cause of our salvation, knowing by this only remedy, life to be given us, and death avoided, for our Lord himself hath commanded us to do it in Commemoration of him.

171. S. Ignatius, Martyr, Epist. ad Smirnenses. It is not lawfull to baptize, nor offer, nor immolate sacrifice, or celebrate Masses without the Bishop: And Epist. ad E­phesios, he condemns those who separate themselves, and come not to the the Con­gregation of sacrifices.

Thus we see, that the Roman Masse used for almost twelve hundred years did not there take its beginning, but was alwaies observed in Christs Church even from the beginning, from Christ himself and his Apostles.

CHAP. V. Sacrifice necessary to the being of a Church.

THere can be no visible Church without visible Religion, nor no visible Reli­gion, without a visible Sacrifice: for as the Church is nothing but a visible congregation of all the faithful, so it is necessary that in this Assembly or Congregation, there be something, that may manifest the ir murual desire and concord to worship God. Now it is certain that there never could be any a­greement to any internal action, neither could there be any publick act of Commu­nion in the worship of God, unless they as­sembled did agree, or follow some external sign, voice, or action, such as Sacraments and sacrifices are.

S. Chrysostome well notes, hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch. If we had been incorporeal, God would have given us plain and incorporeal gifts; but because the soul is conjoyned to the body, he has given us intelligible things, in sensible; and this conformable to humane nature which depends of the senses in her operations; e­ven in the worship of God, whereto the ver­tue of Religion conduces us.

Now Religion includes four Acts: The first is, a consideration of Gods infinite Ma­jesty, [Page 50]on whom all things depend. 2. A re­flexion on our nothing, for of our selves we are nothing have nothing, and can do no­thing; but whatsoever we have or can do, comes all from God; These two acts are not elicited by the vertue of Religion, but as supposed grounds or motives, to the wor­ship of God: the other two proper acts of Religion are interiour or exteriour: the first as pure, is proper only to the Angells, and Blessed souls, now separated from their bo­dies, or elevated by some supernatural grace; but as it is found in Men of this world, has dependence on the senses, but may be purified in its operation, and is a profound submission of heart or internal Inclination of the mind to serve and worship God: The external act of Religion, is an external profession of that interiour will, made by voice, gesture, or external sign; such are publick prayer, adorations, and such like, but none like to the sacrifice; which carries with it that true worship, which S. Augustin, l: 10. de civitate Dci, cap. 1: calls Latria, or, honour due to God: A little after, Religion signifies nothing so di­stinctly as the worship of God, by which cap. 4. we owe sacrifioe to God, and thence inferrs, There is none dare say, a sacrifice is due, but to God alone, and who ever sacrificed but to him, whom he knew, or imagined or feigned to be [Page 51]God: whence I infer, That since from the first creation of Man, God had a Church, wherein there was true Religion, it necessa­rily follows, that according to our humane constitution, in the same Church there was and is an external sacrifice, wherein God, was and is worshipped with Latria, which is the perfect act of Religion and worship of God.

Moreover, sacrifices seem to follow the instinct of Nature, for as Plutark, adversus Colos sayes, A man may find Cities without walls, houses, Kings, Laws, Coynes, schools, and Theatres; but a Town without Temples, and Gods, to whom sacrifices are offered, you shall never finde. Plato, before him, de leg. Dial. We can never finde any Nation so bar­barous, any people at all so rude, and savage, who with vows, victins, and outward sacrifi­ces, have not acknowledged the Soveraeignty of some God or other. All Hysteries do testi­fy, that from the beginning of the world sa­crifices were in use amongst all Nations and Religion: whence S. Augustine, Epist. 49. ad Deograt, 9.34. That, it is not to be bla­med in the rites of Pagans, that they builded Temples, ordained Priests, offered sacrifices (for he supposed these to be according to the law of nature) but that these were exhi­bited to Idols, and devills, that was to be con­demned, for that they gave which was only due [Page 52]to God, to false Gods.

But what makes more to our purpose, is, the continual practise of Gods Church even from the beginning of using sacrifices, which S. Augustine lib. 10. de civit. Dei. cap. 4. How ancient apart of Gods worship, a sacrifice is, Cain and Abel do shew full proof; and all along in the law of Nature the Examples of Noe, Abraham, Melchisedech and Jacob▪ now the written Law had sacrifices ordained by God himself, which continued to our Saviour, to say then, that the law of Grace should have no sacrifice, is to deprive Christs Church of the most noble act of Religion; and so make it more imperfect, then the law of Nature or Written law.

I know some will object that of S. John Chap. 4. God is a spirit, and they that adore him; must adore in spirit and verity; where­to I answer, that this place manifests, that our sacrifices are spiritual, and true, in which they differ from all precedent sacrifices, which were carnal, and rather in figure or shadow of the sacrifice of the new law: It is certain therefore, that Christ did not reject all external worship of God, but would have them done in spirit and truth; other­wise take away all sacrifices, Sacraments, prayers, Churches, and society of men in his service. The sacrifice of the new law re­quires to be done in spirit (that is) in saith, [Page 53]hope, charitie, and interiour devotion; and in veritie according to the institution of Christ. The Apostle S. Paul, Ephes. 6. invites us to pray at all times in spirit, that is, in mind, affection and desire, or as Vatablus terms it, In spirit, that is, with servour of spirit, that is, with an Intimate and fervent spirit, otherwise it works no true act of Re­ligion, whose external act requires also the internal: as has been said already.

Our Advarsaries have sought all means possible to take away the belief of the sacri­fice of the Mass, notwithstanding that Christs Church, as I have formerly manifested, has alwaies taught and believed it as proper to the Evangelical law. This Doctour Breven [...] has two or three Inventions to this purpose, which I shall endeavour to refute in the next Chapter.

CHAP. VI. Of the Doctours Invention to exclude the Sa­crifice of the Mass.

SOme of our advarsaries have said, That the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, is the peculiar and perpetual host, in which our Priesthood, law, and Religion is consti­tuted: and so in the new law, there is no other sacrifice remaining, the Doctour in [Page 54]proof of this, lays hold on the Apostles words; Heb. 7. Christ did once offer himself, cap. 9. once in the consummation of the world; and again Christ was offered once: It is need­lesse then to frame another sacrifice. I answer by granting the Antecedent; and denying the consequence, for the sacrifice of the Cross, was both full and sufficient; nothing was wanting to the value, and sufficiency of the price; for Christ, by his passion, has purchased the sufficient price for to redeem the whole world: yea for all the sins ever committed, either before or after, for it was an expiatorie, Redeeming, and satisfactorie Sacrifice; for the whole world, by which the Sacrifice of the Mass is not excluded; for the Mass is only applicatorie of the Re­demption, and satisfaction, which Christ did work on the Cross; so that in the Mass, we do not offer a new price for our sinns, but we apply the former price of the Cross, to our selves; even as we apply the same to us, by baptism, and other Sacraments.

Moreover, the sacrifice of the Mass, may be said to be the same with that of the Cross; in as much as it is a continual representati­on of the passion; whence S. Cyprian, Epist. 63. sayes, Our sacrifice is correspondent to the passion of Christ: and S. Augustin de fid. ad Pet. Cap. 19. Those carnal sacrifices did pre­figurate the flesh of Christ which he was to offer [Page 55]for sinns; and the bloud which he was to shed; But this sacrifice, is the commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he has now given: and of the bloud which he has shedd: In them he was shewed as to be killed, in this he is shewed as killed. Again, S. Cyprian in the place before cited, sayes, we make mention of the Passi­on, in all our sacrifices (for the passion of our Lord is the sacrifice which we offer) we ought to do no other thing, but what he did, for the Scripture says; as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this Chalice, you shall shew the death of our Lord untill he comes; as often therefore, as we offer the Chalice in remem­brance of our Lord and of his passion, we doe that which manifestly our Lord did; In fine, the sacrifice of the Masse is the same with the sacrifice of the Cross; for that in the Mass, as well as on the Cross, the same principal priest, and the same offerer, to wit, Christ, is both the same victime, and host, different only in the manner, Incruentall in the Mass, Cruentall on the Cross; but the Incruentall in the Mass signifies and repre­sents in a mysteriall manner; the cruental on the Cross.

Christ therefore once dyed for all, with all sufficiency imaginable: but all do not re­ceive the benefit thereof, only those who by grace of God, are made partakers thereof, receive the fruit of Christs passion; and we [Page 56]are made participant of this all-sufficient sa­crifice; by such means as Christ has lest in his Church, amongst which the chiefest are the Sacraments & sacrifice of the Eucharist, as the principal means to apply the merit of Christs passion unto us, which Christ insti­tuted in his last supper, according to the faith, belief, and doctrine of Christs Church; even within these five hundred years after Christ, as is formerly declared.

Others will admit of some sacrifices: but they must be purely spirituall, such as are the sacrifices of praise, of contrition, humi­litie, and such like, as if they were all spi­rituall and celestiall; but our omnipotent God, condescending to our humane nature, and for the general conservation of his wor­ship in the hearts of men, has alwaies or­dained certain visible signes, sacraments, and rites, for to move our interiour minde to such pious duties, as is manifest in all states of Gods Church.

Moreover, this is besides our question, for we require a sacrifice which is proper and peculiar to the new testament, or Law, which was ordained by Christ: such as are mentioned, are common to all laws; if you take them purely spiritual; to no law: for such belong only to celestiall spirits, but if we take them as united to visible signs; then such sacrifices were found in the law of na­ture, [Page 57]as in the written laws, nay there were several sacrifices in all. The primary Inten­tion, was to exhibite due worship to God, and in particular some were for expiation of sin, some with thanksgiving, other in praise of God; in like manner in the law of Grace there are such sacrifices, but the only true and proper sacrifice of the Evangelical law▪ is the sacrifice of the Eucharist; which as it succeeded all the sacrifices of the old law, so it hath in a more excellent manner their ef­fect.

Contrary to this, Doctour Brevent cites S. Augustine, lib. 10. de civit. Dei, cap. 6. Eve­ry work tending to effect our beatitude by a sin­cere inherence with God is a true sacrifice. To which I say, that in a general sense it is true, especially if it be taken in metaphori­call sense, as 8. Augustine plainly here takes it; as it appears in the 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, [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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 [Page 60]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 [Page 61]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 [Page 62]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 Me­mento of the Mass, in which, the Priest prays for all who are present, saying, for whom we offer to thee, or, who do offer to thee this sacrifice.

CHAP. VII. Of the Doctours deceitful proceeding in his citations.

THe Doctour to shew his great Reading, in every page almost, cites schoolmen, Fathers, Liturgies, and Councils; not re­membring that all those schoolmen, were members and professours of the Roman Church; all of them taught the Roman Mass; I cannot concieve any reason, why he should alledge Bellarmine, and other School­men for his foolish conceits; unless he had dreamt that no man would take the pains to read their works; for if they did, they should easily see his legerdemain, nay, I can scarcely believe, that the Doctor himself ever read them, in the Authours themselves, but perhaps trusted to some others notes; verily a man need not go any further, to an­swer all his impertinencies; then to read the places he cites; for either they were of his opinion or no; if they were not, as it is certain they were not, who can excuse his most perverse malice, who with neglect of their grounds, for the sacrifice of the Mass; and answers to all his objections: If they were not, strange madness possessed them, that they all of them should so amply, and [Page 64]so copiously write, preach, and teach this catholick Doctrine: Alcuinus, Ordo Roma­nus, Durandus, Walfridus, Honorius, Ga­briel, Ceremonialt, and Pontificale Roma­num, Vega, &c. whom the Doctour cites, have written whole books, believing and proving not only the substance of the Ro­man Mass, but also every particular circum­stance, manner, and rite and ceremony there­of; all these Schoolmen were Priests or Bishops ordained in the Roman Church; yea many were Cardinals.

But it is strange, that the Doctour should quote such men when he confesses that the Roman Church, had almost twelve hundred years been possessed of the Mass; and pro­fessed as she now doth; the most that we may expect, from his innumerable citations is, that he has scraped and culled some half sen­tences, some slips of words, wherein I will not excuse all, neither are we bound to de­fend or believe all they say, we much ho­nour them as true Children of the Church, and as faithful Expositours of the Mysteries of our faith, with submission to their lawful Prelates.

But I freely accuse the fraudulent dealing of taking words and sentences contrary to their own judgment; and minde; yea their own words, and absolutely contrary to their manifest and known doctrine, meerly to de­ceive [Page 65]the Christian Readers: I dare say; that if the Doctour himself; or any other, would stand to their judgments, the Doctor would loose his cause; for they were constant, Champions, and defenders of the Roman faith; even in this sacrifice of the Mass.

Now because it is not my task here; to defend or reprove what has been said, or taught in the Church, from the first five hun­dred years; I will let the Doctor alone in his career, and enquire, what others will say of his great impertinencies: But because he has the boldness to quote the Liturgies or Masses of S. James, S. Basil, and S. Chry­sostome, which were within those five hun­dred years; I must say, that it is an un­wonted way, to take testimony of Masses, against the Mass; especially when all he has said, in every respect, is as much a­gainst the Mass, of S. James, of S. Basil, and S. Chrysostome, as against the Roman Mass; for in substance of a sacrifice of the new law, they are all one: as I have formerly decla­red.

Yet, I cannot but note, that the Doctor pag 20. produces a prayer used in the Litur­gies; That according to our Saviours merciful institution, God would be pleased to send down on these Sacraments, the Holy Ghost, and so sanctify them; that they may be the pretious bo­dy, and the pretious bloud of his Son, to them [Page 66]who should receive worthily, &c. In the Liturgy of S. Chrysostome, I find these words in La­tin, Adone offerrimus tibi rationabile ac in­cruentum hoc obsequium & precamur, & supplicamus, & deposcimus ut mittas spiritum sanctum tuum super nos & super hoc apposita munera (the rubrick is, Et orige [...]s se, & torrio consignans sancta munera dicit) Et fac panem istum quidem pretiosum Corpus Christi tui; & quod est in calice isto, pretiosum san­guinem Christi tui, permutans sancto spiritu tuo. These words I have put in English, be­fore cap. 2. §. 3. of S. Chrysostomes liturgy; and here in latin, that all may see how lit­tle conscience this Doctor shews in citing those Liturgies, which are so contrary to his drift in this his book, and how little care he has of his words; for if we should stand to the words, as he sets them down, we may gather, that the bread and wine are sancti­fyed by the Holy Ghost, and made the bo­dy and bloud of Christ: his addition which none of the Liturgies have; To them who? should receive worthily, is only a necessary condition required on our pa [...], but makes nothing to the being of our Saviours body▪ and bloud in the Sacrament, and are not found there.

As for the holy Fathers, he frequently quotes them, but seldom their words, at least any way contradicting the Catholick [Page 67]doctrine of the Mass: how much they are for it, is manifest, from what has been said before; the greatest advantage that I con­ceive he makes of them, is that they som­times call the Eucharist, even after the con­secration, Bread, which cannot be denyed, for the Roman Church in the Mass does the same, imitating our Saviour, who affirmed that he was the bread of life, the bread which I will give is my flesh: and things are named according to the outward form, and lest a­ny one should be mistaken, the holy Fa­thers, must commonly and, an explication thereto, so S. Cyprian, l. 2. Epist. 3. sayes, Christ offered the [...], which Melchisedech offered, to wit, bread and wine, that is his bo­dy and bloud. S. Hierome in cap. 1. Malac. We pollute the bread, that is Christs body: when we come unworthily to the Altar; and in cap. 5. ad Hebreos, Our mystery is signified in offe­ring bread and wine, that is, the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ is offered: so in the Roman Mass it is bread of life ever­lasting.

CHAP. VIII. Of two gross Mistakes committed by the Doctor.

THe Doctor either out of Ignorance or perverse malice in his third chap. as al­so [Page 68]so in other places, attributes to the Roman Church the sacrificing of their God; which if he believes, he shews his ignorance in a high degree, if not, what may excuse him? for he cannot but know, that the sacrifice of the Mass is no other, than that of the body & bloud of Christ Jesus; and that it is offered as well to God the Son, as to God the Fa­ther, and to God the Holy Ghost: and by his raillery all alone, he seems to under­stand it, but in this he imitated the ancient heathens, who upbraided 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 [Page 69]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 [Page 70]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 [Page 71]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 [Page 72]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 [Page 73]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 contemplate the works of God, and confider every particular, in one Miracle, we may finde many Miracles, which exceed all created power. For the satisfaction of the Reader, I shall illustrate it by examples. Exodus the 4. God converted Moses his rod into a serpent, which without all doubt, was a great Miracle, which also carries with it many Miracles included therein; 1. the Rod was reduced to nothing, and 2. To the serpent then created, God [Page 74]gave motion, proportion, figure, and other qualities of a serpent; and in like manner turning this new created serpent, into a rod: the serpent was reduced to nothing, and the serpent was converted into a rod; which re­ceived a new being, not by any created power, but by God himself, who also gave it colour, proportion, figure, and dimen­sion, with other properties, agreeable to the nature of a rod; so that there was a dou­ble transubstantiation or conversion from one substance to another substance; and transmutations or conversions of accidents to other accidents, independently of any natural cause or action: and here we may note, that our wonderful God afterward gave to Moses power to do the same, not by his humane vertue, or power, but by the power and gift of God, whereby alone Moses as Gods Ministers, and instrument did the same.

In like manner, God did miraculously give to the Children of Israel, Manna, Exod. 16. and in it are contained many Mi­racles. 1. That it was in such plenty that e­very day it was sufficient for three Millions. 2. That every one how much, or how lit­tle, they gathered, had as much and no more then theother. 3. Every one received nourishment thereby, equally to their con­dition, savour, and appetite; The holy [Page 75]text sayes, according to that which they were able to eat, 4. The Manna putrified the next day, excepting only the sabbaoth day, when it did not putrify. 5. On the sixth day the Manna was doubled, and was not to be found on the sabaoth day. 6. Solomon sap. 16. tells us, that God gave bread from heaven, without labour, having in it all delec­tation, and the sweetness of all tasts, serving every mans will, and was turned to what every one would. 7. God continued this Manna for 40. years and no more, 8. God preserved this Manna in the Tabernacle for many ages.

If this Manna which as our Saviour him­self John. 6. teaches, was but a figure or sign of the bread, which he was to give, to wit, his body and bloud, has so many maricles accompanyed it, why should any reasonable man wonder that so many Miracles should accompany the celestial and divine Manna, especially if they be necessarily annexed, to the nature of so great and so miraculous a Sacrament, wherein the body and bloud of our Saviour Christ is contained. The royal Peophet Psal. 110. cries out, God hath made a memory of his miraculous works, a mer­ciful and pittiful Lord, he hath given meat to them that fear him: which according to all Catholick Interpreters, is as much as to say, God hath left one most special and most be­neficial [Page 76]memory of all other benefits, to wit, his body and bloud, in a miraculous manner; as a memory of his Passion, and our Redemption, as the spiritual food, and substance of all souls, who rightly fear him: The greatest Miracle is the Transubstanti­ation or conversion of the bread, and wine into the body, and bloud of Christ (of which I shall speak in place convenient) which with it carries necessarily many other Mira­cles, as in the next Chapter I shall fully de­clare.

There remain two difficulties which mani­fest the Doctors Ignorance or malice: the first is, that the Doctor attributes all these Miracles to the Priests; as if it all were done by their power, according to our be­lief, wherein he grievously errs; as hereaf­ter I shall declare: for with S. Augustine, l. 10. de civit. Dei, cap. 12. All Catholicks be­lieve all Miracles done by Angels or men, tru­ly to be done by Gods power, working in them: If then there be any Miracles, as no Christi­an can deny in the Eucharist; it is God a­lone, who works them by the Ministery of the Priests: even as I said before, he did work miracles by his servant Moses, so S. Peter, Act. 3. cured the lame man at the doors of the temple, but advises the people, that they should not think, that he did it by his own power, or holiness, but in the name or pow­er [Page 77]of Jesus: so, the priests do not any of those miraculous things, in the sacrifice of the Mass by any humane power; but by his ministerial power received in his Ordinati­on, Christ himself doth effect them: so that the Doctors babling so often of Miracles wrought by the Romish priests, is but meer raillery or most base ignorance.

The other as ignorant folly, is his can­ting, with reiteration, touching the Roman priest, bringing down Christs body from heaven, at his pleasure; as though Christ in coming to the Eucharist, did leave the right hand of his Father in hea­ven; which is a grosse errour, for Christ is no less in heaven after the Consecration then he was before the Consecration: he is sit­ting still at the right hand of his Father, ac­cording to the Article of our Creed; yet ne­vertheless he is in the Sacrament; this indeed is a Miracle wrought only by Gods omni­potent power; this made S. Chrysostome, l. 3. de sacerdot. to exclame, O Miracle: O benignity of God; he who sitts above with the Father, in the same article of time, is often handled in the hands of all, and he delivers himself to those who are desirous to receive and embrace him. hom. 3. ad Ephesios, and hom. 61. ad populum Antioch; Also he says, As many of us, who communicate of the body of Christ, and taste his bloud, let us consider, that [Page 78]we taste the body, and taste the bloud of him, who sits in the celestials, and is adored by the Angels.

Their great Master Calvin, lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. says, In his supper he commands me to take eat and drink, under the symbols of bread and wine, his body and bloud; for although it may seem incredible, that in so great a distance of places (as heaven and earth) the flesh of Christ, should penetrate to us, that it may be meat for us, we must yet remember how much above our senses, the secret power of the holy Ghost can shew it self; that which our minde comprehendeth not, our faith conceives, the spirit truly joyns together, things locally separated, sect. 24. Nothing mooe incredible, that things so far distant and remote within the whole space of heaven and earth, in the whole distances of places, are not only conjoyned, but also united.

CHAP. X. Concerning the Miracles which follow in the hody Sacrament of the Eucharist.

THe Doctor much troubles himself a­bout the Miracles which occur in the Eucharist, whereas any one who believes the real presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament; must needs know, that [Page 79]those Miracles do necessarily follow there­to: If he could disprove that one, the rest will fall; but if he cannot, all the rest he says makes nothing; for we only believe those miracles, because we believe the real presence; true it is we should believe, nay know, that they are possible to God; and so more easily believe them to be so, because God has said the word, This is my body and This is my bloud: I am confident, that if the Doctor did believe this, he would make no difficulty of the others, wherefore before I speak of those miracles, it seems to me ex­pedient, to shew what was the belief of the Church for those first five hundred years.

440. I shall begin with S. Leo l. de Jeju­nio, 7. mens. ser. 6. You ought so to communicate at the holy table, as to doubt nothing at all of the verity of the body and bloud of Christ; for that is received by the mouth, which is believed in the heart.

420. S. Augustine in psal. 98. Christ took earth from earth, for flesh is from the earth; and he took flesh from the flesh of Mary and did walk in flesh it self, and gave that flesh, to be eaten by us for our salvation. lib. 12. cont. Faust. cap. 10. he saith, That the faithful do receive with their mouth, the bloud where­with they were redeemed; and drink that now, which came from the side of Christ. And. lib. 2. contra advers. leg. & Prophet. cap. 9. We [Page 80]receive with a faithful heart, and mouth, the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, giving to us his flesh to be eaten, and bloud to be drunken.

398. S. Crysostome, hom. 83. in Mat. Be­cause our Lord said. This is my body, let us not be entangled with any doubtfulness; but let us believe, and see it with the eyes of our understanding.

394. S. Ambrose, l. 4. de sacram. c. 5. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself gives testimony unto us, that we take his body and bloud; can we any way doubt of his fidelity, and testimo­ny? and lib. 5. cap 4. Before the consecrati­on, that which is offered may be called bread, when the words are pronounced, now it is not called bread, but the body: whereas before l. 4. c. 4. he said, This bread is bread before the sacramental words, yet when the consecra­tion shall be adjoyned, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ.

390. S. Hierome in Comment: Matt. c. 26. After that the Typical pasch was fulfilled, and he had eaten the flesh of the Lamb with his Apostles; he took bread which strengthens mans heart, and so proceeded unto the true sacrament of the Pasch; that even as in his prefiguration, Melchisedech the priest of the high God had done, offering bread and wine, he also might represent the truth of his body and flesh: And Epist. ad Hedib. quaest. 2. The [Page 81]bread which our Lord brake, and gave to his Disciples, was the body of our Lord and savi­our: And beneath, Neither did Moses give us the true bread, but our Lord Jesus; he is the true guest, Master, and the banquet, he eats, and is eaten. Gaudentius about the same time, Tract: de Exod. The Creatour himself and Lord of all creatures and natures, who pro­duces bread from the earth, because he both can, and has promised it, doth from the bread again, make his own body; and he that made wine of water, has also made his bloud of wine. And a little after. Believe that which has been taught us, that which thou receivest is the body of that heavenly bread, and the bloud of that sacred Vine; for when he delivered the consecrated bread and wine to his Disciples, he said, This is my body, this is my bloud, let us believe him whom we have believed, truth cannot lye.

380. S. Gregory Nissen, Orat. Catechist. cap. 36. A little leaven makes a whole lump of dough, like unto it self; so also that body which is made immortal by God, entring into our body, transposes and changes it wholly into it self; And a little after, It is conjoyned with the bodies of the faithful, that by this conjuncti­on with that which is immortal, man also may be made partaker of Immortality.

370. S. Gregory Nazian. orat. 2. de Pasch. Without anxiety and doubt, eat the bo­dy and drinkche bloud of Christ. if indeed thou [Page 82]be desirous of life; neither do thou doubt of the truth of these speaches, which are uttered con­cerning the flesh, neither be thou offended at the Rassion; be constant and firm and stable, not doubting of anything, whatsoever the ad­varsaries say: good councel against Doctour Brevent.

About the same time, or not long before S. Ephrem. lib. de natura Dei minine scrutanda, c. 15. gives us as good counsel, saying; Why doest thou search things unscrutable, if thou examine those things curiously, thou shalt not then be accounted a man faithful and inno­cent, be partaker of the immaculate body of thy Lord, with fulness of faith, assuring thy self, that thou catest the whole Lamb himself. The Misteries of Christ are an immortal fire, do not thou rashly search them out, least thou be consumed in the search thereof: And beneath he says, This indeed exceeds all admiration, all understanding, and all speeches, which Christ the only begotten son our Saviour, hath done for us, he has given us fire and spirit to be eaten and drunk, that is (as he himself ex­plicates) his body and bloud.

365. S. Cyril of Hierusalem, Catechist. 4. Forasmuch as Christ himself thus affirms, and speaks, concerning the bread, This is my body, who dares hereafter doubt of it? foras­much also, as himself confirms it, and sayes, This is my bloud, who I say can doubt of it, and [Page 83]say, it is not his bloud? And again, so shall we be Christopheri, that is, bearers of Christ, when we have received his body and bloud into our members; and we shall be made as S. Peter says, partakers of the divine nature. Thou must not consider it, as bare bread and wine, for it is the body and bloud of Christ, according to our Lords own words. And again, With all assurance, let us receive the body and bloud of Christ, for under the form of bread, his body is given thee; and under the form of wine, his bloud is given to thee.

355. S. Hilary, l. 8. de Tria. Whatsoever we say of the natural verity of Christ in us, we speak foolishly and impiously, unless we learn of him, for he says, my flesh is true food, and my bloud is truly drink, he who eats my flesh and drinks my bloud, abides in me, and I in him; there is no place of doubting left, of the verity of flesh and bloud, for now both by the Profession of our Lord himself and our faith it is truly flesh and truly bloud, and these being taken and drunk, do work that we are in Christ, and Christ in us; is not this the truth? It seems not to be true to them, that deny Christ to be true God.

226. Origen hom. 5. in diversa loca E­vangel. When thou receivest the holy food and incorruptible banquet, when thou doest enjoy the bread and cup of life; thou doest eat and drink the body and bloud of our Lord; then our [Page 84]Lord enters under thy roof, thou therefore then humbling thy self, imitate the Centurion, say, Lord, I am not worthy, that thou shouldest en­ter under my roof.

203. Tertullian, lib. 4. contra Marcio­nem. The bread which he took in his hand, he made his body, saying, This is my body: And lib. de Resurrectione carnis. The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ, that the soul may be replenished and filled with God.

186. S. Jrenaus lib. 4. cap. 35. How shall it be manifest to them, that the bread, on which thanks are given, is the body of the Lord, and the Chalice of his bloud; if they say, be is not the son of the Creatour of the wrrld; the saint makes an argument of Christ being the Son of God, from the holy Mysteries of the Mass and Eucharist.

150. S. Justin Martyr, in Apolog. ad Antomin. We do not take it as common bread, nor this as common drink, but as by the word of God, our Saviour Jesus Christ was incarnate, and took both flesh and bloud for our Salvation, so also by the prayers of the word of God, we are taught, that the Eucharist (being made our food by him, whereby our bloud and flesh may be nourished by mutation) is the flesh and bloud of the same Jesus incarnate.

71. S. Ignatius Martyr, as Theodoretus Dial. 3. in his epist. ad Sawnon. They do n t admit Eucharists and Oblations, because they [Page 85]do not confesse the Eucharist▪ to be the flesh of our Saviour, which suffered for our sins, which the Father through his bounty raised again.

S. Dionise about the same time I. de Eccl. Hierarch. par. 3. c. 3. O most divine and holy sacrament, vouchsafe to open the coverings of those significant signs, which overshadow thee, and appear plain, to us, and fill our spiritual eyes, with the singular and clear shining of thy Light.

By these authorities of the holy Fathers the faith of the Church in those first five hundred years, is made manifest, so that none with reason, can doubt of the real pre­sence of Christs body and bloud in the Eu­charist; unless he will altogether dissent from Christs Church, in those primitive times; and say, that Christ never had a true Church upon earth; in which number Doctor Brevent is not to be reckoned, for he ingeniously admits a true Church for five hundred years after Christ, which admitted the real presence, whereto the miracles, which he scoffingly rehearses, do necessarily follow, (as I said before) to the being of Christ Jesus in the Sacrament.

To begin therefore with his first miracle, which is, that the bread is distroyed in a moment, pray cannot he who gives it a be­ing, take it away when he pleases? did not [Page 86]the same God turning Lot's wife into a pil­lar of salt, take away, or destroy, or bring to nothing, her humane form, and nature, in a moment? was not the form of Moses [...]d nature and substance destroyed in a mo­ment? was not the water when Christ turned it into wine, wholly destroyed? moreover this destruction follows the nature of all conversions, either partial or total; no new form is introduced, but as the former is de­stroyed; no total substance is produced, but when the total substance precedent is also destroyed. If then the body of Christ be by the power of the omnipotent God, introdu­ced or produced in the place of bread (as the holy Catholick Church always taught us, according to the testimonies now alledged and this shall be more manifested in the Chapter of transubstantiation) it necessarily follows that the precedent substance be de­stroyed or brought to nothing: so that this decision, or not being of bread and wine; proceeds ex necessitate miraculi, from the real presence of Christs body and bloud in the Blessed Sacrament, and so is no new mi­racle but the same with the former.

The second miracle, which he jeers at, is, the being of the accidents of bread and wine without a subject; which is not only possible, but also is actually in the Eucha­rist, as is sufficiently declared in the Litur­gical [Page 87]discourse, part. 2. sect. 3. cap. 9. where­to I may add the Authority of great S. Basil, hom. 6. Hexam. S. Gregory orat. in Diem Do­minic. and Theodoret; when they affirm that the quality of light in its Creation, was without a subject, until the Sun was crea­ted; and certain it is, that accidents by the power of God may be preserved without a subject, for he that gives a being in such or such manner, can give them another, as actually he has done in the Eucharist; where quantity alone is preserved without a sub­ject, in which all other accidents as quali­ties, &c. are immediatly (although by the same omnipotent power, they also may be conserved without quantity) and that it is so, in the Eucharist, has always been belie­ved in the Catholick Church, as in the pre­cedent testimonies plainly appears: when the holy Fathers affirm that the body and bloud of Christ is contained, in the species of bread and wine: whence the Councel of Constance, sess. 8. condemned that proposi­tion of Wickliff, who held, that the Acci­dents of the Bread did not remain, without a subject, as heretical.

Moreover, this miracle, necessarily fol­lows the Mystery of the real presence, in­asmuch as it is a sacrament, for it would not be a sacrament, if there were not, in a visi­ble form, the essence of a sacrament con­sisting [Page 88]in a visible sign, of some invisible thing. The Eucharist therefore being a sacrament, and containing the invisible body of Christ, necessarily requires a visible signe. S. Chry­sostome, hom. 60. ad Populum Antioch. and Hom. 83. in Mat. says, If thou wert incor­poreal God would have given thee plain, and incorporeal gifts, themselves; but because the soul is joyned to the body, he has given thee in­telligible things in sensible things: and a little before, sith the word said, This is my body, we do assent and believe, and with our intel­lectual eyes behold him; for Christ has given [...] nothing sensible, but all intelligible things in­ [...] in sensible things.

It was therefore most congruous to the divine providence, most agreeable to the nature of this mystical sacrament: and most proper to our humane nature, that Christ instituted this sacrament under the form of bread, for as Christ is the true bread of life; so he gave us his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine: whence S. Cypre­an, Ser. de Coena Domin. The bread which he gave to his Disciples changed not in Essigies, or resemblance; but in nature is made flesh by the Omnipotency of the word; as in the person of Christ, the humane nature was seen, and the Divinity lay hid, so in the visible sacrament the divine essence diffused it self: Give me leave, (good Reader) to set down the [Page 89]words of Theophilact Archbishop of Bulgary, and no mean interpreter of the sacred Text: who in Mark. cap. 14. This is my body, this I say, which ye take, for the bread is not a figure or example of Christs body, but is con­verted into the same body of Christ, for our Lord said, The bread which I will give, is my flesh; he said not, is the sign of my flesh, but is my flesh; And again, Ʋnless ye eat the flesh of the son of man. And doest thou say, flesh is not seen: O man! that is done for our infir­mity, because Bread and wine, are of those things, with which we are accustomed, we do not abhor them, but we should not bear, but abhor, seeing flesh and bloud, set before us: Wherefore our merciful God condescending to our infirmities, conserves the species and forms of bread and wine, but transelementates them into the vertue of flesh and bloud, from whence I conclude, that as it is possible to God to conserve the accident or species with­out any substantial subject, for to him no­thing is impossible, to the constant belief of the holy Catholick Church, in all times has been, that those species are conserved, as ne­cessarily following that great Mystery.

The 3. Miracle to be baited at by the Do­ctor; is, that the body of Christ should be contained in so little a place, or room as the Host, nay, in every parcel or part thereof. Although this be miraculous, yet it follows [Page 90]from the very being of our Saviour in the Eucharist; for Christs body is not there, with his natural dimension or Circumscrip­tion of place, for so we could not eat him, nor receive him in our Mouths; nor the bread cover him; unless we should say, that of Mat. 19. a Camel might pass though the eye of a needle, which nevertheless is possi­ble, according to what our Saviour there sayes, with men, this is impossible, but with God al things are possible, besides God is not tyed to natures laws, as may be seen 4. Reg. 6. Iron did forget its natural weight, and swom on the water. Exod. 14. water lost its fluxibility, and stood up as a wall; In like manner the flowing of Jordan, Josue 3. did stand and become like a mountain, 3. Reg. 17. the pot of meal failed not, and the vessel of Oyl diminished not, Dan. 3. the fire lost its natural activity, Luc. 23. the Sun lost its light. It was not according to nature that a body should walk on the sea, as our Savi­our did, Mat. 14. of which S. Justin Martyr in Respons. ad quaest. a gentibus; As our Lord did walk on the Sea, without a change of his body into a spirit, but by divine power, he made the Sea which cannot be passed over walking, to be passable: not only to his own body but also to that of Peter, so by his divine power be also came out of the monument, when a great Stone was put on it; and entred in to [Page 91]his disciples, the doors being shut. All these things are above the law of nature; and shall we deny the possibility of such like, to the God of nature.

But to come nearer to our present pur­pose: Christs body is now glorious, and is in the Eucharist in a sacramental and spi­ritual manner, not different from the being of a soul: which is as well in every part and parcel of the body, as in the whole bo­dy: and shall we deny that to Gods power, which he wrought in our souls, which are indivisibly, and without any commensura­tion of place; This is confirmed by S. Epi­phanius, Haeres, 64. Even as our Lord did rise from the dead, not taking another body; but the same that was, and no other from that which was; but changing that which was into a spiritual subtillity, and making the whole spiritual: he entred in by the doors shut, that which could not be done here in our bodies, for grossness, and for that as yet they are not joyned in a spiritual subtillity. S. Cyril speak­ing of the same miracle of entring the doors being shut, on that place gives the reason, for sith he is true God, he is not subject to the law of nature. S. Ambrose in c. 24. luc. Not by corporeal nature, but by a quality of a corpo­real resurrection; that it was not by natures law but by a subtillity of a glorified body which has no commensuration of place: but is as the [Page 92]Angells in great or little place. No won­der then that the body of our Saviour, accor­ding to his Nature, and for our benefit and commodity, should be as well in the whole host as in every part thereof.

But some will cavill, on what is said, that Christs Body is indivisibly, as the soul is in the whole Body, and in every part thereof, how little soever; but we see by experience, that if any part be separated from the whole, the soul remains no more in it; admitting therefore that the Body of Christ, is in the whole Host, yet if any part be separated from the whole, Christs body also shall not be in that part so separated.

I answer, there is no proportion between the works of nature, so constituted by God, and the works of God, in his omnipotent power: whence to argue against Gods works by the ordinary course of Nature, is to limitate Gods power, to what he has actually done; whereas no act ad extra, can be equal to his power, no effect can fully cor­respond to his power. God made the world, and yet can make millions of worlds: God ordained such and such effects in nature, and can as well ordain many other, yea, different and contrary, or exceeding in the same kinde. It is meer folly to think that God can do nothing but what we can conceive or un­der and; as if the infinite wisdom and pow­er [Page 93]of God did not exceed our finite, weak, and in comparison, no faculty at all, Gods power is immense and without Limit. Ipse dixit & fact a sunt: whatsoever he sayes is done, and can do more things then any crea­ture can conceive or Imagine.

Secondly, There is no comparison in these two subjects, for the part so separated from the whole, is now no more capable to retain the vital form, either vegetive or sen­sitive, and consequently according to Na­tures law, is uncapable of any rational form; to wit, the soul which gives no longer life to it, being limited by the Authour of na­ture. In our Case there is still the same dis­position and capacity in every part as in the whole, and consequently there arises no mutation, but only a numerical difference, which nothing alters the nature of the acci­dents, which joynt or separate, retain the species of bread or wine, which are sensible signs required in this Sacrament; as long therefore as this sensible signe or species re­mains, so long the thing signed or signified remains. The body of Christ has no union with the Accidents nor any reference to them but in as much as they are sacramental signs of his body and bloud, so made by divine In­stitution; in this their is no regard to the greatness or littleness of the species or acci­dents, but to the Institution of Christ Jesus, [Page 94]who made those species to be the sacramental signes of his body and bloud wheresoever we find these species after due consecration, either little or great; according to our Faith, we believe the true body and bloud of Christ Jesus to be.

We may exemplifie this in a looking-Glass, where the same face is represented, in the whole Glass, and in every proporti­onable part thereof, because the same ef­fect of representation is as well in every part, as in the whole: So as is said before, the species of bread and wine, either in whole or in part in great or in little, have annexed to them the nature of a sign, and no other then what Christ himself has instituted, and consequently do represent that whereof they are a signe, that is, the body and bloud of Christ.

Now whereas the Doctour makes diffi­culty, concerning Christs Body being in se­veral places, he may know that to be in a place or in many places or in no place, makes no difference of the essence or nature of any thing. The highest heavens have there es­sence, although they have no place; and the being in a place is a meer accidental and extrinsecal thing to the substance, which of it self occupies no place at all; but by quantitative dimension, is correspondent to place, otherwise it is indifferent to this or [Page 95]that place, to one, and to many; he there­fore that limited and determined created things, to such or such a place, can he not alter, or make it illimitated, or indetermi­ned to place or places? even by nature one thing may have different extensions to place as is to be seen in rarefaction and conden­sation: and cannot God make the same thing to have extension to several places? of this we have many experiences out of the Scripture: for we read that our Saviour ap­peared to S. Paul Act. 9. he that appeared to them in the way; which also S. Paul relates, Act. 22. and according to the text Act. 26. Christ himself sayes that he appeared to him, Act. 23. S. Luke affirms, that our Lord was standing by S. Paul, if we will believe S. Paul himself, 1 Cor. 9. He had seen Christ Jesus our Lord, which also he affirms; 1 Cor. 15. Christ was seen of more then five hundred bre­thren together, he was seen of James, and then of all the Apostles, he was seen also by me; so that we cannot doubt but Christ appeared unto him, and yet according to our Faith, he sits still at the right hand of the Father in heaven, as it is declared, Act. 3. whence it is manifest, that he was in two places, and why not in heaven and in the Eucha­rist; and why not as well in many places? and why not by participation of a divine being, may the effects of the divine power [Page 96]to be in many places: One voice fills many places, and one sound fills many parts, with­out any division of it self.

Besides this difficulty is lesse in regard that Christs body is not here, in any quan­titative Dimension or commensuration to place, but in a mysterial and Sacramental manner, still united to the Divinity; which is in all places with Power, to limitate the body to as many places as it pleases: as God may limit his universal presence in such manner, as his presence may be in some particular places or things, by shewing his power, more in one place then in another: even as he has done in the Eucharist making his Body substantialy present in all places of the world; wherein he has manifested his Immense power and will; according as the holy Catholick Church has always believed and taught from its beginning; as it is suf­ficiently declared in the precedent testimo­nies of the holy Fathers.

The 4th. Miracle is; that the body of Christ being but one, is communicated to many, yea thousands, yea Millions. This follows the institution of this holy Sacra­ment, for it was not instituted for one a­lone, but for many, without any limitation of time, place, or persons; it is a Sacrament that is common to all, in all ages, during this life, and therefore if the true body and [Page 97]bloud of Christ be contained therein; as the holy Church has alwais believed, and that as a Sacrament it is communicable to all; and all are commanded to take and eat, this necessarily follows Christs Institution; The holy Fathers who lived within five hun­dred years after Christ, believed and taught the very same which the present Church be­lieves; Eusebius Emissenus hom. 5. de Pasch. The holy receiving of the Eucharist, consists not in the quantity, but in the vertue, that body which the Priest distributes is as great in a little host, as in a great, which when the Church of the faithful takes, as it is compleat in all, so it is manifest to be entire in every one, for as he says, a little after, when they take of this bread, every one has nothing lesse then all; one perceives the whole, two have the whole, and many the whole, without any diminution; for the benediction, of this sacrament may be distributed, but not consumed by distribution, S. Augustin, ser. de verbis Evangelii. Christ is eaten, and eaten lives, because being slain he rose again, neither when he is eaten, do we make parts of God, as truly in the Sacrament it is done, as the faithful know, for even as every one who eats Christs flesh, takes his part, for hence it is called parts, he is eaten by parts, and remains entire and whole in heaven; he also remaines entire and whole in thy heart.

[Page 98] S. Hierome ser. in Dom. 5. post Epiph. Each one receives Christ our Lord whole, and in e­very one particular he is whole, neither is he di­minished by many singulars, but gives himself entire to every one.

S. Chrysostome hom. 17. in Epist. ad He­braeos; This host is one, and not many; how one and not many? because it was once offered, it was offered in the holy of holies: but this sa­crifice is the exemplar of that; we always offer, the self same, and therefore this sacrifice is one; for otherwise because it is offered in many pla­ces, there are many Christs: by no means but in every place, there is one Christ; here being perfect, and there parfect one body; for even as he is in every place offered, he is one body and not many bodies; so also one sacrifice. S. Gre­gory of Nice in Orat. Catech. c. 37. We may consider how this is done, that when this one bo­dy is continually imparted through the whole world, to thousands, of the faithful, the whole doth passe by parts to every one, and in it self remains whole. S. Andrew's words cited by the Achaian Priest, Whose flesh after all the believing people have eaten, and drunk his bloud, the lamb which is sacrificed remains whole and alive.

What has been said here, may satisfy his four other miracles, which make no distinct Difficulties; for the same reasons serve for the species of wine, as for the species of bread, [Page 99]or for the body and bloud of Christ: whence he might have omitted his duplicate ralle­ries and scoffs, and have attributed all those miracles to the power of God, and not play­ed the buffoon in attributing them, to the power of Roman Priests; his scoffs and scorns and Jeers will never bear any argu­ment, with understanding men, much lesse with Catholicks: who have learned of S. Augustine, Epist. 49. ad Deograt. quaest. 6. If Christian faith did fear the scorns of pa­gans, we should not believe in Christ himself.

CHAP. XI. The Doctours Chief ground of his raillery.

I Am so weary with the Doctours vain raillery, that I am willing to go no fur­ther; but that I reflected on two main grounds of his rallying, and scoffing spirit: the one is the insisting so much on humane reason and sense; and the great bugbear Transubstantiation. Of the first I shall treat in the two following Chapters, and after of the second.

In the first place, it is a general Doctrine in Gods Church, that faith has for its Object God revealing; Its formal object is the di­vine revelation, the material only those things which are revealed; so that we know [Page 100]nothing by faith, but by revelation, not by reason, much lesse by sense: true it is that humane reason and sense concurr to the re­ceiving of faith, but not to the procuring a divine and saving faith: nevertheless reason and sense may engender a humane faith, by hearing or reading things revealed, but ne­ver come to the certainty of them; but re­lying only on revelation.

Whence the holy Fathers do commonly teach, that if reason or sense do comprehend any thing, it is no more an object of faith. S. Augustine, tract. 27. and 40. in Johanem. Faith is to believe what thou seest not, whose verity and reward, is to see that thou doest be­lieve. Again, tract. 39. This is the praise of faith, if that which is believed be not seen, for what great thing is it, if that be believed which is seen. S. Gregory, hom. 26. in Evangelium. Faith has not merit, where humane reason gives experience. Great S. Basil, ser. de fid. con­fess. tels us, that Faith is an assenting appro­bation without any hesitation; without any parswasion of the minde, as in the truth of those things, which by Gods gift are preached, and declared in the Church. And in Psal. 113. let faith be thy guide, in the holy words which are from God; and not demonstration: Faith (I say,) inviting thy soul, yea, and perswading above all rational methods; for faith relies not, on grammatical proofs, but insinnuats it self [Page 101]unto our minds, by the efficacious operation of the holy Ghost. S. Athanasius, tract. de advent. affirms, that faith conceived of an evident matter, cannot be called Faith.

But let us hear, what the holy Fathers, in those primitive times, did teach and be­lieve concerning our present subject, of the Eucharist: I shall begin with S. Cyril of Alexandria, lib. 4. in Joan. cap. 17 This thing is hard, and is to be received, rather by faith, then by any other means.

S. Hilary, l. 3. de Trin. We are not to speak of divine things, in a humane or worldly sence, neither are we to extort or wrest, by violent and imprudent report, the celestial words, to our wit or impious understanding; it is perver­sity, let us read what is written; and under­stand what we read, then we shall perform the office of faith: for what we say of the natural body of Christ in us, we speak foolishly and im­piously unless we learn of him.

Great S. Leo, ser, 6. de Jejunio. 7. mens. Doubt ye not at all of the verity of Christs bo­dy, and bloud, for that which is taken by the mouth, is believed by faith.

S. Cyril of Hierusalem, Since Christ him­self, so affirms and says, of the bread, This is my body; who henceforward dares to deny it? and the same confirming, This is my bloud who can doubt and say, that it is not his bloud? he changed water into wine which is near bloud, in [Page 102]Cana Gallilen: only by his will, and is not he worthy, that we should believe him, that he transmutates or changes, wine into bloud: Be­neath, let us with all certitude, take the body and bloud of Christ, for under the species of bread the body is given thee, and under the species of wine bloud is given thee. A little af­ter, Do not therefore consider it, as bare bread, or bare wine, for according to the words of our Lord, it is the body and bloud of our Lord, for although sense suggest it otherwise, yet faith confirms thee, do not judge the thing from the taste, but take it from faith, for most certain: so that no doubt may take place, but that the bo­dy and bloud of Christ are given thee. And a little after, knowing and most certainly hold­ing, this bread which is seen by us, not to be bread: although the taste take it for bread, but is the body of Christ: and the wine that we see, although to the sense or taste, it seems to be wine; yet it is not wine, but the bloud of Christ.

S. Crysostome, hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. and 83. in Mat. Let us alwais believe in God, and not resist him; although what he says, may seem absurd, or against reason, to our senses and Imaginations; his word exceeds our sense and reason, this we ought to do in things, and especially in mysteries, not only beholding those things which are before us, but also holding his words; for we cannot be deceived by his words, but our senses are most easily deceived: those [...] [Page 103] be false, but this is deceived very oftentimes: since therefore he said, This is my body, let us not be detained with any ambiguity, but believe and perceive it by the eyes of our understan­ding.

S. Cyprian ser. de coena Dominica, on the word of our Saviour, John 6. The flesh pro­fiteth nothing, gives the reason, because our Master himself expounds these words are spirit and life, carnal sense does not penetrate to the understanding of so great profundity un­lesse faith be joyned.

The Doctors great Master, Calvin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. ser. 10. will teach him this lesson, In his supper he commanded me to take, eat, and drink, under the symbols of bread and wine, his body and bloud: for although it may seem incredible, that in so great a di­stance of places (as heaven and earth) the flesh of Christ should penetrate to us, that it may be meat for us, we must yet remember how much above all our senses the secret power of the holy Ghost can shew it self; that which our mindes comprehends, our faith conceives the Spirit doth truly joyn together things locally separated; whence he says, sect. 7. Nothing remains, but that I should burst forth into ad­miration in this Mystery, to which neither the minde in thinking, or tongue in speaking, can be equal; and apud Hospin. in hist. Sacram. part. 2. he says, We therefore acknowledge a [Page 104]Miracle in the holy Supper, which exceeds or goes beyond both the grounds of nature, and the measure of our senses.

From what hath been said, we plainly gather, that in matters of faith, we stand not to humane reason, much lesse to our senses; we may adde, No sense or humane reason could tell us, that Christ, on earth, was God. The wise men who came from the East; according to their senses imagi­nation, yea, or humane understanding; could conceive nothing but a little Child; yet inspired by the holy Ghost, in Faith on­ly, they adored the little Childe, not as such, but as being God and man, which no sense or humane reason could dictate to them: The Disciples Mat. 24. did not adore Christ by the rule of their senses or humane reason, but when by faith they believed him to be the Son of God, even after the Resurrection they did see Christ, some believed, others did not; many who lived, conversed, and were in his company, both simple and wise, could never be convinced by their sense or reason, that he was the Son of God; and those who were of the simple sort, sooner believed, and were we not assured by divine revelation, and testimony, we could not be­lieve either this or any other mystery of our Faith.

Where even according to reason, it fol­lows [Page 105]that we have a more sure ground to believe Gods word, then our senses; who perceive not the substance of the bread, which is not perceptible by any of our sen­ses; whose objects are only accidents, or sensible qualities; which they have as well in the consecrated host, or unconsecrated, without any reflexion on the substance: as, being out of the sphere of their objects: so that they discern not any thing of the sub­stance, or whether they be without any sub­stance, it is only the understanding, which gathers by such or such accidents, such or such a substance or subject and by natures ordinary course, judgeth it to be bread; but enlightned by faith and believing that no­thing is impossible to God; and that God in most express terms declared his body and bloud to be in the Eucharist; the words are so clear, that without wresting the terms, none so simple but they may understand them, as clearly as Peter is a man: and those who contradict it on the ground of their sen­ses, are as the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 2. sensual men, not perceiving those things of the spi­rit of God, it is foolishness to them, and they cannot, or rather will not understand, for they are sensual, measuring these hea­venly mysteries, by natural reason; humane prudence, and external senses, which de­stroy Faith.

[Page 106] I know some object, that of S. John 1. Epist. cap. 1. where he attributes much to hearing, seeing, and touching, matters of faith: but they do not consider, that the Apostles did hear, and see many things, which we believe from their testimonies; but if we had only what they saw by their senses or humane wisdome, our faith had been vain, and of no importance, for no vi­sible thing or sensible as such, can be the ob­ject of our faith: what therefore they saw, heard, or touched, was not believed as by faith, but by experience: see Scotus in 3. quaest. 23. the Prophets and Apostles had a science which was not faith. Faith taught them that the word was incarnate, and that Christ who died, rose again and ascended in­to heaven, was the true Son of God; now to us who have not seen them they are ob­jects of faith, as being only revealed unto us, whereof we have testimony from Scrip­ture and Tradition S. Thomas indeed, be­lieved, because he had seen Christ after his resurrection, Joan. 20. but as S. Augustine says, tract. 121. in Joan. He did see, and touch man, and confessed God whom he did not see, nor touch; but by this which he did see and touch, that he believed now, all doubt being re­moved, and therefore he cryed out, My Lord and my God; and Jesus said unto him, because thou hast seen me, by sight, and touch, and [Page 107]certain knowledg that I am risen, and believed that I am true God: but blessed are those that have not touched me, and have beleived.

Moreover S. John in this place opposes two diverse heresies, to wit, those who deni­ed Christs divinity, and those who denied his humanity, and therefore begins his E­pistle, That which was from the beginning, which he had declared in the beginning of his Gospel, and for the other which we have heard by a voice from heaven, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, we testifie unto you; weereby he manifestly testifies that Christ in humane nature had true flesh and bloud, God and man; now because he was inspired by the holy Ghost & one of Christs Apostles, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, we believe what he saw and heard, to be true; and receive it as a mat­ter of faith.

CHAP. XII. An addition to the former Chapter of the same Subject out of S. Augustine.

OUr adversaries who stand so much, in matters of faith, on their senses, and private judgments; should do well, to con­sider, that they imitate the heathens, and [Page 108]Infidells, who had no stronger arguments a­gainst the true Catholick doctrine, then their senses and humane reason; as we finde in all the holy Fathers, who have laboured to con­vince them; and in particular this is to be seen, in blessed S. Augustine, especially in his books de civitate Dei; from whence I shall make choice of two articles of our Faith, which are holy repugnant to humane sense, and reason; to wit, the everlasting torments of Hell fire, and the Resurrection of the flesh. Of the first he treats, in the first 8. Chapters of his 21. Book, and thus he be­gins the second Chapter: What then shall I say unto the unbeleevers; to prove that a body Carnal, and living, may endure undissolved, both against death, and the force of eternal fire: they will not allow us, to ascribe this unto the power of God, but urge us to prove it to them by some example, saying; There is no body, that can suffer eternally, but he must perish at length; no flesh can suffer always, and never die: The Saint replys▪ Cap. 3. What is this, but to ground an assertion upon meer sense, and apparence, which he esteems absurd in mat­ters of Faith, for (saith he) These men know no flesh but mortal, and what they have not known and seen, they hold impossible. A little after, Through our flesh as now, be such; that it can not suffer all pain without dying yet then shall it become of another nature: Whence in [Page 109] Cap. 4. he says, That God who endowed na­ture, with so many several and admirable qua­lities, shall as then, give the flesh a quality, whereby it shall endure pains, and burning for ever. Cap. 5. But the infidells hearing of Mi­racles, and such things as we cannot make ap­parent to their senses, do ask the reason of them; which because it surpasses our humane powers to give, they deride them as false and ridiculous: but let them give us reason, for all the wondrous things, that we have seen or may casily see hereafter (where we may note, that S. Augustine in those chapters brings instan­ces of many several things in nature, far sur­passing our humane reason) which if they cannot do, then let them not say, that there is not, nor can be, any thing, without a reason, why it should be. Beneath, O rare Disputers, you that can give reason for all miraculous things, give me the reason of those strange ef­fects of nature before-named, of those few only, which if you know not, to be now visible; and not future, but present, to the view of those that will make tryal; you would be more in­credulous in them, then in this, which we say shall come to passe hereafter. A little after, If we had said these things shall be in the world to come, and the Infidels had bidden us give the reason why, we could freely confesse we could not: the power of God in his works surpassing the weakness of human reason: and yet we [Page 110]know, that God did not without reason, in put­ting mortal men by these, past his reason: we know not his reason in many things, yet we know that what he wills, is no way impossible, who has told us, to whom we must never impute fals­ness, nor imperfection. The lattin words are, Nos non posse confiteremur, eo quod istis, & similibus Dei miris operibas, infirma mortali­um ratiocinatio vinceretur: fixam apud nos esse rationem, non sine ratione Omnipotentem fa­cere, unde animus humanus infirmus, ratio­nem non possit reddere: & in mult is quidem rebus incertum nobis esse, quid velit; illud ta­men esse certissimum, nihil corum illi esse im­possibile, quaecunque voluerit, eique nos credere praedicenti, quem neque impotentem neque men­tientem possumus credere. Hi tamen fidei repre­hensores exactoresque rationis; quid ad ista respondent de quibus ratio reddi ab homine non potest, & ipsi rationi naturae videtur esse con­traria. Quae si futura esse diceremus, similiter ae nobis sicut eorum quae futura esse dicimus, ab infidelibus ratio posceretur: ac hoc cum in tali­bus operibus Dei, deficiat ratio Cordis & ser­monis humani, sicut ista non ideo sunt, non ideo enim illa non erunt, quoniam ratio de utris­que ab homine non potest reddi. We confess that we cannot (to wit give a reason for it) for that in those and the like wonderful works of God the infirm raticionation of Mortals would be overcome, but we firmly [Page 111]believe, that the omnipotent, does no­thing without reason: whereof the infirm minde of man cannot give a reason, and in many things indeed it is uncertain to us what he will; but that is most certain no­thing of them which he will are imposible to him, and we believe him foretelling, whom we cannot believe either impotent or lying: yet the Reprehenders of faith, and exactours of reason: what will they answer in those things, which no reason can be given by man, and yet are? although they seem contrary to reason of nature which if we did say from our selves, that they were to come, as we say of those things which are to come, rea­son should be required by infidells, and by this, sith in such works of God, reason of humane heart and speech fails; even as therefore such things are not: so therefore also they shall not be; because no reason can be given by men for both of them: the Translatour adds because beyond humane capacity and apprehension. In the sixth Chapter, having proposed many wonder­ful things, as also in the precedent, he con­cludes, If all these be possible to those, how much more, God is powerful to do those things, which are incredible to Infidells; but easily to his power: since he has created that vertue in stones, and other things, and wits of men, which the use in wonderful [...] Angeli­cal [Page 112]natures more powerful and invincible pow­er, both of working and commanding, and wisdome of permiting and using all things as wonderfully as he created them: Our English Translatour, although he omits some words both in this place and the precedent, yet he sufficiently expresses them in order to our purpose.

In the 7. Chapter we finde the Infidels to satisfy for all the wonderfull effects of na­ture, and give this only reason: It is the force of Nature, the nature of such things is such: It is the proper efficacy of their natures. Beneath the Saint, When God is the authour of all natures, why will they force us to give a stronger reason, when they will not beleeve that seems impossible, and to them who ask a reason to be given, we answer, this to be the will of the Omnipotent God, who truly for no other thing is called Omnipotent, but that he can or is able to do what he will. And in the end he adds, They will not give credence to us, when we say, that God Almighty will do any thing, that exceeds their capacity to con­ceive: The words in Latin are, quod corum experientiam sensumque transgreditur, what goes beyond their experience and sense: What better or stronger reason can be given for any thing, then to say, God Almighty will do this which he hath promised in those books (to wit the Scripture) wherein he promises [Page 113]as strange things, as these, which he hath per­formed he will do it, because he has said he will; even he who has made the incredulous heathens believe things, which they held meer Impossibilities.

Cap. 8. They believe not the Scriptures, if they did we should not need to stand long with them on this The [...]m, so that we must make de­monstration, how it is possible that there may be a full alteration of nature, in any one object, from the kind of being, that it had before, and yet the law of nature be kept inviolated: for how can that be against nature, which is ef­fected by the will of God, the Lord and maker of all nature? a portent or miraculous thing therefore is not against nature, but against the most common order of Nature; Let not the faithless therefore blinde themselves in the knowledge of Nature as though Gods power could not alter the nature of any thing, from what it was before, unto mans knowledge. And beneath; I think it may suffice to Convince, that God is not to be bound, to any Conditions, in the allotting of a particular being, to any thing; as though he could not make an absolute alteration hereof, into an unknown quality of essence: his Latin Text, Non se inde Deo de­bere praeseribere, quasieam (rem) non possit in longe aliud, quam cis cognita est vertere & mutare; we ought not to prescribe or limit God, as if he could not turn and change it into some [Page 114]far other thing, then as it is known to us; so that as God can create what he will, so can he change the nature of what he hath created at his good pleasure.

The same S. Augustine, l. 22. de civitate Dei, cap. 11. Disputing with the Infidels, who according to the laws of Nature, did argue, that there could not be any Resur­rection of the body, because it is, earthly and so could not be contained in heaven; e­very Element having his particular poise, and tending naturally to its proper place: his answer besides perswasive reason is, Can­not God almighty give the body of Man such a form, likewise that it may ascend and support it self in heaven? Cannot then the Almigh­ty, maker of the whole world, take away the Ponderosity of earth, and give the quickned bo­dy, and hability to dwell in the same place, that the quickned spirit shall elect? why then may we not believe that the nature of a corruptible body may be made incorruptible, and fit for heaven? so that arguments drawn from the scituation and qualities of the clements, can no way diminish the power that God Almighty hath, to make mans body of a quality fit and a­ble to inhabit the heavens.

Cap. 25. If they would shew me a thing which God cannot do, I will tell them, he can­not lye; let us therefore believe only what he can do, and not believe what he cannot I If [Page 115]they do not thus believe that he can lye, let them beleeve that he will do what he promised: and let them believe as the world beleeves, which he promisea should beleeve, and whose belief he both produced and praised.

Cap. 26. Why do they now cry out, that this is impossible which God hath promised, which the world hath believed, and which was pro­mised it should beleeve, seeing that Plato him­self is of our minde, and saith, that God can work Impossibilities, that is, such things which we conceive to be impossible.

If any one would ponder and seriously examine the arguments and reasons, which our pretended Reformers, do oppose, a­gainst the Reall Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist, he shall easily perceive, that they ground themselves on such humane In­ventions, proceeding more on their senses, in opposition to Gods Omnipotency: for the Hereticks of our times, with their vain, weak, and weightless arguments; do con­tradict the Catholick Church in the won­derfull effects, which God hath wrought in the Eucharist; principally because we cannot make them apparent to their senses, nor give them a natural reason for them, which we freely confess we cannot, yet we know that God doth do nothing without reason in putting moral men by them past reason: we know not his will, in many [Page 116]things, yet we know that what he will is no way impossible, and we believe what he hath declared to be his will in this subject; far be it from us to deny or, question it, which were no less then to impute falshood or imperfection unto him. God can and will do, according to his promise; no ap­parent difficulty whatsoever, no law of na­ture, can any way impede it: Plato, as S. Augustine notes, lib. 13. de civit. Dei, said well; Gods will is beyond all other assurance. God is not bound or limited to any conditi­on, in alotting of any particular being to any thing; as though he could not make an absolute alteration thereof, into an un­known quality of Essence: God then, as he can create what he will, so can he change or alter the nature he hath created, at his good pleasure, for his wonderful power exceeds all wonders: his wisdome permits and ef­fects all and every particular or marvelous things; and can make the most wonderful use of all the parts of the world, which he only created. Cannot the power of God exceed them in working such things as are incredible to Infidells or hereticks, but easy to his Omnipotency? God being the Author of Nature, why do they ask a stronger rea­son of us, when in proving what they hold to be impossible, we affirm, that it is thus by the will of Almighty God, who is there­fore [Page 117]called Almighty because he can do whatsoever he will.

Our Adversaries will not give credence to the Church, affirming, teaching and be­lieving in all times the verity of such mira­cles, with a proud supposition, as if God Al­mighty could do nothing that exceeds their capacities to conceive: we know no better or stronger Reason can be given for any thing, then to say, God Almighty can, or will do this; which he hath promised in the sacred Text, wherein he hath declared as strange things as these which also he has performed: surely he will do these; because he has said he will, as he hath made the incredulous Heathens to believe things which they held to be impossible.

Let not the faithful hoodwink themselves in the knowledge of Nature, as though Gods power could not alter the nature of any thing, from what it was before, unto mans knowledge, let them not think these things to be contrary to nature; since they are effected by the will of God, the Lord and maker of Nature; they are not in them­selves against Nature, but at most, against the common Order of Nature.

These words of S. Augustin in regard of other such wonderful things, may be ap­plyed as properly to our present subject; for Catholicks do confess that they cannot [Page 118]give any humane or naturally known reason for the Mysteries which follow the Eu­charist, the most that we can ever pretend to, is, to shew that there is nothing in them against the essence of natures being: our whole belief in these Mysteries depends on Gods word, wherein he has manifested his will which carries with it an omnipotent power, whereto all created things are in obedientiall subjection aswell in their essen­tial as accidental being; all mutable, and alterable; according to the will of God es­pecially in all accidental qualities or dispo­sitions, which also he may add to natures being, yea, and also give another nature: So he made Iron swim, Fire not burn, wa­ter to mount, and become passible, solid things to walk upon it: Humane bodies to ascend, to be also not consumed by perpe­tual fire, Things of no weight at all, as An­gells called spirits, to descend even within the bowels of the earth: God by his will so disposing, yea, to be burnt with fire, I might alledg many more examples of this kinde, but these may suffice; to manifest that Gods power is not to be limited to mans humane reason, much less to his sen­ses; yea, not to any created Intelligence: what he can do, is known only and solely to himself; what he has done according to the ordinary course of Nature is latent to all hu­mane [Page 119]understanding, for there are many things whose natures and qualities the wisest men are ignorant of: what he has done be­yond the ordinary course of nature, we know by his revelation, which moves us to believe, not know: we trust in Gods word, no way doubting of his omnipotency: and therefore we little esteem, of what the wit of man can think, imagine, or conceive to the contrary. The Church grounded on Gods word and Tradition attested by the holy Fathers and Doctors, has always so taught us, 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 [Page 120]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 [Page 121]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 [Page 122]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 [Page 123]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: [Page 124]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 the body and bloud of God: Bread and wine and water are turned into the body and bloud of Christ.

I cannot omit the holy Abbot Paschasius who lib. de corp. & sang. Dom. cap. 2. says, Although the figure or form of bread and wine be here, yet no other thing at all then the flesh of Christ, and the bloud of Christ are to be be­lieved after the consecration. And lib de Instit. Sacra. Christ did not say, that in this mystery there is a certain vertue or sign of my body, but plainly says, This is my body, and therefore this is what he says, and not what any one fan­cies: This Authour lived about the year [Page 125]850. well nigh four hundred years before the Lateran Council.

Isichius in the year 601. in Levit. cap. 9. The Dispensation of Mystery, principally subsists in our Lords word, transferring these things, which appear, into some other thing greater and intelligible.

445. Let us now see, what the holy Fa­thers in the first five hundred years did teach of this subject; Prosper in lib. sentent. In the species of bread and wine, which we see; we honour invisible things, that is, flesh and bloud, we do not consider these two species as we did before the Consecration, sith we faithfully ac­knowledg, that before consecration the bread and wine to be what nature has framed, but after the consecration to be the flesh and bloud of Christ, which benediction has consecrated.

430. S. Cyrill of Alexandria, Epist. ad Coelest. God condescending to our frailty, breaths the force of life in the things which are offered, concerning them into the verity of his own flesh.

Eusebius Emissenus about the same time Hom. 5. de Pasch. The invisible Priest, by his word and sacred Power, converts the visible creatures, into the substance of his body and bloud.

420. S. Augustine, ser. 28. de verb. Dom. I say unto you, that before the words of Christ, that which is offered is called bread, when the [Page 126]words of Christ are pronounced, it is not called bread but corpus a body.

398. S. Chrysostome hom. 83. in Mat. 11. hom. 60. ad populum Antioch. Those works which he did in the supper are not from humane power; he now also works, he performs it, we hold the order of Ministers, but he sanctifies and transmutates these things.

S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. This bread is bread, before the Sacramental words; when the consecration comes, of bread is made the flesh of Christ: After, The word of Christ makes the Sacrament, what word of Christ? to wit, that in which all things were created, &c. and infers, I answer thee, the body of Christ was not before consecration, but after the consecration, I say to thee, that now it is the body of Christ: take therefore, as the word of Christ is wont to change all creatures, and changes the state of nature when he will; which he proves by many examples, as that, Christ was born of a Virgin; and the standing of the waters when the Israelites passed the sea, wa­ter coming out of a rock, and such like: lib. 4. de fid. cap. 5. As often as we take the Sa­crament, which by the Mystery of holy prayer is transfigured into flesh and bloud, we declare the death of our Lord: and lib. de iis qui initi­antur, cap. 9. How many examples do we use, that we may prove this not to be what nature hath framed, but what benediction has conse­crated, [Page 127]and the force of benediction, to be grea­ter then that of nature, for by benediction na­ture it self is changed.

369. S. Cyril of Hierusalem, Catech. 1. The bread and wine of the Eucharist, before the In­vocation of the adorable Trinity, was meer bread and wine; but the Invocation being done, the bread indeed is made the body of Christ, and wine the bloud of Christ. Catech. 3. The Eu­charistical bread, after the Invocation of the holy Ghost, is no more humane bread, but the body of Christ. And Catech. 4. He some­times changed water into wine, and shall not he be worthy to be believed, that transmutates or changes wine into bloud.

250. S. Cyp. Ser. de coena Dom. This bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, changed not in form, but nature, by the Omnipotency of the word, is made flesh.

203. Tertullian lib. 4. adversus Marci. Christ made the bread receive his body, saying, This is my body.

226. Origen, lib. 8. contra Celsum, We eat the offered bread, now made by prayer a holy and sanctifying body.

183. S. Irenaeus, lib. 5. cap. 2. When the mixt chalice and the broken bread, receive the word of God, the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ is made; And cap. 34. The bread which of earth, taking the invocation of God, is now not common bread, but the Eucharist of [Page 128]Christs body and bloud.

150. S. Justine Martyr, Apol. 2. ad Antonium. We take not common or usual bread, and usuall drink, but even as by Gods word Jesus Christ our conserver, made man, had flesh and bloud for our Salvation, so for food, which by power of the word which we have received, he is consecrated; wherewith our bloud and flesh by communion, are nourished, and we taken to be the flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ, of him who made man. Sure S. Dio­nise was of that minde, when he calls the Eucharist, the sacred and most majesticall Mysteries.

In a book dedicated to the renowned Prince Henry, Prince of Wales, under the Title of Catholick Tradition made by a french Hugonot, I have these Testimonies following.

The Ethiopian Liturgy, hath this prayer; We pray thee, O Lord, that thou wouldest shew thy face on this bread, on this Altar, bless, sanctifie, cleanse, and transport this bread, into thy spottless flesh; and this wine into thy pretious bloud: and it may be made an ardent and acceptable sacrifice; and health of our soul and body. And again, The Priest prays. That God would change the bread and wine of the Sacrament, as he changed water into wine in Cana. In another place, the same Author says, that the Abyssens in their Liturgy [Page 129](which probably is the same with the for­mer) frequently make mention of Trans­mutation, and it is to be noted, that these Nations do pretend to have the form of Li­turgy or Mass from the Apostles.

I cannot omit the words of the Constami­nopolitan Patriark Jeremias, in answer to the German Protestants, quoted by the same Au­thor. Touching those things, we (that is, the Gre­cian Church) see that you in no way agree with us. The Catholick Church holds, that the bread after the sanctification, is changed into the body of Christ: and the wine into into bloud by the holy Ghost: A little after, The bread is converted and changed into the body of our Lord and the wine into his bloud; and again, he affirms, that there are not two things in the Sacrament, to wit, Bread and Christs Body, but one sole, to wit, Christs body.

CHAP. XIV. Who are the Ministers of this Sacrifice of the Mass.

IT may seem superfluous, to speak any more then what has been said already; for from thence it is manifest, that Christ has assumed unto himself sacred Priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech, be­ginning it in his last supper; when he insti­tuted [Page 130]the perpetual sacrifice of the Eucha­rist; wherein, he as Prince and chief Minister daily and hourly, by his Ministers offers him­self to God the Father: whence S. Gregory of Nice, Orat. 1. in Resur. Christ by a secret kinde of sacrifice, which could not be seen by men, offers himself an host, for us; and immo­lates a victim; he being both priest and Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world; when did he this? when he gave to his Disciples assembled, his body to be eaten, and his bloud to be drunken; then he declared openly that the sacrifice of the Lamb was now perfect.

S. Augustine, l. 10. de civitate Dei, cap. 20. in the precedent Chapter, having de­clared, that visible sacrifices are to be offe­red only to God, in this Chapter, infers, Whence he is the true Mediator, as taking the form of a Servant, the Man Christ Jesus is made Mediatour of God and men, whereas in the form of God, he takes sacrifices with his Father; with whom also he is one God: yet in the form of a Servant he chose rather to be, then to take sacrifice. By this he is a Priest, be offer­ing and he the Oblation, the sacrament of which thing, he would have to be the duily sacrifice of the Church, in Psal. 33. can. 2. Christ ordain­ed according to the order of Melchisedech a sacrifice of his body and bloud. S. Ambrose, lib. 1. offic. cap. 48. Now Christ is offered, but he is offered as man, as receiving his Passion, [Page 131]and he as Priest offers himself. S. Crysostome, hom. de Proditione Judae. Christ is now present, who adorns this table, he himself consecrates; for it is not man, who makes the body and bloud of our Lord by consecration, in the table set before us; but he who was crucified for us, Christ. The words are said by the priests mouth, and by Gods power and grace are consecrated, with these words, This is my body; the things proposed are consecrated, these once said, in all the tables (so he calls the Altars) even to this present day, and until his coming give firm­nesse to the sacrifice.

Whence it is that in the consecration, the Priest as Christs Minister uses Christs own words, as having efficacy and vertue to pro­duce the work intended from the power of Christ, thereby acknowledging him to be the chief and soveraign Priest, and them­selves only his Ministers and Instruments: But of this more amply spoken in the Litur­gical Discourse, par. 2. sect. 3. cap. 11. to which place I refer my Readers; the same is also confirmed by what follows.

Eusebius l. 1. de Demonst. c. 10. After all Christ offered for us a certain wonderful victim and excellent sacrifice, working salvation of us all to his Father, and ordained that we our selves should offer for a sacrifice to God the memory thereof.

S. Ambrose in Psal 138. We have seen the [Page 132]high Priest coming unto us, and we have heard him offering his bloud, let us Priests follow, in­asmuch as we can, that we may offer sacrifice; although we are infirm in merits, yet by the sacrifice we are honorable; for although Christ is not now seen to offer, yet he is offered on earth, when the body of Christ is offered, nay he is manifestly offered for us, whose word sanctifies the sacrifice, which is offered. And lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 4. When we come to make the ve­nerable sacrament, the Priest now uses not his own words, but the words of Christ; it is there­fore Christs words, which makes this Sacra­ment.

S. Hierome in cap. 1. Epist. ad Titum. What shall we think of a Bishop, who daily of­fers unspotted victims to God for his and the peoples sins? this he does as priest, and not pro­perly as Bishop.

S. Crysostome in his Liturgy or Mass, in one of his prayers, has, Thou art become man, and our high Priest, thou as Lord of all hast instituted the rite of sacrifices, and deli­vered unto us the celebration of this solemn and immaculate sacrifice; behold me a sinner, that I may assist at this thy holy table, and consecrate thy holy and Immaculate body and precious bloud; for thou art he who offers, and art offe­red: both the receiver, and giver Christ our God, hom. 83. in Mat. We hold the place of Ministers, it is he (that is Christ) himself [Page 133]who sanctifies and changes them. And a little after. Thou (O lay-man) when thou seest the Priest offering, do not think, that the Priest is he who does it, but the hand of Christ invisibly extended. And hom. 2. in 2. ad Ti­moth. Truly this oblation, which Peter or Paul, or any other Priest, of what merit soever, does offer; it is the same, which Christ gave to his Disciples, and which now also the Priests do consecrate: This has no less then that, why so? because man does not sanctify this, but Christ who before did consecrate it; for even as the words, which Christ spake, are the same which the Priest do now also pronounce; so that is the same oblation.

S. Cyprian, Epist. 63. ad Caecilium, Know that we are admonished, that Tradition be ob­served, in offering the Chalice; for we are to do no other thing, then what our Lord has done before us, that the Chalice which is offered in his remembrance may be offered with water; And again, If Jesus Christ our Lord, and our God, the high Priest of God the Father, did first offer himself a sacrifice to the Father, and command this to be done in his remembrance, verily that Priest truly undergoes the place of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did, and then offers a true and full sacrifice in his Church, if he undertakes to offer that which he has seen Christ himself to have offered.

Moreover the holy Fathers assign the [Page 134]Priests principall office, to be the offering of sacrifice; according to that of S. Paul, Heb. 5. Every high Priest, taken from men, in those things that pertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. See the An­notations of the Rhemish Testament, as also the Interpreters of this place, when they largely declare the office of Priests in order to a Sacrifice; whence S. Hierom Epist. 1. ad Heliodorum, cap. 7. says, that Priests seat­ed in the Apostolical dignity, do consecrate with their mouths Christs body; and Epist. 85. ad Evagrium, that by their prayers the body and bloud of Christ is made; And in cap. 1. E­pist. ad Titum, he tels us, that, the Bishops according to their office are to offer daily un­spotted victims for his and the peoples sins. S. Isidore about the year 600. made a Colle­ction in form of Common-places out of the Fathers and Councils of the precedent ages, lib. 2. de officiis, c. 7. says, Priests rule in Christs Churches, and are conforts with Bi­shops 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 [Page 135]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 [Page 136]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 [Page 137]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 [Page 138]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 [Page 139]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 exprimendam sunt ac­commodata; dum per Apostolum Tit. 1. man­davit [Page 140]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 [Page 141]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 Ʋniformity, 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 [Page 142]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 Ʋniformity, by reason that their was [Page 143]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 [Page 144]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 fellow­soldier, and the Apostle and Minister of his necessities.

[Page 145] 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. 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 [Page 146]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 [Page 147]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 [Page 148]from the Texts of the whole Fathers above­alledged, 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 [Page 149]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 [Page 150]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 [Page 151]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 [Page 152]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 [Page 153]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 [Page 154]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; [Page 155]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 [Page 156]true state of the Case is, the Catholick Church in such case Ordains those who were never truly 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 [Page 157]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 [Page 158]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 [Page 159]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. [Page 160] 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 [Page 161]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 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 [Page 162]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.

Os [...]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, [Page 163]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.
  • [Page 164]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 [Page 165]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 [Page 166]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 circum­stance or apparitions of Majesty and glory; which were but external signs of some pecu­liar presence of God in the temple, but him who was thereby presented, and this with­out any shew of Idolatry: and in like man­ner, if we adore Christ as present in the Sa­cramental signs, presented unto us, we can­not be said to be Idolaters; when the object of our Adoration is not the sign, or any cre­ated [Page 167]thing, but only Christ Jesus God and man: whence learned Erasmus lib. 9. Epist. ad Pelicanum well said, Hitherto with all Christians, I have adored Christ in the Eucha­rist, neither do I yet see any cause, why I ought to depart from that opinion; I can by no hu­mane reason be withdrawn from the agreeable judgement of the whole world, which is also in the Liturgical discourse, par. 2. Sect. 3. cap. 12. and cap. 13. in the general consent of the primitive times, as is manifest in all the ho­ly Liturgies of Gods Church in those times: and proved out of S. Augustine: there also cited concludes, That not only we do not sin in adoring, but we should sin in not adoring, S. Ambrose will have us to adore Christ on the Altar in the Mysteries, that is, in the Mass. S. Prosper lib. sent. We do truly ho­nour in the forms of Bread and wine, which we see; things invisible, that is to say, Flesh and bloud. S. Augustine Epist. 120. ad Honora­tum, c. 27. says, The Rich come to our Lords table, and receive of his Body and Bloud, but they adore only, and are not filled, as the poor are, yet notwithstanding they have adored, Theodoret Dial. 2. The Mystical Symbols are adored, as being the same things which they are believed to be. S. Cyril Catech. 2. shew­ing the manner how we ought to communi­cate, concludes, that bowing down in man­ner of Adoration and Veneration, saying, A­men. [Page 168]Admirable was the devotion and reve­rence of S. Gregory Nazianzen his Sister, to the Blessed Sacrament, as that great Saint and Doctor relates, orat. 1. and how mira­culously she was cured thereby from a di­sease humanely incurable.

The Jews and Infidels give sufficient testi­mony of the Christian practise of adoring Christ Jesus in the Eucharist; as is to be seen in all Ecclesiasticall Histories. Aver­roes acknowledges it in his time; when he said: I have traveled over the world and have found divers Sects, but none so foolish as the sects of Christians; for they devour with their teeth their God whom they adore. S. Augustine, lib. 22. contr. Faust. c. 13. says, that the Heathens did esteem Christians to worship Ceres and Liber, for the Bread and Chalice, and answering, says, we are far different from Ceres and Bacchus the Pagan Gods, al­though in our Rite we honour the Sacrament of the Bread and Chalice, Maximus manducen­sis a heathen writer, in his Epistle to S. Au­gustine, which is extant in 43. Epist. of S. Augustine, demands of him, who is that God which Christians do challenge as proper to them, and fain to see him in secret places?

In the Liturgical Discourse, in the place above-cited, this is more fully declared: It might suffice, that such has been the con­tinual practise of Gods Church, as is mani­fest [Page 169]in all the Liturgies or Masses, which have been since Christs time; so that I may infer, that of all the calumnies that our Ad­versaries have imposed on Catholicks, none more impertinent and more vain, then this of Idolatry; in regard of the Adoration to the Body and Bloud of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist, unless they could prove Christ Jesus to be an Idol, or not to be adored; for as is fully declared, we in the Eucha­rist adore nothing but Christ Jesus.

Conclusion.

IN suits of Law when men come to a fi­nall tryall, before the Kings Judges, the lawyers or Barresters on both sides plead their Causes, with long and learned speech­es, delectable to their hearers, and princi­pally to move the Judges, to be favourable on their sides. The Judge having with atten­tive ear listened to their long harangues, rises up and declares his mind; that the whole difficultie depends on the lawful wittnesses on either side, which being heard, he would according to law give his sentence.

Innumerable Authors on both sides have written on this subject, concerning the Masse, but as yet little an agreement is made: wherefore omitting long discourses in this short Treatise, I seek to come to the [Page 170]Test, and stand to the testimony of authen­ticall and approved witnesses, according to which I am content to have my cause stand or fall.

Doctour Brevent has produced his wit­nesses against the Masse 2.1. many of the learned Schoolmen. 2. many Expositers of the Masse. 3. the Liturgies or Masses them­selves. 4. the Holy Fathers of the primitive times, that is, within five hundred years after Christ. 5. the mainest point wherein he chiefly grounds himself is reason and Sense. 6ly. he pretends some Text of Scrip­ture: I have no exception against any of these witnesses alledged, only I must say, that it savours of great Ignorance or no less Im­pudence, to take any of them as witnesses against the Masse: For first, there never was schoolman yet that wrote against it, or ever contradicted it, but such as have fallen from the Church. There books even from the Master of the sentences are extant in e­very Library▪ and are all expressly and po­sitively against this Doctour; as every School boy knows. It is strange that he should make any use of them for his pur­pose, when he knows that all of them were members of the Roman Church; were taught, educated, and did teach, write and expound the Masse, according to the Do­ctrine of the same Church: most of them [Page 171]were Priests, or Bishops or Cardinalls in the same, and dayly celebrated the sacrifice of the Masse in the same belief and Faith with the Roman Church, which by the Con­fession of this Doctour was in full possessi­on of the Masse for almost twelve hundred years.

2. No man of Judgment would alledge Expositors of the Masse against the whole scope and intent of those who have written whole Volumes thereon, for to declare the true sense and meaning of every point, Ar­ticle and cirenmstance of the Masse; as it is practised in the Roman Church, knowing well that if they had taught any other Do­ctrine contrary to the said Church; they should be liable to the censures thereof, and be noted by all the faithful Christians▪ be­sides, their works were approved and li­censed by their lawfull Superiours, and em­braced and sollowed by all Roman Catho­licks, and followed by all schollars in the same Church.

3. There cannot be greater insolency, then to produce Liturgies against Liturgies, or Masses against Masses: for the contro­versy is wholly concerning Liturgie or Masse, as they are and have been practised by the Christian Church in all times of Christianity; without any variation in Sub­stance, in such manner as the Roman Church [Page 172]how at this present uses. If then in any of those Liturgies, there may be found any thing contrary to the Mass, it will condemn themselves, which cannot be imagined, un­less we will lay a great blemish upon the whole Church, especially the supreme Go­vernours thereof; with all the Bishops, and Pastors, Councels, and Doctours, and ho­ly Fathers, of gross Ignorance, in using such forms; as should contradict the substance of what they unanimously commended to the faithful.

4ly It is no less strange, that the Doctour should pretend the holy Fathers and Do­ctours of the Church, when not only for al­most twelve hundred yeares, even by his town confession, they all approved the Mass, but also defended it against all Contradi­ctors and hereticks; and therefore he rejecte their authorities, and pretends to stand to the judgment only of the primitive times, to wit, within five hundred years after Christ: In this Treatise, I have gone with him to those times; and have produced their testimonies from Age to Age, and dare say, that in those times he can produce no one holy Father or Doctour, that hath taught any Doctrine in any opposition or contradi­ction to any thing of the Roman Mased; where as I have produced most of them in opposition to whatsoever the Doctour has [Page 173]pretended against it: whereunto I have ad­ded the Councils, both general and Provin­cial, the practise of the whole Church, in those times, with the consent of all Christi­an Nations.

5ly. Whereas the Doctour pretends, some Texts of the holy Scriptures for his cause, we may consider, that he follows therein his own fancy or private spirit; without any Expositour or Interpreter of those times, imitating the Hereticks of all Ages, who grounded all their errours on the Scriptures, misconstrued, and by a counterfeit sense of them, did delude the Ignorant Christians: Of this we have manifest experience, in these our times, for the innumerable Sectaries now extant do ground themselves on the Texts of Scripture; which they pretend for their multiplyed sects. Each one affirming their sence and meaning of the holy Text, with condemnation of other judgments, and so wrest the Scriptures to their several sen­ses, making their fancies the Rule of the sa­cred Text; whereas Catholicks take the Scripture for the Rule of their Faith, follow the judgment and sence of the one holy Ca­tholick Church, as on this present subject, I have followed the common Doctrine of the holy Church, even in those five hundred years after Christ, which the Doctour al­lows.

[Page 174] Finally, the Doctours mainest argument is, from humane Reason or sense, which I have proved, no way capable to compre­hend the mysteries of our Faith, which transcends above all Reason or sense; other­wise there would be no necessity of such a supernatural gift, without which there is no salvation. It is true that reason is necessary for the reception of Faith, for if we were not reasonable or rational creatures, we should not be capable to receive Faith; but, that reason should guide us in supernatural things, is preposterous, we know nothing but by our senses which can have no sensa­tion or act of senses in spiritual or superna­tural objects; such as all Faiths objects are, for the receiving thereof, only the sense of hearing, may concurr, from whence the un­derstanding frames intellectual species, re­presenting the things which are revealed and declared unto us by the holy Church, which teaches in all times according to the holy word of God.

In confirmation of this, S. Paul, Hebr. 11. defines Faith, The substance of things to be ho­ped, the argument of things not appearing to our senses, or humane reason, but of it self is an Blench Demonstration or convincing Reason: for by Faith alone, we are convin­ced to believe those things which are revea­led; for faith only shews and demonstrates [Page 175]them as clearly, as if we did see them in mid­day: faith so works in us that we as more doubt of future or most obscure mysteries revealed, then if they were comprehended by the sight of our eyes; and are more cer­tain in them, then by any sense, reason or Demonstration, which may deceive or be deceived; but in matters known by faith, we cannot be deceived, for God cannot de­ceive us. It behoves as therefore, as S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. says, to bring into captivity all understanding (much more senses) unto the Obedience of Christ. If we be true Christians, by faith we must captivate and humbly sub­mit our will, understanding, all our reason, and all our senses, to the word of God re­vealed.

S. Basil in psal. 113. said, All the Articles of our faith are principles grounded only on God revealing, and therefore we need no In­quisition or disputation by any weak reason, but firmly believe them as principles of our Faith, without any examination or Question: it suf­fices to all true believers, that, Dominus ipse dixit.

The Objects of our faith are supernatural, and the subject which we treat of, is, of the Reall and substantiall Body and Bloud of Christ Jesus being in the Eucharist, which only the understanding by Faith compre­hends. I will therefore submit all I have [Page 176]said, to the judgment of all understanding persons, and earnestly desire them to ponder what has been pleaded fouthe equitie of my cause, which is grounded on the positive Texts of holy Scripture attested and ex­pounded by the holy Fathers and Doctours of those primitive times, and seconded by the General Practise of Gods Church, as­well in those times, as in all succeeding A­ges, without any notable question untill our later times. God out of his infinite mer­cy open the Eies of those who go astray, and grant them the Light of Faith; such is the continuall prayers of him who earnestly wisheth them all health and salvation in Christ Jesus.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.