which the person Elected is Ordained For they after this manner laying on their hands all together by those words do denote that they do receive him into their fellowship and to this end do give the Holy Ghost and therefore do place him in the same Episcopal Order with themselves whereas the imposition of hands made use of by one Bishop only and the same words Receive the Holy Ghost with a few others added to them spoken by the same Bishop in the Ordination of a Deacon do not either as considered in themselves or as spoken by the Bishop and applyed to this matter denote the peculiar office or degree of a Deacon neither can they as spoken by one Bishop with such a matter denote the Ordained to be admitted into fellowship with the Bishop rather in this Order than in another seeing one Bishop is as well the Minister of conferring the Orders of Priesthood and of the Sub-Deacon as of the Deacon But on the contrary three Bishops are only the Ministers of conferring Episcopal Ordination And I do therefore think it to be the Will of Christ that his Church should in this Ordination use such words as considered in themselves are only general that it might denote thereby that abundance of Grace of the Holy Ghost which is conferred on Bishops in their Ordination For it seems to be much more that the Holy Ghost be given absolutely than that it be given for this or that peculiar effect Thus far the Learned Jesuit and if this may be allowed to be a sufficient solution of the objection against the Ordinal of the Church of Rome it must also be a sufficient solution of the same objection against our Ordinal For with us as well as in the Church of Rome there are always three Bishops present at the Ordination of a Bishop which altogether lay on their hands on the Bishop Elect when Ordained and not only this Circumstance but many others in the Administration of this Office according to our Ordinal do as fully show what Order the Person on whom they thus lay on their hands and pronounce the above-mentioned Form of Consecration over is to be admitted to The complex of the whole office shows it For the person to be Ordained or consecrated is presented to the Metropolitan as one to be made a Bishop he takes the Oath of Canonical obedience to the Metropolitan as one to be made a Bishop is prayed for as one to be made a Bishop is examined or interrogated as one to be made a Bishop is vested in the Episcopal Robes and is Ordained by a Form never used but in the Ordination of a Bishop and all these together with many other like circumstances in that office too long all to be put down are certainly sufficient to determine the words of the Form to the Episcopal office only were there nothing in the words themselves to do it as it is certain there is not in the Form used by the Church of Rome to this purpose As to what was said in reference to Bishop Ridley's degradation only from his Priestly office before his Martyrdom to prove his Episcopal office not then allowed to be valid I observe these following particulars First That in these times of bitter persecution against us our adversaries as is usual in such cases proceeded rather according to their Rage and Fury than the just rules either of Truth or Reason or what they themselves were used to practice at other times Secondly That the voiding of Leases made by Protestant Bishops in King Edward's time depending upon the voiding of their Orders This was so earnestly endeavoured by those Popish Bishops that came in their places in Queen Mary's time for secular interest Thirdly That notwithstanding those were thus dealt with that would not come in to the Church of Rome at its restauration in Queen Mary's days yet those that did although Ordained by King Edward's Ordinal kept both their Livings and their Orders too and those not a few without any new Ordination all being salved by a dispensation which could not have been done had their Orders by that Ordinal been conferred contrary to Christs institution against which there can be no dispensation by any power on Earth whatsoever Fourthly All that B. Bonner pretended to who was the fiercest for the invalidity of all our Orders and reaped most benefit thereby in the voiding of Bishop Ridleys Leases was to supply the defects of them not totally to annul what was done before as appears by the injunctions which he procured from the Queen to carry with him in the first visitation of his Diocess after his res toration And what these defects were as to the Priestly office he himself tells us in a Book which he wrot against our Orders For all there which he assigns and which is in Truth the whole which the Gentlemen of Rome insist upon when they come close to the point is that in our Ordinal of Ordaining Priests this form was wanting Receive thou power to offer Sacrifices to God and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead and if this be a defect in our Ordinal and on this account an Essential part is wanting in our Orders as they contend it hath also been a defect in the Church of Rome it self which for near a thousand years together never used any such form in their Ordination and it is not now used to this day either in the Greek Church or the Churches of the Maronites upon Mount Libanus although the Church of Rome allows the Orders of the former to be good and the latter are members of their own Communion Nay it is further to be observed that those Greeks which live in Rome not only under the Popes Jurisdiction to which they have submitted but also under his very nose and have Churches there maintained for them at his cost and charges are still allowed to be Ordained by their own Ordinal in which this Form is wanting as the above-mentioned Morinus a Learned Priest of the Romish Communion and one that lived sometime at Rome doth attest and therefore if for this defect as they call it our Orders be null and invalid as now they would have why do they allow them to be good and valid in others which have received them with the same defect also or rather how can they be good and valid in themselves who have received them from such as for near a thousand years as I have afore observed never used this Form. H. Prideaux Nov. 11 th 1687. But sometime after hearing that what was urged concerning Bishop Ridly's not being degraded from his Episcopal Orders at his Martyrdom to be much talked of amongst Mr. Actons Friends as if it were an argument which did invincibly overthrow what Mr. Earbury asserted concerning our Orders having been admitted to be good in Queen Mary's time I sent Mr. Norris this further paper concerning that matter SIR I Being desirous to give you satisfaction
to the utmost concerning the point you proposed to me think my self obliged to add this further paper to that I have already sent you to undeceive you as to what was objected concerning Bishop Ridley's not being allowed to be a Bishop at his Martyrdom The Argument as I take it from the paper you sent me runs thus Mr. E. urged that our Orders were allowed as to their essentials to be good in Queen Mary's dayes and only culpable as to Canonical defects And this he proved because such as had received Orders by our Ordinal in King Edward's days on their coming in again into the Communion of the Church of Rome in Queen Mary's Reign vvere not Ordained again but vvere received to officiate in their functions by a dispensation only But a dispensation cannot salve an essential but only a Canonical defect it not being in the power of any authority on Earth to dispense vvith an essential of Christs institution To this Mr. A. answered by denying the matter of fact that they that were thus Ordained were not so received to administer in their functions by virtue of a dispensation only as Mr. Earbury alledged but that their Orders in Queen Mary's days were reckoned totally null and void and for proof hereof urged Bishop Ridley's being degraded from his Priestly office at his Martyrdom but not from his Episcopal For he being ordained Priest by the Popish Ordinal they allowed him these Orders to be good but having been made Bishop by King Edward's Ordinal for that reason they would not allow him to be a Bishop whereas Arch-Bishop Cranmer who had received both Orders by the Romish Ordinal was degraded from both as being allowed for that reason to be legally made both Priest and Bishop And this I suppose is the utmost that Argument can be made of by whomsoever urged and so I find it laid down by Mr. Walker in his Relation of the English Reformation But the whole goes upon a very gross mistake For Bishop Ridley was made Bishop of Rochester in the first year of King Edward the sixth's Reign having been designed for that See by King Henry the 8th his Father and consecrated not by the new Ordinal which they find so much fault with but by the old Popish one on the 5th of September Anno Domini 1547. For the Act of Parliament which appointed the making of the new Ordinal was not enacted till the first of February in the 4th year of King Edward's Reign Anno Domini 1549. and it was the March after in the beginning of the year 1550. before it was fully compleated so that Ridley was two years and a half Bishop before the new Ordinal had any being and therefore could not be ordained by it or his Episcopal orders invalidated for any defect therein However I acknowledge the matter of fact to be so as urged and that Bishop Ridley was treated at his Martyrdom just as they relate being degraded by them from his Priestly orders but not from his Episcopal because they would not allovv him ever to have received any such But if you ask me the reason then of this their proceeding vvith him I can give you no other then vvhat I have told you before in my last paper I sent you i. e. The blind rage and impetuous malice of those that persecuted this Learned and Holy Bishop which hurryed them on to such things in their proceedings against him as were neither agreeable to reason or their own established doctrine as to this particular For first they cannot say he was no legal Bishop although ordained by their own Ordinal because this was done in time of Schism after King Henry the 8th had separated from the Church of Rome For if this be granted it will then follow by the same reason that neither Heath Thurlby nor Bonner himself who were the chief supporters of the Papal cause in Queen Mary's dayes were true Bishops as being consecrated in the same manner as Ridley was after this separation Neither Secondly Can it be said that his Orders were null for the pretended crime of Heresie For this contradicts the whole current of their own Divines who all hold that orders imprint an indelible character in the person ordained which neither Schism Heresie or any thing else can ever blot out but that whosoever is to be ordained a Bishop although he be an Heretick doth not only receive this character but also can beget the same character in any other that shall be ordained by him And therefore according to this Doctrine although Bishop Ridley had been an Heretick and all his Ordainers Hereticks also as they would have them to be yet would his Ordination be good and as true a character of the Episcopal office be Imprinted on him as on any other And this they are necessitated to grant from the practice of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church who ever received Hereticks on their Repentance into the same orders which they had afore received from those Heretical Bishops to whose doctrine they had adher'd without any new Ordination For although it be acknowledged a great sin either to give or receive Holy orders to propagate false and Heretical Doctrines yet it hath ever been allowed that they are good and valid whenever thus conferred and that the true characters of a Bishop and a Priest may be found among the worst of Hereticks as well as the best of Christians because the abuse of the office doth not annull the Commission But that being written in indelible characters in the soul of him that is ordained they tell us it shall there for ever remain not only in this Life but also in that which is to come and then not only in Heaven but also in Hell it self and that to all Eternity as may be shown out of several of their best reputed Authors And thus far therefore it is plain that it was not any defect in the ordinal by which Bishop Ridley was ordained or the pretended crime of Heresie or Schism either in him or in them that ordained him Bishop that could null and make void his Episcopal Orders according to the Doctrine of the Romanists themselves that were so forward to pass this sentence upon him and there being no other reason which they can alledge for it to justifie these their proceedings with him it doth necessarily follow that their denying him to be a Bishop can be resolved into nothing else but that same rage and malice against him which made them take away his Life And proceedings of this nature are no strange things in the Church of Rome nothing having been more common among them than in the height of their animosities to void and annul the orders of those they had a quarrel with and instances enough of this may be given especially among the Successions of Pope Formosus every new Pope almost for several Successors after him annulling all the Acts of his Predecessor and some of them the orders also
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
Sacraments in the Church of Rome it was never so in the Church of Christ For where have we in Scripture any external sign where any Form of words commanded to be made use of in the Administration of Orders Or where any promise of saving Grace annexed thereto All that we find instituted in Scripture concerning this matter is that as Christ sent the Apostles so they should send others and that none should Preach except they were sent but as to the manner of this mission or sending nothing is at all instituted or prescribed unto us in Holy Writ but the whole of this is left to the Church and those chief Pastors of it which have the Authority of giving those Missions committed to them so to order and appoint it according to the various circumstances of times places and things as they shall judge will be most fitting provided it be agreeable in all things to the Word of God and suffiâ—iently declarative of the thing intended And this the abovementioned Arcudius an Eminent Doctor of the Church of Rome plainly acknowledgeth For in his Book de Sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 4. he tells us that Orders may be conferred by any manner of Rite so it express a will of delivering that Spiritual Power to the person Ordained Some Examples indeed we have of Ordinations in Scripture as when Christ Ordained his Apostles and after when the Apostles Ordained the seven Deacons and the Church of Antioch Paul and Barnabas to be the Apostles of the Gentiles and the manner of these Ordinations is also described unto us but no Precept is at all given us of this matter or any thing in the least commanded or enjoyned concerning it much less any promise of saving Grace annexed thereto The Popish Translation of the New Testament indeed tells us of Grace given by the imposition of hands 1 Tim. 4. v. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. v. 6. but in those places the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grace but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Gift as our Translation hath it not the gracious working of the Holy Ghost in us in order to Sanctification and Holiness of Life but only a gift freely given to qualifie and enable in order to the performance of the Office conferred and what those gifts are you have described in the 12th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians where you find them either to be ordinary or extraordinary The extraordinary gifts were such as accompanied the Ministry of the Apostles and first Preachers of the Gospel as being necessary to create belief in a World then totally infidel as to those things they taught and these were the gift of working Miracles the gift of divers Tongues the gift of healing all manner of Diseases the gift of Prophecying and such like The ordinary gifts are such as have ever since been continued down in the Church to those that are Legally called to the Administration of Divine things as the Power of Teaching the Word of Administring the Sacraments of Blessing the People in the Name of God of offering up acceptable Sacrifices of Praise and Prayer unto him for them and such like and these are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or gifts of the Holy Ghost which were given by imposition of hands in Ordination and in order to these only is it that the Bishop says therein Receive the Holy Ghost which Gifts do only impower and assist in order to the performance of the Office confer'd not unto Holiness and Righteousness of Life wherein consists that saving Grace whereby we are sanctified unto Everlasting Life and are so far of themselves alone from conducing any thing thereto in the persons endowed with them that we often find them consisting with the greatest iniquities for Judas had them to the working of Miracles casting out of Devils and healing all manner of Diseases that was the worst of Traytors and Caiaphas the High Priest of the Jews although one of the wickedest of men had also like gifts of the Holy Ghost given him with his Office and by vertue thereof we find him making a most clear Prophesie of our Saviour and the Redemption to be wrought by him for Mankind in dying for us at the same time when he was acting the highest piece of Treason against him for the Scripture tells us that being High Priest that year he Prophesied And from all this which I have said it manifestly appearing that Orders is no Sacrament there can lye no necessity from hence for any of those Matters and Forms as they call them which the Church of Rome requires in order thereto so as that the Administration should be necessarily annexed to them as that Church asserts but that all the Holy Offices or Orders of the Church of Christ whether of Bishops Priests or Deacons may be conferred by the one of them alone without the other as well as by both together when made sufficiently declarative of the thing designed or by any other like significant Rite which shall be appointed in order thereunto For taking the administration of Holy Orders thus in the true nature and notion of the thing without reckoning it a Sacrament it will appear to be no other then the delegating or transmitting from one Succession to another those Offices which have by Divine Authority been instituted in the Church of Christ for the ministring of the Holy things of God therein and therefore there can remain nothing in them which may necessarily require any thing more to be done to carry them down from one to another in a due and Legal Succession then what is practiced in all other Offices wherein one man succeeds another but that they may in the same manner by a person fully Authorized thereto be validly and fully conferred by any Rite and Manner whatever sufficiently declarative of the thing intended and whether it be done by an outward Ceremony alone or a Form of words alone or both together either may be sufficient when either by common use or publick institution they have a significancy given them to denote the thing designed And thus far having treated of the Forms of Ordination used in the Church of Rome I hope I have fully satisfied you that they are no such essential immutable things as you seem to be of opinion that they are But if those Writers of that Church which are so earnest for this had asserted it of the matter of Order Imposition of hands they would have had a much better plea on their side because it must undeniably be granted not only from the Writings of the Antients but also from Scripture it self that imposition of hands from the very beginning of Christianity hath been always a Rite most constantly made use of in the conferring of Holy Orders But as to this the Church of Rome hath nothing to cavil with us it being as constantly used in all Protestant Churches as in theirs And besides herein they themselves have most shamefully deviated
to the Pope which no Bishop took at his Ordination after the Supremacy of the Church was vested in the Crown And therefore Ridley and Farrer being made Bishops before that Act must necessarily be ordained by no other but the Roman Ordinal And therefore although in the beginning of King Edward's Reign before the Liturgy was establish'd some zealous Protestants taking encouragement from the favour they receiv'd from the Government might of their own heads in those Churches as were in their power make such alterations in the publick Worship and the Administration of the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and other holy Rites as you call new ways of their own Invention yet as to your Question Why might they not also as well Consecrate and Ordain according to their own Inventions I hope what I have said is a full answer that there could be no such thing At best you propose it only as a Conjecture which you inferr'd without any Reason or Argument in the least to enforce it And what I have said I hope may be sufficient to assure you that there can be none for it As to Mr. Acton's Paper to which you refer me I know nothing of it having never seen it or any thing else which came from him to the Gentleman you mention and therefore can give you no answer thereto In the last place you seem so taken with those Conceptions of yours which you have vented in the paper you sent me that you would perswade me not to attempt any further Answer but that tamely yielding this Question I should proceed to another which you propose concerning the consistency of the validity of our Orders with the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice But I must beg your pardon for not observing the first part of your Command in tamely yielding the Cause to those weak suggestions which you sent me I hope whatsoever your opinion might be of them before I have by this time shown you that there is nothing unanswerable in them and if I have transgressed in doing so I will endeavour to make amends for it in giving you full satisfaction to what is the second part of your Command in reference to the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Question which you propose concerning it is this Whether any Bishop or Arch-bishop can validly be made such without the Consent of his Superior or by faculty from him for his Consecration In order to the giving you full satisfaction as to this I will first set down the words of the Canon it self and then endeavour to Answer your Question concerning it And First The words of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice are as followeth Let ancient Customs still take place those that are in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these because such also is the Custom of the Bishop of Rome And accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be preserved to the Churches This also is altogether evident that if any man be made a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan this great Synod Decrees such an one to be no Bishop And if two or three out of a contentious humour shall oppose the Common Election duely and regularly made according to the Canon of the Church let the Majority of voices in this Case prevail Thus far the words of the Canon and the Argument which you deduce from hence is I suppose because Archbishop Parker was consecrated without the Popes Bulls therefore his Consecration must be void and null and he being for this reason no Bishop consequently could make none else so And therefore all the Bishops that have been since in the English Church deriving their Orders from him are in truth and reality no Bishops or invested with any power to ordain others and consequently that all Ordinations administred since in the Church of England being through this defect null and void we have no such thing as true Orders among us And thus far having urged your Argument for you with all the strength that the thing can bear in Answer thereto I shall lay down these following particulars 1. That you could not have lighted on any Canon of the Church more unluckily for the Cause of Rome which you are so zealous for than this you have mention'd it being that which directly overthrows the Supremacy of the Pope and puts him upon the level with all other Metropolitans of the Christian Church 2. That allowing this Canon to have all the force you will give it yet if Orders be an Institution of Jesus Christ they cannot be annull'd by any breach thereof for Ecclesiastical Canons are only the Ordinances of Men and therefore cannot annul or invalidate that which hath a Divine appointment for the original of its Institution and therefore in this case the saying of Becanus the Jesuit falls in very pat to answer your Objection Prohibitio Ecclesiae solum facit ut Ordinatio sit illicita non autem ut sit irrita The prohibition of the Church only makes that an Ordination may be illegal not that it can be null For the power which is given by God cannot be taken away by the prohibition of the Church But since a Bishop hath received power to ordain others according to Divine Institution although he lye under all the Canonical Impediments that possibly he can be liable unto to hinder him from the Execution of his Office yet if he will notwithstanding proceed therein to the conferring of Orders the Character is as fully given by him as he himself received it And in this case the old Rule I have afore mention'd must again take place quod fieri non debet factum valet although the thing ought not to be done yet is valid when done And therefore allowing what you say to be true that the Bishops who ordained Arch-bishop Parker without the Popes Bull as well as he himself that was thus ordained by them were guilty of the breach of this Canon yet at the most it can only be an uncanonical not an invalid Ordination 3. Therefore as to the words of the Canon this great Synod decrees such an one to be no Bishop can respect only his Benefice not his Office and Character that is that such an one as should be thus Ordained a Bishop of any place without the Consent of his Metropolitan should not be allowed to be Bishop of that place so as there to execute the Office or any where enjoy the Honour and Priviledges belonging thereto not that his Ordination should be looked on as invalid as to the Character and Office of a Bishop conferred on him thereby Because if that be given according to Christs Institution it cannot be taken away again by any Institutions of men whatever but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the Character being indelebly imprinted on him it is no more in the power of the Church to deprive him
of that than to deprive him of his Baptisme 4. You must not look on Ecclesiastical Canons in how solemn a manner soever made to be such Sacred and immutable things as to put a necessary obligation upon the Church indispensably to observe them through all times after For they are no more than other humane Laws made to obviate the present Grievances and regulate the disorders of the Body for which they are made and in the same manner also as the Circumstances of Time Place and Things alter frequently grow into disuse and become obsolete thereby and that this particularly was the case of that Canon of the Council of Nice which you insist on will plainly appear for it was never designed as a Law to reach the whole Church of Christ through all times and places of its Establishment so as for ever to lay an obligation upon all that are Christians to observe it Neither was it ever in the power of any Council to make any such but as most other Canons so especially this was made upon a particular occasion and that occasion was this During the Maximian Persecution there was one Meletias Bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt who in the heat of that Persecution having sacrificed to Idols to save his Life was for this reason by Peter Bishop of Alexandria his Metropolitan in a Synod of the Bishops of the Province deposed from his Bishoprick but he not acquiesceing in this Sentence became the Head of a Sect and in a Schismatical way in opposition to the Metropolitan not only retained his Bishoprick which he was deposed from but also took upon him to act as Metropolitan himself and ordained Bishops throughout all Egypt which by ancient Custom was the Right of the Bishop of Alexandria only in that Province of which Alexander one of the Successors of Peter in the See of Alexandria complaining at the Council of Nice the 4th and 6th Canons of that Council were framed on purpose for the redress hereof and the prevention of all other such like disorders for the future thereby it was decreed that all Bishops for the future should be ordained in the provincial Synods where all the Bishops of the Province mett together but if this could not be so conveniently done it might be performed by any three of them with the Consent of the rest signified by letters and the allowance and confirmation of the Metropolitan but that if any one should be ordained without the Consent of the Metropolitan he should not be allowed to be a Bishop And that as this was practiced in Rome so should it be also in Alexandria Antioch and other Provinces according to the ancient Custom already receiv'd concerning that matter And so the Nicene Fathers themselves give an account thereof in their Synodical Epistle to the Church of Alexandria written concerning it But as this was ordained upon that particular occasion so also was it with respect to the then present state and circumstances of the Church which at that time stood totally independent of it self alone and was altogether govern'd by its own Rules without the interposition of Princes Constantine the first Christian Emperor being but newly Converted to the Faith But afterwards when whole States became Christian and Bishops were made temporal Barons of Kingdoms and had vast Priviledges and Revenues given them by the Secular Power the Elections were for the most part made according to the Commands of the Prince and instead of that Judicial Approbation which is in this Canon given the Metropolitan nothing afterwards was left him but the Vassallage of necessarily obeying the Mandate of the Prince in Consecrating whomsoever he should appoint to the Benefice For when Bishops became thus great in the State as well as in the Church Princes might well think themselves concerned who the persons should be that should be advanced to those Dignities and therefore seldom suffered any to be invested in them but such as they had first approv'd and this they had a great Right to do as being for the most part the Founders and Patrons of the Benefices Although afterwards the Quarrel about investitures between the Western Princes and the Church of Rome made some alterations in this matter yet the Metropolitan was not at all helped thereby as to the right of Confirmation given him by this Canon at Nice but what was taken from Princes was swallowed by the Pope who by this Canon can claim no Right at all to interpose in this matter but is utterly excluded from it except in his own Province only For from thenceforth his Bulls were always thought requisite to all Consecrations and Confirmations of Bishops which put an absolute force upon the Metropolitan or whom else he should command in this matter which cannot be resisted However Princes found another way to salve themselves after those Investitures were wrested from them that is by not allowing any Election to be made without their License and by sending whensoever they thought fit with the License a Mandate to the Electors to chuse the person they nominated which is at present the General practice of all Popish States So that instead of the Election of the people and the Confirmation of the Metropolitan which by the Nicene Canons and ancient practice of the Church were the only ways of making Bishops now Princes have the Elections and the Pope the Confirmations and the Metropolitan is utterly excluded from all that which by virtue of this Canon was his ancient Right herein And having thus laid matters before you I hope Sir by this time you may see how little reason you have to infer any thing against us as to the Legality of our Ordinations from the Canon you have mention'd it being that which hath so long since grown obsolete and totally out of use even amongst Papists themselves And if any of those Gentlemen whom you converse so much with and whose Learning and Merits you so highly applaud shall tell you that it is otherwise and that all those ancient Canons must be still in their primitive force and every thing be called uncanonical and illegal which is not agreeable to them I desire you would ask them these following Questions First That whereas the 4th Canon of the Council of Nice Decrees that there shall be three Bishops at least at the Ordination of a Bishop whence comes it to pass that now a days in the Church of Rome it is allowed as Bellarmine and Binnius confess to be performed by one only Secondly That whereas the 9th Canon of the said Council of Nice Decrees that none shall be made Presbyter without being examin'd and found worthy And the 10th that those that are rashly admitted shall be again degraded And the 11th Canon of the Council of Neo Caesarea which was ancienter than that of Nice that none shall be ordained a Presbyter till the age of Thirty How comes it to pass that so many in the Church of Rome are made not
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
is of the Church of England and was an Auditor at the said Conference but neither side advised with in the drawing up this Account The Question was About the validity of the Church of Englands Orders THe two former Gentlemen took upon them to prove them to be good and laid down this Rule That for making of Orders valid there were necessarily required these four things Authority Form Matter and Capacity The other Gentlemen did agree all of them to be necessary but because they would shorten the dispute would except against only that of our Form for that it was altered from the ancient and although they confessed their own had been altered yet never was in the essentials Then Mr. Earbury laid down this Proposition or Argument that if our Saviours Form were good by which he made Priests then was ours good but our Saviours was good therefore ours was Mr. Acton distinguisht upon his Major and said that though with us nothing could be a true Form that did not express the power given yet with our Saviour it was sufficient though it did not who being God could do that which none other could and therefore with him any thing which he should please to make use of that did not express the power given was a good and sufficient Form though the same would not be so with us The distinction was allowed and so Mr. Earbury proceeded to prove that our Form did express the power and accordingly produced his Common-Prayer-Book to show how it was therein expressed in the Form. Mr. Acton did allow it so to be in that Book but alledged that in all our Prayer-Books from Edward the 6th until 1662. the word Priest was not expressed in the Form of those This Mr. Earbury granted and said that though it did not yet it was sufficient because it was intended and then used several other Arguments to prove that it was intended Mr. Acton then would know of him whether he would maintain that the intention was sufficient who did assert it was but Mr. Kipping would not agree to it Then upon Mr. Actons asking Mr. Earbury that though it were expressed in the Prayers and not in the Form if all were cut off but the Form and Matter whether that were sufficient to make a good Priest upon which Mr. Earbury would not then abide by his assertion that the intention is sufficient The two former Gentlemen proceeded then to another Argument to prove our Orders good because they were allowed to be good by the Romish Church by Cardinal Pool who allowed of the Orders given in Edward the 6th days in the time of Queen Mary Mr. Acton replyed that now they come to offer another medium which was not to be allowed of unless they would agree first that they had no more to say as to the Form or were content to give that over But they said it was nothing but what was still depending upon the former Mr. Acton said That though it was against the Rules of the Schools yet he should go on and proceed to give his answer unto their new medium and so denyed that they were ever owned to be good by Cardinal Pool upon which the other Gentlemen told him they had not the Books present to prove it but should do it in writing to him the next day with citations of the Authors that they would send to his Lodgings Mr. Acton said he was sure they never could do it and though it belonged not to him to prove the contrary yet he produced to them a Protestant Book setting forth the manner of the burning of Bishop Ridley I think it was that Bishop who being made Priest by the Popish Form they first degraded him of his Priesthood but not of his Episcopal Orders telling him they would not degrade him of these for that they never lookt upon him for a Bishop who was such by the Form of Edward the 6th which did clearly prove they never allowed of the Orders to be good in Edward the 6th days The two former Gentlemen said they could stay no longer and so took their leaves If any other can say more then hath been in defence of our Orders the Author hereof will be very thankful to receive it from them in Writing which may come to him by the same hand by which he sends this and desires this may be sent him back again The Messenger that brought me the letter telling me that he had it from Mr. Anthony Norris though his name was not to it I supposed it to be his and therefore sending to Mr Earbury concerning it he brought me that account of the Conference which begins this Book and that with this follovving ansvver from my self vvas sent him the next day after LAst Night a nameless Paper vvas brought me containing a relation of a certain discourse that hapned betvveen one Mr. Acton a Gentleman of the Romish Communion and tvvo Divines of our Church concerning the validity of our Orders and as far as I find by that paper the grand objection brought against them was from the alteration made in our Ordinal Anno 1662. as if that were a tacit consent on our side that before this alteration was made our Ordinal was not sufficient and therefore no Orders could be conferred thereby and consequently that neither they which were ordained by it or we that have derived our Orders from them have received any legal and sufficient Ordination thereby To which I answer 1. That the putting in of Explanatory words to make things clearer and render them more free from cavil and objection cannot be well termed an alteration 2. That supposing really there had been any such alteration made as to the whole substance of the Form yet this is no more then what the Church of Rome hath often done there being scarce an age in which she hath not considerably varyed from her self herein as may be seen by comparing those many different Forms of Ordination used in the Church of Rome which are collected together by Morinus a Learned Priest of that Church in his book de Ordinationibus 3. 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 at all distinguished in the words whereby they were conferred on them when ordained or any new power given a Bishop which he had not afore as a Priest For the words of Ordination in King Edward's Ordinal are for a Priest as followeth 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 dispencer of the Word of God and of his Sacraments in the Name of the Father and
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
essentials of Ordination required in Scripture and as to our Form of Ordination he plainly says that if the difference of the words herein from their Form do annul our Ordinations it must annul those of the Greek Church too for the Form of the Greek Church altogether differs as much from the Form of the Roman as doth that of the English And Cudsemius one that writes violently enough against us speaks also to the same purpose which he would never have done but that the manifest certainty of the thing extorted this concession from him For he coming into England in the year 1608. to observe the state of our Church and the Order of our Universities was so far convinced of the validity of our Orders by his inquiry into this particular that in a Book Printed two years after on his return home he hath these words Concerning the state of the Calvinian Sect in England it so standeth that either it may endure long or be changed suddenly or in a trice in regard of the Catholick Order there in a perpetual Line of their Bishops and the Lawful Succession of Pastors received from the Church for the honour whereof we use to call the English Calvinists by a milder term not Hereticks but Schismaticks And in the late times when one Goffe went over unto the Church of Rome a Question arising about the validity of our Orders on his taking upon him at Paris to say Mass by vertue of his Orders received in our Church it was referred to the Sorbon to examine the matter where it being fully discussed they gave in their opinion that our Orders were good and this I have by the Testimony of one now an eminent Papist who some years since told me the whole Story from his own knowledge he being then in Paris when the whole matter was there transacted and although afterwards as he told me the Pope determined otherwise of this matter and ordered the Arch-Bishop of Paris to reordain him yet the Sorbonists still stuck to their opinion that he was a good Priest by his first Ordination And if you will know whence this difference in the determination arose it was that the one proceeded according to the merits of the cause and the other as would best sute with his own interest and the interest of the party he was to support The next thing which you require of me is to give you proof that it is now the received Doctrine of the Romanists that the essential Form of Ordination is in the power of the Church to alter To which I Answer That by the essential Form for the word essential is of your own interposing I suppose you mean that Form of words in the Roman Ordinal which joyned with the matter according to them imprints the Character and makes up the whole essence of Orders and understanding you thus I freely grant that the whole cry of the Romish Schools runs against this assertion their Doctrine being that both the Matter and Form of Orders as well as of their other Sacraments were instituted by Christ himself and that neither of them are in the power of any to alter but that they have been the same from the beginning as we now find them in their Ordinal and therefore cannot admit of any variation without annulling the whole Sacrament as they call it And that they have been thus preserved down unto us by constant Tradition from our Saviours time For they freely grant that they have no proof for them that they were thus instituted by Christ either from Scripture or from any of the Writings of the Antients And to this purpose the words of Estius 〈…〉 are as followeth And here you must know that we have the matter and form of every Sacrament not as much from Scripture as by a continued Tradition received down from the Apostles For the Scripture expresly delivers to us only the matter and form of Baptism and the Eucharist and of extream Vnction the matter only The others are left us only by unwritten Tradition thereby as from hand to hand to be received down unto us And in another place particularly as to the Matter and Form of Orders he tells us That the Antient Fathers of the Church spoke sparingly of them in their Writings And so others of them to the same purpose And for this they gave a Reason forsooth least those things being consigned to Writing might come to be known to unbelievers and so exposed to be scoffed at and ridicul'd by them for it seems they cannot but acknowledge that many of those Rites which they make use of as well in Ordination as in their other Sacraments of their own making are indeed ridiculous But here I must tell you that this is only the Doctrine of the Schoolmen and those which wrote after them But Morinus the Learned Oratorian I have often mentioned unto you taxeth them of great ignorance herein in that being totally unacquainted with the Antient Rituals and the practice of other Churches framed all their Doctrines according to the present Ordinal of their Church But since that Learned person hath Published so large a Collection of Antient Ordinals many of which have none at all of those Forms now in the Roman Ordinal and the practice also of the Greek Church which useth none of them is become better known this Doctrine of the Divine Institution of those Forms and that they cannot be altered or varied from becomes generally exploded and concerning this because you desire me to prove it unto you I will first give you the words of Habertus in his Observations on the Greek Pontifical in whom you have also the sence of the whole Sorbon who Licensed and Authorized his Book For he raising an Objection how it could be possible that the Orders conferred by the Greek Church as well as the Latin could be both right since Administred by different Forms gives this Answer thereto In the Sacraments of whose matter and form there is no express mention in Scripture it is to be supposed that Christ instituted both only in general to His Apostles leaving to the Church a power to design constitute and determine them several ways as it shall seem best unto them so that the chief substance intention and scope of the institution were still retained with some general fitness and analogy for signifying the effect grace and character of the Sacrament which analogy is alike and intire in both Rites as well the Greek as the Roman And the words of Hallier another Sorbonist and whose Book is in the same manner Licensed by that Learned Society of Divines speak the same thing for he laying down this as an evident conclusion from what he had afore said that many things had been added and changed about the Matter and Form of Orders and that through the whole Church as it is diffused over the whole World the same Rite of Ordination and the same Matter and the
from the antient practice of the Church by introducing a new matter of their own invention the delivery of the Sacred Vessels to the person Ordained a thing never practiced in any Church till brought into use by them about seven hundred years since yet this they are so zealous for in preference to the other that or imposition of hands that they do not only by the general received Doctrine of their Church give it the preheminence as the prime and principal matter essential to the Sacrament as they call it but abundance of them make that to be the only external sign that is so and reject the other although most undeniably of Apostolical usage into the number only of those accidental Rites which belong to that administration And this I mention only to let you see that although those men are so clamorous against us for altering the Ordinal at the Reformation they only are guilty of that alteration herein which is really culpable in that to introduce a new Rite or Matter as they term it of their own invention they give little or no regard to that which is truly Apostolical for so imposition of hands must undeniably be allowed to be But I intend not to make any dispute as to this particular having before said that Orders may be validly conferred without it by any other manner sufficiently expressive of the thing intended But here I desire to be understood that I hold it not justifiable for any Bishop so to do unless in some particular case where there may be an extraordinary reason to warrant the alteration Because when a Rite hath been so generally received in the Church and hath so venerable a stamp upon it as that of Apostolick usage the Example is so enforcing as even to reach almost the very nature of a Precept to oblige us to do the same thing But because we find no Precept or Institution in Scripture concerning this Rite as the Romanists themselves acknowledge that there is not we put it not into the essentials of Ordination so as to judge null and void such Orders as shall be conferred without it but in this case admit the old and well known Rule quod fieri non debet factum valet that which ought not to be done is valid when done For the Rite of imposition of hands being of so antient and venerable use in the Church as I have aforesaid I think it cannot be omitted unless in some extraordinary case as I have mentioned without a great fault both in him that shall give and him that shall receive Orders without it But however the Orders must be allowed to be good notwithstanding that omission because our Saviour who commands the chief Pastors of his Church to send others after them to administer in holy things even as they were sent enjoyned herein only the mission it self without prescribing any thing to them about the manner of it neither were his Holy Apostles after him directed by his Holy Spirit to leave any Rule or Precept to us as to this particular But it was left to the Governours of the Church to do herein according as they should see most fitting And for many Ages after Christ there was no such thing as a Uniform Ordinal in any Church but the thing was left to discretion as the manner of Consecrating Churches with us and every Bishop used his own method herein only imposition of hands was always retained but with such different and various Forms of Prayers Benedictions and other Rites as the Bishop Ordaining thought most fitting to make use of and from hence no doubt came all that variety of Ordinals which is to be found among those Morinus hath published for Uniformity either of Liturgies or Ordinals is of very late date even in the Church of Rome it self In England down to the very time of the Reformation there were five different Liturgies according to the different uses of the Churches of Sarum Hereford York Bangor and Lincoln and in Morinus there is an Ordinal for the use of England much differing from the rest and therefore it is no new thing for us to vary from the Church of Rome in this particular even while we own'd its Usurpations over us how much soever we are now quarrelled at on this account since we have been separated from them The sum of all is that there was nothing of constant use in Ordination but Imposition of hands the Benedictions Prayers and other Rites that accompanied being for the most part differing according to the different Churches in which they were used and therefore if the Ordainer were a person fully authorized and the person Ordained fully qualified for the Sacred Office to which he was admitted we never meet with any that disputed the manner of the Ordination Neither do we find that ever a Controversie was made in this matter to null and void the Orders of any Church from any defect in their Ordinal till the Church of Rome raised the present Cavil against us For although different Churches in former times did much differ as to this yet we find none so fond of their own Methods and Forms as to condemn others that varied from them but it was ever looked on as the right of every particular Church in this to follow their own establishmenâ—s And although the Romanists have in this the Greek Church as much differing from them as the Church of England yet we find them not making any quarrel with them upon this account but on the contrary allowing them to make use of their own Ordinals even after received into Communion with them and that even in those Churches which they have in Rome it self and were it not that the violence of their passion against us for our differing from them in other things made them overlook their Reason in this the same thing must have been allowed us also But it hath happened to them in this as is usual with such as contend in a bad cause that is wanting all true Reasons of opposition against us were forced to lay hold of any thing that might seem to bear an appearance of it without considering the inconsistencies which the charge bears even with their own Principles but they having begun are bound in Honour to proceed and I know no other reason they have of continuing this unreasonable Cavil against us about the validity of our Orders abundance of their own Divines being really ashamed of it as you may see from the Testimonies I have already produced to you from some of them concerning this matter who positively declare their Opinion to the contrary herein And no doubt were they to begin the Controversie anew with us amongst several other Articles of Opposition they have too rashly taken up against us this concerning the validity of our Orders would in the first place be totally superseded betwixt us But because in answering what you objected concerning the Forms of Ordination I have been led
also to speak of the Matter Imposition of hands that I may leave nothing that I have said liable to Objection I think it requisite a little further to explain my self concerning this particular Although there be some Doctors of the Church of Rome that hold Imposition of hands only to be an accidental Rite and the delivery of the Sacred Vessels the sole essential Matter of Orders yet the most General receiv'd Opinion among them is that they are both essential matters but make the delivery of the Sacred Vessels the most principal matter as being that whereby they say is conferr'd the power of Order enabling to consecrate the Eucharist and offer the Sacrifice of the Mass whereas by the other imposition of hands is only conferred the power of Jurisdiction which they make to be by much the inferior and less noble part of the Sacerdotal Function and in this Doctrine of theirs I think them guilty of a double Error For 1. Since Imposition of Hands hath been of such constant use in the Church of Christ from the beginning in all Ordinations and hath been Consecrated thereto by the practice of the Apostles themselves as from Scripture is most evident they detract from the Veneration which is due to so ancient a Rite and to the Example of the holy Apostles who used it alone without any other by putting it in the second place after a Rite of their own invention and making it thus inferior thereto I mean the delivery of the Sacred Vessels which doth not appear from any of their Ordinals or any other ancient Record of the Church to have been in use among them above seven hundred years as Morinus a Priest of their own makes it out unto us But 2. I think them as much in a mistake on the other hand by making this or any other Rite essential to this Administration since there is no Divine Institution establishing any thing at all concerning it That the Scriptures tell us not of any such the Romanists themselves freely grant but what they cannot make out from hence they would prove unto us by the Tradition of their Church for by that they tell us it hath been delivered down from one Age to another that both these Rites which they hold to be the essential matters of Priestly Ordination were instituted and commanded by Christ himself and they pretend also to give us a Reason as I have afore noted why this Institution should be rather thus preserved down to subsequent Ages by an unwritten Tradition than by the written Word but this Tradition being most apparently false as to one of them the delivery of the Sacred Vessels which it's plain for a Thousand years was never heard of in the Church as I have shown is by no means a sufficient Testimony to be relied on for the other That the Apostles ordained by imposition of hands and that all Churches herein followed their Example is most certain But that it is to be received as an essential to the administration in which it is used upon the account of a Divine Institution we have no Authority for it but from the later Writers of the Church of Rome which is by no means sufficient to make us subscribe thereto And if the Apostolical practice be urged on their side the answer is most certain that all things are not to be held to be of Divine Institution which the Apostles did or do they for this reason lay a necessary obligation upon the Church as such because we have their Example for the practice of them For their Example is not sufficient to inferre a Divine Institution for those things which they did where we have that alone without any precept unto us for the doing of them also as from abundance of Instances in Scripture of things practiced by them and now totally abolished may most apparently be made out unto you And this way of arguing would inferre such difficulties upon the Romanists themselves as they will never be able to answer For waving other instances to come to the particular now in hand if imposition of Hands in Ordination were on this account to be held for a Divine Institution what shall become of the so Generally receiv'd Axiom of the Church of Rome Summus Pontifex solo verbo potest facere Sacerdotem Episcopum That the Pope without imposition of Hands or any other Rite whatever can make both a Priest and a Bishop by speaking the word only so that if he say unto any one be thou a Priest or be thou a Bishop his saying so only without any further Ceremony shall be sufficient fully and validly to confer either of the said Offices For the Pope is no more excused from any thing that is of Divine Institution than any other of his Communion and I suppose none of their Doctors will say that he is But that although in a High degree he Lords it over all yet he is equally with all subject to the Laws of him whose Vicar he pretends to be But if it be asked then that if there be no command of Christ for this Rite nor any obligation from a Divine prescript for the use of it how came it from the beginning of Christianity to be the practice of all the Apostles and what other reason can be given for so early and general observance of it To this I answer That it was a Rite which was received in conformity to the ancient use of it in the Jewish Church to the same purpose And that I may give you satisfaction herein I shall trace the thing to its first Original and give you a thorough account of it and in so doing I hope I shall not only answer the present objection but also clear the way for the removing of all those other difficulties which you have raised to your self about this particular The Publick Service of God among the Jews was twofold First That of the Temple and Secondly That of the Synagogue That of the Temple consisting only of Sacrifices Oblations and the Ceremonies belonging thereto which were all Typical Representations of the Grand Sacrifice of Christ our Saviour once to be offered for all When he had offered this Sacrifice by dying on the Cross for us they all receiv'd their Completion and thenceforth became totally Abolished But the Service of the Synagogue not consisting of Ceremonial Observances but of the Moral Duties of Prayer Praise Thanksgiving and in Exhortations and Instructions to the obeying of Gods Holy Will and Commandments to which there is a natural and perpetual obligation was still from the Jewish Oeconomy which ceased continued on to the Christian that followed after it in its stead and that as far as the nature of things would bear according to the same Rules of Discipline Order and Practice also as formerly that there being as little variation as possible as to the observance of those Duties in the new Oeconomy from the former practice of them under the
First That this being designed to Answer what I before said in reference to the Form Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God and celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead I suppose no one that should read your Paper but would understand your abovementioned words therein to be a concession of the whole of it to be a novel additional in the Roman Ordinal and if it be not so your Answer will by no means seem pertinent to the thing objected Secondly Whereas you limit your concession to the later part of the abovementioned Form only and say you did only grant for the Celebrating of Mass for the Living and the Dead that it was within these five hundred years first expressed in the Roman Ordinal but not for offering Sacrifice to God your own words above recited show this to be most false for there you say Although they had added that to theirs of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead c. which plainly expresseth the novel addition to be of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead and not of Celebrating Mass only And this I think is sufficient not only to clear my self from being guilty of that misreciting which you charge me with but also to retort it upon your self who it is plain to fix this charge upon me have falsified and basely prevaricated about your own words And whereas you say you are assured that the offering of Sacrifice to God was ever expressed in the Roman Ordinal and that the Celebrating Mass for the Living and the Dead was all along before the practice of the Church I Answer First That if by Sacrifice you mean a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the Church of Rome now holds whoever it was that hath assured you that the Ordinals of the first Ages of Christianity ever gave a Priest power of offering any such hath abused you with a most gross falsity and basely slandered the Primitive Church in charging such an impiety upon them And Secondly As to Celebrating Mass for the Living and the Dead it is a cheat which the innocent and pure times of Christianity could never be guilty of for it is an imposture of their own invention cunningly devised by them to get Money and of no earlier date then their new found Regions of Purgatory on which it depends the one being a Brat of the other and both without any the least right or title to give them a Legitimation among the true and genuine Doctrines of Jesus Christ But thoroughly to handle these particulars would be to desert the subject in hand to run into other Questions and therefore I shall say no more of them at present but that I shall be ready to make them out unto you whensoever you shall desire And whereas you put me upon the proof of what I said that the Learnedest of the Roman Communion hold that the last imperative words spoken at the last Imposition of hands Receive the Holy Ghost c. are the alone essential Form whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferred and express your self in a manner concerning it implying as if I had told you more than I can make out it lies upon me to do my self right as well as to give you satisfaction in making good what I have said in this particular and I assure you I want not Authorities enough in order hereunto For Bonaventure in his 4th Book on the Sentences plainly saith it And so doth also Petrus Sotus in his Book de Institutione Sacerdotum both of them making Imposition of Hands with these words Receive the Holy Ghost c. the only essential Matter and Form of Priestly Ordination And Vasquez thus understands them as excluding all other Matter and Form to be essential thereto And most express to this purpose are the words of Becanus an eminent Jesuit and one that particularly bent his Fury against the Church of England For speaking of the twofold Ceremony made use of in Priestly Ordination the Delivery of the Sacred Vessels with this form of words Receive power to offer Sacrifice c. and Imposition of Hands with this form Receive the Holy Ghost c. he concludes that the later only is essential to the Sacrament as he calls it and that the former is no more than an accidental Rite belonging thereto And that this must necessarily follow from such other Doctrines as they hold I shall hereafter have a more particular occasion to make out unto you when I come to treat of that which I have in my former papers promised you and which you so much call upon me to give you satisfaction in that is the sufficiency of our Forms to confer all Priestly Power on the Persons ordained by them And to this also I shall refer the consideration of what you say in the two next Paragraphs as being the place most proper for it What you tell me in the next place after concerning Episcopal Ordination is all prevarication In my first paper to you I proved the validity of our Form for Episcopal Ordination by the same reason by which Vasquez proves it for the Church of Rome and in your answer you plainly allow it to be good and fully grant that this Form Take the Holy Ghost c. made use of in our old Ordinal for Episcopal Ordination may be sufficient alone for that purpose and assign this reason for it because a Bishop in his Ordination doth not receive any new Character but hath only that power and character further extended which was afore virtually in him from his Priesthood But then you tell me This is nothing to the Point between us that being not of the Episcopal Office but of the Priesthood only which you think our Forms not sufficient to confer But now in your answer to what I replyed thereto you deny all this which you have said For you tell me First That you did not allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination to be sufficiently perfect And Secondly That you did not say that a Bishop did not receive a new character but only in the person of Vasquez and that this is not your opinion but how much you falsify and prevaricate in saying this your own words to which I refer you are an undeniable evidence against you be who will judge between us in this matter But be it so as you will have it this will not however serve your turn For though you will not allow the Form of our Episcopal Ordination to be good yet there is no Roman Catholick but must and what you pretend to say in the person of Vasquez is not Vasquez's opinion but plain the contrary And First I say All Roman Catholicks must allow the form of our Episcopal Ordination to be good because it contains therein the whole of theirs and therefore if theirs be good ours must be so also For the Form of Episcopal Ordination in the Roman Ordinal is Accipe Spiritum Sanctum i.
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
his Holy Apostles for the Ministry to which he had chosen them And therefore those words that follow Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained must be they whereby the whole power and Authority of that their Ministry was given unto them and not a part of it only as the Romanists say and consequently these words must be the perfectest and most authentic form whereby to Ordain others also to the same Ministry III. But our Church in the first establishing of this Form for Preistly Ordination did not only appoint these words of our Saviour whereby he Ordained his Apostles but also out of their abundant caution as if they foresaw the Cavils our Adversaries now make by way of Explication subjoyned these other words also And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Sacraments by them explicitly expressing all the Priestly power in particular which we understand in general to be implicitly contain'd in the other that go before as I have already made out unto you that they are And although this should not be the true Explication of them as our Adversaries contend yet since the words are part of the Form they must give all that they express and therefore since they express the whole Priestly power though the other should not they must give it also to all those that are Ordain'd thereby and consequently the Form must be fully sufficient even in all that which you your self require to make it so But to this you object that those later words give power only to Dispense the Sacraments and not to Consecrate and therefore cannot give power to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist and make present the Body and Blood of our Saviour as you term it which you look on as the main of the Priestly power but only to Dispense it that is to distribute the Elements when Consecrated which a Deacon only can do To this I Answer 1. That the word Dispense is here made use of as a general Term which reacheth both Word and Sacraments and therefore cannot be limited to that particular sense of distributing the Elements only in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as you will have it but must comprehend whatsoever the Ministers of Christ who as his Stewards are intrusted with his Word and Sacraments are commanded by him to do in order to the giving out and dispensing of both for the Salvation of those to whom they are sent 2. The whole Objection being concerning the signification of the word Dispense you must not go for that to the Cavils of Adversaries but to the intent and meaning of our Church in the use of it For words have no otherwise their signification than according to the appointment and acceptation of those that use them and must always express that sense which by common consent and usage is intended by them And therefore since you plainly acknowledge as doth also your Erastus Senior whom you follow herein that the Church of England means and intends Consecration as well as Distribution by the word Dispense it necessarily follows that that must be the signification of it in this Form. For certainly a whole National Church intending such a sense by such a word for an hundred and fifty years together it is enough to make it signifie so though that were never the sense of it before because words not being necessary but only Arbitrary signs of things must always so signifie as is intended by the common consent of them that use them But 3. To come to the main solution of the matter the case is plainly thus Our Reformers making Scripture the Principal Rule of all their Establishments did in the appointing of this Form take the very words of it from thence as near as they could and therefore as they had the former part thereof out of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of St. John Verse 22 23. so had they the latter from the 4th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians Verse the first only with this difference that whereas the former are the very words of Scripture the latter instead of the very words Dispensers of the Mysteries of God to make the thing more plain and clear is express'd by other words equivalent thereto Dispensers of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments the Word of God and his holy Sacraments being on all hands acknowledged to be the whole of what is there intended by the Mysteries of God. And although the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is better rendred Stewards as in our Translation than Dispensers yet the Gentlemen of Rome can have no reason to find fault with us in this particular since herein we follow their own Bible the vulgar Latin which their Council of Trent hath decreed to be the only Authentic Scripture For at the first Reformation of our Church the Original Languages of the Holy Scriptures being but little known the Vulgar Latin Version was that which was then generally used among us and therefore the expression is put in our Form according as it was found in that Version for there it is Dispensatores Mysteriorum Dei and accordingly the Rhemists translate it The Dispensers of the Misteries of God and therefore the whole Controversie between us must be brought to this point only whether Dispensers of the Mysteries of God in that place doth signifie Priests or no and if it doth it must necessarily follow that it signifies the same also in our Form of Ordination where it is used And I doubt not if you will be pleased to look upon that Text of Scripture even as translated by our Adversaries themselves it will not be possible for you to perswade your self that when the Holy Apostle St. Paul there says of himself and the other Apostles So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and the Dispensers of the Mysteries of God he means it only as Deacons No certainly both those phrases Ministers of Christ and Dispensers of the Mysteries of God are equivalent Expressions denoting them as invested with the whole Ministry of the Gospel committed to them And if you will commit the decision of this Cause to Estius an Eminent and Learned Doctor of the Church of Rome he will plainly tell you so for on that Text of Scripture he so explains those phrases And on the 7th verse of the first of Titus he interprets Dispensatorem Dei i. e. the Dispenser of God to be Dei Vicarium ac Ministrum in Dispensatione Evangelii Sacramentorum i. e. Gods Vicar and Minister in the Dispensing of his Gospel and Sacraments and then immediately after he repeats the forementioned Text 1 Cor. 4.1 denoting Dispensers of the Mysteries of God in that place and Dispenser of God here to be both understood in the same sense And therefore according to him who was as Eminent a Doctor of their Church as any
they have to boast of Dispensers of the Mysteries of God and Dispensers of the Gospel or Word of God and the Sacraments were the Ministers of God or the Vicar of God that is such as in his stead did Administer to his People his Word and Sacraments which are Titles that never used to be given to any under the Degree of a Priest And if you will go unto the School-men and other Writers of the Church of Rome nothing is more common among them than by Dispensers of the Sacraments to mean the Priests of the Church of Christ and by the Act of Dispensing of them the peculiar Duty in which they Officiate And if there were any need of it Thousands of Instances may be given hereof IV. But after all their Cavils against our Form of Priestly Ordination as if it were not sufficient to confer the whole Priestly power they must themselves in their Ordinations of Priests confer this power by the same Form which we also use their second Form above mention'd or not confer it at all according to their own Doctrines in this particular For first they allow no Form to do any thing of this but what is an essential Form but from some of their own positions it must necessarily follow that the first Form cannot be an essential Form and therefore it must follow that the last Form only can be such in their Ordinations of Priests and consequently that by that only as the alone Essential Form the whole Priestly power must be given in their Ordinations of Priests or else it must not be given at all they having no other Form besides these two which they ever say to be essential to that Sacrament as they call it Now that the first Form cannot be an essential Form according to their own positions I prove by these following Arguments 1. That cannot be an Essential Form which is joyned with a Matter which is not Essential but the Matter with which the first Form is joyned the delivery of the Chalice and Patten to the Person Ordained cannot be an Essential matter and therefore the Form of words joyned therewith cannot be an Essential Form. The first proposition is that which none of the Gentlemen you converse so much with will deny because they well know that the Matter as well as the Form both concurring to the making up of the Essence of things the Form cannot be Essential to the Constituting of any thing where the Matter is not Essential also And therefore all I suppose will be requir'd of me to make this Argument out will be to prove the second Proposition that the delivery of the Chalice and Patten in their Ordination of Priests cannot be an Essential Matter and this I say must necessarily follow from their own positions And that first because abundance of the most Learned of them as Morinus Habertus Hallier and several others do plainly grant that this Rite was never used in the Church for near a thousand years after Christ and therefore it is impossible that it can be essential to Priestly Ordination unless you will allow that the Order of Priesthood could for so many years together be conferr'd without that which is essential thereto or else that all the Ordinations of Priests for all that time were null and void for want of it neither of which I suppose any of our Adversaries will ever say 2. I also say that this must necessarily follow from their own positions because they allow the Priestly Ordinations of the Greek Church to be good and valid which are administred without it For they Ordain by Imposition of hands only without ever using the other Rite of delivering the Chalice and Patten at all in their Ordinations and yet the Church of Rome is so far from disallowing their Orders so conferr'd that they do not only allow them to be good and valid but also permit those Greek Bishops which have come over to their Communion and have Churches maintain'd for them in Rome it self and by the Pope's own Charge still to Ordain after the same manner and by Imposition of hands only and Cardinal Lugo tells us that he himself saw Ordinations thus performed at Rome by Greek Bishops And therefore if this Ordination be thus allowed by them as compleat in its whole Essence which is thus administred without the delivery of the Chalice and Patten it must necessarily follow that according to this Concession this Rite which is the first Matter in the Roman Ordinations of Priests cannot be Essential to that Administration Which two Arguments are so prevalent with the Learnedest and best of that Communion that abundance of them in direct Terms assert Imposition of Hands to be the only Essential Matter whereby the Order of Priesthood is conferr'd Morinus directly says it in opposition to the other Matter the delivery of the Chalice and Patten which he excludes from being an Essential Matter for the same two Reasons I have laid down which he says are plain Demonstrations against it Bonaventure Petrus Sotus and Becanus the Jesuit who also deny this Matter to be Essential I have already made mention of Hallier the Learned Sorbonist I have afore cited is very large to prove that Imposition of Hands could only be the Essential Matter of Priestly Ordination for the first 800 years after Christ and at length concludes his Discourse concerning it with these words Diuturno tempore tam in Orientali quam in Occidentali Ecclesia retentum ut Hierarchici Ordines Episcoporum scilicet Presbyterorum Diaconorum sola manuum impositione conferrentur i. e. It was a long while retained both in the Eastern and Western Church that the Hierarchical Orders that is the Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons should be conferr'd by Imposition of Hands only And as low down as the year 1536. a Council then held at Cologne speaks of Imposition of Hands as the only Rite whereby Orders are administred the words of the Council are Impositionem manuum esse ostium per quod intrant qui Ecclesiarum gubernaculis admoventur i. e. That Imposition of Hands is the door whereby those enter that are appointed to have the Government of Churches and if it be the door whereby men enter into the Orders of the Church it is plain enough it must be the only Rite whereby they are admitted into them for by the door only is it that men are admitted into the house And thirteen years after another Council held at Mentz says as fully to the same purpose Collationem ordinum cum Impositione manuum velut visibili signo tradi i. e. That the Collation of Orders is delivered by Imposition of Hands as the visible sign By which words saith Vasquez seems to be denoted that the visible sign in which this Sacrament doth consist and by vertue of which the Power and the Grace is conferr'd is in Imposition of Hands But Arcudius is most express in this matter
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.
the power of consecrating the Eucharist But c. This Mr. Earbury said was as plain as that all the parts were contained in the whole and he further quoted Father Paul who in his History of the Council of Trent does report it to be the opinion of some of their own most eminent Divines That if their Church had not appointed another Form these words be thou a Priest had been sufficient to convey the Character Here Mr. Acton said Aye but I deny you to be Priests Mr. Earbury asked him why he said because it was not expressed in our Form of Ordination Mr. Earbury told him that now he was gone back to his first Argument which had been confuted before that he disputed in a circle and that at this rate it was impossible ever to come to an end Here Mr. Acton again asked Mr. Earbury whether a Sacrament could confer a power that was not expressed Mr. Earbury wrote down this answer and read it to the Company viz. I do say that the words of Ordination may confer a power that is not particularly expressed so it be included in a more general term Mr. Earbury does not remember that Mr. Acton made any reply to this but that he repeated the question without taking notice of it and to the best of Mr. Earbury's remembrance Here Mr. Thompson declared that he was as little satisfied as ever for he expected to hear the Naggs-head Story and concerning Matthew Parker's consecration and of the Act of Parliament in the 8th of Elizabeth for confirming our Ordination but as for Matter and Form of a Sacrament he understood not two words of it Mr. Earbury then rose from the Table and spoke to this effect viz. Sir I have long suffered you to use me rather like a School boy than a disputant or a man you have taken the liberty to ask questions and give no answer but now you shall give a resolution to one Argument I shall propound nor shall you find an evasion from it viz. If persons Ordained by this new Form were permitted to officiate without Re-Ordination in Queen Mary's Reign and if Cardinal Pool did actually dispence with them then we have the judgments of Papists themselves that the Form made in Edward the Sixth's time was not deficient in essentials But Cardinal Pool did dispence with all persons Ordained by this Form and returning to the Unity of the Church Ergo c. Here Mr. Earbury does affirm that Mr. Acton was very loth to give any answer alledging sometimes that Queen Mary was but a Woman and sometimes that Mr. Earbury had now passed to another medium Mr. Earbury replyed that such excuses should not serve his turn that he had not passed to another medium whilst Mr. Acton could say any thing material to his last and that he expected a direct answer or a candid confession Mr. Acton after long tergiversation pulled out a little Book out of his Pocket which he said was written by a Protestant Authour though the falsity of that is so apparent that none would assert it but those that are deficient either in sincerity or in judgment The Pamphlet bears the name of Erastus Junior and out of that he read the Story of Latimer and Ridley the latter of which was not degraded from Episcopal Orders at his death because as they pretend Ordained by the new Form. Mr. Earbury acknowledged that Bishops Ordained by the new Form were not degraded at their Martyrdom But what then if they fixed all notes of disgrace to increase the punishment of men put to death as obstinate Hereticks and yet received others in their Orders that returned to the pretended Unity of the Church the Argument did still hold good Mr. Acton replyed That if Queen Mary allowed some to be in true Orders that received them by the new Ordinal and not others then she was a Knave and a Fool. Mr. Earbury answered that that was no fault or concern of his that he would prove the matter of Fact by sufficient authorities and that then the Controversie must needs be at an end Here Mr. Shaw told Mr. Acton That he had not dealt fairly and that if he pleased he would maintain Mr. Earbury's Argument against him Mr. Acton refused saying he had no reason to change his Man. Here there began to be many speakers and some of the Romanists talked of Parliamentary Orders and the Nags-head Story but Mr. Earbury does not remember that Mr. Acton ingaged in it SIR HAving perused your account of your Conference with Mr. Acton it appears to me to be very faithfully delivered to be impartially and candidly related for to the best of my memory there is nothing that was material omitted nor any thing added that might tend to the prejudice of your Adversary this is the real sense of him that is yours John Shaw Presbyter Angl. SIR I Have perused the account of your discourse with Mr. Acton and do find it to the best of my remembrance to be a faithful and impartial relation of the whole Conference And whereas the pretended account of A. N. has insinuated a notorious falshood much reflecting upon both of us viz. That you should assert that the intention alone was sufficient and that I should deny it I think my self obliged to undeceive the Reader for thus it was when Mr. Acton asked you whether the intention was sufficient you answered that the intention as expressed in the Ordinal was sufficient or to that effect and when again he asked whether the intention alone was sufficient I replyed no meaning intention barely considered without Matter and Form to which you did assent And this is the plain Truth witness my hand Richard Kipping SIR I Have read this account of the Conference between you and Mr. A. which as well as I can pretend to remember a discourse so long ago I take impartially to contain the most material things that passed between you but if you have offended on any side 't is in being too candid to your Antagonist for I very well remember that you frequently urg'd Mr. A. to write down his Answers as you did yours which he always declined by saying it would be night before you should bring any thing to a Conclusion and would always cry you lost time when you writ any thing this I doubt not you will easily call to mind I do likewise very well remember Mr. S's words to Mr. A. and Mr. E. that they had not answered your first Syllogism and that he would defend it against either of them which they declin'd according as you relate it Richard Tisdale A. B. Novemb. 10. 1687. One of the Vergers of our Church brought me this following in a Letter from Mr. Anthony Norris of Norwich but without any name thereto A Summary of the Conference between Mr. Earbury and Mr. Kipping of the one part and Mr. Acton and Mr. Brown on the other Impartially set down to the best of his memory by one that
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
conferred by him for no other reason but for the hatred which they bore each other according as they were of different parties for or against the proceedings of Formosus that was Pope before them And if the truth be fully examined into no other reason will appear for their like proceedings with us We are not of their party but after having long submitted to their unreasonable usurpations and unwarrantable impositions will now bear them no longer but having cast off this heavy yoke from our necks have thereby cut them short of a great part of their Empire and deprived them of vast incomes which they annually received out of those Kingdoms in larger sums then from any other nation under their bondage and therefore looking on us as the Egyptians did on the Israelites when they withdrew themselves from their bondage although it were to serve the living God pursue after us with the same malice and when out of the bitterness of it they have deprived so many of us of our Lives no wonder they will not allow us our orders But how bad soever either our orders our Liturgy or any other part of the Reformation establisht among us may at present be esteemed yet we have heard of the time when if his Holiness might but have had his Supremacy and his Peter-pence again all might have been allowed to be good and valid Pope Paul the 4th and after him Pope Pius the 4th having several times offered it Queen Elizabeth to confirm all that was done in the Reformation of this Church and allow both our orders and our Liturgy too provided she would again restore them to that Authority and Revenue which their Predecessors formerly had in this Land. And as long as there was any hope for the succeeding of this project Papists were permitted both to frequent our Churches and joyn with us in our Prayers and it was the General practice of that whole party for the first ten years of her Reign so to do But afterwards when the Court of Rome found that the Queen was immoveably fixed against what they proposed and all likelihood taken from them of again recovering their power in this Land by any Concession from her then first began they in the 11th year of her Reign to command their Votaries to make a total separation from us and to proceed in the most rigorous manner possible by Excommunications Sentences of Deposition underhand Treasons and open violences against the Queen and all that adhere to her to condemn our Church of Apostacy from the Faith and to denounce all her establishments which afore of their own accord they had offered to confirm and allow to be Heretical False Diabolical and what other like name they were pleased to affix thereto and all this for no other reason but because we would not again admit them to that Tyrannical supremacy over us which had on so just grounds been cast out of our Land by which it appears that Empire is the only thing in reality which those men look after and all things else are to be allowed or denyed as they may comport therewith I am Sir Your affectionate Friend Humphrey Prideaux The same Messenger that carryed this Paper to Mr. Norris brought from him this following in Answer to the first Paper I sent him it being on Fryday Night November the 25 th SIR THE ensuing are my promised thoughts upon your Paper which neither Mr. Acton nor any of those Gentlemen had the least hand in The exception amongst others which our Adversaries take against our Orders is that in the Ordinal of Edward the Sixth's days the power given by that Form of making Priests did not express for what office which our Church judged so necessary that it should that in the review of it in Charles the Second's Time that defect was supplyed by the addition of the word Priest which the Bishop is now to express in the Form when he lays his hands upon the person to be ordained unto that office In your paper you vindicate the former Ordinal by these several ways First That the addition did not suppose any defect in it before but was put in only to avoid the cavils of the Presbyterians who at that time were assembled by Commission with our Church-men upon review of our Liturgy Secondly For that it was before agreeable to Christs own practice Thirdly To the Practice of the Romish Church who also owned our Priesthood to be good by the Concessions of Cardinal Pool It being nothing but the truth which I look at have therefore fairly and candidly summed up and recited the utmost strength of your Paper To your first I say That for the word Priest and Bishop to be added to the new Form for avoiding all cavils from the Presbyterians who so much hated the name of both I will appeal almost to all the World whether that could be thought to be the true Reason Besides our selves do grant that even to those very men it was thought defective for the very same reason the Romanists did and therefore must necessarily conclude it to be very deficient being so apparent unto them as well as unto the others But the true reason of that addition I take to be from two books which came out not above a year before called Erastus Senior and Erastus Junior which did make appear that the power given at our Ordination of Priests was not expressed in the Form of that office by which they were no more Priests then any Lay-man confirmed by the Bishop If our Church had not thought it essentially necessary to have made that addition she never would so have exposed our Ordinal to the just censures of our adversaries in so high a concern for a meer circumstantial matter which alteration was not in the preliminary part of it or in the prayers before or after but in the very essential part of it and therefore by such an addition she could not but think it very defective before To your second I say That although our Saviour who also was God could conferre the whole office of Priest without any Form expressing the power given or could make any Form sufficient for that end yet doth it not therefore follow that we can do it but in the ordinary way But when our Saviour said Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you remit c. They were not by those very words alone made compleat and intire Priests they were thereby so far as to remit sins but not to Consecrate or Make present the body and blood of Christ which power he gave them when he instituted the Eucharist and said this do in Remembrance of me Now though the word Priest was not expressed in our Saviours Form yet was it by equivalency by expresly giving them all the power that belonged to that office If our Saviour had only said be thou a Priest it had been as sufficient for all the offices of it as when he expresly gave them power
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
valid which is a thing our Adversaries will never yet grant us For you say that a Bishop at his Ordination doth not receive any new Character but hath only the same Power and Character which he had before as a Priest further extended in him and it is well known that Arch-Bishop Parker and most of the others that were made Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign if not all for I will not be positive in a thing where I am not certain were made Priests by the Roman Ordinal and therefore if the words of our Form be sufficient to extend the Character and Power of a Priest as you phrase it to the Office of Episcopacy those that you will allow to have been before good Priests you must also allow to have been made good Bishops by our Form. But here I must beg leave to tell you that our Church holds a Bishop to be as much essentially distinct from a Priest as a Priest is from a Deacon For that which makes the distinction of Orders is the distinct Powers which belong unto them For as a Priest hath a distinct Power from a Deacon which makes his Office to be essentially distinct from the Office of the other so hath a Bishop also a distinct Power from a Priest which makes his Office essentially distinct from the Office of Priesthood that is the Power of Ordaining which a Priest hath not and this you must allow or else fall in with the opinion of the Presbyterians and grant that a Priest hath as much power to Ordain as a Bishop And this is all which at present I shall think fit to take notice of in your Answer to my first Paper I have now also by me your Answer to my second Paper and must beg your pardon that my Business this Week hath been such at our Audit as you well know that I could not have leasure sooner to send you a Reply For as I take it very kindly of you that you will apply to me concerning any doubt which you may have as to your Religion so shall I think my self obliged to do all that lyes in me for your satisfaction And as to your Answer to my second Paper nothing is more easie than to show you how much you have been imposed on by them which tell you those things you write me therein As to Bishop Ridleys Consecration by the Popish Ordinal I thought I had given you demonstration for that by showing unto you in the last Paper that I sent you that Bishop Ridley was Consecrated as it appears by the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Register Sept. 5 th Anno Dom. 1547. in the First Year of King Edwards Reign whereas it is evident by the publick Records of the Kingdom that the Act of Parliament which prescribed the making of the New Ordinal was not Enacted till February 1. Anno Dom. 1549. in the Fourth Year of King Edwards Reign and concerning this you may receive satisfaction by consulting Kebles Collection of the Statutes of this Kingdom Pag. 674. at the top of the Page But you urge against this Mr. Masons and Dr. Burnets Authority who you tell me say the contrary But that you may see how much you are abused by those who impose on you such things I will set down in words at length what both these Authors say as to this matter And first Mr. Masons words are Page 209. at the bottom of the page as followeth Primo leges de antiquis Ordinalibus abrogandis de novis stabiliendis latae sunt Annis Edwardi Tertio Quarto ut patet ex Statutis Ridleius autem Primo Edwardi Ferrarus ejusdem Regni anno secundo est sacratus uterque ante veterum Ordinalium abdicationem per consequens uterque secundum vestram Formam i. e. The Statute for abrogating the Old Ordinal and making a New was first Enacted in the Third and Fourth of Edward the Sixth as is apparent from the Statute Book but Ridley was Consecrated the First Year of King Edwards Reign and Ferrar in the Second Year both before the abrogating of the Old Ordinal and by consequence both according to your Form. So far Mr. Mason and as to Dr. Burnet if you please to consult him in his Second Part of his History of the Reformation Page 290. you will there find him saying these words So they did not esteem Hooper and Ridley Bishops and therefore only degraded them from Priesthood though they had been Ordained by their own Forms saving only the Oath to the Pope And this I hope will fully convince you that I have told you nothing but truth in this matter and that you have been most grosly abused by those that have informed you the contrary As to what you say concerning evil mens being of the true Religion you very much mistake my meaning if you think that I did infer in mine the illness of the Popish Religion from the ill actions of those that professed it for to do this would be to argue against all Religion there being abundance of wicked men of all Religions whatever and all Arguments of this nature are very foolish unless the sins and iniquities of such men as we find fault with proceed from the allowed Doctrines of the Church of which they are and on this account I must tell you I think the Romish Church abundantly culpable But this was not at all the thing I referred to in telling you of their Cruelties and Persecutions against us but only to let you know that then they were in such a rage against us that all they did in reference to the disallowing of our Orders may very well be construed rather to proceed from the violence of that alone then any rational judgment which they made of this matter it being a thing very usual between contending parties for men to be carried so high in their animosities as rather to act by their Passions then their Reason in what they do and alledge against each other And this I take to be the case of the Church of Rome in most of its proceedings with us but in none more manifestly then in the denying of the validity of our Orders which even according to their own Doctrines and positions are more defensible then those which even they themselves administer by their own Ordinal As to other things in your two Letters which I have omitted to speak to they are either such as need not answer or else such as I shall more fully examine on the other occasion which I have mentioned and therefore at present have nothing more to add but my most hearty prayers to Almighty God that he would be pleased so to direct and assist you in your inquisitions concerning this matter that after having fully tryed it you may hold fast that which is good I am SIR Your most Affectionate Friend H. Prideaux Thursday Dec. 1. 1687. On my having concluded this Letter to Mr. Norris I received another from him
on and therefore that such a caution if I gave you any might pertinently enough be recommended unto you But as I remember I rather showed you where you were most grosly imposed on in reference to some very much mistaken grounds you went upon and false Quotations which you Objected by way of Answer to what I had formerly said then gave you any advice or caution in this matter And as to the imputation of being ignorant and unwary which you will needs take home to your self if you will do so I cannot help that only I can say I never intended it All that was said was in reference to some Arguments the Romanists insisted on which I told you were coined for the ignorant and the unwary and that for other men they had other things to insist upon For it is the well known artifice of those men to have different sorts of Arguments for different sorts of people which they apply according as they find they will best sute and this was all I intended to acquaint you with by that expression and not in the least to reflect on your self As to your knowledge of the world which you value your self so much upon I verily believe all to be true what you say and that you are altogether as well versed in it as you would have me to understand you are but I do by no means think that this doth any way the better capacitate you for the judging of matters in Religion but quite the contrary For the things of this World and the things of God are usually put in that opposition to each other in Scripture and are in their nature so contrary the one to the other that they never will subsist together but where there is a mind addicted to the former it always is a great obstruction to the later and usually puts such a biass upon the judgments of men in all their inquiries concerning Religion as makes them ever run that way where their interest most inclines them and I should be glad to be assured this is not your case I having been so often told that it is so As to those modest fair candid and learned Gentlemen whom you so much magnifie and with whom of late you have got so great an intimacy I am not so much acquainted with any of them as to enter in any dispute with you about the Character you give them and am so far from detracting from it or being in the least disturbed by any thing you tell me of this nature that nothing is more acceptable unto me then to hear of men endowed with those worthy qualifications and none shall be more ready than my self to reverence them wherever they are found although in an Adversary What passage it is in Dr. Brevints Witch of Endor you reflect on for telling you the contrary of those men I know not it being a Book I have not this long time seen only this I know that he is too worthy a person to impose a lye upon the World especially in so unjustifiable a matter as that of raising a false accusation against any one and too well acquainted with that sort of men by his long converse among them in the Court of France where he attended many years as Chaplain to the Princess of Turenne and had all the opportunities imaginable of informing himself concerning them as to be in any likelyhood of being deceived in any thing that he may relate in reference to them And it is by no means an argument of his dealing falsly in this matter that you find two or three in this place that to your observation may seem to be otherwise then he relates For what is said by him I suppose was never intended to belong to all there being no Protestant which will not freely acknowledge that there are several men in the Church of Rome of great Eminency both for Learning and Goodness notwithstanding the Errors they are under as to matters of Religion and we are so far from repining at it that we all heartily wish there were more such among them they being the only men from whom we may hope for an happy issue to the Controversie between us by bringing all those corruptions which they well know to the same Reformation But however in this place where you now converse with them I think you may very well be deceived in taking all for Gold that glisters You are to consider what is the design which brings those men among us it is to make Proselites to their Church and draw men over to their Religion and you cannot but apprehend that it chiefly behoves them that come on such an errand to put their best side outward and recommend themselves to the good opinion of those they would seduce by all the appearances of Vertue Goodness and Piety that they can put on which is an artifice too well known to be the constant practice of those that would deceive the people And therefore notwithstanding their Sheeps Cloathing they may be still for any thing you know inwardly ravening Wolves For here they appear not as they are but only according to the part which they are to act among us if you will truly know them those places are properest for this where they appear in their own colours at their own homes in Roman Catholick Countries where they have no such designs to carry on as with us which require the mask and the disguise and if you will not go so far your self to be informed concerning them by your own view you must be content only to know them by such Pictures as others have drawn of them who have there seen them at the life And if you will not rely upon the fidelity of Dr Brevint for this I will refer you to one of their own Communion the Author of the Sure and honest means for the Conversion of Hereticks a Book first wrote in French and now lately published in our Language in which I suppose you may have it at any Booksellers shop in this Town But I would not have you to understand me to say any thing of this by way of reflection on the Gentlemen you mention for they are totally unknown to me and therefore I can say nothing of them as to their particular persons either good or evil all that I intend hereby is to vindicate Dr. Brevint and to let you know that notwithstanding any thing you may have observed concerning this sort of men all that hath been said by that worthy person concerning them may be still true In your next Paragraph you tell me I plainly say what is plainly most false and do from he beginning to the end of it so grosly prevaricate by misreciting what I said of the Presbyterians giving the occasion for the alteration of the Ordinal in 62 and by distorting and wresting it to such meaning for your purpose as the words can never bear that it sufficiently appears you are more zealously concerned that the
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
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
or Elder in the Synagogue of the Jews excepting only the administring of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which answered not to any thing of the Synagogue but to the Paschal Feast which was a Service totally appropriated to the Temple and the City of Jerusalem in which it stood And what other end is designed by imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Christian Presbyter but the giving of the Holy Ghost the same which I have told you was also imported by the same Ceremony in the Ordination of a Presbyter for the Synagogue only it was given in the Christian Church in a larger degree then in the Jewish and also for a more excellent ministration the one being derived only from Moses for the teaching of the Law and the other from Christ our Lord for the preaching of his Gospel and the administring of all the benefits thereof unto Everlasting Life And thus far I hope I have made it clear how this Ceremony of imposition of hands made use of in our Ordinations came into the Church of Christ that is not by any Divine Law or Precept from our Saviour but only by imitation from what was afore practiced in the Synagogue of the Jews But however since we find it introduced by the Apostles themselves and in all Ordinations practiced by them from the beginning who were in so extraordinary a manner guided by the Holy Spirit of God in all that they did of this nature this is sufficient to infer a Divine Approbation of the use thereof although not a Divine Institution perpetually obligatory thereto and therefore we cannot without being guilty of the greatest rashness vary from it to any invention of our own for which we can have no such assurance and this with the apt significancy which the Ceremony it self hath of the thing intended no doubt hath been the reason that it hath ever since been continued in the Church of Christ down to this time there being no Church or Sect of Christians that I know of which think any Ordination at all necessary that do not make use of this Ceremony therein Now the manner how Orders were first administred hereby we gather from Scripture to be thus when any persons were made choice of to officiate in any of the Holy Offices of the Church whether of Bishop Priest or Deacon First God Almighty was sought to in their behalf by a solemn Fast to which the Ember weeks do now answer and then the Congregation being met the Ordainer whether one of the Apostles themselves or of the Bishops that succeeded them having by a Prayer particular for that purpose recommended the person to be Ordained to the mercy and favour of God that he would be pleased to accept of him to that Holy Function to which he was set apart and impart unto him such a measure of his Gifts and Graces as might fully enable him to all the Duties thereof then as the proper Minister of God by his Divine appointment for this purpose laid his hands upon him for his receiving all that which had in his behalf been thus prayed for it being by this Ministerial act as it were by the hand of God himself reached out unto him and this was always looked upon as the very act whereby the Office was given and the full completion of that administration whereby any were admitted thereto and for several Ages after we find no other Ceremony used therein But Imposition of hands alone was all along looked on as the sole Ceremonial act whereby the Office was conferred whether it were of Bishop Priest or Deacon it being thereto as the Seal to the Patent by which they acted in their Ministry and the application thereof that which impowered them to all the duties of it And for this reason among the Greeks Ordination and Imposition of hands are signified by the same word and also in the Writings of the Apostles themselves we have instances hereof Acts 14. v. 23. and 2 Cor. 8. v. 19. in both these places the word which by the Romanists themselves is Translated to Ordain is in the Original Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to lay on hands which sufficiently imports that in that Ceremony the whole act of Ordination was understood to consist without any of those imperative Forms which you seem to lay so much stress upon we having no Authority in the least to make it out unto us that any such were at all in use for near a thousand years after Christ as I have already shown Neither is there any such necessity for them as you urge to declare the intent of the Ceremony or which of the different Orders of the Church it is which is conferred thereby in Ordination seeing this may be as well manifested by a publick declaration to the people in the beginning of the administration and also in the subsequent prayers which were offered up unto God in behalf of the person to be Ordained for his accepting of him to the Office and his imparting to him his Divine Gifts to enable him to the Duties of it as it is evident that it was done by both these ways in the Primitive Church without any such Forms as you think so necessary thereto for to express the thing the more plainly to you when a Fast had been appointed in order to the Ordination of a Presbyter when the Congregation being met the end of that meeting was declared for the Ordaining of such an one there present to be a Presbyter and when by particular Prayers he had been recommended to God for his imparting to him his Gifts and Graces for that Office as was the ancient manner of Ordination after all this had been done when the hands of the Bishop and the Presbytery were laid on him for the conferring of the Office certainly there needed no new declaration to express the end for which it was done And that this was anciently the practice of the Church of Rome it self thus to Ordain by Imposition of hands without any such Forms annexed we have a most evident proof from their own Ordinal it being still thus retained therein For in the Roman Ordinal Imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Priest is twice administred the last time indeed it hath a Form annexed the same almost which we use Receive the Holy Ghost c. But of the first the Rubrick of the Ordinal says Pontifex stans ante faldistorium suum cum Mitrâ nulla oratione nullove cantu praemissis imponit simul utramque manum super caput cujuslibet Ordinandi successivè nihil dicens idemque faciunt post eum omnes Sacerdotes qui adsunt i. e. The Bishop standing before his Faldstool with his Mitre on his head without any Prayer or Hymn premised puts both his hands successively on the head of every one to be Ordained without speaking any thing at all and after him all the Priests that are present do the same thing Now
that this Imposition of hands which is thus administred in the Ordination of a Presbyter with silence and without any Form of words at all spoken at the doing of it is the true and antient Imposition of hands which they have received down by Tradition from the former Ages of the Church and by which alone the Order is conferred and not the other Imposition of hands after administred I have these Arguments to make it most manifest unto you First Because this later Imposition of hands with the Form of words with which it is administred are both of them but lately introduced into their Church they being to be found in none of their Ordinals till about four hundred years since or do any of their Ritualists which are of ancienter date make the least mention of them whereas the other Imposition of hands is that which all of them make very particular expression of Secondly The true and ancient Imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Presbyter was always administred by the Bishop with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery also joyned therewith and this not only the Decrees of Councils but the Practice and Examples of the Holy Apostles themselves do direct to But the Presbytery in the Roman Ordinal do no where lay on their hands with the Bishop on the person to be Ordained to the Priestly Function but in this first Imposition of hands only which is administred without any Form at all in perfect silence and therefore this alone must be that Imposition of hands which confers the Order and this even the Council of Trent it self doth plainly enough say For in the 14th Session and 3d Chapter of Extream Unction treating of the proper Ministers of that Rite or Sacrament as they call it do there declare that they must be Aut Episcopi aut Sacerdotes ab ipsis rite Ordinati per Impositionem manuum Presbyterii i. e. Either Bishops or Priests regularly Ordained by them with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery From whence it follows that if those only are regularly made Priests who are so Ordained by the Bishop with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery as is here asserted that Imposition of hands alone in the Roman Ordinal must be the Rite which confers the Order where the Presbyters as well as the Bishop bear their part in the administration by laying on their hands also which is no where done in all that Office but in that first Imposition of hands only which is administred in perfect silence And for those reasons Morinus and Habertus both Priests of the Roman Church and Eminently Learned above most other of that Communion in the points we now treat of do plainly assert that this Imposition of hands is the essential matter of Orders and Merbesius a later Writer and several others also of that Church do assent with them herein And I hope Arguments and Authorities of this nature may be sufficient to convince you that there is no such necessity for those Forms in Ordination which you so much contend for or that Imposition of hands is altogether a dumb and insignificant sign when administred without them as your Paper asserts since by what hath been said it plainly appears that even in the Church of Rome it self for which you so earnestly argue in this particular the Imposition of hands which confers the Order of Priesthood is even that which is thus administred in perfect silence without any Form of words at all joyned therewith But because you lay so much stress upon the Matter and Form of Orders as if without being exact in these no Ordination can be fully and validly administred I think it proper also to acquaint you that all that Divinity concerning the Matter and Form of Orders which the Schoolmen make so much pudder about and is at present from them made so much use of in this Controversie by our Adversaries against us is totally of late invention there being nothing at all of it either in Scripture or any of the Writings of the Ancients for above twelve hundred years after Christ the very names of Matter and Form of Orders being till then totally unknown But about the year 1250. the Philosophy of Aristotle which makes the substance or essence of all things to consist of Matter and Form being translated out of Arabick into Latin was with great greediness received by the Schoolmen and soon incorporated by them into all their Divinity and thenceforth they taking him for their Text equally with the Scriptures themselves and according to his method in the definition of things ascribing to each its Matter and its Form introduced these terms also into the Doctrine of their Sacraments and observing these to consist of an outward Sign or Ceremony and a form of words spoken at the Administration of it for the sake of the agreement or similitude which is between the word formula a form of words and the word forma which signifieth the Aristotelical form made this form of words to be the essential Form and the outward Ceremony the essential Matter which makes up the whole nature and essence of every Sacrament and from hence it is that the matter and form of Orders which they make to be one of their Sacraments became first talked of among Divines and all that heap of Rubbish which the Schoolmen and those that follow them have built hereupon and no better foundation then this have you for making any form of words spoken in Ordination to be essential thereto Had our Saviour indeed instituted any form of words to be spoken at the Administration of the outward Rite as he did in Baptisme then I confess that Institution would have made it essential thereto and the whole would have been void and null without it However supposing Orders a Sacrament it could not be the essential Form thereof for that only can be the essential Form of a thing which gives it its determinate Essence and actually and ultimately constitutes it to be what it is and therefore nothing else can be the essential form of a Sacrament but that alone which actually gives it the nature and essence of a Sacrament which no form of words can do for if we consider in either of the Sacraments that are truely and undoubtedly such the outward visible sign and the Form of words alone they can make nothing of themselves but a liveless insignificant Ceremony unless something else be taken in to give the essence and nature of a Sacrament thereto In truth therefore as well the Form of words as the outward sign are both of them of the matter of the Sacrament and it is only the relation and conformity which both must have to the Institution of our Saviour with the concurrence of the Divine Grace according to the promise made in the institution which can make any Sacramental Administration to be truly and essentially such For no outward visible sign with any
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
Statute to be made must be Consecrated by the Roman ordinal only And therefore if the Argument will not hold as to Ridley yet certainly it must as to this other Holy Martyr that it was not for any defect in the ordinal by which he was consecrated that those Marian Persecutors that brought him to the stake would not allow him to be a Bishop But 2. Having looked over all the Statutes of the first year of King Edward the sixth I find no such thing as you say in any of them There is an Act indeed for a new way of Electing of Bishops but nothing as to the manner of their Consecration And there is another Act also which complains of Abuses in Matters of Religion and particularly as to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but this refers only to irreverent and abusive speaking of those Holy things and not to any innovations and changes made concerning them 3. In the third year of that Kings Reign there was I must confess an Act passed of the nature of what you say whereby the reformed Liturgy was first authorised in the Preamble of which mention is made of divers forms of prayers and different Rites and Ceremonies used both in Cathedral and Parish Churches not only in the daily Service but also in the Administration of Sacraments and that some of them had been lately introduced which are there called new Rites and Innovations And if this be that which you refer to as I suppose there are these two things to be said concerning it 1. That those various differences and disagreements of Rites and Ceremonies then used in the Church which this Act refer's to were not all from the Protestants but most of them from the Papists themselves who had different Forms of Prayers and different Rites and manners of Worship of long time before in this Land according to the different uses of Sarum York Bangor and Lincoln as the Act expresseth there being no such thing as a Uniformity of publick Worship in this Land till this Act and therefore you are not to understand that all those things were the innovations of Protestants which are prohibited therein 2. That it cannot be denied that Innovations caused by Protestants also are mentioned in this Act and that several zealous people in the Reign of King Edward finding the Government to favour a Reformation made too much hast to lay aside those Superstitions and Corruptions which offended them and went before the publick Authority herein in Reforming the publick Worship before any Law was made to give them Warrant so to do And hence came as various manners of Worship among Protestants as were among Papists before for the prevention of both which and bringing all things to an exact Uniformity this Act was made But that any of the Innovations mention'd in this Act were in the manner of Ordaining or that any Bishop in giving of Orders did ever vary from the old Ordinal used in King Henry the Eighths time till the Act made in the 4th year of King Edwards Reign did Authorise them so to do I utterly deny And that for these following Reasons First This Act plainly refers those Innovations to popular Zeal but those that had the power of Ordaining were only the Bishops the same persons who had the chief hand in making this Act and therefore there is no likelyhood that they should be guilty of those Innovations which are there so much complained of Secondly The Preamble of all Acts ever bearing Reference to the subsequent Law Enacted by them the former never useth to recite any other Abuses but what the later is made to be a Remedy against And therefore there being no Remedy in this Act against any Innovations made in the manner of Ordaining the Liturgy then Authorised not having the Ordinal in it or any the least mention therein that there was any such thing it is demonstration that none such could be meant or intended by the Preamble Thirdly It is so far from being likely that any Innovations should be made in the manner of Ordaining till the Law authorised it that if you please to ask your Brother who is a Lawyer he will tell you that it is impossible any such thing could be done by reason of the severe penalties and forfeitures which both the Ordainer as well as the Ordained must necessarily incur thereby For 1. For any Bishop to ordain by any other than the Legal Form or at all to vary from it which only the Roman Ordinal was for the three first years of King Edward the 6th's Reign would bring him into a â—raemunire which is one of the severest penalties the Law inflicts as containing a forfeiture not only of Lands Goods and Preferments but also of Liberty and Protection too during Life And whereas Hooper appointed to be Bishop of Glocester in that Kings Reign desired only to be Consecrated without the Episcopal Vestments and Oath of Canonical Obedience and got the Earl of Warwick then the greatest man in the Kingdom and who at that time govern'd all at his pleasure to intercede for him yet the Arch-Bishop would not consent thereto for his Answer was it would make him incur a Praemunire And 2. As to the Persons Ordained should they have received Orders by any other than Legal Forms it would have drawn a Legal Invalidity upon the whole Administration and left the persons so ordained although they might have had all the Essentials of Orders thereby utterly incapable of any Ecclesiastical promotion whatever a Legal Ordination being always a necessary requisite to make any man capable of an Ecclesiastical Benefice And therefore should Bishop Ridley or Bishop Farrer have been ordained by any new Form different from the Roman which was then the only Legal Ordinal in this Land they could not be Legally invested with their Bishopricks could acquire no right to their Temporalties or to have a place in Parliament or would any of their Acts or Leases have been good in Law and we never heard that any of those things were ever disputed till the Cruelty of the Marian Persecution came upon them Fourthly Sanders himself one of the most virulent Adversaries of our Reformation says the contrary for treating of this Parliament which authorised the new Ordinal in the Reign of King Edward he says it was then Enacted That whereas the Bishops and Presbyters of England were even unto that time Ordained in the same manner almost as with Catholicks excepting the Oath of Obedience to the Pope which all denied for the future Ordinations should be performed by another altogether differing Form prescribed by themselves Which is a plain Testimony from a Writer whose Authority I suppose none that are against us in this matter will deny that till the Parliament Enacted the making of a new Ordinal in the 4th year of King Edward the 6th Bishops and Priests were still ordained according to the Roman Ordinal in all things excepting the Oath of Obedience
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
him by reason of any imperfection or insufficiency to be found therein as your Answerer plainly doth is no less than the highest Blasphemy against him 2. I desire you to consider that by the same words whereby Christ Ordained his Apostles to be his Ministers in his Church he Ordained also the very Office it self For then he first instituted the Office when he first appointed them to it and therefore those words by which our Saviour first Ordain'd his Apostles for the Office of his Ministry are so far from being defective in the Expression of the Power thereof that it is impossible it can have any power at all but what is expressed by them For they are the Original Charter of its Institution and from whence alone the limits and extent of its Authority are to be known And therefore we may very well judge of the extent of the Office from its Correspondency with the Words but not of the sufficiency of the Words from their Correspondency with what we think the extent of the Office because the Office it self being first instituted by these Words can have nothing in it but what is expressed by them And therefore if it be the same Office of Priesthood we receive at our Ordinations which Christ Ordain'd his Apostles to certainly the same words which he then made use of must always be the perfectest form whereby to make expression thereof Had the Office been afore instituted and afterwards express'd by halfes we could then have recourse to the first institution to make clear eviction hereof and from thence the deficiency would plainly be made out But that the words of its first institution from whence it received its whole being and establishment should be imperfect or deficient is that which cannot be said unless you will accuse the Institutor Christ our Lord of being deficient in the Institution it self and not making and appointing the Office as well and as perfectly as he ought a Consequence which I suppose your Answerer will by no means be willing to own 3. This Answer is not that which the Romanists ever use to give in this Case or will the Gentleman you had it from I suppose abide by it however it came to drop from him For when the perfection of this Form is urged from this that it was the same by which our Saviour ordained his Apostles their usual answer is That there are two powers in the Priestly Office the power of Order and the power of Jurisdiction as I have afore explained the former of which they say was given the Apostles by our Saviour before his Crucifiction at his last Supper when he said unto them This do in remembrance of me and that it was the later only which was given after his Resurrection by these words Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins c. for the conferring of which they allow this Form to be most full and sufficient and for that purpose use it in their own Ordinal but deny it to comprehend any other branch of the priestly Office or that our Saviour intended to confer any other thereby And this you your self seem well enough to understand you having expressed as much in one of your Letters But this also goes upon two very great mistakes 1. That Christ Ordain'd his Apostles priests of the New Covenant when he said unto them at his last Supper This do in remembrance of me 2. That Christ Ordain'd any at all to be Ministers of his Church before he had actually purchas'd it by the shedding of his bloud And 1. It is a great mistake that our Saviour Ordained his Apostles Priests of the New Covenant by those words at his last Supper This do in remembrance of me For this is not a command particular to them to Consecrate and Administer that Sacrament which Christ then Instituted but to all the Faithful also to be partakers of it which the words plainly infer for what else can the Command This do refer to but to the whole Sacramental Action before mention'd the receiving and eating which belong also to the Laity as well as the Blessing and Consecrating which is the Duty of the Priest only And if the words be not so understood there will be no Command of our Saviour obliging the Laity to be partakers of this Sacrament at all but the Priests may be always left to Consecrate it and eat it themselves as contrary to all primitive practice and many Canons of the Church they now-a-days for the most part do Nay further they will be under no obligation to partake of it but only to Bless and Consecrate it and so if this Interpretation takes place the whole Institution may become frusâ—rate thereby and the Law of our Saviour be absolutely made of none effect for the sake of the Traditions and Inventions of Men. And therefore Estius an eminent Doctor of the Romish Church 〈…〉 plainly acknowledgeth that this Command of our Saviour This do in remembrance of me must extend to all the people His words are Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illud facere etiam ad plebem refert edentem bibentem de hoc Sacramento quando ait hoc facite i.e. Paul in the Eleventh Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians plainly refers that of doing to the People eating and drinking of this Sacrament when he saith in the words of our Saviour ver 25. This do c. And to say otherwise would be to run Counter to all the ancient Doctors of the Church there being none of them for many hundred years after Christ that ever understood those words of our Saviour in that sence which now the Church of Rome will have but always looked on them as a general precept belonging to all Christians of observing that Holy Rite in Remembrance of his Death and Passion in the same manner as was then instituted by him But when the practice of the half Communion became to be generally receiv'd in the Church of Rome then the Schoolmen being put to their shifts to reconcile it with the Institution of our Saviour who himself Celebrated it and also commanded the Celebration of it in both kinds at last lighted on this fetch of making the Apostles Priests by these words of our Saviour This do in remembrance of me spoken by him after his giving them the Bread and therefore say that the Cup which was Administred afterwards was given them only as Priests and that the Laity are not at all to be admitted thereto by vertue of that Command But here it is to be observ'd that our Saviour spake these words This do in remembrance of me twice in that Institution first after the distributing of the Bread and then again after the giving of the Cup And therefore if Christ made them Priests by those words it will follow That either he made them Priests twice a Doctrine which the Church of Rome will by no means allow Orders being a Sacrament as they say never without the guilt
Church as null and void I have only this further Request to make unto you that before you absolutely renounce our Communion on this account to go over to the Church of Rome you would be pleased well to consider these three particulars First Whether on your going over to the Church of Rome you can be sure to find valid Orders there Secondly Whether on supposition that you can you will any way better your self by them And Thirdly That supposing you do yet whether on other accounts it may not still be best for you to remain where you are And First Before you go over from us to the Church of Rome because you think our Orders not valid I desire you would consider whether you can be sure to find valid Orders there For if you do not you will lose the whole reason of your Change and be at the same loss among them that you at present pretend to be at among us But how you who are so scrupulous at our Orders can ever be satisfied with theirs if you act with any Sincerity in this Matter I cannot see possible For there are none of those Objections which they raise against our Orders for the nulling of them but may I assure you be urged with much more strength and reason against theirs If they urge against us the want of due Succession the many Schismes Disturbances and undue Elections of Popes which they have had afford us many instances to make it out against them with much more reason than they can object it unto us If they urge the defect of the Forms I have already shown you how all this Objection retorts upon themselves If they urge the Breach of Ecclesiastical Canons about Elections and Ordinations none have more broken them than themselves of which I have given you some few Instances and abundance of others might be added unto them If they urge the want of the Popes Confirmation at the Consecrating of our Bishops how many ages of the Church were there in which their own Bishops excepting only those of the Popes own Metropolitical Jurisdiction were always Consecrated without it If they urge Heresie or Schisme have not some of their own Popes as they themselves acknowledge been guilty hereof And if Simony be Heresie as is generaâ—ly held in that Church how few of them can be said to be free from it since most of them ascend the Papal Throne by buying the Votes of their Electors and to make themselves amends sell all the Ecclesiastical Benefices they dispose of afterwards as is too notoriously known to be denyed But waving these particulars that I may not be too long I shall insist only on one thing they hold which doth not only make it uncertain unto all men whether Orders are validly conferr'd on any that are Ordain'd in that Church but even morally impossible that there should be now any at all among them that is their Doctrin of the Intention which is that none of their Sacraments can be validly administred to any when there doth not concur with the Act of administration the intention of him that administers them of doeing thereby what the Church doth And this Doctrin whenever you go over to the Church of Rome you must receive as an infallible truth and if it be so then must necessarily follow what I say First that it must be alwayes uncertain in that Church whether Orders which they hold a Sacrament are validly conferr'd on any that are there Ordained or no because how validly soever they may be administered as to matter and form and all other things requir'd which the Spectators may be certain witnesses of yet the intention of the ordainer being that of which no man can be certain it is impossible the wisest and most diligent inquirer can ever be certain whether any Priest under whose conduct he shall put himself be validly Ordain'd a Priest or no. And therefore when you go over to the Church of Rome for the sake of more valid Orders then you think we have after your best inquiry it may be your lot to light always on such Priests from whose hands to receive the benefits of the Priestly Ministration as for want of the intention of the Ordainer were never truely Ordain'd Priests at all and consequently be at no better pass among them then now you think you are among us But this is not the worst of that which follows from hence For Secondly If the intention of him that administers the Sacraments be alwayes necessary to make the administration good and valid and consequently that orders which they hold a Sacrament cannot be validly conferr'd on any without the intention of the Ordainer concurring at the act of Ordination this will make it not only uncertain who are true Priests among them and who not but also morally speaking render it utterly impossible that they should at present have any at all among them validly ordained to that Office. For the case is plainly thus They all hold Baptisme to be absolutely necessary to the Priesthood and the Priesthood to be absolutely necessary to the Order of Episcopacy so that a man cannot be validly Ordain'd a Priest unless he be first validly Baptised or validly Ordain'd a Bishop unless he be first validly made a Priest and that neither of these can validly be done unâ—ess there be in him that performes that administration a right intention of doing thereby what the Church doth So then to make a man a true Priest among them there must be First the right intention of him that Baptised him to make him capable of the Priesthood and Secondly the right intention of the Bishop that Ordain'd him validly to conferre the Office upon him And then to impower the Bishop validly to Ordain he must be Baptised with right intention Ordained Priest with a right intention and lastly be Ordain'd Bishop with a right intention and then again he that Ordained him Priest must be Baptised with a right intention Ordain'd Priest with a right intention and Ordain'd Bishop with a right intention and the same must be sayd of him that Ordain'd him Bishop and so up through all the descents that have hapned in the transmission of the Priestly power from the time of our Saviour down to us which through so long a succession of near 1700 years must make all the Acts of right intentions in the administering of Baptisme and in the administering of Orders which according to the Roman Doctrin are necessary to make their Orders at present good and valid to amount to the number of many hundred thousands and if of all these any one hath fail'd from the beginning that one alone breaks the whole chain of succession asunder and all that comes after is made null and voyd thereby And that in so vast a number there should not be such a failure yea and many of them too is that which morally speaking I say is utterly impossible For how many have been made Priests and
Bishops among them who in the administering of the Sacraments have never intended at all to do thereby what the Church doth but at the same time they have performed the outward Acts have inwardly in their hearts out of malice wickedness or infidelity totally disregarded and contemn'd all that is meant or intended by them For have not many of them according to their own writers been Atheists many of them sorcerers and Magicians and many of such profligate lives and conversations as can never be supposed to have intended any thing at all of Religion in any of the Acts of their function which they have performed but being either by the road of their education or the desire of inriching themselves by Church preferments got into those holy Offices have gone on in the common tract to do as others did for the sake of the gain while at the same time in their minds they scoffed at and derided the whole Ministration And how many even of their Popes according to their own Historians have been such whom they make the fountains from which under Christ all Preistly and Ecclesiastical power is derived and if any impartial man will read their Lives I doubt not to say he will certainly conclude the better half of them to be of this sort And to add one consideration more how many since the Rigor of the Inquisition hath been set up in Portugal Spain and Italy that have been Jews in reality have for fear of the barbarous Tyranny of that Tribunal so far dissembled their Religion as the better to cloke it from discovery have taken upon them not only the outward profession of Christianity but the Orders of the Church also and have become Priests and Bishops therein as it is well known there have been several Instances of it in those Countries And can you think that any of them could either in the giving of Orders or Administring of Baptisme ever have any intention of doing thereby what the Church doth No they ever are the greatest Enemies of our Religion and all the Institutions of it and always Curse and abhor them whenever under this Mask they Minister in any of them And on all these accounts it cannot be possible but that through so long a time as near 1700 years there must be in every chain of Succcession whereby the Orders of that Church are said to be derived down to the present times many failures of this kind whereby totally to cut them off from all that follow after And therefore if this Doctrine of the intention of him that Ministers the Sacraments among them be true as it is held in that Church infallibly to be and to which as an infallible Truth you must give up your Faith whenever you list your self among them it must from hence follow that it cannot be possible that they can at this time have any Orders at all among them But Secondly Supposing their Orders be good yet before you go over to them on this Account I desire you in the next place to consider whether you can at all better your self by so doing For what benefit of their Ministry is it I beseech you that you would go over to them for Is it first for the sake of their Preaching of the Word But do not they in that Church lock this up in a Language which you cannot understand forbid Laymen to look into it that they may the better impose on them their Erroneous Doctrines and lead them whether they please And do they not instead thereof from their Pulpits mostly teach the Traditions of men as their Doctrines of Purgatory Pilgrimages Worshipping of Crosses and the Images and Relicts of Saints Masses for the Dead overplus of Saints Merit Pardons Indulgences and such like and filling their Sermons mostly with these and old Wives Tales which they relate concerning their Saints and the Miracles they Fabulously ascribe unto them to make room for these Fopperies wave the Divine Truths of the Gospel and turn Christ and his Apostles quite out of doors Or is it secondly for the sake of their prayers and publick Worship But how can those prayers do you any good with which you cannot joyn they being all in that Church in Latin a Language which you do not understand Or how can that Worship render you acceptable unto God which by reason of the many Superstitions and erroneous practices with which it is performed must it self be totally unacceptable unto him Or else is it thirdly for the sake of the Sacraments But 1. As to the Sacrament of Baptism the Church of Rome allowing it to be validly administred by Laymen you cannot want that in our Church and whenever you go over to them they will allow you your Baptism which you receiv'd among us to be good and valid without Baptizing you again And 2. As to the Sacrament of the Eucharist allowing their Priests to have full power to Consecrate it yet you can never be sure in that Church that they do As to the intention of doing what the Church doth there required you must ever be at a loss and you can be no better assur'd of the outward Act because the words of Consecration are always whisper'd in secret and I have read of one that was burnt among them for Consecrating the Eucharist in the Name of the Devil and as long as they do it in secret an opportunity so proper for the deeds of Darkness you can never be sure but that this or some other thing like it may be done again whenever you come to receive from them But waving these particulars and supposing the Consecration to be in all things aright performed as you would have it yet since they of late have so miserably defaced this Sacrament as to deny the Cup one of the Essentials of it to the Laity I cannot see how in that Church you that are a Lay-man can ever have the holy Eucharist at all administred to you For in all things the withdrawing of an Essential must necessarily cause a destruction of the whole and therefore since our Saviours institution makes both Elements Equally necessary and Essential to this Sacrament the withdrawing the Cup from the Laity makes it no Sacrament at all to them and consequently none that go over unto them on this account because they think our Priests have not sufficient Authority to Consecrate the Eucharist which is your grand Objection will at all better themselves thereby but from a doubt of an invalidity with us fall into a certain nullity with them and be totally depriv'd of the whole benefit of this Sacrament as long as they continue among them For I make no difficulty at all to assert but do here declare it unto you as my Opinion and let him disprove me that can that since the Church of Rome hath Sacrilegiously taken away the Cup from the Laity they have never Administred to them the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all but the want of this
Essential hath certainly as to them made a Nullity in the whole Administration and totally deprived them of all the benefits of it And here I cannot but admire the Confidence or rather Impudence of those men who are so forward to deny us our Orders because at the first Reformation of the Ordinal we altered the Forms of Ordination which from the beginning were but of Humane Institution and of very late date too introduced among them as I have shown and yet make no scruple at all themselves to alter from the Institution of Christ himself in this Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and with a Non obstante to his Divine Law cut off one half of that which he hath appointed and by that appointment made as much Essential to the Sacrament as the other half they have retain'd Had the Forms of Ordination been instituted and Commanded by Christ himself as the Administring of the Cup in this Holy Sacrament was then I confess to alter them or omit any part of them might infer a Nullity in the whole performance and the Arguments which our Adversaries bring from hence would be unanswerable against us in this particular But it being manifest that there is no such Institution for them all what they urge from our altering of them for the Nulling of our Orders becomes totally insignificant But how they will be able to Answer the same Arguments when turn'd against themselves to prove a Nullity in their Administration of the Eucharist without the Cup which Christ certainly instituted and commanded as a part thereof I cannot see possible But Thirdly Supposing you might certainly receive from them all the benefits of their Ministry which you propose yet since there are in that Church so many dangerous Errors both in Faith and Practice all which you must necessarily joyn with them in whenever you go over to them whether on this account it be not still best for you to remain as you are is that which in the last place I desire you to consider For can you believe that they can turn a Wafer into God and eat him too with his Divinity when they have done Can you believe that they can every day and in an hundred thousand places at once offer up Christ contrary to the express words of Scripture to be as proper true and real a Sacrifice in their Masses as when he died upon the Cross for us And that they can make Expiation thereby both for the Living and the Dead Can you believe that Saints are made Fellow-Mediators with Christ and that by the overplus of their Merit Satisfaction can be made for sin as well as by the blood of our Redeemer And can you believe that the Pope hath a Treasure hereof to dispose of by pardons and Indulgences Or that Heaven can be bought with the money with which these are sold Can you believe that Church Infallible which evidently err's in a multitude of things every day That its Traditions are as true as Scripture Or that a Priest can forgive Sins Or that the decisions of a Pope are as Infallible as the Oracles of God himself Can you Worship a piece of Bread for your God And adore Relicks Images and Crosses contrary to the express prohibitions of the Word of God Can you pray unto men departed of whom you can have no certainty whether in Heaven or in Hell Can you Worship the Virgin Mary as the Heathens did their Goddesses and fall down to every Stock or Stone that represents her For all those things and many more like them must you believe and do whenever you go over unto them Now the Question is whether you are convinced these things are to be believed and done or no if you are this conviction makes you totally theirs whither our Orders be good or no and the dispute which you stick at concerning them is totally needless But if you are not convinced concerning these points as I beleive you cannot then the whole question comes to this whether in case they have Orders and we none we are for the sake of them only bound to go over to that Church and joyn with them in all those Errors of faith and practice which they there hold And if this be a thing which you stick at for the solution of it I will only lay before you a plain parallel case under the Jewish Law By that you know the Sons of Aaron were the only true Priests and none other were to serve at the Altar of the Lord but they only Now put the Case that when the Ten Tribes revolted with Jeroboam to the worship of the Calves in Dan and Bethel all the whole house of Aaron had revolted with them must the rest of the people for the sake of their Priesthood have gone over to them also and forsaken the true worship of their God for ever No certainly you will say but that they must either have constituted other Priests presuming on the divine approbation in this case of necessity or else if that were not to be don rather remain without Priest or Altar then commit so great an abomination for the sake thereof And this is plainly the case before us For Supposing all the whole Christian Priesthood had so joyned themselves to the Corruptions of the Romish Sect that we who retain the true purity of our Religion had neither Bishops Priests nor Deacons among us as you would have must we for the sake of their Priesthood also go over to them and pollute ourselves with them in all those Errors Superstitions and Idolatrys which they give themselves up unto No certainly if this were our case as I thank God it is not we must either separate others to the Ministry of our own appointment presuming on the divine approbation in this case of necessity or else if this be not to be done since duties enjoyned by positive institution as these of the Ministry are may in many cases be dispensed with but that which is Sinful is in no case to be done rather then do so Sinful and wicked a thing in the presence of God as to joyne our selves to that corrupted Church and all the abominations of it it is much better for us to remain without Priest Sacrament or publick Worship and serve God with our private Devotions only which hath been the Case of many a good Christian who since our Trafick into the East-Indies hath begun have on many occasions been detained in Countries totally Heathen without Sacrament or publick Worship for many years together And you cannot but say that it would be a very bad Argument in this case to perswade those Christians to put themselves under the Conduct of the Bramins and Talapoins the Idolatrous Priests of those Countries because they can there have no Priests of their own and I assure you that which is now urg'd upon you to draw you over to the Church of Rome because they say they have Priests and we none is very