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
this outward Rite or Sign of Imposition of Hands and this Form of words annex'd thereto was the whole manner appointed by our first Reformers for the conferring of the Office of Priesthood on those that were Ordained to it and so it continued till in the first Convocation after the late King's Restauration Anno 1662. after Receive the Holy Ghost these additional words for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by the Imposition of our Hands were for the reasons which I have aforementioned unto you also inserted in that Form. 4. Therefore you are to understand that the second Matter and Form of our Ordinal abovementioned were not at all intended to conferr the Order or any part thereof but only to assign the place for the execution of the Office already received For by the first Matter and Form Imposition of Hands and the Form of words annexed the person Ordained thereby is fully and wholly made a Priest or Presbyter of the Church of Christ and all that is done by the second Matter and Form is to admit him thus Ordain'd to be a Priest or Presbyter of that Congregation that is of that Diocess the whole Diocess being as one Congregation or Parish in respect of the Bishop Ordaining to execute the Duties of his Office express'd by Preaching of the Word and Administering the Holy Sacraments in the place where he shall be appointed thereto and this was so order'd conform to the Ancient Canons of the Church which very severely forbid all absolute Ordinations that is all such Ordinations whereby Orders are given at large without intitling the Person Ordained to any particular Church for the executing the Duties of the Office received For it was the Ancient Custom that every Bishop should Ordain his own Presbyters and none other and that when he Ordained them he should admit them to be Presbyters of his Church either to officiate in the Mother Church it self where the Bishop had his Chair or else in some of the other inferiour Churches of the Diocess which all belonged thereto and whether they did the one or the other they were all reckoned as Presbyters of that one Church the Diocess anciently being looked on as one Parish and all the Christians of it as one Congregation united together under their Bishop and conformable hereto is it that the Bishop saith in the Ordinal above-mention'd Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed i.e. Take thou Authority to execute the Office of a Priest in this Diocess in that particular Church or Parish thereof where thou shalt be appointed so to do But since the Ancient Canons which forbad Presbyters ever to forsake that Church or Diocess whereof they were first admitted Presbyters to go into another Diocess is now through the whole Christian World grown quite obsolete and would be of much more prejudice than benefit now to be observ'd At the aforesaid review of our Ordinal in the Year 1662. this Form also hath received an Alteration and what was afore in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed is now in the Congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereto and thereby that Faculty or License to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments which was afore given as to the Diocess only where the Person was Ordained is now made General as to the whole National Church in any part thereof whereof the Person thus Ordain'd to the Priesthood shall be lawfully called to execute the Duties thereof And having premised these things unto you concerning the Matters and Forms made use of in the Ordinals of both Churches for your clearer understanding of what is on either side intended by them I now come to your Objection which according to the best advantage that it can be stated I apprehend to be thus You looking on a Form of Words fully expressing the whole Priestly power to be indispensably necessary and absolutely essential to all Ordinations of Priests think our Orders of Priesthood invalidly administred as failing in an essential because we have no such Form expressing the whole Priestly power at our Ordinations of Priests For the Form which we use you say is not such as by no means expressing the whole Priestly power because it makes no mention of Consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist and making present the Body and Blood of our Saviour as you term it which you look on as the chiefest and main power of the Priestly Office but only impowers to forgive Sins And although you allow our Form at present since the insertion of those words for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God to be sufficiently perfect because in the word Priest you think may be included all that belongs to him yet still judge our Orders to be invalid by reason of the former defect because say you if the Presbyters of the Church of England were not validly Ordain'd by the first Form till the addition above-mentioned was inserted in the Year 1662 then through this defect those who were chosen out of them to be Bishops could not validly be ordained such because they were not afore Presbyters or Priests none being capable in your opinion to be Bishops who have not been first made Priests and consequently could not have Authority to Ordain others by any Form of Words how perfect soever afterwards devised And this being your Objection urged in its utmost strength for the Cause you argue for I am now to tell you in Answer thereto that the whole of it goes upon three very great Mistakes The First is That any such a Form of Words is Essential to Orders Secondly That the Order of Priesthood is absolutely necessary to qualify a man for the Order of Episcopacy And Thirdly That our Form of Priestly Ordination doth not include the whole Priestly power As to the First Although we allow such Formes very useful to make a more clear declaration of the intent and meaning of that act whereby the Office is conferr'd and therefore do our selves retain them in our Church yet that any such should be essential to the Administration so as to null and make void the Orders that are conferr'd without them is that which wants all manner of Evidence either from Scripture Ancient Practice the nature of the thing it self or any other reason whatever which I have already made sufficiently clear unto you And therefore without repeating what I have before said I shall pass on to the other two particulars in which you are equally mistaken For Secondly That the Order of Priesthood is absolutely necessary to quallify a man for the Order of Episcopacy so that none can be made a Bishop unless he were first a Priest is that you can have no ground for The Holy Scriptures from whence alone the essential requisites of Christ's Institutions are
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
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
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
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
words spoken by the Bishop at the time of the said Imposition of Hands Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen The second Matter is the Imposition of both the Hands of the Bishop that Ordains on the Head of the person Ordained The second Matter is the delivery of the Bible by the Bishop to the person Ordained The second Form is the words spoken by the Bishop at the time of the said Imposition of his Hands Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted unto them and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained The second Form is these words spoken by the Bishop at the said delivery of the Bible Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed And thus having laid before you the Matters and Forms as they call them made use of in both Ordinals Secondly The particulars which I think requisite to observe unto you from both of them in order to the better clearing unto you the point proposed are 1. That as to the Matters and Forms of the Roman Ordinal although the opinions of their Writers and Doctors are very various about them yet that which is now most generally received among them is that both these Matters and Forms are essential to the conferring of the Office and that the first Matter and Form gives Power over the Natural Body of Christ that is to Consecrate the Eucharist wherein they will have Christs Natural Body by vertue of their inconceivable Transubstantiation to be really present and the other Matter and Form give Power over His Mystical Body that is the people of His Church to absolve them from their sins The first they call the Power of Order and the second the Power of Jurisdiction and in these two they say the whole Office and Authority of the Christian Priesthood is conferred 2. That as to these very particular Matters and Forms in their present Ordinal although the Schoolmen were generally for having them of Divine Institution and not to be varied from as is above noted yet the generality of Learned Men among them at present are of another opinion as holding it only of Divine Institution that there should be Matter and Form in general in all Ordinations but what the particular Matter and Form should be was left to the Church to determine and consequently that nothing else is necessary but that the Matters bear with them some fitness to signifie and denote the thing intended and that the Forms be fully expressive of the Power and Office conferred thereby And this as to the Forms seems to be the opinion which you allow For you do not absolutely require that we should use the Roman Forms as if no Orders could be validly conferred without them but only that we should either use them or such as are equivalent with them wherein the whole Priestly Power may be expresly given to the person Ordain'd and your opinion that by ours this is not done seems to be the whole reason of your Objection 3. As to those Signs and Forms of words annexed to them made use of in our Ordinal which in conformity to the Language of the Romanists we also call Matter and Form we do not think either of them so essential to the administration as to null such Orders as may be conferred without them provided it be done some other way sufficiently declarative of the thing intended For we look on nothing to be of Divine Institution in Orders but the Mission it self that is that the Chief Pastors of our Church send others as they are sent and when this is done by a person fully Authorized thereto we look on all to be perform'd in this particular which the Praescripts of our Saviour direct us to As to the manner of the Mission and the method of Ordaining thereto we think this intrusted with them to whom the Authority of granting the Mission is given to order and appoint it as they may think will best express the thing they do However we do by no means approve the receding from the ancient and long received practice of the Church herein but think that those usages which can be traced up to the primitive and purer times of the Church especially if they reach so high as the Apostolical Age when the Holy Spirit of God was given in an extraordinary manner to be a conduct in all things of this nature do from the practice of those Holy and Inspir'd Men which then used them receive such plain evidence of their conformity to the will of God that they cannot unless in some extraordinary case without the greatest rashness be varied from as I have before said And this our first Reformers having a full sense of did not in the compiling of the Ordinal which you find so much fault with indulge their own fancies but as true Reformers laying Scripture and Primitive Practice before them for the Rule of what they did made it their endeavour to reduce all things thereto and therefore finding from Scripture and the practice of the Church from the beginning that Prayers and Imposition of Hands was the ancient manner of Ordaining they carefully retain'd both these in our Ordinal Prayers very fitly composed to recommend the person unto God for the Office to which he is appointed and Imposition of Hands to execute the Authority received from God to confer it on him And although there be no instance of any Imperative Form of words to be at all made use of in any of the ancient Ordinals for near a Thousand Years after Christ as is above noted yet since the later Ages have introduced them and they appear to be of great use the better and more clearly to express and declare the intent and meaning of the outward Rite to which they are annexed we have those also in our Ordinals and in the choice of them making Scripture our Rule we do for the Ordination of a Priest use the very same Form of words which our Saviour himself made use of when He Ordained His Holy Apostles to the same Office Joh. 20.22 23. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained adding also thereto these words both as explanatory of them and exhortatory to the duties of the Office conferr'd and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his Holy Sacraments and then to express the Authority by which this is done is subjoyned in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen The want of which in the Roman Ordinals is a defect they cannot be excused from And
to be sought for say no such thing but for any thing which appeares there to the contrary Titus and Timothy were at their first Ordination made Bishops without ever being admitted into the Inferiour Orders at all but receiv'd all the power of them included in that of Episcopacy And in all probability many such Ordinations were at first made For in the Beginning things could not be so settled in the Church that the Regular method of calling men always from the inferiour Offices to the higher should then be observ'd but without all doubt in that state of the first planting of the Gospel either as the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost then given to some men recommended them or the necessities of the Church required there were frequent reasons of conferring the Episcopal Office at first where no other had been received in order thereto And if you will have any regard to the opinion of Petavius one of the Learnedest Men which the Society of the Jesuites ever had he tells us that in the first times of the Church there were none or very few simple Presbyters at all but that all or the most part of those that then Officiated in Churches were Ordained Bishops His words are Primis illis Ecclesia temporibus existimo Presbyteros vel omnes vel eorum plerosque sic ordinatos esse ut Episcopi pariter ac Presbyteri gradum obtinerent i. e. In those first times of the Church I am of opinion that Presbyters either all or the most part of them were so Ordain'd that they obtain'd both the degree of a Bishop and Presbyter together But whatsoever was done at first afterward I allow when Churches increased and in each of them there was the subordination of many Presbyters and Deacons assisting under the Bishop for the performance of the Divine Offices and the Discipline and outward Policy of the Church was brought to a settled order Then that which is the usual practice of most other bodies became also to be the Rule of Christians in constituting the Ministers and Officers of the Church that is to advance them by degrees from one Order to another and not to place men in the highest Order till they had approv'd themselves worthy by the well discharge of their Duty in those inferiour thereto and accordingly thenceforth on Vacancies Bishops were made out of the Presbyters and the Presbyters out of the Deacons and although this method might be introduced even in the times of the Apostles themselves yet it was not by any Divine Institution so as to make it absolutely necessary a man be a Deacon before he can be a Presbyter or a Presbyter before he can be a Bishop but only by Ecclesiastical appointment for the well regulating the Order of the Church and the better providing for the benefit of it those in all reason being presumed to be the most fitting for the Superiour Orders that had been prepared for them by long exercising themselves in and faithfully discharging the duties of the Inferiour But however this Rule was not always observed but often when the benefit of the Church required and the extraordinary qualifications of men recommended them Bishops were made not only out of Deacons but also out of Lay-men too and that by one Ordination the giving of the Superiour Order being alwayes then understood to include therein all the power of the inferiour Thus several of the first Ages of the Church were made Bishops from Laymen and those Histories which tell us of it acquaint us but with one Ordination whereby they were advanced thereto And Pontius the Writer of the Life of St. Cyprian tells us of him that he was made a Presbyter without ever being a Deacon and so was also Paulinus of Nola as he himself tells us in his Epistles And from Optatus it is manifest that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was made so from a Deacon without ever being Ordain'd a Presbyter in order thereto For there arising a disturbance in the Church of Carthage about Caecilianus's being made Bishop there and the main objection lying against his Ordination because Ordain'd Bishop by Faelix Bishop of Aptungitum whom they looked on as a Traditor and one that had deserted the Faith in time of Persecution Optatus tells us Iterum à Caeciliano mandatum est ut si Faelix in se sicut illi arbitrabantur nihil contulisset ipsi tanquam adhuc Diaconum ordinarent Caecilianum i. e. Caecilianus again commanded that if Faelix conferr'd nothing on him as they imagin'd then let them speaking to the Bishops of the adverse party then met together again ordain Caecilanus as if he were as yet only a Deacon Which plainly inferrs that before Faelix ordain'd him Bishop he was no more than a Deacon And Photius the learned Patriarch of Constantinople in his Epistle to Pope Nicolas acknowledgeth that even in his time some Ordained Bishops from Deacons without ever making them Presbyters and that with several it was then looked on as the same thing to make a Bishop from a Deacon as from a Presbyter without at all admitting to the intermediate Order And a while after the same thing is also objected to the Latines by the Greeks and although their heats then ran very high about the aforesaid Photius yet on both sides this is only mention'd as a breach of the Ecclesiastical Canons and that those were to be condemn'd that did the thing not that the Ordination was void which was thus administred Regularly I do acknowledge it ought to be otherwise and that none be made Presbyters before they have been Deacons or Bishops before they have been Presbyters and that it is always best for the Church to observe this Order And so also must it be acknowledged that in all formed bodies of men regularly none ought to be advanc'd to the highest Office but those that have first gone through the inferiour as is manifest in all Corporations and that it is ever best for the publick good of those Societies and the well governing of them that this Order should be alwayes observ'd But however if at first dash one should be plac'd in the highest Office without going through the inferiour this doth not vacate his Commission receiv'd from a lawful Authority but he is to all intents and purposes as fully invested with the whole Power and Authority of that Office as if he had regularly ascended thereto by the usual degrees through all the subordinate Offices and in the power of this one Office only hath the powers of all the others conferr'd on him because it eminently includes them all And the same is to be said as to those that are Ordained Bishops without going through the inferiour Orders Although this be done contrary to the Rule of the Church yet this doth not vacate their Commission which they have receiv'd by a lawful Authority at their Ordinations but by vertue thereof they are made true Bishops of
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
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
to perform all the offices of it without expresly giving the Title But our Ordinal did not express the whole power given either by name or equivalency For it did not give power to Consecrate the Eucharist though it did to be dispencers and faithful Ministers of it which amounts to no more than distributers which every Deacon is as capable of as a Priest And if dispensing should import to be Stewards of the Mysterys of God that also imports no more then to be Conservators or Trustees of what should be committed to them not that they are thereby the makers of it That because I am intrusted or made Steward it should therefore necessarily follow that I have power to make that with which I am intrusted I hope our case depends not upon such a forced and unnatural a consequence If it should be objected that our Saviour did not then give the power to Consecrate the Eucharist when he said to his Apostles Do this in remembrance of me but was only a command to continue the Rite and Custom of it in the Church and therefore were compleat Priests from those words only by which he gave them power to remit sins To this I answer That if our Church had thought any sufficiently impowred to Consecrate the Eucharist by virtue only of those words to remit sins we then must make her highly guilty of notorious idle Tautology in her Form of Ordination when after she hath given power to remit sins should also at the same time distinctly give power to dispence the Sacraments But by her giving such distinct power to dispence the Sacraments after she had given power to remit sins she could not think that to be the sense of our Saviours words but the other that by bidding them do this in Remembrance of him that he did then give them power to Consecrate the Eucharist which I take clearly to be the sense of the Church whose Authority I shall preferre before any single persons whatsoever Besides that our Saviour should then command them to do that which they had power for to do is more like to a cruel Tyrant than a most Merciful and Compassionate Master To your Third and last I say That the Romanists making alteration in their Ordinals signifie nothing unless you can shew me where they have done it in such an essential part of it as we have Although they have added that to theirs of offering sacrifice for the living and the dead yet in regard they do before in their Ordinal expresly give all Priestly power which we did not the other is but an instruction to let them know what power they had received and for what they were to make use of it by virtue of that all Priestly power expresly given them before as appears by the words in their Ordinal which in ours was neither given in general nor in particular to Consecrate or make present Christs body and blood in the Holy Eucharist as was observed before If we had then as now but said be thou a Priest I grant it had been sufficient for all the offices of it although none of them had been particularly expressed in our Ordinal As to what Morinus hath said about the Greek and Roman Ordinals not giving distinct power expresly to Consecrate makes nothing at all so long as they gave them all Priestly power Unless you can prove any of their Ordinals do not expresly give them Priesthood the exceptions out of him of not giving power to Consecrate is nothing at all to the true state of the Question between us Sir As to what you say from Vasquez relates only to a Bishop who doth not thereby receive any new character then what he had afore as a Priest and is only the same power and character further extended which was before virtually in him from his Priesthood and therefore those words Receive the Holy Ghost and stir up the grace c. may be sufficient alone for that though not for a Priest who doth receive a new power and character Besides the same Author in the same Tome which you quote doth expresly say that by the words Receive the Holy Ghost and whose sins you remit c. doth not alone make an intire Priest and that he hath not power to Consecrate by virtue of them and you know Sir the point between us now is only that of Priesthood As to that Sir vvhich you say That they vvould not degrade Bishop Ridley of his Episcopal office vvas not upon account that they thought him no Bishop but for the benefit of the Leases to his Successor Bonner But why then did they at the same time degrade Latimer of his Episcopal office who was made such by the Roman Ordinal which Ridley was not by which Sir you may plainly see what the true reason was of both which I take not at all to be what Sir you were pleased for to surmise Finally whereas you were pleased to say our Priests were owned for good by the Romanists themselves when you shall be pleased Sir to make proof thereof I shall think it then time and not before to take it into my consideration in the mean time Sir if you please to look into Mr. Fox and do believe what he says you shall find what complaints he makes of the Roman Clergy against the Protestant Clergy in Queen Mary days what havock they made with the latter in that they would force them all to be Re-Ordained again Sir I am still in the same Communion which if I should ever change it can be imputed to nothing more then from some of our own Clergy-men of whom I do expresly exempt your self SIR I am your most humble Servant A. N. Three days after I had also this following paper sent me by the same Gentleman in answer to the last I sent him SIR I Could not conveniently before yesterday read over your second Paper supplemental to your first As to Bishop Ridley you may find by Mr. Mason's Vindication of him by the reasons he urg'd that he did account him to be Consecrated not by the Old but by the New Ordinal and the Popes Commissioners refusing to degrade him as to that Office and yet did Bishop Latimer in both is a clear Testimony that they would not do it to the one because they thought him consecrated by the New Ordinal Besides Dr. Burnet hath expresly declared that Ridley was made Bishop by the New Ordinal in King Edward's time Besides other Bishops they did not degrade As to their coming to our Churches until the 10th of Queen Elizabeth so to my knowledge did most of the Prebendarys of your Cathedral with the rest of the Episcopal party constantly frequent the Presbyterian Churches all along in the late times and yet they did not think those mens Orders to be good who officiated that took them not from the Bishop As to the Persecutions and Cruelties of our Adversaries they were much to blame for them but as it
the Church of Rome ever made any such alterations in them as we have done in answer hereto I lay down these following particulars 1. That those words are no more essential to Ordination then any other part of the Ordinal Had those words indeed been injoyned by Christ and commanded by him to be always used in Ordination then I must confess the altering of them would have been a very criminal deviation from our Saviours institution and might inferre a nullity in the whole Administration But the Church of Rome doth not pretend to any such divine Authority for any of their Forms but it is at present their most generally received Doctrine that the very Form of Ordination as well as the preliminary and concomitant prayers which you allow alterable are in the power of the Church to alter add and new word them as they shall judge most convenient and if the Church of Rome hath this liberty I know not why the Church of England may not be allowed to have it also 2. Those imperative words in which you place the essence of Ordination are so far from being thus essential thereto that for above a thousand years the Church of Rome it self never had any such in any of their Ordinals as may appear from the Collection Morinus hath made of them in his Book de Ordinationibus But the whole Rite of Ordination for all that time was performed by imposition of hands and prayer only without any such imperative words at all spoken by the Ordainer to the person Ordained to denote his receiving the office conferred on him as is now made use of both in ours as well as in the Roman Ordinal And the Council of Carthage which is the ancientest we find to have directed concerning this matter prescribes nothing herein but imposition of hands and prayer only And in the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite and believed by many of the Romish Communion to be genuine and by all to be very ancient mention is made of imposition of hands and prayer as the only things made use of in Ordination And if you will go to the Scriptures you will find the Holy Apostles made use of nothing else in the Ordination of the seven Deacons and when Paul and Barnabas were set a part by the Commandment of the Holy Ghost to go preach the Gospel to the Gentiles we find mention of nothing else done in their designation to that Ministry And therefore Morinus a Priest of the Church of Rome lays down this Doctrine that nothing is absolutely necessary to Ordination but imposition of hands with a convenient prayer for this only he saith the Scripture hath delivered and the universal practice of the Church hath confirm'd But I having promised you a fuller Examination of this point shall at present no longer detain you only thus much I could not but observe unto you at present to let you see how miserably you are imposed on by such as would make those things essential to Ordination which if granted will inferre a nullity not only in our Orders but also in all the Orders of all that have been Ordained in the Church of Christ for above a thousand years after his first establishing of it here on Earth and consequently also make their own Orders null and void which have been derived from them Thirdly You grant that these words in the Roman Ordinal Receive power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead are a novel addition and by no means essential to Orders but only words of instruction to let them know that are Ordained what power they had received by that Priestly office which afore they were in express words invested with and for what purpose they were to make use of it In Answer to which I shall lay down these following particulars 1. That in granting this you grant the whole point in controversie between us and the Church of Rome concerning this matter For whatsoever they may tell you about altering the Form in our Ordinal all this is impertinent cavil made use of only to deceive the less wary and insnare the ignorant The only point which they will insist upon when they come to dispute this matter in earnest is that by our Ordinal we do not give our Priests the povver of offering up the sacrifice of the Mass For they say that in the office of a Priest are contained tvvo povvers the povver of Sacrificing and the povver of Absolving from Sin and that this tvvofold povver is conferred by a tvvofold Matter and Form in Ordination That in conferring the first povver the delivering of the Sacred Vessels is the matter and these vvords Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God c. are the Form and in conferring the second povver imposition of hands is the matter and these vvords Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive c. the Form. And therefore judging both these povvers essentially and indivisibly contained in the office of a Priest and that both these Rites the first by the Authority of the Council of Florence and the second by the Authority of the Council of Trent are essentially necessary to the conferring these Powers do for this reason deny the validity of our Orders because in our Ordinations we only make use of the latter matter and form and totally omit the former and therefore say they we have not the whole power of Priesthood conferred on us but only that of remitting sins as your Paper mentions and on this account the other part of offering Sacrifice which is the main essential as they say being wanting all becomes null and void for lack thereof And this is the plain state of the Controversie between us and therefore if you are convinced by what I wrote you in my first Paper that those words Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God and to Celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead are not necessary in Ordination because in so many Ages never used in the Church as can be undeniably prov'd they were not you have conquer'd the whole Objection that is in earnest made against our Orders and the Controversie is at an end between us For Secondly That which you say that all Priestly power and consequently this power of Sacrificing is given in the Roman Ordinal in other words before the speaking of these Receive thou power to offer Sacrifice c will appear by examining the Ordinal it self to be altogether a mistake For if this be given it must be done either in the Prayers of the Office or in the Imperative words spoken by the Bishop to the person Ordained In the Prayers you will not say for then the Prayers in our Ordinal must be allowed to be as valid for this purpose also in which the Priestly Office is as fully expressed both by Name and Description as in theirs And in the Imperative words you cannot say it For
not actually confer that Authority upon them and the prayer after is only for a Blessing upon the Ordained which also doth neither confer any Authority upon them But those of the Roman doth actually confer all Priestly power And whereas Sir you say that the Learnedest of the Romanists say that the last imperative words in their Ordinal which are spoken at the last imposition of hands Receive the Holy Ghost c. are the alone essential Form whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferr'd when I find this can be proved I may further let you know what I can say to it it may be sufficient for some part of the Priesthood but not for all the Offices of it To that which you say that the words of our Ordinal giving power to Administer the Sacraments give power also to Consecrate the Elements This I denyed and gave you my Reasons against it before to which again I refer you I urged no such thing as you would have me of a general and particular and therefore your Answer to those distinctions is besides the business Indeed I Objected as you say that our Ordinal gave power only to dispence the Sacraments and not to Consecrate to which you Answer that by the word dispence the Church meant the whole that belongs both to the Consecration and Administration of them that use them There is no Papist I believe but will grant that the Church meant and intended it but the intention of the Church can never vest any thing with Priestly Authority without it be actually and expresly conferred upon them by Her. For if a Kings intentions be never so great to make a Justice of Peace yet he is not thereby at all invested with that Authority You deny that the Church of England thought any part of Priesthood conferred upon any by vertue of these words Do this in remembrance of me then I say if no Power or Authority was thereby given by vertue of these words how can She give any by bidding them dispence the Sacraments for to Consecrate them And why then so many Arguments used about the extension and limitation of those words of our Church And then as I told you before how shall our Church be acquitted from idle Tautologies which I did not charge Her with as you were pleased to tell me I did but under such suppositions and circumstances which I take that She doth disown You further tell me that I allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination sufficiently perfect but you must give me leave to tell you that I do not whereby all your train of consequences from thence come to nothing What I said of a Bishop having no new Character I said it only in the person of Vasquez to Answer the Objection which you made out of him for the same Vasquez as I told you did say that by the alone words Receive the Holy Ghost c. were not sufficient to make an intire Priest although they were for a Bishop from whence I inferred that in Vasquez's judgment a Bishop received no new Character but my self was ever of opinion that they did As to Bishop Ridley I am fully satisfied that they refused to degrade him as not being made Bishop by the Roman Ordinal and you may find by the Statutes in the First Year of King Edward that then they took upon them to Administer Sacraments in new ways of their own invention for which an Act that year was made prohibiting of them and why might they not also as well Consecrate and Ordain according to their own inventions But of this I shall say no more but refer you to Mr. Actons last Letter sent to Mr. Earbury which though I did before yet never see it since I received your last Paper Sir I suppose you cannot offer any thing now material unto this point than already you have which I believe none could have said more that if you please we will supersede this Question and proceed to another which is of as great disatisfaction to me as any and that is Whether any Bishop or Arch-Bishop can validly be made such against the sixth Canon of the Councel of Nice which says That no Bishop shall be made without the consent of his Superiour or by faculty from him for his Consecration A. N. SIR YOU must pardon me that other business hath hindered that I have not been able to look on your Paper till several days after it came to my hands And although thereby I sufficiently perceive you are resolved against receiving any satisfaction in the point you applyed to me for it yet I will endeavour it this one time more be the effect of it what it will. And first as to your complaint against me for not complying with your proposal as to Mr. Acton I thought in my last I had so far convinced you of the absurdity of it that I should have heard no more of that If you would have him Answer my Papers your intimacy with him of which you so often acquaint me I should think might be sufficient to engage him to it without that challenge from me which you are so importunate for I am sure this gives you a better title to make this proposal to him then to require the other so absurd and unreasonable a thing from me with whom you never exchanged a word in your life unless by these Letters What I wrote you was for your satisfaction and I told you if you had any thing further to Object I was ready to hear it and give you a further Answer and you might take whom you pleased into your Consult as to this matter But for me to challenge Mr. Acton as you proposed would be an act of folly which I desire to be excused from For that possession of right which we are in as to the point controverted between us doth by no means make it proper for me to take this part upon me Besides he is a person I never had any thing to do with or ever received the least provocation from him and for me in this case to challenge him as you would have me is in the whole nature of the thing altogether unreasonable and in respect of that Protection from His Majesty by which he is here may be also dangerous unto me and I must tell you truly I durst not so far confide in you as not to mistrust there may be a snare laid for me hereby As to your huff about the Cautions which you tell me I gave you against being imposed on and the imputation of being ignorant and unwary which from some words in the Paper which you Answer you will needs take home to your self To the first I Answer that since you seem to acknowledge you do not understand Latin by telling me you are no Schollar nor Linguist and yet quote Fathers Councils and Schoolmen I think it possible notwithstanding your grand conceit of your abilities to manage Controversie that you may be very well imposed
Calumnies of our Adversaries in this particular might stick upon us then to receive that satisfaction herein which you pretend to desire Now for the more evidencing of this matter I shall lay down my words and your Quotation of them together that so by comparing of them it may appear how unfaithfully you have dealt with me herein My words in my first Paper The alterations or rather explanatory additions made in our Ordinal in the year 1662 were not inserted out of any respect to the Controversie we have with the Church of Rome but only to silence a cavil of the Presbyterians who from the Old Ordinal drew an Argument to prove that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest because as they say their offices were not distinguished in the words whereby they were conferred on them when Ordained or any power given a Bishop which he had not afore as a Priest Your Quotation of them That the Presbyterians objected that in the Ordinal there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest because their offices were not at all distinguished in the words by which they were conferred on them when Ordained and that to obviate the above mentioned cavil of the Presbyterians the explanatory words were inserted Now Sir be you your own Judge whether you have fairly recited what I have said or whether my words can at all bear that meaning which you will needs put upon them Do I mention any thing of the Presbyterians objecting against the sufficiency of the Ordinal or urging this reason for it that the offices of Priest and Bishop were not sufficiently distinguished in the words by which they were conferred or that the explanatory words were inserted to give them satisfaction herein as you would have me say Or can any man that is not grosly deficient either in his understanding or his integrity put this sense upon my words Do you think I am ignorant that it is the Fundamental Doctrine of the Presbyterian Sect that there is no difference at all between a Bishop and a Presbyter or Priest Or that I could possibly say that they should urge it for a defect in our Ordinal that those offices are not sufficiently distinguished therein when it is their main principle that there is no distinction at all between them but that they are only two names signifying the same Function Or can any thing which I said have any other reference but to an Argument which I told you they drew from our Ordinal to prove this against us That the Presbyterians hated the name of Priest I freely grant and so do we too as it means a Sacrificing Priest in the sense of the Romanists But that the name of Bishop was so odious to them I deny For it is found in Scripture it is found in all the Antient Writers of the Church and therefore they could not be so impious as to hate a name which had the stamp of such Authority upon it All the Controversie was about the signification of this name whether it did import an Order distinct from the Order of Priesthood and this they denyed and in their disputes against us in the late times concerning it made use of an Argument against us as I told you which was drawn from our own Ordinal and from the Form of Consecrating a Bishop urged that according to the Doctrine of our own Church the Office of a Bishop could not be distinct from the Office of a Presbyter or Priest because no new Authority was given him in that Form as they would have it which he had not afore as a Presbyter or Priest and therefore to make a more clear distinction between the two Functions and take away all occasions for their urging of this against us for the future in the defence of that Error the explanatory words were inserted and on no other account When I wrote you my former Paper I confess I quoted no other Authority for this but that I had been told so But since looking into Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation I there find him saying the same thing in these words So they agreed on a Form of Ordaining Deacons Priests and Bishops which is the same we yet use except in some few words that have been added since in the Ordination of a Priest or Bishop for there was then no express mention made in the words of Ordaining them that it was for the one or the other Office in both it was said Receive thou the Holy Ghost in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But that having been since made use of to prove both Functions the same it was of late years altered as it is now Nor were these words being the same in giving both Orders any ground to infer that the Church esteemed them one Order the rest of the office shewing the contrary very plainly Thus far Dr. Burnet and he having published it within twenty years after the thing was done when so many were alive that were Members of Convocation when the alteration was made and especially Dr. Gunning and Dr. Peirson who I understand were the prime advisers of it it is impossible he could want true information in this particular or be so impudent as to impose it on the World if otherwise then he relates when there were so many in being who from their own knowledge could convince him of falsity herein And therefore the thing being so plain I hope you will rest satisfied in this particular But I must not let you go yet for you are not only contented to wrest and misrecite what I have wrote you for your satisfaction but also charge me with whole sentences of which I never said one word or any thing like it For in which of my Papers I beseech you do I ever say that the Presbyterians vindicated their Form to be as good as ours or what the least Foundation is there given you in any of them to forge my name to such a saying I very well know those men were against all Forms as well as you and therefore need not your information in this particular But it seems by your so great intimacy with our Adversaries which you so often tell me of you have learnt their tricks to wrest falsifie and misrecite the only methods they have to support so bad a cause But that there may in this matter be no more room for this I shall distinctly lay down what I hope may obviate all further cavils concerning it in these following particulars First That the Objection of the Presbyterians was not against the Ordinal but against Episcopacy Secondly That it being the Doctrine of the Presbyterians that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter or Priest is one and the same and not at all distinct but that both names equally belong to every Presbyter to prove this they made use of an Argument against us from our Ordinal urging that the Form of Episcopal
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
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
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
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
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
For saith he Si nolumus negare Sacramentum Ordinis in Ecclesiâ Latinâ necesse est pro materiâ hujus Sacramenti solam impositionem manuum assignare hanc enim solam Apostoli Concilia Antiqui Patres commemorant i. e. If we will not deny the Sacrament of Orders in the Latin Church it is necessary that we assign only Imposition of Hands for the matter of this Sacrament for that only the Apostles and Councils and ancient Fathers make mention of And therefore he saith in another place that not only the power of Jurisdiction but also the power of Order is conferr'd by Imposition of Hands that is not only the power of Absolving Penitents but also the power of Consecrating and Administring the Eucharist and he saith that the Councils and Fathers whensoever they speak of the Order of Priesthood to be given by Imposition of Hands mean all this power to be conferr'd thereby and for proof hereof he quotes a certain Comment that goes under the name of St. Ambrose which on the 4th Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy hath these words Manuum Impositionis verba sunt Mystica quibus confirmatur ad opus Electus accipiens autoritatem teste Conscientiâ ut audeat vice Domini Sacrificia Deo offerre i.e. The words of Imposition of Hands are Mystical by which the Elected is confirmed to the work of the Ministry receiving Authority his Conscience bearing him witness that he may make bold in the stead of our Lord to offer Sacrifice unto God. And from thence he remarkes quod manuum Impositio inserviat potestati accipiendae in verum corpus Christi i. e. That Imposition of Hands doth serve to the receiving of power over the true Body of Christ that is to Consecrate and administer the Eucharist where they will have the true body of Christ to be present And therefore if the Authority of this Doctor of the Romish Church signifies any thing with you who was a person of that eminent note among them for his learning that he was designed to have been a Cardinal by Gregory the 15th Had that Pope lived to have made another promotion this last matter of Imposition of hands with the form of words annex'd must give not only the power to absolve penitents but also the power of consecrating the Eucharist and if they give this to them since they are both still retain'd in our Ordinal they must give it us also and consequently your whole Objection against our Orders as if this power were not conferr'd on us at our Ordinations be totally remov'd But here then you will perchance ask the Question if the later Matter and Form in the Roman Ordinal give the whole Priestly power to what end then serves the former Matter and Form which they make use of To this I Answer to the same purpose that some other Matters and Forms do in their Ordinal which they allow only to be accidental that is for the more solemnity of the Administration and not at all to confer the Sacerdotal power and as such no doubt at this time their first Matter and Form which they call essential would only have been reputed by all learned men among them but that it had unwarily been declared otherwise in the Council of Florence and therefore they being obliged to abide by that determination have been forced to frame the Scheme of their Divinity so in this particular as the practice of their own Church for near a thousand years together the practice of all other Churches in the World down to this time the Writings of the Ancients many of their own Doctrines and all Reason too which some of them cannot conceal do manifestly contradict 2. The first Form cannot be an essential Form according to their own positions because according to them that only can be an Essential Form of any of their Sacraments which conduceth to conferre the Sacramental grace But the Sacramental grace of the Sacrament of Orders as they call it cannot be confer'd by the first form and therefore that can by no meanes according to their own positions be an Essential Form. For the Sacramental grace even according to their own Divinity can only be annexed to such Sacramental signs as Christ himself the author and institutor of all Sacraments hath appointed now if it can no way be made out that Christ ever appointed the Rite of delivering the Chalice and Patten to be a Sacramental sign in the Ordination of the Ministers of his Church then certainly no grace can ever be annex'd thereto or the Form of words the first form above mention'd made use of at the administring this Rite in Ordinations ever conferre any The Consequence I suppose no one will ever deny because no signe with any Form of words whatever can in the least conduce to the conferring of Grace but what the Institution of our Saviour hath made Sacramentall And therefore the whole stress of the Argument lyes upon this only that our Saviour never instituted this signe or Rite of delivering the Chalice and Patten in Ordinations or ever commanded his Holy Apostles either by himself while here on Earth or by the Dictates of his Holy Spirit afterwards to make use thereof And there are but two ways possible whereby our Adversaryes can ever pretend to make it out that he did The First is by Scripture and the other by Tradition For they will have the Institutions of our Saviour to be transmitted down unto us not only by the written word the Holy Scriptures but also by the unwritten as they call it the Traditions of the Church both which they will have of equal Authority for the making out of what they will have to be of divine Institution But neither of these will serve their turn in this particular Not Tradition First because no other Church bears record with them herein and Secondly because it appears by undeniable authority and by the concession of abundance of their own Doctors as I have above mention'd that for near a thousand years together after Christ there was not even in their own Church any Tradition at all of this matter or the thing ever heard of among them till instituted by themselves about 700 years since And as to the Scripture they themselves there give up the Cause plainly acknowledging that no proof at all of this matter can be had from thence And therefore Bellarmine and Hallier and several others of them say that if Imposition of Hands be not the Essential Matter of Orders they can have no Argument at all out of Scripture to prove against the Hereticks as they call us of the Protestant Religion that it is a Sacrament And the words of Habertus are Scripturae Ordinatio aut nihil est aut manuum Impositio i. e. The Ordination of Scripture is either nothing or imposition of Hands Becanus the Jesuit goes further and say's Nec in Scripturis nec in antiquis
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.