only Presbyters but also Bishops and Cardinals not only before Thirty but also before they have been of an age capable of any of those Qualifications which Examination is appointed to enquire about For Ferdinando de Medices was made Cardinal by Sextus quintus before he was thirteen years old and John de Medices before him who was afterwards Pope by the name of Leo the 10th was made Bishop at the 8th and Cardinal at the 13th year of his age and Cosmus Bishop of Fano who died by an act of Sodomy committed upon him by one of the Bastards of Paul the third the Pope who call'd the Council of Trent was not then above eighteen years old and Odell Chatillion and Alphonso of Portugal were both Bishops and Cardinals the former at the 11th and the later at the 7th year of his age And Glaber Rodolphus tells us also that Benedict the 9th was but twelve years old when he was created Pope and he could not be well mistaken herein since he lived in his time Thirdly You may ask them further That whereas the 18th Canon of the Council of Nice doth Ordain that no Deacon shall sit among the Presbyters but that a Presbyter shall be always above a Deacon and a Bishop above a Presbyters how comes it now to be lawful for Deacons when made Cardinals to take place not only of Presbyters but also of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs too whereas they being no more than the Pope's Deacons can according to the ancient Orders of the Church claim no higher place thereby than the Deacons of any other Bishop And Fourthly I desire it may be also asked them that since the 6th Canon of the Council of Calcedon so severely prohibits all absolute Ordinations that is such as are made without a Title as utterly to exclude all from the Office to which they are so Ordain'd How comes it to pass that it is so Common a practice of the Church of Rome to ordain Bishops without Bishopricks such as the Bishop of Calcedon the Bishop of Adramytium and the Bishop of Amasia and abundance of those nulla tenentes men And if the Titles they bear be urged to excuse them from the breach of this Canon it is a mockage which will not serve their turn For the Title is only an empty name which they assume without any intent of ever being in reality Bishops of those places from whence they take them or of at all executing any pastoral charge in them And if it were otherwise without this mockage in the thing yet since this very 6th Canon of the Council of Nice which you insist on saith that all Bishops are to be ordained by their own Metropolitan what hath the Pope to do to Ordain Bishops for those places where he hath no Jurisdiction at all either as Metropolitan or Patriarch as it is certain he hath not in any of those Bishopricks from whence those Titles are usually assum'd For they take them almost always from the Bishopricks of the Eastern Empire which never acknowledged the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome but had always Patriarchs of their own at Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria whose Jurisdiction continues even to this day And under them those very Bishopricks being always provided of Bishops of their own Legally Ordained and Legally Invested with them I ask further how comes it to pass that contrary to the 8th Canon of the Council of Nice the Pope makes Bishops of those places where there are Bishops already And therefore if the Breach of ancient Canons must void Ordinations certainly these can be no Bishops To go over all the rest of the Ancient Canons of the Church and shew how in the most wholsom things they ordained the Church of Rome hath now totally deviated from them would be too long a Task what I have already said is sufficient to let you see that they have no regard to them themselves and therefore nothing can be more unreasonable then to exact the observance of them from others especially in such things as the alteration of Circumstances and the necessity of the times have made unpracticable as it is plain what you require from us in the point of Ordaining at our Reformation then totally was For Fifthly To have the Popes consent to the Ordination of those Bishops that were made at the Reformation was a thing impossible to be had and in that case all Laws as well Ecclesiasticall as civil necessarily lose their force For the Lawes of the Land had made it Treason to ask it of him and if they had not to be sure the Pope would never grant it to those who would not conform with him to all the Erroneous Doctrins and corrupt practices of his Church Must we therefore have no Bishops and no Ministers because he would not give his consent we should or must we still have retained all those corruptions and errours which he would impose upon us to obtain it If the latter be said and I suppose this is what our adversary would have it would put a necessity upon us to receive even the Alcoran or the Talmud with all the impieties and absurdities of them for necessary Doctrines of Faith and manners whensoever the Pope should please and we durst not trust his Infallibility to secure us from this since we know the time when a Pope of Rome was in Conspiracy with the Mendicant Fryers to have imposed a new Gospel on the World in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which if received would have made us worse than Turks or Jews Now put the case the plot had taken and this Gospel by his Authority had been received in the same manner as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass half Communion Purgatory praying to Saints Image Worship and other like Impostures of that Church now are by the same Authority only for Infallible Truth must we have received it too to gain his consent to our Ordinations or else must we have had no Orders at all because he would not give it unto us unless we renounce our Christianity to obtain it from him I thank God our Condition is not such for the Laws of Christ give every Bishop equal Authority to Ordain and although some restrictions and limitations as to the Exercise of this power may have been put by the Laws of the Church for the better Order and more regular Government of it yet all those Laws according to the Doctrine of the Romanists themselves must alwayes give place whenever the necessity of times or things require it And therefore though the Consent of the Pope to our Ordinations had been required by the firmest Laws which the whole Universal Church could have established yet when such a necessity is put upon us as that we cannot have his Consent without submitting to those Errors and Corruptions as would make all our Orders an abomination in the presence of him for whose Service they were Ordained as was the
have been pleased to call at my Study and the Books should there have been laid before you Your Paper cites the words of the third Canon of the Council of Carthage but all the four first Canons belong to this matter for in them that Council prescribing the manner of Ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons makes mention only of imposition of hands with the Blessing given by the Ordainer but nothing at all of any of those imperative Forms in which the Church of Rome now a days placeth the essence of Orders And as to the words of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite I find none such in that Author as are contained in your Paper and therefore I suppose you transcribed them not from the Book it self but only wrote after some person that had given you the summe of them and if I mistake not you have made use of Dr. Burnet in this particular for the passage which I refer to in Dionysius contains several pages in Folio for he having first described the manner of Ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons afterwards goeth over every single Rite in a very particular and exact manner and according to his way of Writing finds a Mystery in every one of them but amongst all those particulars which he so exactly recites there is none of the least mention made of any imperative Forms spoken at the imposition of hands or at the performance of any other Rite belonging to that matter and this silence of them where there is so particular a mention of every thing else is an undeniable presumption that there was then no such thing in use But to all that I have said in denying the antient use of those Forms you have this Answer that it seems irrational that there should be no words spoken by the Bishop at the laying on of his hand upon the Ordained and that at this rate the laying on of hands would seem only a dumb and insignificant sign and would in your opinion be nothing at all operative to the conferring of the Office on the person Ordained To which I reply First That how insignificant soever you may esteem the outward Ceremony without those words which you call the essential Form in the Consecration of a Christian Priest yet if you please to read the 8th Chapter of Leviticus you will there find that Aaron and his Sons were Consecrated to the Levitical Priesthood by the outward Ceremony only without as much as any one word spoken by Moses the Consecrator signifying the Holy Office to which they were set apart And Maimonides the most Authentick Writer among the Rabbies gives us an account that in after times the Consecration of the High Priest among the Jews was performed only by the Anointing with the Holy Oyl and Vesting with the High Priests Vestments and after the destruction of the first Temple in which the Holy Oyl was lost by Vesting him only For outward signs can by general institution be made as expressive of any thing of this nature as a form of words for words are only sounds appointed by the common consent of those that use them to be the signs of things and when outward actions are appointed to signifie the same things they are altogether as expressive and the King of France by delivering the Sword to the Constable and a Staff to a Marshal of France doth as effectually create those Officers by that outward Ceremony only as if he had done it by a Form of words the most expressive of the Authority and Power given that could be devised because the Laws of the Kingdom and the long received Customs of it have made these Ceremonies alone the well known manner of Constituting those Officers And had the Laws of the Christian Church or the long received usages of it made any outward Ceremony whatever in like manner the well known Rite of Ordaining a Priest it would be altogether as valid for this purpose without any Form of words whatever For Ordination being only a Ministerial act of delegating that Office to another which was received from Christ any thing that is sufficient to express this delegation whether words or signs doth sufficiently do the thing For if Forms be so necessary to Ordination what is it that makes them so It must be either the institution of Christ or the nature of the thing it self any other Reason for it I know not If it be from the institution of Christ let us be but convinced of that and we have done For in this case either to omit the Form or alter in the least from its first institution would make the whole performance culpable But if there be no institution of Christ for any such Form as I have already abundantly demonstrated that there is not all the necessity of such a Form must be from the nature of the thing it self Now if the nature of Ordination doth not necessarily require any such Form but that any of the Offices of the Church may be as well conferred by an outward Ceremony only by publick institution made significant and expressive of the thing done there appears no necessity for the use of any such Forms at all so as to invalidate those Orders that are conferred without them That which makes the Church of Rome so much insist upon the Matter and Form of Ordination is that they have made it a Sacrament and they observing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and the Sacrament of Baptism which are really Sacraments of Christs own institution to consist each of them as prescribed in Scripture of an outward sign and a form of words annext the former of which they call the matter and the latter the form of the Sacrament from hence they do infer that they are both essentially necessary to all those other Rites which they will have to be Sacraments also and because they find none such instituted in Scripture for them as they themselves acknowledge that they may not be without them introduce Matters and Forms as they call them of their own making And hence it is that they talk so much of the Matter and Form of Orders and will have both so essentially necessary to the conferring of them whereas would they argue aright in this point they ought not so much to have inferred the necessity of what they call Matter and Form for Ordination from that it is a Sacrament as that for this very reason it can be no Sacrament because it hath neither the one nor the other by Divine institution belonging thereto For the nature of a Sacrament according to their own definitions consists in this that it is an outward Ceremony consisting of things and words instituted and enjoyned by Christ himself with a promise of saving Grace annexed to the performance of it And since nothing of this can be made out to us from Scripture it doth from hence follow that although Orders be enrold among the number of the
to be sought for say no such thing but for any thing which appeares there to the contrary Titus and Timothy were at their first Ordination made Bishops without ever being admitted into the Inferiour Orders at all but receiv'd all the power of them included in that of Episcopacy And in all probability many such Ordinations were at first made For in the Beginning things could not be so settled in the Church that the Regular method of calling men always from the inferiour Offices to the higher should then be observ'd but without all doubt in that state of the first planting of the Gospel either as the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost then given to some men recommended them or the necessities of the Church required there were frequent reasons of conferring the Episcopal Office at first where no other had been received in order thereto And if you will have any regard to the opinion of Petavius one of the Learnedest Men which the Society of the Jesuites ever had he tells us that in the first times of the Church there were none or very few simple Presbyters at all but that all or the most part of those that then Officiated in Churches were Ordained Bishops His words are Primis illis Ecclesia temporibus existimo Presbyteros vel omnes vel eorum plerosque sic ordinatos esse ut Episcopi pariter ac Presbyteri gradum obtinerent i. e. In those first times of the Church I am of opinion that Presbyters either all or the most part of them were so Ordain'd that they obtain'd both the degree of a Bishop and Presbyter together But whatsoever was done at first afterward I allow when Churches increased and in each of them there was the subordination of many Presbyters and Deacons assisting under the Bishop for the performance of the Divine Offices and the Discipline and outward Policy of the Church was brought to a settled order Then that which is the usual practice of most other bodies became also to be the Rule of Christians in constituting the Ministers and Officers of the Church that is to advance them by degrees from one Order to another and not to place men in the highest Order till they had approv'd themselves worthy by the well discharge of their Duty in those inferiour thereto and accordingly thenceforth on Vacancies Bishops were made out of the Presbyters and the Presbyters out of the Deacons and although this method might be introduced even in the times of the Apostles themselves yet it was not by any Divine Institution so as to make it absolutely necessary a man be a Deacon before he can be a Presbyter or a Presbyter before he can be a Bishop but only by Ecclesiastical appointment for the well regulating the Order of the Church and the better providing for the benefit of it those in all reason being presumed to be the most fitting for the Superiour Orders that had been prepared for them by long exercising themselves in and faithfully discharging the duties of the Inferiour But however this Rule was not always observed but often when the benefit of the Church required and the extraordinary qualifications of men recommended them Bishops were made not only out of Deacons but also out of Lay-men too and that by one Ordination the giving of the Superiour Order being alwayes then understood to include therein all the power of the inferiour Thus several of the first Ages of the Church were made Bishops from Laymen and those Histories which tell us of it acquaint us but with one Ordination whereby they were advanced thereto And Pontius the Writer of the Life of St. Cyprian tells us of him that he was made a Presbyter without ever being a Deacon and so was also Paulinus of Nola as he himself tells us in his Epistles And from Optatus it is manifest that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was made so from a Deacon without ever being Ordain'd a Presbyter in order thereto For there arising a disturbance in the Church of Carthage about Caecilianus's being made Bishop there and the main objection lying against his Ordination because Ordain'd Bishop by Faelix Bishop of Aptungitum whom they looked on as a Traditor and one that had deserted the Faith in time of Persecution Optatus tells us Iterum à Caeciliano mandatum est ut si Faelix in se sicut illi arbitrabantur nihil contulisset ipsi tanquam adhuc Diaconum ordinarent Caecilianum i. e. Caecilianus again commanded that if Faelix conferr'd nothing on him as they imagin'd then let them speaking to the Bishops of the adverse party then met together again ordain Caecilanus as if he were as yet only a Deacon Which plainly inferrs that before Faelix ordain'd him Bishop he was no more than a Deacon And Photius the learned Patriarch of Constantinople in his Epistle to Pope Nicolas acknowledgeth that even in his time some Ordained Bishops from Deacons without ever making them Presbyters and that with several it was then looked on as the same thing to make a Bishop from a Deacon as from a Presbyter without at all admitting to the intermediate Order And a while after the same thing is also objected to the Latines by the Greeks and although their heats then ran very high about the aforesaid Photius yet on both sides this is only mention'd as a breach of the Ecclesiastical Canons and that those were to be condemn'd that did the thing not that the Ordination was void which was thus administred Regularly I do acknowledge it ought to be otherwise and that none be made Presbyters before they have been Deacons or Bishops before they have been Presbyters and that it is always best for the Church to observe this Order And so also must it be acknowledged that in all formed bodies of men regularly none ought to be advanc'd to the highest Office but those that have first gone through the inferiour as is manifest in all Corporations and that it is ever best for the publick good of those Societies and the well governing of them that this Order should be alwayes observ'd But however if at first dash one should be plac'd in the highest Office without going through the inferiour this doth not vacate his Commission receiv'd from a lawful Authority but he is to all intents and purposes as fully invested with the whole Power and Authority of that Office as if he had regularly ascended thereto by the usual degrees through all the subordinate Offices and in the power of this one Office only hath the powers of all the others conferr'd on him because it eminently includes them all And the same is to be said as to those that are Ordained Bishops without going through the inferiour Orders Although this be done contrary to the Rule of the Church yet this doth not vacate their Commission which they have receiv'd by a lawful Authority at their Ordinations but by vertue thereof they are made true Bishops of
THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS OF THE Church of England Made out against the Objections of the Papists in several Letters to a Gentleman of Norwich that desired Satisfaction therein By Humphrey Prideaux D. D. Prebendary of Norwich LONDON Printed by John Richardson for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons in Cornhil over-against the Royal Exchange 1688. Imprimatur Hic Liber cui Titulis Certain Papers c. June 8. 1688. Jo. Battely TO THE READER THese Letters when first Written were never designed for the Publick but only to endeavour the satisfaction of one particular Person who applyed to me for it one Mr. Anthony Norris late a Justice of Peace for the County of Norfolk The Occasion hereof was the Conference an Account of which as given me by the Person chiefly concern'd begins this Book at which Mr. Norris being present and pretending not to be satisfied with what was then said in the behalf of our Orders writes to me the second Paper hereafter Published concerning it and that produced all the Letters that after follow The last I confess was never sent unto him for on my finishing of it being assured by such accounts as I had received that he was already gone over and firmly fix'd on the other side as afterwards appeared to be true at his Death which happened about the beginning of April following I thought it too late to make any further Application to him and therefore threw my Papers by in my Study as now totally useless for the end designed But after his Death great offence being taken against me on several Occasions by our Adversaries instead of other things to object I was challenged for not answering a Letter wrote by Mr. Acton a Jesuite of this Place which I supposing could be none other but the last I received from Mr. Norris I again gathered my Papers together to let them see that called upon me for an Answer that I was ready to give it And although it was afterwards denied that this Letter was at all intended thereby but one sent to another Person which I never knew any thing of yet having on this occasion put my Papers together and looked them over I was perswaded by those to whom I communicated them that it might be of great use here to have them publish'd For the Romish Emissaries that haunt this place seeming to have studied no other part of the Controversie but that of our Orders in their rounds where they go to and fro among us seeking whom they may delude inculcate all the Arguments they can against the Validity of them and making this the constant subject of what they have to say against us to such of our people as they would Seduce tell them that we have no Ministry and consequently no Church no Sacraments and that therefore they must come over to them without examining any further into the Controversie between us By which silly Snare having catched some few stumbled others and filled the place in a manner with this Controversie I think an Antidote may be very proper where the Poison is so much spread and therefore most what they have to say being put into the Letters sent me by this Gentleman I hope my Answers to them may very well serve for this purpose That which perswades me they may is especially the plainness with which they are wrote for the Gentleman to whom they are directed having never had the advantage of any Scholastick Education I endeavoured to lay all things as plain and easie before him as I could whereby what I say in them being adapted to the meanest Capacity I hope none that reads them but may go along with them and receive satisfaction thereby as to the whole which our Adversaries in the points discussed object against us And that they may thus far be serviceable in our present Case to undeceive such as are deluded among us and prevent others from being so is the sole end and design of my publishing of them Although the Conference which occasioned those Letters was that I was no way concern'd in or knew any thing of it till I had received Mr. Norris's Paper yet since his account is drawn so much to the disadvantage of the Gentlemen concerned on our side to publish that account alone would be to send abroad a Libel against them And therefore that I might not be injurious to them in this particular was the reason that I desired of them their Account also to publish therewith and that is it which here next immediately follows H. Prideaux THE ORDERS OF THE Church of England DEFENDED The True Account of a Conference between Mr. Earbury and Mr. Acton a Jesuit concerning the Validity of the Ordination of the Church of England THE Company being set Mr. Earbury began to speak concerning the occasion of their being met there Viz. That Mr. Thompson had departed from our Church and had been at a Popish Meeting and that being demanded his Reason he had given this viz. That he thought that the Ministers of the Church of England were not in Orders and that he had Friends who would prove it to our faces and that therefore we were now come to Answer all Objections Mr. Acton here Replyed That it was our duty to prove our selves in Orders and cited a part of Mr. Earbury's Letter for it though any one may see that that Paragraph was not designed for that purpose The words of the Letter are these I shall most gladly meet you there not out of a principle of ostentation or discontent but meerly out of a sense of that duty that I owe that Church of which I am a member and as I hope to prove my self a Lawful Pastor in it Mr. Earbury told him that he did not think himself obliged to it but yet he would begin with the proving part and proceeded thus There are four things which your own Authors do think necessary to a due conveyance of Orders First Authority of the person Consecrating Secondly The Form. Thirdly That which they call the Matter Fourthly Quality of the persons receiving Ordination Mr. Acton excepted against the Form of Ordination made in Edward the Sixth's Time and bid Mr. Earbury prove Syllogistically that that was sufficient to convey the character of a Priest which Mr. Earbury immediately did by this Argument If our Saviours Form of Ordination was compleat viz. Receive the Holy Ghost then the Form used in Edward the Sixth's time being the very same must be compleat also but our Saviours was compleat therefore ours was To this Mr. Acton answered That our Saviour had a supream Authority and might use what Form he pleased though never defective but we had no Authority to use a defective Form. Mr. Earbury told him that though we had not the same Authority to impose a Form yet we had liberty to use that Form which our Saviour used especially when the Form was expressive of the power given and so offered to prove that the Form
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And for a Bishop Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands For God hath not given thee the Spirit of Fear but of Power and Love and Soberness And they so continued till the review of our Liturgy Anno 1662. and then to obviate the above-mentioned cavil of the Presbyterians those explanatory words were inserted whereby the distinction between a Bishop and a Priest is more clearly and unexceptionably expressed So that now the words of Ordination for a Priest are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands Whose sins thou dost forgive c. And for a Bishop Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and remember that thou c. But 4. Having thus stated the Case and laid before you the differences between the new Ordinal and the Old Now to come to the main of the objection I assert that had the old Ordinal been continued without any such Addition although it might not so clearly have obviated the cavils of Adversaries yet the Orders conferred by it would have been altogether as valid And as to the Objection made by the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome that the words of our old Ordinal do not sufficiently express the Office conferred thereby this must be understood either in reference to the Priestly Ordination or the Episcopal or both And 1. As to the Priestly Ordination there seems not to be the least ground for it because the Form in the old Ordinal doth as fully expresse the Office Power and Authority of a Priest as need be required in these words Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of his Sacraments Wherein the whole of the Priestly Office is expressed But 2. As to the Episcopal Ordination the whole pinch of the Argument seems to lye there because in the old Form of the words spoken at the imposition of hands the Office and Authority of a Bishop they say is not so particularly specifyed To this I answer first That I think this sufficiently done in the words of the Form Remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the Spirit of Fear but of Power and Love and Soberness For they are the very words of St. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Epist 2. c. 1. ver 6 7. Whereby he exhorts and stirs him up to the Execution of his Episcopal office and they have alvvays been understood to refer thereto and therefore I think they may be also allovved sufficient to express the same Episcopal office when spoken to any other and fully determine to what Office the Holy Ghost is given by imposition of hands in the Form mentioned and properer for this purpose than any other because of the greater Authority which they must have in that they are taken out of the Holy Scripture But if men vvill cavil on and still object that the Name of Bishop is not expressed in the Form or the duties and povver of that Office vvith sufficient clearness specified in the vvords mentioned the objection lies much more against the Roman Ordinal than ours as being much more defective herein For the vvhole Form used therein at the Consecration of a Bishop is no more than this Receive the Holy Ghost that being all that is said at the imposition of hands and asserted by them to be the vvhole Form of Episcopal Ordination And therefore Vasques a Learned Jesuit and most Eminent School-man makes the same objection against the Roman Ordinal that the Romanists do against ours For in Tertiam Thomae Disp 240. c. 5. N. 57. His words are Illa verba accipe Spiritum Sanctum quae a tribus Episcopis simul cum impositione manuum dicuntur super Ordinandum usque adeo generalia videntur ut proprium munus aut gradum Episcopi non exprimant quod tamen necessarium videbatur pro formâ i. e. These words Receive the Holy Ghost which are spoken by three Bishops together with imposition of hands over the person to be Ordained seem to be so general that they do not express the proper office and degree of a Bishop which yet did seem necessary for the Form of his Ordination But to this he himself gives a solution N. 60. of the same chapter in these following words Neque obstat id quod supra dicebamus verba illa accipe Spiritum Sanctum admodum generalia esse nam quamvis in illis secundum se consideratis non denotetur munus aut gradus peculiaris Episcopi pro quocunque alio ordine dici possent tamen prout proferuntur adhibitâ a tribus Episcopis in unum Congregatis manuum impositione pro materia recte quidem denotant gradum Episcopi ad quem electus ordinatur Sic enim simul imponentes per verba illa denotant se eum in suum consortium admittere ad hoc Spiritum sanctum tribuere ac proinde in eodem ordine Episcopali secum ipsum constituere Cum tamen manuum impositio ab uno tantum Episcopo adhibita eadem verba accipe Spiritum Sanctum paucis aliis additis ab eodem in ordinatione Diaconi prolata neque secundum se neque prout ab ipso Episcopo dicta huic materiae applicata peculiare munus aut gradum Diaconi denotent neque enim prout dicta a uno Episcopo cum tali materia denotare possunt ordinatum admitti ad consortium Episcopi in hoc potius ordine quam in alio cum unus Episcopus tam sit minister ordinis Sacerdotii Subdiaconatus quam Diaconatus e contrario vero tres Episcopi solius ordinis Episcopalis ministri sint ideo autem existimo Christum voluisse ut Ecclesia illius tantum verbis quae secundum se Generalia sunt in hac ordinatione uteretur ut denotaret abundantiam gratiae Spiritus Sancti quae Episcopis in Ordinatione confertur Plus enim videtur esse dari Spiritum Sanctum absolutè quam dari ad hunc vel illum effectum peculiarem i. e. Neither doth that hinder which I have said before that these words Receive the Holy Ghost were too general For although by these words considered in themselves the Office or peculiar degree of a Bishop cannot be denoted and they may be also said for any other Order but as they are pronounced the imposition of hands of three Bishops joyned together being also had therewith for the matter of Ordination they do truly denote the degree of a Bishop to
to perform all the offices of it without expresly giving the Title But our Ordinal did not express the whole power given either by name or equivalency For it did not give power to Consecrate the Eucharist though it did to be dispencers and faithful Ministers of it which amounts to no more than distributers which every Deacon is as capable of as a Priest And if dispensing should import to be Stewards of the Mysterys of God that also imports no more then to be Conservators or Trustees of what should be committed to them not that they are thereby the makers of it That because I am intrusted or made Steward it should therefore necessarily follow that I have power to make that with which I am intrusted I hope our case depends not upon such a forced and unnatural a consequence If it should be objected that our Saviour did not then give the power to Consecrate the Eucharist when he said to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me but was only a command to continue the Rite and Custom of it in the Church and therefore were compleat Priests from those words only by which he gave them power to remit sins To this I answer That if our Church had thought any sufficiently impowred to Consecrate the Eucharist by virtue only of those words to remit sins we then must make her highly guilty of notorious idle Tautology in her Form of Ordination when after she hath given power to remit sins should also at the same time distinctly give power to dispence the Sacraments But by her giving such distinct power to dispence the Sacraments after she had given power to remit sins she could not think that to be the sense of our Saviours words but the other that by bidding them do this in Remembrance of him that he did then give them power to Consecrate the Eucharist which I take clearly to be the sense of the Church whose Authority I shall preferre before any single persons whatsoever Besides that our Saviour should then command them to do that which they had power for to do is more like to a cruel Tyrant than a most Merciful and Compassionate Master To your Third and last I say That the Romanists making alteration in their Ordinals signifie nothing unless you can shew me where they have done it in such an essential part of it as we have Although they have added that to theirs of offering sacrifice for the living and the dead yet in regard they do before in their Ordinal expresly give all Priestly power which we did not the other is but an instruction to let them know what power they had received and for what they were to make use of it by virtue of that all Priestly power expresly given them before as appears by the words in their Ordinal which in ours was neither given in general nor in particular to Consecrate or make present Christs body and blood in the Holy Eucharist as was observed before If we had then as now but said be thou a Priest I grant it had been sufficient for all the offices of it although none of them had been particularly expressed in our Ordinal As to what Morinus hath said about the Greek and Roman Ordinals not giving distinct power expresly to Consecrate makes nothing at all so long as they gave them all Priestly power Unless you can prove any of their Ordinals do not expresly give them Priesthood the exceptions out of him of not giving power to Consecrate is nothing at all to the true state of the Question between us Sir As to what you say from Vasquez relates only to a Bishop who doth not thereby receive any new character then what he had afore as a Priest and is only the same power and character further extended which was before virtually in him from his Priesthood and therefore those words Receive the Holy Ghost and stir up the grace c. may be sufficient alone for that though not for a Priest who doth receive a new power and character Besides the same Author in the same Tome which you quote doth expresly say that by the words Receive the Holy Ghost and whose sins you remit c. doth not alone make an intire Priest and that he hath not power to Consecrate by virtue of them and you know Sir the point between us now is only that of Priesthood As to that Sir vvhich you say That they vvould not degrade Bishop Ridley of his Episcopal office vvas not upon account that they thought him no Bishop but for the benefit of the Leases to his Successor Bonner But why then did they at the same time degrade Latimer of his Episcopal office who was made such by the Roman Ordinal which Ridley was not by which Sir you may plainly see what the true reason was of both which I take not at all to be what Sir you were pleased for to surmise Finally whereas you were pleased to say our Priests were owned for good by the Romanists themselves when you shall be pleased Sir to make proof thereof I shall think it then time and not before to take it into my consideration in the mean time Sir if you please to look into Mr. Fox and do believe what he says you shall find what complaints he makes of the Roman Clergy against the Protestant Clergy in Queen Mary days what havock they made with the latter in that they would force them all to be Re-Ordained again Sir I am still in the same Communion which if I should ever change it can be imputed to nothing more then from some of our own Clergy-men of whom I do expresly exempt your self SIR I am your most humble Servant A. N. Three days after I had also this following paper sent me by the same Gentleman in answer to the last I sent him SIR I Could not conveniently before yesterday read over your second Paper supplemental to your first As to Bishop Ridley you may find by Mr. Mason's Vindication of him by the reasons he urg'd that he did account him to be Consecrated not by the Old but by the New Ordinal and the Popes Commissioners refusing to degrade him as to that Office and yet did Bishop Latimer in both is a clear Testimony that they would not do it to the one because they thought him consecrated by the New Ordinal Besides Dr. Burnet hath expresly declared that Ridley was made Bishop by the New Ordinal in King Edward's time Besides other Bishops they did not degrade As to their coming to our Churches until the 10th of Queen Elizabeth so to my knowledge did most of the Prebendarys of your Cathedral with the rest of the Episcopal party constantly frequent the Presbyterian Churches all along in the late times and yet they did not think those mens Orders to be good who officiated that took them not from the Bishop As to the Persecutions and Cruelties of our Adversaries they were much to blame for them but as it
the Church of Rome ever made any such alterations in them as we have done in answer hereto I lay down these following particulars 1. That those words are no more essential to Ordination then any other part of the Ordinal Had those words indeed been injoyned by Christ and commanded by him to be always used in Ordination then I must confess the altering of them would have been a very criminal deviation from our Saviours institution and might inferre a nullity in the whole Administration But the Church of Rome doth not pretend to any such divine Authority for any of their Forms but it is at present their most generally received Doctrine that the very Form of Ordination as well as the preliminary and concomitant prayers which you allow alterable are in the power of the Church to alter add and new word them as they shall judge most convenient and if the Church of Rome hath this liberty I know not why the Church of England may not be allowed to have it also 2. Those imperative words in which you place the essence of Ordination are so far from being thus essential thereto that for above a thousand years the Church of Rome it self never had any such in any of their Ordinals as may appear from the Collection Morinus hath made of them in his Book de Ordinationibus But the whole Rite of Ordination for all that time was performed by imposition of hands and prayer only without any such imperative words at all spoken by the Ordainer to the person Ordained to denote his receiving the office conferred on him as is now made use of both in ours as well as in the Roman Ordinal And the Council of Carthage which is the ancientest we find to have directed concerning this matter prescribes nothing herein but imposition of hands and prayer only And in the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite and believed by many of the Romish Communion to be genuine and by all to be very ancient mention is made of imposition of hands and prayer as the only things made use of in Ordination And if you will go to the Scriptures you will find the Holy Apostles made use of nothing else in the Ordination of the seven Deacons and when Paul and Barnabas were set a part by the Commandment of the Holy Ghost to go preach the Gospel to the Gentiles we find mention of nothing else done in their designation to that Ministry And therefore Morinus a Priest of the Church of Rome lays down this Doctrine that nothing is absolutely necessary to Ordination but imposition of hands with a convenient prayer for this only he saith the Scripture hath delivered and the universal practice of the Church hath confirm'd But I having promised you a fuller Examination of this point shall at present no longer detain you only thus much I could not but observe unto you at present to let you see how miserably you are imposed on by such as would make those things essential to Ordination which if granted will inferre a nullity not only in our Orders but also in all the Orders of all that have been Ordained in the Church of Christ for above a thousand years after his first establishing of it here on Earth and consequently also make their own Orders null and void which have been derived from them Thirdly You grant that these words in the Roman Ordinal Receive power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead are a novel addition and by no means essential to Orders but only words of instruction to let them know that are Ordained what power they had received by that Priestly office which afore they were in express words invested with and for what purpose they were to make use of it In Answer to which I shall lay down these following particulars 1. That in granting this you grant the whole point in controversie between us and the Church of Rome concerning this matter For whatsoever they may tell you about altering the Form in our Ordinal all this is impertinent cavil made use of only to deceive the less wary and insnare the ignorant The only point which they will insist upon when they come to dispute this matter in earnest is that by our Ordinal we do not give our Priests the povver of offering up the sacrifice of the Mass For they say that in the office of a Priest are contained tvvo povvers the povver of Sacrificing and the povver of Absolving from Sin and that this tvvofold povver is conferred by a tvvofold Matter and Form in Ordination That in conferring the first povver the delivering of the Sacred Vessels is the matter and these vvords Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God c. are the Form and in conferring the second povver imposition of hands is the matter and these vvords Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive c. the Form. And therefore judging both these povvers essentially and indivisibly contained in the office of a Priest and that both these Rites the first by the Authority of the Council of Florence and the second by the Authority of the Council of Trent are essentially necessary to the conferring these Powers do for this reason deny the validity of our Orders because in our Ordinations we only make use of the latter matter and form and totally omit the former and therefore say they we have not the whole power of Priesthood conferred on us but only that of remitting sins as your Paper mentions and on this account the other part of offering Sacrifice which is the main essential as they say being wanting all becomes null and void for lack thereof And this is the plain state of the Controversie between us and therefore if you are convinced by what I wrote you in my first Paper that those words Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God and to Celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead are not necessary in Ordination because in so many Ages never used in the Church as can be undeniably prov'd they were not you have conquer'd the whole Objection that is in earnest made against our Orders and the Controversie is at an end between us For Secondly That which you say that all Priestly power and consequently this power of Sacrificing is given in the Roman Ordinal in other words before the speaking of these Receive thou power to offer Sacrifice c will appear by examining the Ordinal it self to be altogether a mistake For if this be given it must be done either in the Prayers of the Office or in the Imperative words spoken by the Bishop to the person Ordained In the Prayers you will not say for then the Prayers in our Ordinal must be allowed to be as valid for this purpose also in which the Priestly Office is as fully expressed both by Name and Description as in theirs And in the Imperative words you cannot say it For
there are but two Forms of Imperative words in the Roman Ordinal before this Receive Power to offer Sacrifice c. and both spoken by the Bishop at the Vesting of the person to be Ordained with the Priestly Vestments For in the putting on the first sort of those Vestments he says Receive thou the yoke of the Lord for his yoke is sweet and his burden light and then immediately after at the putting on of another sort of Vestment he says Receive thou the Priestly Garment by which Charity is understood for God is able to encrease unto thee Charity and every perfect Work But by neither of these any thing of Priestly Power is given or do any of that Communion ever say so and therefore according to your own concession it must follow and it is that which the Learnedest of the Roman Communion say that the last imperative words in the Roman Ordinal which are spoken at the last imposition of hands Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained are the alone essential Form whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferred in that Church and this Form we had in our first Ordinal as well as they in theirs and much more fully because therein are also subjoyned these words And be thou a faithful dispencer of the Word of God and of his Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which are wanting in the Roman Ordinal which are not any such notorious and idle Tautologies as you are pleased to call them For although they express nothing more then what is comprehended in the foregoing words Whose sins thou dost forgive c. yet they are explanator of them and do more explicitly tell us what is contained in them For a Priest doth no otherwise remit our sins in the Church of Christ then as he administers to us the means in order thereto in the Word and Sacraments and the concomitant Offices belonging thereto Fourthly I further observe in your Paper that you quote Mr. Fox to prove that those who were ordained by King Edwards Ordinal were ordained again in Queen Maries Reign I must confess Mr. Foxes Book is too large for any one so throughly to know every particular of it as positively to deny what you say to be contained in it But when you convince me of this and show me in Mr. Fox where any such thing is said then will I believe that Dr. Burnet hath dealt falsly with us by telling us the contrary in his History of the Reformation Part II. Page 289. But be it so or be it not so the cause doth not at all depend hereupon Fifthly You infer the nullity of our Orders because in the conferring of them no power is given to Consecrate the Eucharist To this I answer that the words of our Ordinal giving power to Administer the Sacraments give power also to Consecrate the Elements in the Holy Eucharist and in all such Forms the more general the words are it is always the better provided they are such as include all the particulars as it is certain the words of our Form in the Ordination of a Priest include all the particulars that belong to that Office. But if you urge that it is not only necessary to express the power of Administring the Sacraments in general but that it must also be done in particular I must then ask the question why the Sacrament of Baptism ought not also in particular to be mentioned in the Form as well as the Sacrament of the Eucharist and why may we not from the omission of this in the Roman Ordinal infer the nullity of their Orders as well as they the nullity of ours from the omission of the other and that especially since the Sacrament of Baptism may be justly esteemed the nobler of the two as being that which first gives us Life in Christ whereas the other only adds Strength and Nourishment thereto But here you will object to what I have said that our Ordinal gives power only to dispence the Sacraments and not to consecrate the Eucharist To this I answer that by the word dispence the Church means the whole of what belongs both to the Consecration and Administration of that Sacred Rite and words are alwaies to be understood according to the meaning and receiv'd interpretation of them that use them and not as they shall be limited or forced by the impertinent cavils of every contentious Adversary and you may always take this for a certain Rule that when in the management of Controversie men come to cavil about words it is an evident sign that they are run on ground as to all things else· But to this point you further say that those that have Authority only thus to dispence the Elements have not power to make present the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without which you hold this Sacrament cannot be administred To this I answer that if by making present the Body and Blood of Christ you mean a Corporeal presence by the transmutation of the Elements as the Church of Rome holds it is a monstrous opinion which we can never receive and I hope you are not gone so far as to swallow with them so absurd an opinion Sixthly You say Christ made his Apostles Priests when he said unto them Do this in remembrance of me and that you take this clearly to be the sense of the Church If you mean by the Church the Church of Rome I acknowledge what you say to be true they having so defined it in the Council of Trent but that the Church of England ever held this I utterly deny for it is a Doctrine peculiar to the Church of Rome and but of late date among them being first invented by some of the Schoolmen to serve a turn For about Six Hundred Years since and not sooner the Church of Rome taking up that most Sacrilegious practice of denying the Cup to the Laiety and being afterwards pressed with the institution of our Saviour who commanded the Administration to be in both Kinds to evade this they framed this subtle invention of saying that Christ in the institution of this Holy Sacrament made his Apostles Priests by saying unto them Do this in remembrance of me and that therefore the Commandement given them of Communicating in both Kinds belongs to them only as Priests and that the Laiety from this Commandment can claim no right thereto But this is a fetch which some of the wisest and ablest Men among them are ashamed of and it is particularly disowned by Estius Suarez and Christophorus a Castro as being neither agreeable to the Antients nor of any solidity in it self Seventhly You allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination to be sufficiently perfect which if granted will infer the Ordination of Arch-Bishop Parker and all the other Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign to be good and
was not used in their Ordinals yet he doth not say it did not expresly give all Priestly power in other words or by equivalency by giving full power to perform all the Offices of it which Sir I told you ours did not and that it did not give power to Consecrate and make present the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament not by way of Transubstantiation I meant but only in the sence and words of our own Church that is verily and indeed which is more than to be present only by a meer Figure or to be only Commemorative And although he further tell us that the whole Rite was performed by Prayers and imposition of hands This doth no way exclude the other which I said before for when St. Paul minded Timothy to stir up the gift given him by imposition of hands he named nothing else but imposition of hands yet can any think there was not also Prayers and a form of words used at the laying of hands upon him And whereas Sir you say the Council of Carthage which is the Antientest hath directed concerning this matter prescribes herein nothing but imposition of hands and prayers only You should Sir have given me the very words of that Councel whereby I might have seen whether any such thing could have been inferred from them and since you were not pleased to recite them I will take upon me to do them for you which words are these When a Priest is Ordained the Bishop blessing him and laying his hands upon his head all the Priests that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head about the Bishops hand Doth this Canon prove any thing more than that it is a command only for the Priests then present to lay their hands also upon the head of the person Ordained about the Bishops hand at the same time he bless him and lay his hand upon him This doth no way shew us what the Ordinal of the Church was in those dayes This Canon had been proper to have been offered in case any had denyed imposition of hands which being required doth it therefore follow nothing else was essential because the rest of the Priests present were required also to do it with the Bishop If a learned Papist should have offered me such an Argument or Authority as this I might then have concluded Sir with your self that I thought him about to impose upon me I will also tell you the words of Dionisius whom you quote but not recite That the Priest who was to be Ordained kneeled before the Bishop who laid his hand on his head and did Consecrate him with an Holy Prayer and then marked him with the sign of the Cross and the Bishop and the rest of the Clergy then present gave him the Kiss of Peace Although he mentions all these yet where doth he say that these were the only things as you were pleased to say he said they were Can any one rationally conclude from this that there was no form of words used when the Bishop laid his hand upon the Ordained or that he should then say nothing it must be thought at the least that at that very time he used such a Prayer in which might be contained the very essential Form for any thing that Dionisius hath to the contrary And now Sir give me leave to mind you of this distinction for the better understanding my meaning in what I have formerly said and shall have occasion hereafter to mention That where the essential Form or any part of it be contained in the Prayers Prayers and Imposition of hands is all that is necessary but the Prayers of the Roman Ordinal have the essential Form contained in them which in ours is not therefore with us Prayers and Imposition of hands are not sufficient though they may be with them And this is my Answer to what else you quote from Morinus de Ordinationibus and also to that of the seven Deacons and Disciples which you say were made such only by imposition of hands upon them which you tell me there was nothing said or any words used which if there were not but only hands imposed you must give me leave to tell you that it look'd then but like a dumb sign and do not see how it could be more operative than if the same person had stroaked a good Boy on the head and said nothing but if there were words used at the imposition of hands then was it not done by imposition of hands only as you affirm and if words were used as it is not to be doubted then must they certainly be such as be pertinent unto that Ceremony which must express the power thereby given Sir you tell me that I have conquered the Objection and brought the Controversie to an end by granting That the offering Sacrifice to God and celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead was a novel thing and therefore not essential to Orders But I deny that I ever granted any such thing although I did that for the celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead to be within these Five Hundred Years expressed in the Roman Ordinal but not for offering Sacrifice unto God which I said no such thing but am assured that it was ever in their Ordinal and also their celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead was all along before the practice of that Church and therefore the Objection remains still in as much force as ever and the Controversie as far distant from an end as ever it was before Might I take leave to add to a Proposition and make it run contrary to the true intent and meaning it were an easie matter soon to salve any Questions but that way would never give the Proposer any satisfaction at all You also tell me That whereas I say all Priestly power is given in the Roman Ordinal in the words before speaking this Receive power to offer Sacrifice will appear by examining the Ordinal it self to be altogether a mistake because if it be good it must be in the prayers of the office or in the imperative words spoken by the Bishop to the Ordained in the prayers you will not say for then the prayers of our Ordinal might be allowed to be as valid for this purpose in which the Priestly Office is fully expressed both by Name and Description as in theirs To which I Answer That in examining the Roman Ordinal I say it will not appear to be a mistake which lay on your part to prove that it is in their prayers This I deny for I say that it is and that therefore the prayers of our Ordinal must be as valid this also I deny because they do not give such power and also that the Priestly Office is as fully expressed both in name and description to as good purposes as in theirs for our prayers before doth only give God thanks for calling them to the Office and Ministry appointed for the Salvation of Mankind it doth
not actually confer that Authority upon them and the prayer after is only for a Blessing upon the Ordained which also doth neither confer any Authority upon them But those of the Roman doth actually confer all Priestly power And whereas Sir you say that the Learnedest of the Romanists say that the last imperative words in their Ordinal which are spoken at the last imposition of hands Receive the Holy Ghost c. are the alone essential Form whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferr'd when I find this can be proved I may further let you know what I can say to it it may be sufficient for some part of the Priesthood but not for all the Offices of it To that which you say that the words of our Ordinal giving power to Administer the Sacraments give power also to Consecrate the Elements This I denyed and gave you my Reasons against it before to which again I refer you I urged no such thing as you would have me of a general and particular and therefore your Answer to those distinctions is besides the business Indeed I Objected as you say that our Ordinal gave power only to dispence the Sacraments and not to Consecrate to which you Answer that by the word dispence the Church meant the whole that belongs both to the Consecration and Administration of them that use them There is no Papist I believe but will grant that the Church meant and intended it but the intention of the Church can never vest any thing with Priestly Authority without it be actually and expresly conferred upon them by Her. For if a Kings intentions be never so great to make a Justice of Peace yet he is not thereby at all invested with that Authority You deny that the Church of England thought any part of Priesthood conferred upon any by vertue of these words Do this in remembrance of me then I say if no Power or Authority was thereby given by vertue of these words how can She give any by bidding them dispence the Sacraments for to Consecrate them And why then so many Arguments used about the extension and limitation of those words of our Church And then as I told you before how shall our Church be acquitted from idle Tautologies which I did not charge Her with as you were pleased to tell me I did but under such suppositions and circumstances which I take that She doth disown You further tell me that I allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination sufficiently perfect but you must give me leave to tell you that I do not whereby all your train of consequences from thence come to nothing What I said of a Bishop having no new Character I said it only in the person of Vasquez to Answer the Objection which you made out of him for the same Vasquez as I told you did say that by the alone words Receive the Holy Ghost c. were not sufficient to make an intire Priest although they were for a Bishop from whence I inferred that in Vasquez's judgment a Bishop received no new Character but my self was ever of opinion that they did As to Bishop Ridley I am fully satisfied that they refused to degrade him as not being made Bishop by the Roman Ordinal and you may find by the Statutes in the First Year of King Edward that then they took upon them to Administer Sacraments in new ways of their own invention for which an Act that year was made prohibiting of them and why might they not also as well Consecrate and Ordain according to their own inventions But of this I shall say no more but refer you to Mr. Actons last Letter sent to Mr. Earbury which though I did before yet never see it since I received your last Paper Sir I suppose you cannot offer any thing now material unto this point than already you have which I believe none could have said more that if you please we will supersede this Question and proceed to another which is of as great disatisfaction to me as any and that is Whether any Bishop or Arch-Bishop can validly be made such against the sixth Canon of the Councel of Nice which says That no Bishop shall be made without the consent of his Superiour or by faculty from him for his Consecration A. N. SIR YOU must pardon me that other business hath hindered that I have not been able to look on your Paper till several days after it came to my hands And although thereby I sufficiently perceive you are resolved against receiving any satisfaction in the point you applyed to me for it yet I will endeavour it this one time more be the effect of it what it will. And first as to your complaint against me for not complying with your proposal as to Mr. Acton I thought in my last I had so far convinced you of the absurdity of it that I should have heard no more of that If you would have him Answer my Papers your intimacy with him of which you so often acquaint me I should think might be sufficient to engage him to it without that challenge from me which you are so importunate for I am sure this gives you a better title to make this proposal to him then to require the other so absurd and unreasonable a thing from me with whom you never exchanged a word in your life unless by these Letters What I wrote you was for your satisfaction and I told you if you had any thing further to Object I was ready to hear it and give you a further Answer and you might take whom you pleased into your Consult as to this matter But for me to challenge Mr. Acton as you proposed would be an act of folly which I desire to be excused from For that possession of right which we are in as to the point controverted between us doth by no means make it proper for me to take this part upon me Besides he is a person I never had any thing to do with or ever received the least provocation from him and for me in this case to challenge him as you would have me is in the whole nature of the thing altogether unreasonable and in respect of that Protection from His Majesty by which he is here may be also dangerous unto me and I must tell you truly I durst not so far confide in you as not to mistrust there may be a snare laid for me hereby As to your huff about the Cautions which you tell me I gave you against being imposed on and the imputation of being ignorant and unwary which from some words in the Paper which you Answer you will needs take home to your self To the first I Answer that since you seem to acknowledge you do not understand Latin by telling me you are no Schollar nor Linguist and yet quote Fathers Councils and Schoolmen I think it possible notwithstanding your grand conceit of your abilities to manage Controversie that you may be very well imposed
Calumnies of our Adversaries in this particular might stick upon us then to receive that satisfaction herein which you pretend to desire Now for the more evidencing of this matter I shall lay down my words and your Quotation of them together that so by comparing of them it may appear how unfaithfully you have dealt with me herein My words in my first Paper The alterations or rather explanatory additions made in our Ordinal in the year 1662 were not inserted out of any respect to the Controversie we have with the Church of Rome but only to silence a cavil of the Presbyterians who from the Old Ordinal drew an Argument to prove that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest because as they say their offices were not distinguished in the words whereby they were conferred on them when Ordained or any power given a Bishop which he had not afore as a Priest Your Quotation of them That the Presbyterians objected that in the Ordinal there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest because their offices were not at all distinguished in the words by which they were conferred on them when Ordained and that to obviate the above mentioned cavil of the Presbyterians the explanatory words were inserted Now Sir be you your own Judge whether you have fairly recited what I have said or whether my words can at all bear that meaning which you will needs put upon them Do I mention any thing of the Presbyterians objecting against the sufficiency of the Ordinal or urging this reason for it that the offices of Priest and Bishop were not sufficiently distinguished in the words by which they were conferred or that the explanatory words were inserted to give them satisfaction herein as you would have me say Or can any man that is not grosly deficient either in his understanding or his integrity put this sense upon my words Do you think I am ignorant that it is the Fundamental Doctrine of the Presbyterian Sect that there is no difference at all between a Bishop and a Presbyter or Priest Or that I could possibly say that they should urge it for a defect in our Ordinal that those offices are not sufficiently distinguished therein when it is their main principle that there is no distinction at all between them but that they are only two names signifying the same Function Or can any thing which I said have any other reference but to an Argument which I told you they drew from our Ordinal to prove this against us That the Presbyterians hated the name of Priest I freely grant and so do we too as it means a Sacrificing Priest in the sense of the Romanists But that the name of Bishop was so odious to them I deny For it is found in Scripture it is found in all the Antient Writers of the Church and therefore they could not be so impious as to hate a name which had the stamp of such Authority upon it All the Controversie was about the signification of this name whether it did import an Order distinct from the Order of Priesthood and this they denyed and in their disputes against us in the late times concerning it made use of an Argument against us as I told you which was drawn from our own Ordinal and from the Form of Consecrating a Bishop urged that according to the Doctrine of our own Church the Office of a Bishop could not be distinct from the Office of a Presbyter or Priest because no new Authority was given him in that Form as they would have it which he had not afore as a Presbyter or Priest and therefore to make a more clear distinction between the two Functions and take away all occasions for their urging of this against us for the future in the defence of that Error the explanatory words were inserted and on no other account When I wrote you my former Paper I confess I quoted no other Authority for this but that I had been told so But since looking into Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation I there find him saying the same thing in these words So they agreed on a Form of Ordaining Deacons Priests and Bishops which is the same we yet use except in some few words that have been added since in the Ordination of a Priest or Bishop for there was then no express mention made in the words of Ordaining them that it was for the one or the other Office in both it was said Receive thou the Holy Ghost in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But that having been since made use of to prove both Functions the same it was of late years altered as it is now Nor were these words being the same in giving both Orders any ground to infer that the Church esteemed them one Order the rest of the office shewing the contrary very plainly Thus far Dr. Burnet and he having published it within twenty years after the thing was done when so many were alive that were Members of Convocation when the alteration was made and especially Dr. Gunning and Dr. Peirson who I understand were the prime advisers of it it is impossible he could want true information in this particular or be so impudent as to impose it on the World if otherwise then he relates when there were so many in being who from their own knowledge could convince him of falsity herein And therefore the thing being so plain I hope you will rest satisfied in this particular But I must not let you go yet for you are not only contented to wrest and misrecite what I have wrote you for your satisfaction but also charge me with whole sentences of which I never said one word or any thing like it For in which of my Papers I beseech you do I ever say that the Presbyterians vindicated their Form to be as good as ours or what the least Foundation is there given you in any of them to forge my name to such a saying I very well know those men were against all Forms as well as you and therefore need not your information in this particular But it seems by your so great intimacy with our Adversaries which you so often tell me of you have learnt their tricks to wrest falsifie and misrecite the only methods they have to support so bad a cause But that there may in this matter be no more room for this I shall distinctly lay down what I hope may obviate all further cavils concerning it in these following particulars First That the Objection of the Presbyterians was not against the Ordinal but against Episcopacy Secondly That it being the Doctrine of the Presbyterians that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter or Priest is one and the same and not at all distinct but that both names equally belong to every Presbyter to prove this they made use of an Argument against us from our Ordinal urging that the Form of Episcopal
same Form is not used that the Eastern Churches perform Ordinations by one Rite and the Western by another without disallowing the Orders of each other he solves the matter by telling us that Christ instituted only in general that there should be Matter and Form in Ordination but left it to the Church to determine the particular that is what particular Matter and what particular Form should be made use of in this Administration And Morinus also speaks to the same purpose for in his third Book de Ordinationibus Exercit. 7. cap. 6. n. 2. he saith That Christ determined no particular Matter and Form in Orders and in another place cap. 3. n. 6. he tells us That it strikes him with astonishment that there should be such an alteration both as to Matter and Form in that Sacrament as by examining the Antient Liturgies he finds there hath been And Cardinal Lugo's words are altogether as express in this matter who in his Book de Sacramentis Disput 2. Sect. 3. plainly saith That Christ left the Church at Liberty both as to the Matter and Form of Orders And so also saith Arcudius a Learned Greek that was designed to have been a Cardinal in his Book de Sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 4. where he lays it down as that which the most Learned hold That the Sacrament of Orders as he calls it is so instituted by Christ that the Ordaining of Ministers should be performed by some words and external signs by which the Ministry to which they were Ordained might be sufficiently signified but that any particular external signs should be made use of rather than others was totally left by him to the arbitriment of the Church And he quotes for proof hereof the third Chapter of the 23th Session of the Council of Trent where it is said only That Ordination is to be performed with words and external signs without assigning what words or what signs these ought to be from whence he infers they may be any And to the same purpose also speaks Tapperus of the Forms of the Sacraments in general and of the Sacrament of Orders in particular whom Vasquez as to both those takes great pains to confute And there is another of the same opinion whose Authority must be certainly infallible with those of that Communion that is Pope Innocent the 4th who saith It is found to be a Rite used by the Apostles that they laid hands on persons to be Ordained and poured out prayers over them but we find not any other observed by them from whence we believe that unless there had been Forms afterwards invented it would have been sufficient for the Ordainer to have said be thou a Priest or any other words of the same importance but in after times the Church Ordained those Forms which are now observed And Father Davenport alias Sancta Clara hath those words Many Doctors do not without probability think that Christ appointed neither the Matter nor Form of Orders but left both to be assigned by the Church And thus far having produced the authorities and proofs which you required I hope I have given you satisfaction herein and that the opinion of the Schoolmen in asserting that the essential Form of Orders as you call it is immutable and not in the power of any Church to alter is altogether wrong And that it is so those that assert the Doctrine which I have laid down in opposition to them have this unanswerable Argument for it that those very essential Forms as they call them of Priestly Ordination which they would have to be instituted by Christ himself and always from the beginning to have continued in the Church immutably the same are both of so late date that the one of them was never used till within these four hundred years and the other not till within these seven hundred years at the farthest as by comparing the Antient Ordinals of the Romish Church doth manifestly appear In the next place you tell me that although Morinus should have observed that for a thousand years the imperative Form be thou a Priest was not used in the Roman Ordinals yet he doth not say they did not expresly give all Priestly power in other words or by equivalency by giving full power to perform all the Offices of it which you deny our Old Ordinal did To this I Answer That I know of no Ordinal that ever had this Form in it be thou a Priest or of any that was ever Ordained by it to the Priestly Office neither do I refer you to Morinus for any thing concerning it In your Papers I observed you were much stumbled at the additional alterations we made in the Forms of our Ordinations as if these additions being in an essential part as you suppose must necessarily infer an essential defect to have been in our Ordinals before and consequently make null and void all the Orders of our Church conferred by them or if otherwise that we could not justifie the alterations we have made To alter the introductory and concomitant prayers you seem willing to allow us a power but not to make any change in so essential a part as the Form it self and challenge me to show you when ever the Church of Rome did so In Answer whereto I told you that those Forms which you think so essential to Orders are so far from being so that the Church of Rome it self for near a thousand years after Christ never used any such Forms at all that is any imperative words at all denoting the conferring of the Office by the person Ordaining but the whole Rite was performed by prayer and imposition of hands only without any imperative words at all spoken to the person Ordained denoting his taking Authority to execute either the whole or any part of the Office conferred on him and for the making out of this I referred you to Morinus his Collection of Antient Ordinals wherein he having published sixteen of the most antient Rituals of Priestly Ordination of the Latin Church that could be found in the ten first of them no such Form doth at all appear to be used but in all of them the whole Rite of Ordination is performed by imposition of hands and prayer only and the eleventh Ordinal in his Collection composed as he judgeth in the tenth Century is the first that used this Form Receive thou power to offer Sacrifice unto God and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead and the other Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven unto them and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained is not found till in the last of them composed about four hundred years since And this I think to be a plain demonstration of the novel introduction of those Forms into the Roman Ordinals And that they were totally unknown to the Antients I endeavoured further to make appear unto you by showing you that in none of their
Writings there is any mention made of them no not in those places where they professedly treat of Orders and all the Rites belonging thereto as in the Canons of the Council of Carthage which prescribes the whole manner of Ordination and in the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite which is also very particular in describing all the Rites belonging thereto and in neither of these is the least mention made of any such imperative Forms or any thing like thereto and I added also those places of Scripture which give us an account of the Ordination of the seven Deacons and of Paul and Barnabas to be the Apostles of the Gentiles in which there is nothing from whence we can infer the use of any such imperative Forms but that prayers and imposition of hands was all that was then done in those Ordinations And from all this I did I think with sufficient reason infer that those Forms in which the Church of Rome placeth the essence of their Orders are so far from being thus essential to them that for many Ages they never used any such at all in any of their Ordinations And I might also for the inferring of the same Conclusion have made use of many other such like Authorities as of the Apostolical Constitutions published under the name of St. Clement Bishop of Rome which makes mention of the Bishops laying on his hands on the Presbyter to be Ordaining and saying a prayer over him but nothing of any imperative Form bidding him to take Authority to do either the whole or any part of his Office then conferred on him And the Authority of St. Hierom a Cardinal of the Church of Rome is most express in this matter that the whole Rite of Ordination was compleated impositione manus imprecatione vocis i. e. by the imposition of the hand the prayer of the voice But you except against all those Arguments and deny them to be conclusive because there being in none of those Authorities I have mentioned any words excluding the use of those Forms the not mentioning of them in the places I have quoted you think is by no means an Argument that there were none such and you tell me that should any Learned Papist have offered you such an Argument as this you should conclude then that he went about to impose upon you And yet Sir I can tell you of several Learned Papists which use these very same Arguments to prove the same thing Habertus doth it as to one of them and makes use not only of some of those Authorities I have mentioned but also of several others as of St. Gregory Isodore and Amalarius as may be seen page the 124th of his Observations on the Greek Pontifical And Morinus doth it as to all of them and so doth Pope Innocent the 4th in the words I have afore cited out of him for in them he tells you that it is found to be a Rite used by the Apostles to lay hands on the persons to be Ordained and pray over them but that he finds not any other Rite observed by them and from hence concludes that the Forms now used in the Church of Rome were invented afterwards And I could name several others that argue in this very thing after the same manner but instead of enlarging any further upon that head I will take leave to show you how much you are mistaken in thinking this no good way of arguing from the very nature of the thing it self For the thing which I take to prove is that those Forms now used in the Church of Rome are not Antient and the only way I have to prove this is to search Antiquity for it and if I can find no footsteps in any Antient Ritual of any such Forms used in Ordination or any mention made of them in those Antient Writers of the Church which treat of Ordination all that understand affairs of this nature must allow it a good Argument to conclude from hence that they were not at all antiently in use and in things of this nature there is no other way of Arguing and it is that which all Learned Men that write of Church Antiquities and the usages of the Antients constantly use and ten thousand instances may be given hereof for to deny those Authorities which I have insisted on to be good against the antient use of those Forms because there are no words in them expresly excluding them is that which when you consider again you must acknowledge to be a very unreasonable thing for how can you expect that the negation of the use of a thing should be expressed in any Writer before the thing it self was ever invented or came in practice Those imperative Forms now in use in the Church of Rome were not then as much as thought of and how then could the Writers of those passages I have quoted express any thing either negatively or affirmatively concerning them And that which you require to make the Argument strong on my side would really make it conclude the contrary way for whereas those passages have only a silence as to those Forms should they have also words denâ—ing the use of them they would rather prove the Antiquity of their use then make against it because the mention of them in any manner whatever would necessarily prove them to have been in use before mentioned otherwise how could any mention be made of them at all But since in all the Writing of the Antients they are never as much as once mentioned no not in those places where they treating of Orders and the manner of Ordination could not possibly pass them over in silence were there any such things then in use nor any of the antient Rituals of Ordination for near a thousand years having the least footsteps of them nor the Greek Church having any thing like them it is as strong an Argument as possibly the nature of the thing can bear that antiently there were no such things at all as those Forms which the Church of Rome will now have to be the grand essentials of all their Ordinations and there is no rational man but must be convinced hereby For were they antiently known and looked on as things so essential to Ordination as the Church of Rome would have it is utterly impossible there could be such a total silence of them for so many Ages after Christ as I have mentioned in all that have wrote of this matter As to my not giving you the very words of the Council of Carthage and of the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which I quoted I am not to be blamed in this matter because those passages which I referred to taking up several Pages would be too long to transcribe especially I being then involv'd in other business which would not allow me time for so tedious and needless a task If you doubted of my fidelity as to the quoting of those passages you might
form of words whatever unless it hath a Divine Institution whereto to refer and bears with it an exact conformity thereto can ever arrive to the true nature and essence of a Sacrament and therefore supposing Orders to be a Sacrament of the new Law as our Adversaries would have and that there was a Divine Institution not only for the outward sign but also for the form of words made use of in the conferring of them yet it can never be said that the form of words only without any further respect can give that determinate essence to the Sacrament as actually and ultimately to constitute it to be a Sacrament which is the nature of every essential form to do in respect of the thing to which it belongs and consequently can never be the essential form thereof And from hence you may plainly see that all which our Adversaries say of the essential form of Orders and on which from them you so much insist on hath neither Scripture Antiquity or Reason for its support but is totally grounded on no other foundation then the Philosophy of Aristotle and the mistakes and dotages of the Schoolmen built thereon As to what you say concerning the essential form being contained in the Prayers of the Roman Ordinal and that therefore before the imperative forms were added Imposition of Hands and Prayers were sufficient with them for the conferring of Orders but cannot be with us because in none of the Prayers of our Ordinal this essential Form is contained I Answer If by the essential Form you mean those very same words spoken by the Bishop at the administring of the outward Rite or Matter as they call it which the generality of the Romish Church call the form of Orders I deny that they are contained in any of their Prayers and if you think they are you should have told me in which But Secondly If by the essential Form you mean no more than words in the Prayers signifying the Office conferr'd which I suppose must be all that you mean thereby if you mean any thing that is sense then I answer that the prayers in our Ordinal do as fully contain that which you call the essential Form of Orders as any in the Roman Ordinal can be said to do And although you will not allow this of the Prayer immediately before imposition of hands or of that which follows immediately after in the Ordination of a Priest yet you cannot deny it of the Collect for the occasion where it is most proper to be looked for for that is as followeth Almighty God Giver of all good things who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in the Church mercifully behold these thy Servants now called to the Office of Priesthood and replenish them so with the truth of thy Doctrine and adorn them with innocency of Life that both by word and good Example they may faithfully serve thee in this Office to the glory of thy Name and the Edification of thy Church through the merits of Jesus Christ And if you look over all the prayers of the Roman Ordinal I think you cannot find in any of them the Office of a Priest more expresly mention'd than in this And therefore I hold still to my Inference that if the Prayers with imposition of hands may be sufficient for the conferring of the order of Priesthood in the Roman ordinal this must be also sufficient in ours And I cannot possibly see what farther you can object against this unless it be that the Prayer I have mention'd goeth before the Rite of imposition of Hands in our Ordinal whereas you may perchance think that it ought to come after rightly to answer the end for which I urge it But if you please to consider those passages of Scripture which tell us of the manner of ordaining practiced by the Holy Apostles as it is alwayes expressed in them to be done by Prayer and Imposition of hands so also shall you find that Prayer was first and Imposition of hands after So Acts 6. v. 6. in their Ordaining of the seven Deacons it is said that when they had prayed they laid their hands on them and so Acts 13. v. 3 of the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas to be the Apostles of the Gentiles When they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands upon them they sent them away which passages plainly evidence unto us that their method of Ordaining was first by Prayer in the name of the Church to Consecrate the person unto God for the Office to which he was set apart and then as in Gods stead according to the authority they had received from him in order hereunto by Imposition of hands to receive him to this Office and confer the power thereof upon him and that this was the completion of the whole administration made use of in this matter And although Acts 14. v. 23. it is said of Paul and Barnabas when they had Ordained them Elders or Presbyters in every City and had prayed with fasting yet we are to understand what is here last placed to have been first done it being a thing very usual with the Sacred as well as other Writers while they relate matters of fact not always to observe the exact order in which they were done as from many instances in Scripture may be made appear unto you and that this place is so to be understood we have the Rhemists themselves on our side who in their notes on this place plainly tell us that the Fasting and Prayers here mentioned were preparatives to Holy Orders In the next place you quarrel with me for misreciting your words which I confess is a great fault if I am guilty of it and would be contrary to that exact sincerity with which I ever desire to deal with all men especially in matters of Religion But having carefully reviewed both mine own and your Papers I can see no reason for this charge upon me In my Answer to your first Paper I observed that the grand defect which our Adversaries charge our Orders with is for omitting this Form in the Priestly Ordination Receive thou Authority to offer Sacrifice unto God and to Celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead which I told you could not be an essential defect because this Form it self was a novel addition and not used in the Church of Rome it self for near a thousand years after Christ To this you Answer in your second Paper in these words Although they have added that to theirs of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead yet in regard they do before in their Ordinal expresly give all Priestly power which we did not the other is but an instruction to let them know what power they had received and for what they were to make use of it by vertue of that all Priestly power expresly given them before From which words in Answer to what you charge me with I have these things to say
Case of our first Reformers it would become absolutely necessary to Ordain without it But Sixthly Allowing the Nicene Canon you insist on still to retain the utmost force you can give it yet there is nothing in it which requires what you would have in reference to us For all that is there said is that in all Provinces the Bishops should be Ordained by the consent of the Metropolitan which was very well provided for the preservance of peace and good Order in the Church But the Bishop of Rome is not our Metropolitan and in truth in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign the time to which your Objection refers we had no Metropolitan at all in this Province Cardinal Pool the last Metropolitan being then newly dead and the Metropolitical see of Canterbury vacant thereby and into his place it was that Archbishop Parker was Ordained But here you will say that as the provincial Bishops were to be Ordained by the Metropolitan so the Metropolitans were to be Ordained by the Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome being our Patriarch for this Reason Arch-bishop Parker ought not to have been Ordain'd without his Consent and that his Ordination was illegal for want thereof But to this I say 1. That this is not at all said in the Canon you insist on that extending no farther than to Metropolitans in respect of their Com-provincials as it is also plainly expressed in the Fourth Canon of that Council For in truth Patriarchs were not then in being neither could be that Division of the Empire into Diocesses consisting each of many Provinces which gave occasion for the first constituting of Patriarchs being but just then made and therefore it must be some time after before there could be any Birth given to that Institution and in the Council of Chalcedon which was held 126 years after that of Nice is the first time we find any mention of it no ancient Records of the Church before that time in the least giving us any account thereof 2. Supposing Patriarchs should have been then meant yet Brittain was never of the Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome which is sufficiently made out not only by our Learned Dean of Pauls in his Origines Brittanicae cap. 3. but also by several of the Roman Communion also and especially by Father Barns a Benedictine Monk who wrote a Book particularly to that purpose 3. I deny that it was the ancient practice of the Church for Metropolitans to be Ordained by the approbation of the Patriarch or that his consent was at all thought requisite hereto For the Custom was when a new Metropolitan was chosen that he should be Ordained by his own Comprovincials And so was Arch-bishop Parker he having been Consecrated by four Bishops of his own Province and that this was a practice not only introduced by ancient usage but also establish'd by many Decrees and Canons of the Church not only Petrus de Marca Arch-bishop of Paris but also Hallier another eminent Doctor of the French Church do give us a large Account And it is but of late date that the Bishops of Rome interposed herein as is told you in a Pamphlet just now come from France concerning the proceedings of the Parliament of Paris upon the Popes Bull for therein the Kings Advocate tells that Parliament that for the four first Ages of that Monarchy there was no such thing as suing to Rome for Benefices And Petrus de Marca tells you the same thing And having said thus much I know not any thing which can be further urged for the support of your last Objection requiring the Popes consent to our Ordinations unless you fly to that Paramount Supremacy challenged to him by so many which makes him the only Supream Pastor of the Church under Christ and all other Bishops as his Delegates which act only by his Auâ—hority and have no other but what is derived from him And if you say this all the Answer I shall give you thereto is that this is a pretension so extravagant and so totally void of all manner of ground for its support that not only the Protestants but also the better part of his own Communion utterly deny it unto him And now having gone through your Paper all that remains for me further to do in order to your full satisfaction is that I perform my promise in making good unto you that supposing an Imperative Form of words in Ordination to be so essentially necessary as you would have it yet the Forms made use of in our Ordinal for the Ordination of a Priest were before the additions made to them by the Convocation in the year 1662 altogether sufficient in order thereto For as there is Matter and Form as they call them in all Ordinations administred by the Church of Rome so also is there in ours that is an outward visible sign at the performance of the administration and a Form of words expressing the thing intended thereby the former of which they call the Matter and the latter the Form of Ordination And as there is a double Matter and Form in their Ordinal for the Ordaining of a Priest so is there also in ours and that all things may appear the more clearly to you what I have hereafter to say concerning them in order to the satisfying you in the point proposed First I shall lay them down both together that is the Matters and Forms of their Ordinal as well as the Matters and Forms of our Ordinal as they were before the additions made to the Forms that are afore-mentioned that having that in your view which is the subject of the whole Dispute you may the better understand what shall be urg'd concerning it Secondly I shall from both of them observe some few particulars unto 〈…〉 leading to the same end And then Thirdly Having stated your Objection as fairly and to the best advantage of your Cause that I can I shall in the last place proceed to Answer it with such Arguments as I hope will give you full satisfaction First As to the Matter and Forms for the Ordination of a Priest both of the Romish Ordinal as well as those of ours as they were before the additions made to the Forms in the year 1662. They are as followeth In the Romish Ordinal In the Ordinal of the Church of England The first Matter is the delivery of the Chalice with Wine and Water in it and the Paten on the top of it with the Host thereon To the person to be Ordained to the Priesthood The first Matter is the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop and Presbytery assisting with him at the Ordination on the Head of the Person Ordained The first Form is these words spoken by the Bishop at the delivery of the said Chalice and Paten Receive Power to offer Sacrifice unto God and to Celebrate Masses both for the Living and the Dead in the name of the Lord. Amen The first Form is these
words spoken by the Bishop at the time of the said Imposition of Hands Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen The second Matter is the Imposition of both the Hands of the Bishop that Ordains on the Head of the person Ordained The second Matter is the delivery of the Bible by the Bishop to the person Ordained The second Form is the words spoken by the Bishop at the time of the said Imposition of his Hands Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted unto them and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained The second Form is these words spoken by the Bishop at the said delivery of the Bible Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed And thus having laid before you the Matters and Forms as they call them made use of in both Ordinals Secondly The particulars which I think requisite to observe unto you from both of them in order to the better clearing unto you the point proposed are 1. That as to the Matters and Forms of the Roman Ordinal although the opinions of their Writers and Doctors are very various about them yet that which is now most generally received among them is that both these Matters and Forms are essential to the conferring of the Office and that the first Matter and Form gives Power over the Natural Body of Christ that is to Consecrate the Eucharist wherein they will have Christs Natural Body by vertue of their inconceivable Transubstantiation to be really present and the other Matter and Form give Power over His Mystical Body that is the people of His Church to absolve them from their sins The first they call the Power of Order and the second the Power of Jurisdiction and in these two they say the whole Office and Authority of the Christian Priesthood is conferred 2. That as to these very particular Matters and Forms in their present Ordinal although the Schoolmen were generally for having them of Divine Institution and not to be varied from as is above noted yet the generality of Learned Men among them at present are of another opinion as holding it only of Divine Institution that there should be Matter and Form in general in all Ordinations but what the particular Matter and Form should be was left to the Church to determine and consequently that nothing else is necessary but that the Matters bear with them some fitness to signifie and denote the thing intended and that the Forms be fully expressive of the Power and Office conferred thereby And this as to the Forms seems to be the opinion which you allow For you do not absolutely require that we should use the Roman Forms as if no Orders could be validly conferred without them but only that we should either use them or such as are equivalent with them wherein the whole Priestly Power may be expresly given to the person Ordain'd and your opinion that by ours this is not done seems to be the whole reason of your Objection 3. As to those Signs and Forms of words annexed to them made use of in our Ordinal which in conformity to the Language of the Romanists we also call Matter and Form we do not think either of them so essential to the administration as to null such Orders as may be conferred without them provided it be done some other way sufficiently declarative of the thing intended For we look on nothing to be of Divine Institution in Orders but the Mission it self that is that the Chief Pastors of our Church send others as they are sent and when this is done by a person fully Authorized thereto we look on all to be perform'd in this particular which the Praescripts of our Saviour direct us to As to the manner of the Mission and the method of Ordaining thereto we think this intrusted with them to whom the Authority of granting the Mission is given to order and appoint it as they may think will best express the thing they do However we do by no means approve the receding from the ancient and long received practice of the Church herein but think that those usages which can be traced up to the primitive and purer times of the Church especially if they reach so high as the Apostolical Age when the Holy Spirit of God was given in an extraordinary manner to be a conduct in all things of this nature do from the practice of those Holy and Inspir'd Men which then used them receive such plain evidence of their conformity to the will of God that they cannot unless in some extraordinary case without the greatest rashness be varied from as I have before said And this our first Reformers having a full sense of did not in the compiling of the Ordinal which you find so much fault with indulge their own fancies but as true Reformers laying Scripture and Primitive Practice before them for the Rule of what they did made it their endeavour to reduce all things thereto and therefore finding from Scripture and the practice of the Church from the beginning that Prayers and Imposition of Hands was the ancient manner of Ordaining they carefully retain'd both these in our Ordinal Prayers very fitly composed to recommend the person unto God for the Office to which he is appointed and Imposition of Hands to execute the Authority received from God to confer it on him And although there be no instance of any Imperative Form of words to be at all made use of in any of the ancient Ordinals for near a Thousand Years after Christ as is above noted yet since the later Ages have introduced them and they appear to be of great use the better and more clearly to express and declare the intent and meaning of the outward Rite to which they are annexed we have those also in our Ordinals and in the choice of them making Scripture our Rule we do for the Ordination of a Priest use the very same Form of words which our Saviour himself made use of when He Ordained His Holy Apostles to the same Office Joh. 20.22 23. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained adding also thereto these words both as explanatory of them and exhortatory to the duties of the Office conferr'd and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his Holy Sacraments and then to express the Authority by which this is done is subjoyned in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen The want of which in the Roman Ordinals is a defect they cannot be excused from And
this outward Rite or Sign of Imposition of Hands and this Form of words annex'd thereto was the whole manner appointed by our first Reformers for the conferring of the Office of Priesthood on those that were Ordained to it and so it continued till in the first Convocation after the late King's Restauration Anno 1662. after Receive the Holy Ghost these additional words for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by the Imposition of our Hands were for the reasons which I have aforementioned unto you also inserted in that Form. 4. Therefore you are to understand that the second Matter and Form of our Ordinal abovementioned were not at all intended to conferr the Order or any part thereof but only to assign the place for the execution of the Office already received For by the first Matter and Form Imposition of Hands and the Form of words annexed the person Ordained thereby is fully and wholly made a Priest or Presbyter of the Church of Christ and all that is done by the second Matter and Form is to admit him thus Ordain'd to be a Priest or Presbyter of that Congregation that is of that Diocess the whole Diocess being as one Congregation or Parish in respect of the Bishop Ordaining to execute the Duties of his Office express'd by Preaching of the Word and Administering the Holy Sacraments in the place where he shall be appointed thereto and this was so order'd conform to the Ancient Canons of the Church which very severely forbid all absolute Ordinations that is all such Ordinations whereby Orders are given at large without intitling the Person Ordained to any particular Church for the executing the Duties of the Office received For it was the Ancient Custom that every Bishop should Ordain his own Presbyters and none other and that when he Ordained them he should admit them to be Presbyters of his Church either to officiate in the Mother Church it self where the Bishop had his Chair or else in some of the other inferiour Churches of the Diocess which all belonged thereto and whether they did the one or the other they were all reckoned as Presbyters of that one Church the Diocess anciently being looked on as one Parish and all the Christians of it as one Congregation united together under their Bishop and conformable hereto is it that the Bishop saith in the Ordinal above-mention'd Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed i.e. Take thou Authority to execute the Office of a Priest in this Diocess in that particular Church or Parish thereof where thou shalt be appointed so to do But since the Ancient Canons which forbad Presbyters ever to forsake that Church or Diocess whereof they were first admitted Presbyters to go into another Diocess is now through the whole Christian World grown quite obsolete and would be of much more prejudice than benefit now to be observ'd At the aforesaid review of our Ordinal in the Year 1662. this Form also hath received an Alteration and what was afore in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed is now in the Congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereto and thereby that Faculty or License to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments which was afore given as to the Diocess only where the Person was Ordained is now made General as to the whole National Church in any part thereof whereof the Person thus Ordain'd to the Priesthood shall be lawfully called to execute the Duties thereof And having premised these things unto you concerning the Matters and Forms made use of in the Ordinals of both Churches for your clearer understanding of what is on either side intended by them I now come to your Objection which according to the best advantage that it can be stated I apprehend to be thus You looking on a Form of Words fully expressing the whole Priestly power to be indispensably necessary and absolutely essential to all Ordinations of Priests think our Orders of Priesthood invalidly administred as failing in an essential because we have no such Form expressing the whole Priestly power at our Ordinations of Priests For the Form which we use you say is not such as by no means expressing the whole Priestly power because it makes no mention of Consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist and making present the Body and Blood of our Saviour as you term it which you look on as the chiefest and main power of the Priestly Office but only impowers to forgive Sins And although you allow our Form at present since the insertion of those words for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God to be sufficiently perfect because in the word Priest you think may be included all that belongs to him yet still judge our Orders to be invalid by reason of the former defect because say you if the Presbyters of the Church of England were not validly Ordain'd by the first Form till the addition above-mentioned was inserted in the Year 1662 then through this defect those who were chosen out of them to be Bishops could not validly be ordained such because they were not afore Presbyters or Priests none being capable in your opinion to be Bishops who have not been first made Priests and consequently could not have Authority to Ordain others by any Form of Words how perfect soever afterwards devised And this being your Objection urged in its utmost strength for the Cause you argue for I am now to tell you in Answer thereto that the whole of it goes upon three very great Mistakes The First is That any such a Form of Words is Essential to Orders Secondly That the Order of Priesthood is absolutely necessary to qualify a man for the Order of Episcopacy And Thirdly That our Form of Priestly Ordination doth not include the whole Priestly power As to the First Although we allow such Formes very useful to make a more clear declaration of the intent and meaning of that act whereby the Office is conferr'd and therefore do our selves retain them in our Church yet that any such should be essential to the Administration so as to null and make void the Orders that are conferr'd without them is that which wants all manner of Evidence either from Scripture Ancient Practice the nature of the thing it self or any other reason whatever which I have already made sufficiently clear unto you And therefore without repeating what I have before said I shall pass on to the other two particulars in which you are equally mistaken For Secondly That the Order of Priesthood is absolutely necessary to quallify a man for the Order of Episcopacy so that none can be made a Bishop unless he were first a Priest is that you can have no ground for The Holy Scriptures from whence alone the essential requisites of Christ's Institutions are
and newness of Life the correcting by Ecclesiastical Censures such as are notorious Sinners the Absolving them when penitent and the Intercession of Holy Prayer for all This therefore being the end of their Calling and these the Means they are to make use of in order thereunto those words which appoint them unto the End must necessarily appoint them also to all those Means leading thereto For in this Case the Means are always included in the End and whosoever gives a Commission for the accomplishing of any End must necessarily also in that Commission include an Authority to all the Regular Means leading thereto And therefore the End of the Priests Calling being to be the Ministers of Jesus Christ for the Forgiveness of Sins these words in our Ordinal Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained which do most plainly appoint the Persons Ordain'd to this end do necessarily appoint them also to all the means leading thereto the preaching the Word the Consecrating as well as administring the Sacraments and all things else which Christ hath commanded his Ministers to do in order to this End and consequently they do give every branch of the Priestly-power which by the Institutions of our Saviour do belong thereto In answer to this I doubt not those Gentlemen you converse so much with will tell you that those words cannot be so understood as to comprehend all those Ministerial Acts of the Priestly Office. Because in the 20th Chapter of St. John's Gospel from whence we as well as they own to have taken them into our Ordinals and therein to use them in the same sense as there used they have according to them another interpretation not to mean Forgiveness of Sins as by the outward assistance of all the Ministerial Acts of the Priestly Office leading preparing and qualifying men thereto but only as it is given by that one act thereof whereby they take upon them in their Sacrament of Penance as they call it properly directly and absolutely by a judicial Sentence to forgive the sins of those that Confess unto them For such an Authority those Usurpers upon the power of God Almighty claim to themselves and alledging this Text of Scripture as the Charter by which they hold it will not have it to be understood of any thing else and in the Council of Trent thunder out their Anathema against all those that understand it to extend to any other act of the Priestly Office but this only For the words of that Council are Sess 14. Can. 3. If any one shall say that those words of our Saviour Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the Sacrament of Pennance as the Catholick Church ever understood from the beginning but wrest them contrary to the Institution of the Sacrament to the Authority of Preaching the Gospel Let him be accursed In Answer to which I will shew you 1. That there is no such power given to the Priest as is claimed by them from those words And 2. That therefore they can be understood in no other sense than that which comprehends the whole Priestly power as I have already explain'd And 1. The power which they claim from these words is to be Judges on Earth in Christ's stead between God and Man and to have full Authority as such to pass sentence upon all that after Baptism shall fall into Transgression either for Life or Death according as they shall judge fitting and therefore call all such to their Tribunal telling them that Christ hath constituted them Judges upon Earth with such a power that without their Sentence of Absolution none that have fallen into sin after Baptism can be again reconciled unto God. And therefore they make their Sentence of Absolution to be that very Act whereby the Sin is forgiven and take from God that Prerogative which he hath reserved to himself alone For it is he only that blotteth out transgressions and none other is a God like him that pardoneth iniquity and therefore was it that the Jews when our Saviour said thy sins are forgiven thee reasoning among themselves asked the Question Who can forgive sins but God alone and this saith Tertullian They deservedly did as not knowing his Divinity For then it was a thing looked on as most certain amongst all the Scribes and Doctors of the Jewish Church that none but God alone could forgive Sin and so was it also by the Ancient Fathers of the Church of Christ And therefore they make this one of their greatest Arguments whereby they prove the Divinity of our Saviour that he did forgive Sins For saith Irenaeus If none can forgive sins but God alone and our Lord did forgive them it is manifest that he was the Word of God made the Son of Man. And the same Argument is also made use of by St. Hilary St. Athanasius St. Cyril St. Anbrose St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome and in the Ages after by Venerable Bede and several others which sufficiently shows that they never understood any such pardoning power as those men now claim ever to be given to man but to be alwayes reserv'd unto God alone That the Pastors of the Church of Christ have Authority to apply the Promises of God to all his People by declaring Absolution from Sin to all that truly Repent and on the other hand to denounce his Punishments against all that continue in iniquity I freely grant and also that they have power for the better Government of the Church by way of Discipline to exclude all such from Communion who are open and notorious Sinners and restore them again when amended by Repentance But as to that power of the Priest now claim'd in the Church of Rome of remitting Sins properly directly and absolutely by a Judicial Sentence and that none can be reconciled to God unless thus absolved by them or at least supplying the defect by an earnest desire of their Absolution when not readily to be had as in perfect Contrition they will allow is what God never gave unto them or the ancient Fathers of the Church ever challenged For the loosing of men by the Judgment of the Priest which the Ancients speak of cannot be understood of any such extravagant power granted unto them but only of that power of Discipline of which I have spoken whereby they restored such to the peace of the Church and admitted them again to Communion who had afore been excluded from it And their Language concerning this matter is generally such as will admit no other Interpretation For they mostly express it by the Terms of bringing them to Communion of reconciling them to the Communion or with the Communion restoring the Communion to them
little better And now Sir Having in this Paper thus fully handled the Argument you proposed and answered all the Objections which you made I leave it with you to work that effect on you which God shall give And am Your humble Servant H. Prideaux January 27th 1687 8. FINIS ERRATA The Author being an Hundred Miles distance from the Press when the Books was Printed the Reader is desired to excuse the wrong Pointing which is too frequent and these following Errors in the words of the Book PAge 2. Line 17. for never defective read never so defective p. 3. l. 13. f. the the cavil r. that cavil p. 5. l. 4. f. and to the best c. r. And to the best with a full point before And and none after remembrance p. 5. l. 12. f. resolution r. solution p. 8. l. 13. f. Forme r. former p. 9. l. 29. f. given thee the Spirit r. given us p. 16. l. 6. f. several successors r. several successions p. 16. l. 39. f. adhere to her r. adhered to her p. 19. l. 8. f. they had power r. they had no power p. 37. l. 26. blot out thing p. 39. l. 37. f. never will subsist r. never well subsist p. 44. l. 21. f. received r. reviewed p. 47. l. 5. blot out an eminent Jesuit p. 50. l. 37. f. to be Ordaining r. to be Ordained p. 74. l. 4. f forget r. forgo p. 79. l. 29. f. Meletias r. Meletius p. 81. l. 35. f. Odell r. Odett p. 82. l. 2. f. Presbyters r. Presbyter p. 82. l. 13. f. nulla tenentes r. Nullatenenses p. 85. l. 38. f. matter r. matters p. 92. l. 15. f. Aptungitum r. Aptungis p. 105. l. ult blot out and a Jesuite p. 111. l. 7. f. Vicar r. Vicars Some Books lately Printed for Brab Alymer A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy to which is added A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church By Dr. Isaac Barrow A Discourse against Transubstantiation By Dr. Tillotson A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux's A Discourse of the Sacrifice of the Mass in 4 o. A Discourse against Purgatory An Answer to a Book Entituled Reason and Authority Or the Motives of a late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholick Church In a Letter to a Friend Together with a Brief Account of Austin the Monk and Conversion of the English in 4 o. The Judgment of private Discretion in Matters of Religion Defended in a Sermon on 1 Thes v. 21. Preached at St. Pauls Covent-Garden Feb. 26. 1686. By Richard Kidder A Request to Roman Catholicks to Answer the Queries upon these their following Tenets 1. Their Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 2. Their taking away the Cup from the People 3. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks 4. The Adoration of Images 5. The Invocation of Saints and Angels 6. The Doctrine of Merit 7. Purgatory 8. Their Seven Sacraments 9. Their Priests Intention in Baptism 10. The Limbo of Vnbaptized Infants 11. Transubstantiation 12. The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass 13. Private Masses 14. The Sacrament of Penance c. A Defence of the Ordinations and Ministry of the Church of England In Answer to the Scandals rais'd or reviv'd against them in several late Pamphlets and particularly in one Entituled The Church of England truly Represented c. In 4 o. price 9 d. * These are words Writ by his own hand at the Conference * This is taken verbatim out of his Papers History of the Reformation Part 2. p. 144. De Deâ—perat Calvini cauâ—a cap. 11. pag. 108. (a) Lib. 4. Distinct 1. Sect. 18. (b) Lib. 4. Distinct 24. Sect. 2. (c) Estius ibid. Page 125. Page 485. De Sacramentis non iterandis cap. Presbyt * Exposit Paraphrast in Artic. 36. Ecclesiae Ang. pag. 325. * Lib. 8. c. 24. †Lib. 16. in Esaiam * Avadhah Tract 2. cap. 4. Sect. 12. * Matt. 10. v. 1. Luk. 9. v. 1. 6. †John 11. v. 51. * Dominicus Soto Silvester de Valentia aliique ‖ Gygas cum DD ab eo citat Q. 8. de pers n. 3. Maimonides in Tract Sanedrim cap. 4. (a) Lib. 3. Exercit. 7. cap. 2. (b) Page 224. (c) De Sacr. Ord. D. 6. g. 52. (a) Distinct 24. Part. 2. Art. 1. Quest. 4. (b) Lect. 5. de Sacramento Ordinis (c) In tertiam Thomae Disput 239. cap. 2. (d) De Sacramentis cap. 26. Quaest 4. * De Sacris Electionibus ordinationibus pag. 443. ‖ Vasquez in tertiam Thomae disput 240. n. 58. * 1 Disput 240. cap 4. De Sacramento ordinis cap. 5. ‖ Burnets History of the Reformation Part. 2. pag. 154. De Schismate Anglicane lib. 2. p. 205. ‖ De Sacramento ordinis cap. 26. Quaest. 2. * Socrates lib. 1. cap. 3. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 9. Hist a De Eâ—cl milit lib. 4. c. 8. b Tâ—n 1. p. 14. c See Raynold's Apology for his Theses p. 292. ‖ Hist lib. 5. c.ult. ‖ See Dr. Stillingfleet of the Phaâ—aâ—iâ—â—sâ—â—â— of the Church of Rome ‖ Andradius de Gen. Concil autoritate lib. 1. Defens Fid. Trident p 115 116. Binnius Tom. 2. pag. 243. ‖ Tom. 2. lib. 6. c 4. * De Sacris Electionibus ordinationibus Part. 3. Sect. 5. c. 4. Art. 2. (c) Tom. 2. lib. 6 cap. 4. (a) Mason lib. 5. cap. 1. (b) Concil Chalced can 6. Concil Melden can 52. Concil Valent. can 6. (c) Concil Nicen. can 15 16. * Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum lib. 1. cap. 2. (a) Ep. 6. ad severum Ep. 22. ad Amandum (b) Lib. 1. contra Pormenianum (c) Baron Annal. Tom. 10. ad annum 861. (d) Baron Annal. Tom 10. ad annum 867. (a) Bellarm. de Paenitentia lib. 3. cap. 2. (b) Isa 43. v. 25. (c) Mic. 7. v. 18. (d) Mar. 2. v. 7. Luk. 5. v. 22. (e) Lib 4. advers Marcion c. 10. (f) Adversus Haeres lib. 5. c. 17. (g) Comm. in 9. Matth. (h) Orat. 3 cont Arrianos (i) In lib. de rectâ fide ad Reginas (k) In cap. 5 â—ucae (l) In 9. Mat. Hom. 29. (m) Lib. 1. com in 9. Matthaei (n) In Marc lib. 1. cap. 10. (*) Concil Trident. Sess 14. cap. 4. ‖ Epist 13. †Alcuin de divinis officiis cap. 13. * Aquin. Opusc 22. cap. 5. (a) In Matthaeum cap. 16. (b) Lib. 4. distinct 18. e. f. (c) Ibid. f. (a) 2 Cor. cap. 5. v. 18. (a) 2 Cor. 5 v. 19. (b) Joh. 3. v. 5. (c) Mar. 16. v. 16. Acts 2. v. 38. (d) Mat. 26. v. 28. (e) Gal. 6. v. 1. (f) Jâ—m 5. v. 15 16. * Estius in Sentent lib. 4. distinct 12. Sect. 11. * 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. (a) Matth. c. 28. v. 18. (b) Com. in Mat. cap. 28. v. 18. (c) cap. 16. v. 33. (d) Phil. cap. 2. v. 9 10. * Chap. 7. * Rhemish Testament 1 Cor. 4. v. 1. * De Sacramentis Disp 2. Sect. 5. n. 85. (a) Part. 3. Exercit 7. c. 1. (b) De Sacris Electionibâ—s Ordinationibus Part 2. Sect. 2. châ—p 2. Art 1.2 () Ib. Art. 5. (d) Concil Cologr sub Hermanno Archiepiscopo cap. 1. (e) Concil Mogun sub Sebastiano Archiepiscopo cap. 25. (f) In Tertiam Thomae Disp 239. nu 42. (g) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 7. pag. 525. (h) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 4. pag. 510. (b) See Habertus on the Greek Pontifical ad Part. 8. Observat 9. pag. 142. (a) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 9. (b) Part. 2. Sect. 2. cap. 2. Art. 1. (c) in Pontifical Graec. pag. 121. (d) De Sacramento Ordinis c. 4. n. 6. (a) Sess 23. can 3. (b) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 9. (c) In Tert. Thom. Disput 239. n. 19. (d) Concil Trident. Session 7. De Sacramentis in genere can 9. (a) De Sacramento Ordinis punct 5. * Concil Constan Sess 13.
Ordination therein superadded no new Authority to that which was afore given him by the Priestly and therefore that both Offices were the same according to our own Ordinal Thirdly That if this Argument implies any defect in our Old Ordinal it placeth it only in the Form of Episcopal Ordination and not in the Priestly and concerning this only you have several times told me your whole doubt is Fourthly The Presbyterians urging this is by no means an Argument that there is any such defect in the Form of Episcopal Ordination in our Old Ordinal for God forbid all should be true which Adversaries use to urge against each other in their disputes about Religion Fifthly That if this be a defect in our Old Ordinal the Papists have no reason to urge it their 's being much more defective as I have already told you for in the Consecration of a Bishop at the imposition of hands they use no other Form then these words only Receive the Holy Ghost As to what you tell me that the Papists are more formidable to the Church of England then all the Sects together in point of weight if you speak this in reference to their Doctrines or any thing that they can say to defend them I am so far from being of your opinion that of all the Sects that have infested the Church of Christ which have been able to make any plausible show of Argument for themselves I think theirs bating the Patronage of Princes to which it chiefly owes its support to be the most defenceless which may sufficiently appear by the present management of the Controversie between us in which their cause hath been so miserably baffled that they are in a manner plainly put to silence Few now of those many Tracts which are written against them being at all Answered by them And when sometimes with a great deal of noise they send forth a Pamphlet against us their performance is always so lame and what they have to say for themselves so far short of giving any satisfaction in the Points controverted between us that it is sufficiently evidenced hereby that their cause is such as will not bear a defence The next thing you tell me is that you have received your Erastus Senior and your Erastus Junior and can find no mention made in any part of them of the alteration of our Ordinal it seems then you have them both to serve the cause you would maintain although you denyed you had either when I would have borrowed one of them of you in order to the better giving you the satisfaction which you desired But because you say you cannot find the passage I refer to I will give you the words as I find them in the last page of the Erastus Senior which I have they are as followeth Since the Printing of this they have acknowledged the justness of our exception to their Forms by amending them in their new Book Authorized by the late Act for Vniformity c. which words being put after the conclusion of the Book do sufficiently enough themselves express that they were put there between the time of finishing and publishing of it that it was after the finishing of it is said in them and that it was before the publishing of it is demonstrable from their being there and consequently the publication of this Book must be after the publication of the Liturgy Now the Liturgy not being published after its review and amendment till the latter end of August 1662. its evident from thence that it must be after that time that this Erastus Senior first came forth and therefore it could not any way influence the alteration made in our Ordinal published with that Liturgy as you would have it the whole being perfected the January before for the Parliament began to fit January the 7th and the third Act which was passed we find to be the Act of Vniformity wherein this Liturgy with the Ordinal were confirmed and consequently it must in the very beginning of the Sessions have been made ready by the Convocation for them And whereas you require of me to tell you who those sober Papists were that exploded those Books at their coming out I name unto you Father Peter Walsh for one who was the person I mentioned to have wrote a Book against them which he presented to the late Bishop of Winchester and is now in several hands in Manuscript and Dr. Burnet tells you he had the perusal of it But you demand of me to let you see this in Print and then you say you may be of my mind to which I Answer that I gladly accept of the condition and if you will perform your promise hereon we shall have no occasion to dispute any further about this matter For although Father Walsh hath not yet Printed the Book I mention yet he hath the substance of it in the Preface to his History of the Irish Remonstrance where you may find it but because perchance this Book is not to be had in this place I will refer you to another of his where you will find him saying the same thing that is in his Preface to his four Letters lately published and common enough to be had in every Booksellers shop For there making an Apology to those of his Religion for calling the Bishop of Lincoln most Illustrious and most Reverend in the Letter to him which he wrote in defence of the Church of Rome as to the deposing Doctrine against a Book which his Lordship had published on that Argument he gives his Reasons for it in these following words I had about twelve years since in the Preface to my History of the Irish Remonstrance publickly in Print acknowledged my opinion to be that the Ordination of the Protestant Church of England is valid meaning it undoubtedly to be so according both to the publick Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Schools themselves and the ancient Rituals of all Catholick Churches Latin and Greek nay and to those Rituals of all the Oriental Heterodox Churches too as Morinus a Learned Oratorian hath recorded them Thus far Father Walsh and what can be a more express acknowledgment in a Papist of the thing which you require and this being in Print and to be seen by you when you please to consult the Book to which I direct you I hope you will remember your promise of being of my mind hereon and acquiesce in this Authority But he is not the only man of that Religion that allows our Orders to be good and valid abundance more are of his mind herein and several have taken the same freedom of expressing it although to the disadvantage of their own cause Father Davenport alias Sancta Clare another Priest of the Romish Church is altogether as express in this matter as Father Walsh for in his Exposition on the 36th Article of our Church he proves from Vasquez Conink Arcudius and Innocent the 4th that our Church hath all the
the Church of Christ and have receiv'd full power to all the Duties incumbent on them as such not only that which is peculiar to the Order of a Bishop but also the powers of all other inferiour Offices included therein For the Orders of the Church do so include one the other that the same Act of Ordination which gives the power of the higher Order doth therein also give the powers of all other Orders inferiour thereto as for Example when a man is made a Presbyter or Priest though he had never been a Deacon yet he hath full power to all the Acts and Duties of a Deacon as being included in his Priesthood and so when a man is made a Bishop though he had never been either Priest or Deacon yet he hath full power to all the Acts and Duties of both these Offices as being included in that of his Episcopacy And this is no more than may be made good by Instances from all the subordinations of power in the World in which this is alwayes most certain that the higher degree of power ever includes all the other Degrees inferiour thereto and that Act which gives that one superiour degree gives all the others therewith as included in it And all the Argument which the Romanists bring against this to prove it must be otherwise as to those several degrees of power in the Church which make the Offices of Bishop Priest and Deacon therein is drawn from a similitude they make between them and the three sorts of Souls which distinguish between the three several sorts of living Creatures in this World that is the Vegetative Soul the Sensitive and the Rational For as the Vegetative is necessarily presuppos'd to the Sensitive and the Sensitive to the Rational in such manner as nothing can be a Rational Creature which is not a Sensitive or a Sensitive which is not a Vegetative so say they the order of a Deacon is necessarily presuppos'd to the order of Priesthood and the order of Priesthood to that of Episcopacy and no one can be a Bishop which is not first a Presbyter or a Presbyter which is not first a Deacon But this Argument if it makes any thing to the purpose must infer a very ridiculous thing that is that God cannot make a Man unless by giving him first the Vegetative Soul he makes him a Tree or a plant and then secondly by giving him the Sensitive Soul he makes him a Brute and then thirdly and lastly by giving him the Rational Soul he makes him a Man whereas nothing is more certain than that by that one Act whereby he gives the Rational Soul he gives all the powers of the other two included therein And therefore if this similitude were to decide the Controversie between us instead of making out any thing for them it will most manifestly give the whole on my side it being one of the fullest and clearest that can be thought on most plainly to illustrate unto you the whole state of what I have said in this particular For although the Vegetative Soul as in Vegetables is distinct from the Sensitive and the Sensitive as in Brutes is distinct from the Rational yet the Sensitive doth so include the Vegetative and the Rational the Sensitive that the very same act which gives the Sensitive Soul gives also the Vegetative and the very same act which gives the Rational gives both Sensitive and Vegetative also included therein And just so is it of the three Orders of Deacon Priest and Bishop in the Church of Christ For although the Order of a Deacon in a simple Deacon is distinct from the Order of Priesthood and the Priesthood as in a simple Priest distinct from the Order of Episcopacy yet the Order of Priesthood doth so include the Order of a Deacon and the Order of Episcopacy both that of Priest and Deacon that the very same act of Ordination which gives a man the Order of Priesthood gives him also that of a Deacon and that very same act which gives him the Order of Episcopacy gives him also both that of Deacon and Priest included in it and consequently that it is no more necessary a man should be a Deacon before he can be a Priest or a Priest before he can be a Bishop than that he must be made a Vegetable before he can be an Animal and an Animal before he can be a Rational Creature than which nothing is more absurd And thus far having shown you that the inferiour Orders of the Church are not so essentially necessary to qualifie for the superiour as you imagine but that a man may validly be ordain'd a Bishop though he was afore neither Priest nor Deacon it will infer that although that should be true which you object against us that our first form of Ordination of Priests till the Addition inserted in the year 1662. was defective and that by reason of this defect all the Priestly Ordinations conferr'd by it were null and void yet our Episcopal Ordination may be still good as being administred by no such defective Form but by one which includes all that and in the very same words which the Romanists themselves say is the alone essential Form of their Episcopal Ordination as is afore taken notice of and therefore though we had no true Priests all the while this defective Form was used yet we still had true Bishops fully invested with the power of Ordaining others and consequently now at least since the Form whereby they Ordain is mended according to your mind we must have true Priests also and therefore whatsoever defect according to your opinion might be formerly in our Priestly Ordination by reason of our Forms yet now this defect is fully mended and supplied you have no reason on this account to forsake our Communion But Thirdly That there was never any such defect in our Forms the main mistake which you go upon is that which in the last place I am to convince you of For although before the addition inserted in the Form of our Priestly Ordination it might not be so well fenced against all the unreasonable Cavils of Adversaries as now it is yet it was altogether as full in the expression of what was done and totally sufficient for the end design'd which I doubt not I shall fully and evidently make appear unto you by these following Reasons I. Because these words Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained are as full and comprehensive an expression of the whole Priestly power as possibly can be devised For what are Priests but the Ministers of Jesus Christ to lead men to that Reconciliation with God and that Forgiveness of Transgression from him which he hath purchased for us And what are the appointed means whereby they do this but the Administring the Sacraments the preaching of the Word the declaring Gods Promises and Threats the exhorting to Repentance