Missale romanum vindicatum, or, The mass vindicated from D. Daniel Brevents calumnious and scandalous tract

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, be∣ginning it in his last supper; when he insti∣tuted

the perpetual sacrifice of the Eucha∣rist; wherein, he as Prince and chief Minister daily and hourly, by his Ministers offers him∣self 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 immo∣lates 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 de∣clared, that visible sacrifices are to be offe∣red 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 offer∣ing 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 ordain∣ed 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,

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 firm∣nesse 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 pro∣duce the work intended from the power of Christ, thereby acknowledging him to be the chief and soveraign Priest, and them∣selves only his Ministers and Instruments: But of this more amply spoken in the Litur∣gical 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

high Priest coming unto us, and we have heard him offering his bloud, let us Priests follow, in∣asmuch 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 ve∣nerable sacrament, the Priest now uses not his own words, but the words of Christ; it is there∣fore Christs words, which makes this Sacra∣ment.

S. Hierome in cap. 1. Epist. ad Titum. What shall we think of a Bishop, who daily of∣fers unspotted victims to God for his and the peoples sins? this he does as priest, and not pro∣perly 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 deli∣vered 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 offe∣red: 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

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 Ti∣moth. 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 ob∣served, 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

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 An∣notations 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 seat∣ed 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. E∣pist. ad Titum, he tels us, that, the Bishops according to their office are to offer daily un∣spotted victims for his and the peoples sins. S. Isidore about the year 600. made a Colle∣ction 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 Bi∣shops 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 di∣stributes; 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 ho∣noured

with divine Priest-hood, and constitu∣ted in Clerical Ministery, ought only to serve the Altar and sacrifices, and attend to pray∣ers. 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 ordi∣nation, as it is expresly declared in the Florentine Councel; the form whereof is, Receive the Power of offering sacrifice to God, for the living and dead: whence we may note, this is no new constitution, but a declaration to the Armenians of the Roman use, and manner of Ordination; for which the Roman Pontifical is alledged, which was long before this Councel, and was in use in all the Western parts: and Ordo Romanus, made by Pope Gelasius in the year 496. which as Alcuinus notes in 2. par. de divinis officiis, has the same form: which also S. Ambrose insinuates in 1 Epist. ad Tim. c. 4. where he speaks of himself; saying, when I was ordained Priest, whereby I was designed for the work, and received Authority, that I durst in our Lords stead to offer sacrifice to God.

S. Clement lib. constit. Apost. cap. 24. Look down upon thy servant elected, and fill him, with the holy Ghost, that he may perform the immaculate, sacrifice for thy people; but

what is more, our Saviour himself in his last Supper, ordained his Disciples in the same form, Do this in my remembrance, whereby our Saviour gave power to his Disciples to do, that is, to make or offer the same sacrifice as he had done; as I have declared in the first chapter, §. 3.

Our Reformers have mainly endeavoured to take away the true and proper sacrifice of the Masse, and consequently to take away the Evangelicall Priesthood, which by con∣tinuall succession, even from the Apostles times, yea, from Christ himself, hath al∣ways continued in the Catholick Church; and to this end the Parliament of England in the nonage of King Edward the 6. inven∣ted a new form or ordination, and com∣manded that none should give any Orders, but in the form prescribed; which was re∣pealed by Queen Mary; and again renewed by Queen Elizabeth, in the 8. yeare of her Reign: To speak only of Priesthood, which principally makes to our present purpose, our Catholick Doctors and Controvertists did oppose against their Ordination of Priesthood; by several reasons: and first, that they had no lawful Ministers of their order, that is, no proper and true Bishops, and consequently no true ordination, which is clearly proved by Erastus senior in his Scholasticall Demonstration, printed in the

year 1662. which I wave and go to the se∣cond 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 de∣termined, 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 amplecti∣mur, forma sensibilis sita est in verbis, quae preferuntur dum signum sensibile exhibetur: We embrace Imposition of hands, as the sen∣sible signe of order: The essential form con∣sists

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 u∣sed 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 Ordi∣nation 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 qua∣tenus de notant datam potestatem, sunt illius forma essentialis. The learned Bishop of Derry in Ireland, in his book of the Conse∣cration 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 pre∣sent: Christs body and bloud, &c. for we have no difference with the Romanists, in this parti∣cular. They who are ordained priests ought to have power to consecrate the Sacraments of Christs body and bloud, that is, to make it pre∣sent. Doctour Sparrow is of the same opini∣on as is noted in the said Liturgicall Dis∣course, part 1. cap. 26. and Doctour Thorn∣dike in his book of Just weights and measures, cap. 21. All Ordination tends to the celebra∣tion

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 pe∣culiar proper and principall office, belong∣ing 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 Sa∣crament.

Now in the Form of Ordination invented by order of Parliament in the time of King Edward the 6. and used since in Queen Eli∣zabeths time, no such power is expressed; for all the words savour more of jurisdicti∣on or execution of what follows the nature of the order of Priesthood: without which the rest is of no Force, for without the pow∣er 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 ac∣commodata; dum per Apostolum Tit. 1. man∣davit

Christus, ut crearentur Ministri; mandavit implicite, ut inter ordinandum ver∣ba 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 determi∣ning the power, the most essential part is wanting, and consequently no true Ordi∣nation. 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 Or∣dination, 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 pow∣er 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 un∣derstood, Receive the grace of the holy Ghost, to exercise the office of Priesthood, to which

thou hast been now presented. If this had been expressed, the difficulty would soon cease, but this is a meer invention of this learned Doctour, who tells rather what it ought to be, then what it is; for during well nigh a hundred years the English Bishops never made such expression.

Some perhaps will say; the Bishops al∣ways by those words did intend, and so un∣derstand 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 sa∣cramental effects, without words determi∣ning and specifying the Ordination, which is, the most essential part or form of the sa∣crament.

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 satisfa∣ctory, have determined, that the true form of Ordaining Priests is, Receive the holy Ghost in the office of a Priest: which in a man∣ner is the same with what the Grecian Church useth; which is, The divine grace which always cures the infirm, and supplys what is wanting, promote N. this venerable Deacon, to be a Priest: whose office, even according

to the whole Grecian Church, is to offer sa∣crifice; 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 pre∣sent: whence in the Latin Church their Or∣dination 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 al∣so the quality and nature and office of the order of Priesthood, and distinction from o∣ther 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 o∣ther words in their Ordination of Priests; from whence those who were under the Pa∣triark of the West, ought not to differ, ac∣cording to the Decree of the second Mile∣vitan 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 Ed∣ward 6. there was no true ordination of Priesthood, untill this late Ordinance in the Act of Ʋniformity, by reason that their was

no essential form used, and by consequence there was not true Priesthood; from whence also it follows, there were no true Bishops: For as Mr Mason well infers, in his Pre∣face 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, inso∣much that they have rejected the very name of Priest even in the holy Scripture, transla∣ting 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 com∣mitted the dispensing of the Word and Sacra∣ments, we would profess our selves Priests: whence they more commonly are called Mi∣nisters: Catholicks deny not the name Mi∣nisters, 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 of∣fice of Apparitor, which were sent to visit the Prisons, Ministers: and Rom. 15. Christ

himself is called Minister of Circumcision: And again, v. 16. S. Paul stiles himself Mini∣ster of Christ Jesus in the Gentiles; which ra∣ther signifies a particular office and vocation for the conversion of the Gentiles; whence he is called Doctor Gentium, then Priest∣hood; 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 Chap∣ter 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 ordinati∣on: whereby we receive power and autho∣rity to exercise our Ministery, and dispen∣sation, in which principally consists the na∣ture 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 sig∣nifies, 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 Epaphro∣ditus his brother and coadjutor, and fellow∣soldier, and the Apostle and Minister of his necessities.

M. Mason must give me leave to ask of him a question, whether he believes that Priests, have no other power then what he specifies, to wit, a Minister of the Gospel, to whom is committed the dispensing of the word and Sacraments? if he does not, his words are vain; if he does, how will this stand with what he saith in other places? as lib. 5. 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 dis∣pensing 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 Sacramen∣tall manner, I am not against it, because the shedding of Christs bloud on the Cross, was reall; in the last supper only mysticall and Sa∣crament 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 repre∣sented, and offered in a mystery, that is Sacra∣mentally: who does this but a Priest? who

offers this sacrifice Sacramentally; or by whom is the sheding of Christs bloud in a mysticall and Sacramentall manner? most of your learned men, as is said already, attri∣bute 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 ho∣ly supper be a sacrifice, sure it is external; if Christs bloud be shed in a sacramental way, sure it is externally; for all sacra∣ments are external signs: if all this be im∣pious

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 sig∣nifies 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 Eucha∣rist, 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 con∣firms this by the Prophesies of Esay, cap. 66. v. 21. I will take of them to be Priests and Le∣vites, 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 Inter∣preters on those places.

From what has been said it is manifest

from the Texts of the whole Fathers above∣alledged, that the proper office of a Priest, is to offer sacrifice; the present Church of England hath put in the name Priest in their form of Ordination, and consequently must admit a sacrifice which he is to offer, other∣wise they should take the word Priest equi∣vocally, not properly in its right significati∣on or sense of the Catholick Church: and consequently it follows; that they have no true Prie thood amongst them: for it is ma∣nifest, 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: inso∣much as Mr Mason, as is said before, tels us, that such priests as return from the Ro∣man 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 vi∣sible or extern Priesthood, or not some power of consecrating and offering the true Body and bloud of our Lord, and of remitting and re∣taining sins, but only an office and bare Mini∣stery 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 Catho∣lick

Church hath received from the first Insti∣tution in the new Testament, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist, we must acknow∣ledge to be in it a new visible and extern priest∣hood, into which the old Priesthood is transla∣ted, which the sacred letter doth also shew, and the Tradition of the Catholick Church hath al∣ways 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, Inten∣tion 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 Instru∣ment, ought to apply himself by Intention, whereby he intends to do, what Christ and his Church doth. It is also certain, that an

ill intention vitiates a good work, and a perverse Intention alters the nature of hu∣mane actions, which also is true in Sacra∣mentall actions: for example, he that pre∣tends to Baptize, If his intention be not to baptize, or, takes the word, baptize, only as it signifies a lotion, or washing from cor∣poral filth; does not rightly baptize; nor do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church doth. In like manner he that says the words absolvo te a peccatis, If he in∣tends not to absolve him: or for sins, un∣derstands, temporal debts, absolves not: The Protestants who intend not to conse∣crate Christs Body by the words, This is my Body, by the word Body, which they believe in another sense, do not consecrate. Matrimo∣ny, 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 or∣dain as a sacrificing priest, but intends the the contrary, his act is ineffectual; for ac∣cording to the Doctrine of Christs Church, the power of consecrating, and offering the true Body and Bloud of Christ, and the re∣mitting and retaining of sins, is so annexed to the order of Priesthood, that Priesthood cannot be without it; and therefore he that intends to give Priesthood without, gives nothing at all,

To conclude, the Church of England has

excluded Ordination out of the number of Sacraments, and withall rejected the Papall power; one may question then, what power or authority they have to give Orders, but principally, from whence they have any au∣thority or power to give them power to ex∣ecute any offices, belonging to Priesthood: It cannot be said to be from the words which are not Sacramental, and consequent∣ly being no Sacrament, have no Institution from Christ, for that end. Moreover it can∣not 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 here∣tofore been, or may lawfully be used, over the Ecclesiastical state of this Realm: yet as Doctor Bramhall well says, pag. 63. The power of the Keys was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles, and their

Successors, not to Soveraign Princes.

Many of our Protestant Divines and learned Doctours did well consider this Dif∣ficulty, and therefore most of them do ad∣mit, 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 Priest∣hood, whose principal office is to offer sa∣crifice; 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 com∣mon sense and use of the Catholick Church in all ages and times; yea, among Heathens and Infidels: whence it follows, that as

our Reformers have framed a new Religi∣on, so they have invented a new priesthood never heard of before; giving no other power then to preach and dispense the Sa∣craments; which may be committed or done by Deacons or Lay-men, as all Eccle∣siasticall histories do testifie: on this ground and other defects in their Ordination, the present Catholick Church makes no scriple (notwithstanding their pretanded Ordina∣tion) to ordain or give Orders to those who being converted and reconciled to the said Catholick Church shall humbly de∣fire it.

I know some will say, that this cannot be done without Sacriledge, for even in the Doctrine of the Universal Church, Re-or∣dinations, as also Re-baptizations, are e∣steemed sacrilegious; whence frequently those who were baptized or ordained by heretical priests or Bishops, were not re∣baptized 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 Dis∣course then my brevity will permit: I will

therefore briefly conclude this Chapter, The Catholick Church hath always detested both Rebaptization and Reordination but never made difficulty to Baptize or Ordain some who falsly pretended to have been Baptized or Ordained, when really they were not: We have a plain Declaration of this in the Councel of Nice, Can. 19. where those who were baptized by the Paulianists were absolutely to be Baptized, because they were not Baptized in the right Form of Baptism, to wit, by the Invocation of the holy Trinity.

The Decree of the Apostles Can. 68. de∣clares; that baptized or ordained by Here∣ticks, 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 Ordinati∣on, judged, that what they had done was Null, and of no force, and did simply and plainly ordain them: But if upon due exa∣mination it were found that the heretical Bishops were formerly ordained by Catho∣lick 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 Ordi∣nation;

only new power was given unto them for the execution of such and such Or∣ers: 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 or∣dained against the Canons; but so that the vertue of the Character is dulled or blunted, not capable, or not fit for action: the Anci∣ents did esteem Ordination Canonically gi∣ven, could never be blotted out; but that its force or vertue by deposition might be repressed or dulled, that it could not pro∣duce any other Ordination: which may be confirmed by the common Doctrine of the Church, which teaches, that a Priest not∣withstanding 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-or∣dains 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 pow∣er and vertue belonging to a Priest; which to deny, would be destructive to their pre∣tended Hierarchy, which has no other Foun∣dation for its succession, then that their Priests and Biships were so ordained: The

true state of the Case is, the Catholick Church in such case Ordains those who were never truly ordained: if the English Church should attempt to ordain Priests, they should ordain those who were former∣ly, rightly, and fully ordained.