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
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
or Elder in the Synagogue of the Jews excepting only the administring of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which answered not to any thing of the Synagogue but to the Paschal Feast which was a Service totally appropriated to the Temple and the City of Jerusalem in which it stood And what other end is designed by imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Christian Presbyter but the giving of the Holy Ghost the same which I have told you was also imported by the same Ceremony in the Ordination of a Presbyter for the Synagogue only it was given in the Christian Church in a larger degree then in the Jewish and also for a more excellent ministration the one being derived only from Moses for the teaching of the Law and the other from Christ our Lord for the preaching of his Gospel and the administring of all the benefits thereof unto Everlasting Life And thus far I hope I have made it clear how this Ceremony of imposition of hands made use of in our Ordinations came into the Church of Christ that is not by any Divine Law or Precept from our Saviour but only by imitation from what was afore practiced in the Synagogue of the Jews But however since we find it introduced by the Apostles themselves and in all Ordinations practiced by them from the beginning who were in so extraordinary a manner guided by the Holy Spirit of God in all that they did of this nature this is sufficient to infer a Divine Approbation of the use thereof although not a Divine Institution perpetually obligatory thereto and therefore we cannot without being guilty of the greatest rashness vary from it to any invention of our own for which we can have no such assurance and this with the apt significancy which the Ceremony it self hath of the thing intended no doubt hath been the reason that it hath ever since been continued in the Church of Christ down to this time there being no Church or Sect of Christians that I know of which think any Ordination at all necessary that do not make use of this Ceremony therein Now the manner how Orders were first administred hereby we gather from Scripture to be thus when any persons were made choice of to officiate in any of the Holy Offices of the Church whether of Bishop Priest or Deacon First God Almighty was sought to in their behalf by a solemn Fast to which the Ember weeks do now answer and then the Congregation being met the Ordainer whether one of the Apostles themselves or of the Bishops that succeeded them having by a Prayer particular for that purpose recommended the person to be Ordained to the mercy and favour of God that he would be pleased to accept of him to that Holy Function to which he was set apart and impart unto him such a measure of his Gifts and Graces as might fully enable him to all the Duties thereof then as the proper Minister of God by his Divine appointment for this purpose laid his hands upon him for his receiving all that which had in his behalf been thus prayed for it being by this Ministerial act as it were by the hand of God himself reached out unto him and this was always looked upon as the very act whereby the Office was given and the full completion of that administration whereby any were admitted thereto and for several Ages after we find no other Ceremony used therein But Imposition of hands alone was all along looked on as the sole Ceremonial act whereby the Office was conferred whether it were of Bishop Priest or Deacon it being thereto as the Seal to the Patent by which they acted in their Ministry and the application thereof that which impowered them to all the duties of it And for this reason among the Greeks Ordination and Imposition of hands are signified by the same word and also in the Writings of the Apostles themselves we have instances hereof Acts 14. v. 23. and 2 Cor. 8. v. 19. in both these places the word which by the Romanists themselves is Translated to Ordain is in the Original Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to lay on hands which sufficiently imports that in that Ceremony the whole act of Ordination was understood to consist without any of those imperative Forms which you seem to lay so much stress upon we having no Authority in the least to make it out unto us that any such were at all in use for near a thousand years after Christ as I have already shown Neither is there any such necessity for them as you urge to declare the intent of the Ceremony or which of the different Orders of the Church it is which is conferred thereby in Ordination seeing this may be as well manifested by a publick declaration to the people in the beginning of the administration and also in the subsequent prayers which were offered up unto God in behalf of the person to be Ordained for his accepting of him to the Office and his imparting to him his Divine Gifts to enable him to the Duties of it as it is evident that it was done by both these ways in the Primitive Church without any such Forms as you think so necessary thereto for to express the thing the more plainly to you when a Fast had been appointed in order to the Ordination of a Presbyter when the Congregation being met the end of that meeting was declared for the Ordaining of such an one there present to be a Presbyter and when by particular Prayers he had been recommended to God for his imparting to him his Gifts and Graces for that Office as was the ancient manner of Ordination after all this had been done when the hands of the Bishop and the Presbytery were laid on him for the conferring of the Office certainly there needed no new declaration to express the end for which it was done And that this was anciently the practice of the Church of Rome it self thus to Ordain by Imposition of hands without any such Forms annexed we have a most evident proof from their own Ordinal it being still thus retained therein For in the Roman Ordinal Imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Priest is twice administred the last time indeed it hath a Form annexed the same almost which we use Receive the Holy Ghost c. But of the first the Rubrick of the Ordinal says Pontifex stans ante faldistorium suum cum Mitrâ nulla oratione nullove cantu praemissis imponit simul utramque manum super caput cujuslibet Ordinandi successivè nihil dicens idemque faciunt post eum omnes Sacerdotes qui adsunt i. e. The Bishop standing before his Faldstool with his Mitre on his head without any Prayer or Hymn premised puts both his hands successively on the head of every one to be Ordained without speaking any thing at all and after him all the Priests that are present do the same thing Now
of that than to deprive him of his Baptisme 4. You must not look on Ecclesiastical Canons in how solemn a manner soever made to be such Sacred and immutable things as to put a necessary obligation upon the Church indispensably to observe them through all times after For they are no more than other humane Laws made to obviate the present Grievances and regulate the disorders of the Body for which they are made and in the same manner also as the Circumstances of Time Place and Things alter frequently grow into disuse and become obsolete thereby and that this particularly was the case of that Canon of the Council of Nice which you insist on will plainly appear for it was never designed as a Law to reach the whole Church of Christ through all times and places of its Establishment so as for ever to lay an obligation upon all that are Christians to observe it Neither was it ever in the power of any Council to make any such but as most other Canons so especially this was made upon a particular occasion and that occasion was this During the Maximian Persecution there was one Meletias Bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt who in the heat of that Persecution having sacrificed to Idols to save his Life was for this reason by Peter Bishop of Alexandria his Metropolitan in a Synod of the Bishops of the Province deposed from his Bishoprick but he not acquiesceing in this Sentence became the Head of a Sect and in a Schismatical way in opposition to the Metropolitan not only retained his Bishoprick which he was deposed from but also took upon him to act as Metropolitan himself and ordained Bishops throughout all Egypt which by ancient Custom was the Right of the Bishop of Alexandria only in that Province of which Alexander one of the Successors of Peter in the See of Alexandria complaining at the Council of Nice the 4th and 6th Canons of that Council were framed on purpose for the redress hereof and the prevention of all other such like disorders for the future thereby it was decreed that all Bishops for the future should be ordained in the provincial Synods where all the Bishops of the Province mett together but if this could not be so conveniently done it might be performed by any three of them with the Consent of the rest signified by letters and the allowance and confirmation of the Metropolitan but that if any one should be ordained without the Consent of the Metropolitan he should not be allowed to be a Bishop And that as this was practiced in Rome so should it be also in Alexandria Antioch and other Provinces according to the ancient Custom already receiv'd concerning that matter And so the Nicene Fathers themselves give an account thereof in their Synodical Epistle to the Church of Alexandria written concerning it But as this was ordained upon that particular occasion so also was it with respect to the then present state and circumstances of the Church which at that time stood totally independent of it self alone and was altogether govern'd by its own Rules without the interposition of Princes Constantine the first Christian Emperor being but newly Converted to the Faith But afterwards when whole States became Christian and Bishops were made temporal Barons of Kingdoms and had vast Priviledges and Revenues given them by the Secular Power the Elections were for the most part made according to the Commands of the Prince and instead of that Judicial Approbation which is in this Canon given the Metropolitan nothing afterwards was left him but the Vassallage of necessarily obeying the Mandate of the Prince in Consecrating whomsoever he should appoint to the Benefice For when Bishops became thus great in the State as well as in the Church Princes might well think themselves concerned who the persons should be that should be advanced to those Dignities and therefore seldom suffered any to be invested in them but such as they had first approv'd and this they had a great Right to do as being for the most part the Founders and Patrons of the Benefices Although afterwards the Quarrel about investitures between the Western Princes and the Church of Rome made some alterations in this matter yet the Metropolitan was not at all helped thereby as to the right of Confirmation given him by this Canon at Nice but what was taken from Princes was swallowed by the Pope who by this Canon can claim no Right at all to interpose in this matter but is utterly excluded from it except in his own Province only For from thenceforth his Bulls were always thought requisite to all Consecrations and Confirmations of Bishops which put an absolute force upon the Metropolitan or whom else he should command in this matter which cannot be resisted However Princes found another way to salve themselves after those Investitures were wrested from them that is by not allowing any Election to be made without their License and by sending whensoever they thought fit with the License a Mandate to the Electors to chuse the person they nominated which is at present the General practice of all Popish States So that instead of the Election of the people and the Confirmation of the Metropolitan which by the Nicene Canons and ancient practice of the Church were the only ways of making Bishops now Princes have the Elections and the Pope the Confirmations and the Metropolitan is utterly excluded from all that which by virtue of this Canon was his ancient Right herein And having thus laid matters before you I hope Sir by this time you may see how little reason you have to infer any thing against us as to the Legality of our Ordinations from the Canon you have mention'd it being that which hath so long since grown obsolete and totally out of use even amongst Papists themselves And if any of those Gentlemen whom you converse so much with and whose Learning and Merits you so highly applaud shall tell you that it is otherwise and that all those ancient Canons must be still in their primitive force and every thing be called uncanonical and illegal which is not agreeable to them I desire you would ask them these following Questions First That whereas the 4th Canon of the Council of Nice Decrees that there shall be three Bishops at least at the Ordination of a Bishop whence comes it to pass that now a days in the Church of Rome it is allowed as Bellarmine and Binnius confess to be performed by one only Secondly That whereas the 9th Canon of the said Council of Nice Decrees that none shall be made Presbyter without being examin'd and found worthy And the 10th that those that are rashly admitted shall be again degraded And the 11th Canon of the Council of Neo Caesarea which was ancienter than that of Nice that none shall be ordained a Presbyter till the age of Thirty How comes it to pass that so many in the Church of Rome are made not
only Presbyters but also Bishops and Cardinals not only before Thirty but also before they have been of an age capable of any of those Qualifications which Examination is appointed to enquire about For Ferdinando de Medices was made Cardinal by Sextus quintus before he was thirteen years old and John de Medices before him who was afterwards Pope by the name of Leo the 10th was made Bishop at the 8th and Cardinal at the 13th year of his age and Cosmus Bishop of Fano who died by an act of Sodomy committed upon him by one of the Bastards of Paul the third the Pope who call'd the Council of Trent was not then above eighteen years old and Odell Chatillion and Alphonso of Portugal were both Bishops and Cardinals the former at the 11th and the later at the 7th year of his age And Glaber Rodolphus tells us also that Benedict the 9th was but twelve years old when he was created Pope and he could not be well mistaken herein since he lived in his time Thirdly You may ask them further That whereas the 18th Canon of the Council of Nice doth Ordain that no Deacon shall sit among the Presbyters but that a Presbyter shall be always above a Deacon and a Bishop above a Presbyters how comes it now to be lawful for Deacons when made Cardinals to take place not only of Presbyters but also of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs too whereas they being no more than the Pope's Deacons can according to the ancient Orders of the Church claim no higher place thereby than the Deacons of any other Bishop And Fourthly I desire it may be also asked them that since the 6th Canon of the Council of Calcedon so severely prohibits all absolute Ordinations that is such as are made without a Title as utterly to exclude all from the Office to which they are so Ordain'd How comes it to pass that it is so Common a practice of the Church of Rome to ordain Bishops without Bishopricks such as the Bishop of Calcedon the Bishop of Adramytium and the Bishop of Amasia and abundance of those nulla tenentes men And if the Titles they bear be urged to excuse them from the breach of this Canon it is a mockage which will not serve their turn For the Title is only an empty name which they assume without any intent of ever being in reality Bishops of those places from whence they take them or of at all executing any pastoral charge in them And if it were otherwise without this mockage in the thing yet since this very 6th Canon of the Council of Nice which you insist on saith that all Bishops are to be ordained by their own Metropolitan what hath the Pope to do to Ordain Bishops for those places where he hath no Jurisdiction at all either as Metropolitan or Patriarch as it is certain he hath not in any of those Bishopricks from whence those Titles are usually assum'd For they take them almost always from the Bishopricks of the Eastern Empire which never acknowledged the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome but had always Patriarchs of their own at Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria whose Jurisdiction continues even to this day And under them those very Bishopricks being always provided of Bishops of their own Legally Ordained and Legally Invested with them I ask further how comes it to pass that contrary to the 8th Canon of the Council of Nice the Pope makes Bishops of those places where there are Bishops already And therefore if the Breach of ancient Canons must void Ordinations certainly these can be no Bishops To go over all the rest of the Ancient Canons of the Church and shew how in the most wholsom things they ordained the Church of Rome hath now totally deviated from them would be too long a Task what I have already said is sufficient to let you see that they have no regard to them themselves and therefore nothing can be more unreasonable then to exact the observance of them from others especially in such things as the alteration of Circumstances and the necessity of the times have made unpracticable as it is plain what you require from us in the point of Ordaining at our Reformation then totally was For Fifthly To have the Popes consent to the Ordination of those Bishops that were made at the Reformation was a thing impossible to be had and in that case all Laws as well Ecclesiasticall as civil necessarily lose their force For the Lawes of the Land had made it Treason to ask it of him and if they had not to be sure the Pope would never grant it to those who would not conform with him to all the Erroneous Doctrins and corrupt practices of his Church Must we therefore have no Bishops and no Ministers because he would not give his consent we should or must we still have retained all those corruptions and errours which he would impose upon us to obtain it If the latter be said and I suppose this is what our adversary would have it would put a necessity upon us to receive even the Alcoran or the Talmud with all the impieties and absurdities of them for necessary Doctrines of Faith and manners whensoever the Pope should please and we durst not trust his Infallibility to secure us from this since we know the time when a Pope of Rome was in Conspiracy with the Mendicant Fryers to have imposed a new Gospel on the World in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which if received would have made us worse than Turks or Jews Now put the case the plot had taken and this Gospel by his Authority had been received in the same manner as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass half Communion Purgatory praying to Saints Image Worship and other like Impostures of that Church now are by the same Authority only for Infallible Truth must we have received it too to gain his consent to our Ordinations or else must we have had no Orders at all because he would not give it unto us unless we renounce our Christianity to obtain it from him I thank God our Condition is not such for the Laws of Christ give every Bishop equal Authority to Ordain and although some restrictions and limitations as to the Exercise of this power may have been put by the Laws of the Church for the better Order and more regular Government of it yet all those Laws according to the Doctrine of the Romanists themselves must alwayes give place whenever the necessity of times or things require it And therefore though the Consent of the Pope to our Ordinations had been required by the firmest Laws which the whole Universal Church could have established yet when such a necessity is put upon us as that we cannot have his Consent without submitting to those Errors and Corruptions as would make all our Orders an abomination in the presence of him for whose Service they were Ordained as was the
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
the Church of Christ and have receiv'd full power to all the Duties incumbent on them as such not only that which is peculiar to the Order of a Bishop but also the powers of all other inferiour Offices included therein For the Orders of the Church do so include one the other that the same Act of Ordination which gives the power of the higher Order doth therein also give the powers of all other Orders inferiour thereto as for Example when a man is made a Presbyter or Priest though he had never been a Deacon yet he hath full power to all the Acts and Duties of a Deacon as being included in his Priesthood and so when a man is made a Bishop though he had never been either Priest or Deacon yet he hath full power to all the Acts and Duties of both these Offices as being included in that of his Episcopacy And this is no more than may be made good by Instances from all the subordinations of power in the World in which this is alwayes most certain that the higher degree of power ever includes all the other Degrees inferiour thereto and that Act which gives that one superiour degree gives all the others therewith as included in it And all the Argument which the Romanists bring against this to prove it must be otherwise as to those several degrees of power in the Church which make the Offices of Bishop Priest and Deacon therein is drawn from a similitude they make between them and the three sorts of Souls which distinguish between the three several sorts of living Creatures in this World that is the Vegetative Soul the Sensitive and the Rational For as the Vegetative is necessarily presuppos'd to the Sensitive and the Sensitive to the Rational in such manner as nothing can be a Rational Creature which is not a Sensitive or a Sensitive which is not a Vegetative so say they the order of a Deacon is necessarily presuppos'd to the order of Priesthood and the order of Priesthood to that of Episcopacy and no one can be a Bishop which is not first a Presbyter or a Presbyter which is not first a Deacon But this Argument if it makes any thing to the purpose must infer a very ridiculous thing that is that God cannot make a Man unless by giving him first the Vegetative Soul he makes him a Tree or a plant and then secondly by giving him the Sensitive Soul he makes him a Brute and then thirdly and lastly by giving him the Rational Soul he makes him a Man whereas nothing is more certain than that by that one Act whereby he gives the Rational Soul he gives all the powers of the other two included therein And therefore if this similitude were to decide the Controversie between us instead of making out any thing for them it will most manifestly give the whole on my side it being one of the fullest and clearest that can be thought on most plainly to illustrate unto you the whole state of what I have said in this particular For although the Vegetative Soul as in Vegetables is distinct from the Sensitive and the Sensitive as in Brutes is distinct from the Rational yet the Sensitive doth so include the Vegetative and the Rational the Sensitive that the very same act which gives the Sensitive Soul gives also the Vegetative and the very same act which gives the Rational gives both Sensitive and Vegetative also included therein And just so is it of the three Orders of Deacon Priest and Bishop in the Church of Christ For although the Order of a Deacon in a simple Deacon is distinct from the Order of Priesthood and the Priesthood as in a simple Priest distinct from the Order of Episcopacy yet the Order of Priesthood doth so include the Order of a Deacon and the Order of Episcopacy both that of Priest and Deacon that the very same act of Ordination which gives a man the Order of Priesthood gives him also that of a Deacon and that very same act which gives him the Order of Episcopacy gives him also both that of Deacon and Priest included in it and consequently that it is no more necessary a man should be a Deacon before he can be a Priest or a Priest before he can be a Bishop than that he must be made a Vegetable before he can be an Animal and an Animal before he can be a Rational Creature than which nothing is more absurd And thus far having shown you that the inferiour Orders of the Church are not so essentially necessary to qualifie for the superiour as you imagine but that a man may validly be ordain'd a Bishop though he was afore neither Priest nor Deacon it will infer that although that should be true which you object against us that our first form of Ordination of Priests till the Addition inserted in the year 1662. was defective and that by reason of this defect all the Priestly Ordinations conferr'd by it were null and void yet our Episcopal Ordination may be still good as being administred by no such defective Form but by one which includes all that and in the very same words which the Romanists themselves say is the alone essential Form of their Episcopal Ordination as is afore taken notice of and therefore though we had no true Priests all the while this defective Form was used yet we still had true Bishops fully invested with the power of Ordaining others and consequently now at least since the Form whereby they Ordain is mended according to your mind we must have true Priests also and therefore whatsoever defect according to your opinion might be formerly in our Priestly Ordination by reason of our Forms yet now this defect is fully mended and supplied you have no reason on this account to forsake our Communion But Thirdly That there was never any such defect in our Forms the main mistake which you go upon is that which in the last place I am to convince you of For although before the addition inserted in the Form of our Priestly Ordination it might not be so well fenced against all the unreasonable Cavils of Adversaries as now it is yet it was altogether as full in the expression of what was done and totally sufficient for the end design'd which I doubt not I shall fully and evidently make appear unto you by these following Reasons I. Because these words Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained are as full and comprehensive an expression of the whole Priestly power as possibly can be devised For what are Priests but the Ministers of Jesus Christ to lead men to that Reconciliation with God and that Forgiveness of Transgression from him which he hath purchased for us And what are the appointed means whereby they do this but the Administring the Sacraments the preaching of the Word the declaring Gods Promises and Threats the exhorting to Repentance
the power of consecrating the Eucharist But c. This Mr. Earbury said was as plain as that all the parts were contained in the whole and he further quoted Father Paul who in his History of the Council of Trent does report it to be the opinion of some of their own most eminent Divines That if their Church had not appointed another Form these words be thou a Priest had been sufficient to convey the Character Here Mr. Acton said Aye but I deny you to be Priests Mr. Earbury asked him why he said because it was not expressed in our Form of Ordination Mr. Earbury told him that now he was gone back to his first Argument which had been confuted before that he disputed in a circle and that at this rate it was impossible ever to come to an end Here Mr. Acton again asked Mr. Earbury whether a Sacrament could confer a power that was not expressed Mr. Earbury wrote down this answer and read it to the Company viz. I do say that the words of Ordination may confer a power that is not particularly expressed so it be included in a more general term Mr. Earbury does not remember that Mr. Acton made any reply to this but that he repeated the question without taking notice of it and to the best of Mr. Earbury's remembrance Here Mr. Thompson declared that he was as little satisfied as ever for he expected to hear the Naggs-head Story and concerning Matthew Parker's consecration and of the Act of Parliament in the 8th of Elizabeth for confirming our Ordination but as for Matter and Form of a Sacrament he understood not two words of it Mr. Earbury then rose from the Table and spoke to this effect viz. Sir I have long suffered you to use me rather like a School boy than a disputant or a man you have taken the liberty to ask questions and give no answer but now you shall give a resolution to one Argument I shall propound nor shall you find an evasion from it viz. If persons Ordained by this new Form were permitted to officiate without Re-Ordination in Queen Mary's Reign and if Cardinal Pool did actually dispence with them then we have the judgments of Papists themselves that the Form made in Edward the Sixth's time was not deficient in essentials But Cardinal Pool did dispence with all persons Ordained by this Form and returning to the Unity of the Church Ergo c. Here Mr. Earbury does affirm that Mr. Acton was very loth to give any answer alledging sometimes that Queen Mary was but a Woman and sometimes that Mr. Earbury had now passed to another medium Mr. Earbury replyed that such excuses should not serve his turn that he had not passed to another medium whilst Mr. Acton could say any thing material to his last and that he expected a direct answer or a candid confession Mr. Acton after long tergiversation pulled out a little Book out of his Pocket which he said was written by a Protestant Authour though the falsity of that is so apparent that none would assert it but those that are deficient either in sincerity or in judgment The Pamphlet bears the name of Erastus Junior and out of that he read the Story of Latimer and Ridley the latter of which was not degraded from Episcopal Orders at his death because as they pretend Ordained by the new Form. Mr. Earbury acknowledged that Bishops Ordained by the new Form were not degraded at their Martyrdom But what then if they fixed all notes of disgrace to increase the punishment of men put to death as obstinate Hereticks and yet received others in their Orders that returned to the pretended Unity of the Church the Argument did still hold good Mr. Acton replyed That if Queen Mary allowed some to be in true Orders that received them by the new Ordinal and not others then she was a Knave and a Fool. Mr. Earbury answered that that was no fault or concern of his that he would prove the matter of Fact by sufficient authorities and that then the Controversie must needs be at an end Here Mr. Shaw told Mr. Acton That he had not dealt fairly and that if he pleased he would maintain Mr. Earbury's Argument against him Mr. Acton refused saying he had no reason to change his Man. Here there began to be many speakers and some of the Romanists talked of Parliamentary Orders and the Nags-head Story but Mr. Earbury does not remember that Mr. Acton ingaged in it SIR HAving perused your account of your Conference with Mr. Acton it appears to me to be very faithfully delivered to be impartially and candidly related for to the best of my memory there is nothing that was material omitted nor any thing added that might tend to the prejudice of your Adversary this is the real sense of him that is yours John Shaw Presbyter Angl. SIR I Have perused the account of your discourse with Mr. Acton and do find it to the best of my remembrance to be a faithful and impartial relation of the whole Conference And whereas the pretended account of A. N. has insinuated a notorious falshood much reflecting upon both of us viz. That you should assert that the intention alone was sufficient and that I should deny it I think my self obliged to undeceive the Reader for thus it was when Mr. Acton asked you whether the intention was sufficient you answered that the intention as expressed in the Ordinal was sufficient or to that effect and when again he asked whether the intention alone was sufficient I replyed no meaning intention barely considered without Matter and Form to which you did assent And this is the plain Truth witness my hand Richard Kipping SIR I Have read this account of the Conference between you and Mr. A. which as well as I can pretend to remember a discourse so long ago I take impartially to contain the most material things that passed between you but if you have offended on any side 't is in being too candid to your Antagonist for I very well remember that you frequently urg'd Mr. A. to write down his Answers as you did yours which he always declined by saying it would be night before you should bring any thing to a Conclusion and would always cry you lost time when you writ any thing this I doubt not you will easily call to mind I do likewise very well remember Mr. S's words to Mr. A. and Mr. E. that they had not answered your first Syllogism and that he would defend it against either of them which they declin'd according as you relate it Richard Tisdale A. B. Novemb. 10. 1687. One of the Vergers of our Church brought me this following in a Letter from Mr. Anthony Norris of Norwich but without any name thereto A Summary of the Conference between Mr. Earbury and Mr. Kipping of the one part and Mr. Acton and Mr. Brown on the other Impartially set down to the best of his memory by one that
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And for a Bishop Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands For God hath not given thee the Spirit of Fear but of Power and Love and Soberness And they so continued till the review of our Liturgy Anno 1662. and then to obviate the above-mentioned cavil of the Presbyterians those explanatory words were inserted whereby the distinction between a Bishop and a Priest is more clearly and unexceptionably expressed So that now the words of Ordination for a Priest are Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands Whose sins thou dost forgive c. And for a Bishop Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and remember that thou c. But 4. Having thus stated the Case and laid before you the differences between the new Ordinal and the Old Now to come to the main of the objection I assert that had the old Ordinal been continued without any such Addition although it might not so clearly have obviated the cavils of Adversaries yet the Orders conferred by it would have been altogether as valid And as to the Objection made by the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome that the words of our old Ordinal do not sufficiently express the Office conferred thereby this must be understood either in reference to the Priestly Ordination or the Episcopal or both And 1. As to the Priestly Ordination there seems not to be the least ground for it because the Form in the old Ordinal doth as fully expresse the Office Power and Authority of a Priest as need be required in these words Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of his Sacraments Wherein the whole of the Priestly Office is expressed But 2. As to the Episcopal Ordination the whole pinch of the Argument seems to lye there because in the old Form of the words spoken at the imposition of hands the Office and Authority of a Bishop they say is not so particularly specifyed To this I answer first That I think this sufficiently done in the words of the Form Remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the Spirit of Fear but of Power and Love and Soberness For they are the very words of St. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Epist 2. c. 1. ver 6 7. Whereby he exhorts and stirs him up to the Execution of his Episcopal office and they have alvvays been understood to refer thereto and therefore I think they may be also allovved sufficient to express the same Episcopal office when spoken to any other and fully determine to what Office the Holy Ghost is given by imposition of hands in the Form mentioned and properer for this purpose than any other because of the greater Authority which they must have in that they are taken out of the Holy Scripture But if men vvill cavil on and still object that the Name of Bishop is not expressed in the Form or the duties and povver of that Office vvith sufficient clearness specified in the vvords mentioned the objection lies much more against the Roman Ordinal than ours as being much more defective herein For the vvhole Form used therein at the Consecration of a Bishop is no more than this Receive the Holy Ghost that being all that is said at the imposition of hands and asserted by them to be the vvhole Form of Episcopal Ordination And therefore Vasques a Learned Jesuit and most Eminent School-man makes the same objection against the Roman Ordinal that the Romanists do against ours For in Tertiam Thomae Disp 240. c. 5. N. 57. His words are Illa verba accipe Spiritum Sanctum quae a tribus Episcopis simul cum impositione manuum dicuntur super Ordinandum usque adeo generalia videntur ut proprium munus aut gradum Episcopi non exprimant quod tamen necessarium videbatur pro formâ i. e. These words Receive the Holy Ghost which are spoken by three Bishops together with imposition of hands over the person to be Ordained seem to be so general that they do not express the proper office and degree of a Bishop which yet did seem necessary for the Form of his Ordination But to this he himself gives a solution N. 60. of the same chapter in these following words Neque obstat id quod supra dicebamus verba illa accipe Spiritum Sanctum admodum generalia esse nam quamvis in illis secundum se consideratis non denotetur munus aut gradus peculiaris Episcopi pro quocunque alio ordine dici possent tamen prout proferuntur adhibitâ a tribus Episcopis in unum Congregatis manuum impositione pro materia recte quidem denotant gradum Episcopi ad quem electus ordinatur Sic enim simul imponentes per verba illa denotant se eum in suum consortium admittere ad hoc Spiritum sanctum tribuere ac proinde in eodem ordine Episcopali secum ipsum constituere Cum tamen manuum impositio ab uno tantum Episcopo adhibita eadem verba accipe Spiritum Sanctum paucis aliis additis ab eodem in ordinatione Diaconi prolata neque secundum se neque prout ab ipso Episcopo dicta huic materiae applicata peculiare munus aut gradum Diaconi denotent neque enim prout dicta a uno Episcopo cum tali materia denotare possunt ordinatum admitti ad consortium Episcopi in hoc potius ordine quam in alio cum unus Episcopus tam sit minister ordinis Sacerdotii Subdiaconatus quam Diaconatus e contrario vero tres Episcopi solius ordinis Episcopalis ministri sint ideo autem existimo Christum voluisse ut Ecclesia illius tantum verbis quae secundum se Generalia sunt in hac ordinatione uteretur ut denotaret abundantiam gratiae Spiritus Sancti quae Episcopis in Ordinatione confertur Plus enim videtur esse dari Spiritum Sanctum absolutè quam dari ad hunc vel illum effectum peculiarem i. e. Neither doth that hinder which I have said before that these words Receive the Holy Ghost were too general For although by these words considered in themselves the Office or peculiar degree of a Bishop cannot be denoted and they may be also said for any other Order but as they are pronounced the imposition of hands of three Bishops joyned together being also had therewith for the matter of Ordination they do truly denote the degree of a Bishop to
which the person Elected is Ordained For they after this manner laying on their hands all together by those words do denote that they do receive him into their fellowship and to this end do give the Holy Ghost and therefore do place him in the same Episcopal Order with themselves whereas the imposition of hands made use of by one Bishop only and the same words Receive the Holy Ghost with a few others added to them spoken by the same Bishop in the Ordination of a Deacon do not either as considered in themselves or as spoken by the Bishop and applyed to this matter denote the peculiar office or degree of a Deacon neither can they as spoken by one Bishop with such a matter denote the Ordained to be admitted into fellowship with the Bishop rather in this Order than in another seeing one Bishop is as well the Minister of conferring the Orders of Priesthood and of the Sub-Deacon as of the Deacon But on the contrary three Bishops are only the Ministers of conferring Episcopal Ordination And I do therefore think it to be the Will of Christ that his Church should in this Ordination use such words as considered in themselves are only general that it might denote thereby that abundance of Grace of the Holy Ghost which is conferred on Bishops in their Ordination For it seems to be much more that the Holy Ghost be given absolutely than that it be given for this or that peculiar effect Thus far the Learned Jesuit and if this may be allowed to be a sufficient solution of the objection against the Ordinal of the Church of Rome it must also be a sufficient solution of the same objection against our Ordinal For with us as well as in the Church of Rome there are always three Bishops present at the Ordination of a Bishop which altogether lay on their hands on the Bishop Elect when Ordained and not only this Circumstance but many others in the Administration of this Office according to our Ordinal do as fully show what Order the Person on whom they thus lay on their hands and pronounce the above-mentioned Form of Consecration over is to be admitted to The complex of the whole office shows it For the person to be Ordained or consecrated is presented to the Metropolitan as one to be made a Bishop he takes the Oath of Canonical obedience to the Metropolitan as one to be made a Bishop is prayed for as one to be made a Bishop is examined or interrogated as one to be made a Bishop is vested in the Episcopal Robes and is Ordained by a Form never used but in the Ordination of a Bishop and all these together with many other like circumstances in that office too long all to be put down are certainly sufficient to determine the words of the Form to the Episcopal office only were there nothing in the words themselves to do it as it is certain there is not in the Form used by the Church of Rome to this purpose As to what was said in reference to Bishop Ridley's degradation only from his Priestly office before his Martyrdom to prove his Episcopal office not then allowed to be valid I observe these following particulars First That in these times of bitter persecution against us our adversaries as is usual in such cases proceeded rather according to their Rage and Fury than the just rules either of Truth or Reason or what they themselves were used to practice at other times Secondly That the voiding of Leases made by Protestant Bishops in King Edward's time depending upon the voiding of their Orders This was so earnestly endeavoured by those Popish Bishops that came in their places in Queen Mary's time for secular interest Thirdly That notwithstanding those were thus dealt with that would not come in to the Church of Rome at its restauration in Queen Mary's days yet those that did although Ordained by King Edward's Ordinal kept both their Livings and their Orders too and those not a few without any new Ordination all being salved by a dispensation which could not have been done had their Orders by that Ordinal been conferred contrary to Christs institution against which there can be no dispensation by any power on Earth whatsoever Fourthly All that B. Bonner pretended to who was the fiercest for the invalidity of all our Orders and reaped most benefit thereby in the voiding of Bishop Ridleys Leases was to supply the defects of them not totally to annul what was done before as appears by the injunctions which he procured from the Queen to carry with him in the first visitation of his Diocess after his res toration And what these defects were as to the Priestly office he himself tells us in a Book which he wrot against our Orders For all there which he assigns and which is in Truth the whole which the Gentlemen of Rome insist upon when they come close to the point is that in our Ordinal of Ordaining Priests this form was wanting Receive thou power to offer Sacrifices to God and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead and if this be a defect in our Ordinal and on this account an Essential part is wanting in our Orders as they contend it hath also been a defect in the Church of Rome it self which for near a thousand years together never used any such form in their Ordination and it is not now used to this day either in the Greek Church or the Churches of the Maronites upon Mount Libanus although the Church of Rome allows the Orders of the former to be good and the latter are members of their own Communion Nay it is further to be observed that those Greeks which live in Rome not only under the Popes Jurisdiction to which they have submitted but also under his very nose and have Churches there maintained for them at his cost and charges are still allowed to be Ordained by their own Ordinal in which this Form is wanting as the above-mentioned Morinus a Learned Priest of the Romish Communion and one that lived sometime at Rome doth attest and therefore if for this defect as they call it our Orders be null and invalid as now they would have why do they allow them to be good and valid in others which have received them with the same defect also or rather how can they be good and valid in themselves who have received them from such as for near a thousand years as I have afore observed never used this Form. H. Prideaux Nov. 11 th 1687. But sometime after hearing that what was urged concerning Bishop Ridly's not being degraded from his Episcopal Orders at his Martyrdom to be much talked of amongst Mr. Actons Friends as if it were an argument which did invincibly overthrow what Mr. Earbury asserted concerning our Orders having been admitted to be good in Queen Mary's time I sent Mr. Norris this further paper concerning that matter SIR I Being desirous to give you satisfaction
to the utmost concerning the point you proposed to me think my self obliged to add this further paper to that I have already sent you to undeceive you as to what was objected concerning Bishop Ridley's not being allowed to be a Bishop at his Martyrdom The Argument as I take it from the paper you sent me runs thus Mr. E. urged that our Orders were allowed as to their essentials to be good in Queen Mary's dayes and only culpable as to Canonical defects And this he proved because such as had received Orders by our Ordinal in King Edward's days on their coming in again into the Communion of the Church of Rome in Queen Mary's Reign vvere not Ordained again but vvere received to officiate in their functions by a dispensation only But a dispensation cannot salve an essential but only a Canonical defect it not being in the power of any authority on Earth to dispense vvith an essential of Christs institution To this Mr. A. answered by denying the matter of fact that they that were thus Ordained were not so received to administer in their functions by virtue of a dispensation only as Mr. Earbury alledged but that their Orders in Queen Mary's days were reckoned totally null and void and for proof hereof urged Bishop Ridley's being degraded from his Priestly office at his Martyrdom but not from his Episcopal For he being ordained Priest by the Popish Ordinal they allowed him these Orders to be good but having been made Bishop by King Edward's Ordinal for that reason they would not allow him to be a Bishop whereas Arch-Bishop Cranmer who had received both Orders by the Romish Ordinal was degraded from both as being allowed for that reason to be legally made both Priest and Bishop And this I suppose is the utmost that Argument can be made of by whomsoever urged and so I find it laid down by Mr. Walker in his Relation of the English Reformation But the whole goes upon a very gross mistake For Bishop Ridley was made Bishop of Rochester in the first year of King Edward the sixth's Reign having been designed for that See by King Henry the 8th his Father and consecrated not by the new Ordinal which they find so much fault with but by the old Popish one on the 5th of September Anno Domini 1547. For the Act of Parliament which appointed the making of the new Ordinal was not enacted till the first of February in the 4th year of King Edward's Reign Anno Domini 1549. and it was the March after in the beginning of the year 1550. before it was fully compleated so that Ridley was two years and a half Bishop before the new Ordinal had any being and therefore could not be ordained by it or his Episcopal orders invalidated for any defect therein However I acknowledge the matter of fact to be so as urged and that Bishop Ridley was treated at his Martyrdom just as they relate being degraded by them from his Priestly orders but not from his Episcopal because they would not allovv him ever to have received any such But if you ask me the reason then of this their proceeding vvith him I can give you no other then vvhat I have told you before in my last paper I sent you i. e. The blind rage and impetuous malice of those that persecuted this Learned and Holy Bishop which hurryed them on to such things in their proceedings against him as were neither agreeable to reason or their own established doctrine as to this particular For first they cannot say he was no legal Bishop although ordained by their own Ordinal because this was done in time of Schism after King Henry the 8th had separated from the Church of Rome For if this be granted it will then follow by the same reason that neither Heath Thurlby nor Bonner himself who were the chief supporters of the Papal cause in Queen Mary's dayes were true Bishops as being consecrated in the same manner as Ridley was after this separation Neither Secondly Can it be said that his Orders were null for the pretended crime of Heresie For this contradicts the whole current of their own Divines who all hold that orders imprint an indelible character in the person ordained which neither Schism Heresie or any thing else can ever blot out but that whosoever is to be ordained a Bishop although he be an Heretick doth not only receive this character but also can beget the same character in any other that shall be ordained by him And therefore according to this Doctrine although Bishop Ridley had been an Heretick and all his Ordainers Hereticks also as they would have them to be yet would his Ordination be good and as true a character of the Episcopal office be Imprinted on him as on any other And this they are necessitated to grant from the practice of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church who ever received Hereticks on their Repentance into the same orders which they had afore received from those Heretical Bishops to whose doctrine they had adher'd without any new Ordination For although it be acknowledged a great sin either to give or receive Holy orders to propagate false and Heretical Doctrines yet it hath ever been allowed that they are good and valid whenever thus conferred and that the true characters of a Bishop and a Priest may be found among the worst of Hereticks as well as the best of Christians because the abuse of the office doth not annull the Commission But that being written in indelible characters in the soul of him that is ordained they tell us it shall there for ever remain not only in this Life but also in that which is to come and then not only in Heaven but also in Hell it self and that to all Eternity as may be shown out of several of their best reputed Authors And thus far therefore it is plain that it was not any defect in the ordinal by which Bishop Ridley was ordained or the pretended crime of Heresie or Schism either in him or in them that ordained him Bishop that could null and make void his Episcopal Orders according to the Doctrine of the Romanists themselves that were so forward to pass this sentence upon him and there being no other reason which they can alledge for it to justifie these their proceedings with him it doth necessarily follow that their denying him to be a Bishop can be resolved into nothing else but that same rage and malice against him which made them take away his Life And proceedings of this nature are no strange things in the Church of Rome nothing having been more common among them than in the height of their animosities to void and annul the orders of those they had a quarrel with and instances enough of this may be given especially among the Successions of Pope Formosus every new Pope almost for several Successors after him annulling all the Acts of his Predecessor and some of them the orders also
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
was done from a Law of the State Civil and not from the Church so I suppose you do beleive with me that Religion forceth no mans will and Nature and that there may be as great villains imbrace a true Religion as there be that do a false so that nothing can be concluded from thence If I have said in my Compendium sent you that Mr. Acton asserted our Saviours way in making Priests was defective I did then much bely him for he said no such thing and I am confident Sir you are much mistaken that any such thing should be in that Paper I shall be always ready to hear whatever reasons you shall be pleased to offer and do think none can do more than your self for which I shall also think my self much obliged that ever shall be SIR Your most Humble Servant A. N. Nov. 28. 1687. Both which Letters came to me in the time of our Audit when I was totally engaged in a work of another nature in passing my accounts as Treasurer and Receiver of our Church for the foregoing year however notwithstanding the hurry this put me in all day that one that still owned himself to be of our Communion might not want that satisfaction which he pretended to desire I made a shift to steal so much time from my sleep at night as to write him this following answer SIR LAST Fryday having sent you my second Paper in order to your further satisfaction about the point proposed I did at the same time receive another from you containing your Animadversions upon my first wherein I find the main objection that sticks with you is that in our old Ordinal The Form used in Priestly ordination is so defective as not to be sufficient to conferre the office so that through this defect all that have been Ordained by that Ordinal and all such as have since derived their orders from them so ordained are in reality and truth no Priests and all this only for want of the word Priest in the Form of Ordination Which objection I thought I had sufficiently prevented by telling you in my first Paper that though the word Priest vvas vvanting in the Form yet the vvhole of his office vvas expressed therein and that must be allovved to be sufficient even by the Papists themselves since in their Ordinal it is never as much as once mentioned in all those many Forms vvhich the Bishop speaks over the Person ordained vvhen he confers the office upon him And therefore if it be sufficient in their Ordinal to express the summ of the Priestly office vvithout naming the vvord by which it is called I know not why it may not also be allowed to be sufficient in ours But it seems you are not satisfied that the summ of the Priestly office is expressed in the Form of our Ordinal whereby a Priest is ordained and you bring several reasons to the contrary The business which I told you in my last I am now engaged in will not permit me at present to give you a full Answer to all you object but I having an obligation upon me from another occasion to examine this to the bottom do now only desire your patience awhile and all that I have to say on this point shall be communicated unto you In the interim I have these following particulars to observe upon the Paper you sent me First You much mistake what I mention in reference to the Presbyterians if you please to consult my Paper again you will find nothing concerning their being in Commission with our Church at the Review of our Liturgy For the thing is by no means true the Liturgy having been reviewed in Convocation where the Presbyterians had nothing to do There was indeed a meeting at the Savoy in order to bring things to a composure but nothing that I said in my Paper was intended by me to have the least reference thereto and I wonder how my words could be wrested to it All that I meant by what I said in reference to them and this I thought I had expressed plainly enough to be understood was that in their Cavils and Objections in the late times against Episcopacy and the superiority of the Episcopal office above the Priestly they drew one Argument against us from our own Ordinal such as they call Argumentum ad Homines and from the very Form whereby our Bishops are ordained endeavour to prove upon us that they have nothing in their office which is not also contained in the office of a Priest The Form of their Ordination expressing nothing as they urg'd which doth not belong to a Priest as well as a Bishop even according to our own definition of the Priestly office And to take away the foundation of his Argument as I have been told those words were put into the Forms as might express a more explicit and clear distinction between the two Functions And although I do not much insist hereon the thing not being at all material to the controversie in hand yet I have reasons that perswade me I have not been mis-informed For the Papist at that time was an adversary not at all thought on The Church had then just recovered it self from that many years oppression which it had suffered from the Presbyterians and therefore had their thoughts at that time totally set how to fence themselves against the enemy that last hurt them without having any such reguard to the other Adversary at that time low enough and not at all formidable But whether this were so or no sure I am the two Pamphlets you mention Erastus Senior and Erastus Junior could have no influence in that matter For Erastus Senior and which of the two I suppose by the Title was first Printed makes mention Page the last of this alteration in our Ordinal then already made and although he says it was done after the Printing of that Book yet certainly it must be before the Publishing of it otherwise how could mention hereof be made therein But whensoever they were Printed or Published they were so far from being in the least likely to influence so grave and learned an Assembly as that of the Church of England Assembled in Convocation by any thing written in them that they were considerable for nothing as much as the contempt which they met with from all sorts of people as scandalous and idle pamphlets and so they were Reputed among some of the soberest of the Papists themselves as having no grounds for what they went upon but unreasonable calumnies false suggestions and deceitful argumentations which so far moved the indignation of a learned Priest of that Religion that he thought himself concerned to disown the whole that was contained in those Pamphlets by Writing a Book against them Secondly Whereas you lay much stress upon the imperative words used by the Bishop at the imposition of hands and will have them to be of the essentials of Ordination and challenge me to show when
valid which is a thing our Adversaries will never yet grant us For you say that a Bishop at his Ordination doth not receive any new Character but hath only the same Power and Character which he had before as a Priest further extended in him and it is well known that Arch-Bishop Parker and most of the others that were made Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign if not all for I will not be positive in a thing where I am not certain were made Priests by the Roman Ordinal and therefore if the words of our Form be sufficient to extend the Character and Power of a Priest as you phrase it to the Office of Episcopacy those that you will allow to have been before good Priests you must also allow to have been made good Bishops by our Form. But here I must beg leave to tell you that our Church holds a Bishop to be as much essentially distinct from a Priest as a Priest is from a Deacon For that which makes the distinction of Orders is the distinct Powers which belong unto them For as a Priest hath a distinct Power from a Deacon which makes his Office to be essentially distinct from the Office of the other so hath a Bishop also a distinct Power from a Priest which makes his Office essentially distinct from the Office of Priesthood that is the Power of Ordaining which a Priest hath not and this you must allow or else fall in with the opinion of the Presbyterians and grant that a Priest hath as much power to Ordain as a Bishop And this is all which at present I shall think fit to take notice of in your Answer to my first Paper I have now also by me your Answer to my second Paper and must beg your pardon that my Business this Week hath been such at our Audit as you well know that I could not have leasure sooner to send you a Reply For as I take it very kindly of you that you will apply to me concerning any doubt which you may have as to your Religion so shall I think my self obliged to do all that lyes in me for your satisfaction And as to your Answer to my second Paper nothing is more easie than to show you how much you have been imposed on by them which tell you those things you write me therein As to Bishop Ridleys Consecration by the Popish Ordinal I thought I had given you demonstration for that by showing unto you in the last Paper that I sent you that Bishop Ridley was Consecrated as it appears by the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Register Sept. 5 th Anno Dom. 1547. in the First Year of King Edwards Reign whereas it is evident by the publick Records of the Kingdom that the Act of Parliament which prescribed the making of the New Ordinal was not Enacted till February 1. Anno Dom. 1549. in the Fourth Year of King Edwards Reign and concerning this you may receive satisfaction by consulting Kebles Collection of the Statutes of this Kingdom Pag. 674. at the top of the Page But you urge against this Mr. Masons and Dr. Burnets Authority who you tell me say the contrary But that you may see how much you are abused by those who impose on you such things I will set down in words at length what both these Authors say as to this matter And first Mr. Masons words are Page 209. at the bottom of the page as followeth Primo leges de antiquis Ordinalibus abrogandis de novis stabiliendis latae sunt Annis Edwardi Tertio Quarto ut patet ex Statutis Ridleius autem Primo Edwardi Ferrarus ejusdem Regni anno secundo est sacratus uterque ante veterum Ordinalium abdicationem per consequens uterque secundum vestram Formam i. e. The Statute for abrogating the Old Ordinal and making a New was first Enacted in the Third and Fourth of Edward the Sixth as is apparent from the Statute Book but Ridley was Consecrated the First Year of King Edwards Reign and Ferrar in the Second Year both before the abrogating of the Old Ordinal and by consequence both according to your Form. So far Mr. Mason and as to Dr. Burnet if you please to consult him in his Second Part of his History of the Reformation Page 290. you will there find him saying these words So they did not esteem Hooper and Ridley Bishops and therefore only degraded them from Priesthood though they had been Ordained by their own Forms saving only the Oath to the Pope And this I hope will fully convince you that I have told you nothing but truth in this matter and that you have been most grosly abused by those that have informed you the contrary As to what you say concerning evil mens being of the true Religion you very much mistake my meaning if you think that I did infer in mine the illness of the Popish Religion from the ill actions of those that professed it for to do this would be to argue against all Religion there being abundance of wicked men of all Religions whatever and all Arguments of this nature are very foolish unless the sins and iniquities of such men as we find fault with proceed from the allowed Doctrines of the Church of which they are and on this account I must tell you I think the Romish Church abundantly culpable But this was not at all the thing I referred to in telling you of their Cruelties and Persecutions against us but only to let you know that then they were in such a rage against us that all they did in reference to the disallowing of our Orders may very well be construed rather to proceed from the violence of that alone then any rational judgment which they made of this matter it being a thing very usual between contending parties for men to be carried so high in their animosities as rather to act by their Passions then their Reason in what they do and alledge against each other And this I take to be the case of the Church of Rome in most of its proceedings with us but in none more manifestly then in the denying of the validity of our Orders which even according to their own Doctrines and positions are more defensible then those which even they themselves administer by their own Ordinal As to other things in your two Letters which I have omitted to speak to they are either such as need not answer or else such as I shall more fully examine on the other occasion which I have mentioned and therefore at present have nothing more to add but my most hearty prayers to Almighty God that he would be pleased so to direct and assist you in your inquisitions concerning this matter that after having fully tryed it you may hold fast that which is good I am SIR Your most Affectionate Friend H. Prideaux Thursday Dec. 1. 1687. On my having concluded this Letter to Mr. Norris I received another from him
was not used in their Ordinals yet he doth not say it did not expresly give all Priestly power in other words or by equivalency by giving full power to perform all the Offices of it which Sir I told you ours did not and that it did not give power to Consecrate and make present the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament not by way of Transubstantiation I meant but only in the sence and words of our own Church that is verily and indeed which is more than to be present only by a meer Figure or to be only Commemorative And although he further tell us that the whole Rite was performed by Prayers and imposition of hands This doth no way exclude the other which I said before for when St. Paul minded Timothy to stir up the gift given him by imposition of hands he named nothing else but imposition of hands yet can any think there was not also Prayers and a form of words used at the laying of hands upon him And whereas Sir you say the Council of Carthage which is the Antientest hath directed concerning this matter prescribes herein nothing but imposition of hands and prayers only You should Sir have given me the very words of that Councel whereby I might have seen whether any such thing could have been inferred from them and since you were not pleased to recite them I will take upon me to do them for you which words are these When a Priest is Ordained the Bishop blessing him and laying his hands upon his head all the Priests that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head about the Bishops hand Doth this Canon prove any thing more than that it is a command only for the Priests then present to lay their hands also upon the head of the person Ordained about the Bishops hand at the same time he bless him and lay his hand upon him This doth no way shew us what the Ordinal of the Church was in those dayes This Canon had been proper to have been offered in case any had denyed imposition of hands which being required doth it therefore follow nothing else was essential because the rest of the Priests present were required also to do it with the Bishop If a learned Papist should have offered me such an Argument or Authority as this I might then have concluded Sir with your self that I thought him about to impose upon me I will also tell you the words of Dionisius whom you quote but not recite That the Priest who was to be Ordained kneeled before the Bishop who laid his hand on his head and did Consecrate him with an Holy Prayer and then marked him with the sign of the Cross and the Bishop and the rest of the Clergy then present gave him the Kiss of Peace Although he mentions all these yet where doth he say that these were the only things as you were pleased to say he said they were Can any one rationally conclude from this that there was no form of words used when the Bishop laid his hand upon the Ordained or that he should then say nothing it must be thought at the least that at that very time he used such a Prayer in which might be contained the very essential Form for any thing that Dionisius hath to the contrary And now Sir give me leave to mind you of this distinction for the better understanding my meaning in what I have formerly said and shall have occasion hereafter to mention That where the essential Form or any part of it be contained in the Prayers Prayers and Imposition of hands is all that is necessary but the Prayers of the Roman Ordinal have the essential Form contained in them which in ours is not therefore with us Prayers and Imposition of hands are not sufficient though they may be with them And this is my Answer to what else you quote from Morinus de Ordinationibus and also to that of the seven Deacons and Disciples which you say were made such only by imposition of hands upon them which you tell me there was nothing said or any words used which if there were not but only hands imposed you must give me leave to tell you that it look'd then but like a dumb sign and do not see how it could be more operative than if the same person had stroaked a good Boy on the head and said nothing but if there were words used at the imposition of hands then was it not done by imposition of hands only as you affirm and if words were used as it is not to be doubted then must they certainly be such as be pertinent unto that Ceremony which must express the power thereby given Sir you tell me that I have conquered the Objection and brought the Controversie to an end by granting That the offering Sacrifice to God and celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead was a novel thing and therefore not essential to Orders But I deny that I ever granted any such thing although I did that for the celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead to be within these Five Hundred Years expressed in the Roman Ordinal but not for offering Sacrifice unto God which I said no such thing but am assured that it was ever in their Ordinal and also their celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead was all along before the practice of that Church and therefore the Objection remains still in as much force as ever and the Controversie as far distant from an end as ever it was before Might I take leave to add to a Proposition and make it run contrary to the true intent and meaning it were an easie matter soon to salve any Questions but that way would never give the Proposer any satisfaction at all You also tell me That whereas I say all Priestly power is given in the Roman Ordinal in the words before speaking this Receive power to offer Sacrifice will appear by examining the Ordinal it self to be altogether a mistake because if it be good it must be in the prayers of the office or in the imperative words spoken by the Bishop to the Ordained in the prayers you will not say for then the prayers of our Ordinal might be allowed to be as valid for this purpose in which the Priestly Office is fully expressed both by Name and Description as in theirs To which I Answer That in examining the Roman Ordinal I say it will not appear to be a mistake which lay on your part to prove that it is in their prayers This I deny for I say that it is and that therefore the prayers of our Ordinal must be as valid this also I deny because they do not give such power and also that the Priestly Office is as fully expressed both in name and description to as good purposes as in theirs for our prayers before doth only give God thanks for calling them to the Office and Ministry appointed for the Salvation of Mankind it doth
Ordination therein superadded no new Authority to that which was afore given him by the Priestly and therefore that both Offices were the same according to our own Ordinal Thirdly That if this Argument implies any defect in our Old Ordinal it placeth it only in the Form of Episcopal Ordination and not in the Priestly and concerning this only you have several times told me your whole doubt is Fourthly The Presbyterians urging this is by no means an Argument that there is any such defect in the Form of Episcopal Ordination in our Old Ordinal for God forbid all should be true which Adversaries use to urge against each other in their disputes about Religion Fifthly That if this be a defect in our Old Ordinal the Papists have no reason to urge it their 's being much more defective as I have already told you for in the Consecration of a Bishop at the imposition of hands they use no other Form then these words only Receive the Holy Ghost As to what you tell me that the Papists are more formidable to the Church of England then all the Sects together in point of weight if you speak this in reference to their Doctrines or any thing that they can say to defend them I am so far from being of your opinion that of all the Sects that have infested the Church of Christ which have been able to make any plausible show of Argument for themselves I think theirs bating the Patronage of Princes to which it chiefly owes its support to be the most defenceless which may sufficiently appear by the present management of the Controversie between us in which their cause hath been so miserably baffled that they are in a manner plainly put to silence Few now of those many Tracts which are written against them being at all Answered by them And when sometimes with a great deal of noise they send forth a Pamphlet against us their performance is always so lame and what they have to say for themselves so far short of giving any satisfaction in the Points controverted between us that it is sufficiently evidenced hereby that their cause is such as will not bear a defence The next thing you tell me is that you have received your Erastus Senior and your Erastus Junior and can find no mention made in any part of them of the alteration of our Ordinal it seems then you have them both to serve the cause you would maintain although you denyed you had either when I would have borrowed one of them of you in order to the better giving you the satisfaction which you desired But because you say you cannot find the passage I refer to I will give you the words as I find them in the last page of the Erastus Senior which I have they are as followeth Since the Printing of this they have acknowledged the justness of our exception to their Forms by amending them in their new Book Authorized by the late Act for Vniformity c. which words being put after the conclusion of the Book do sufficiently enough themselves express that they were put there between the time of finishing and publishing of it that it was after the finishing of it is said in them and that it was before the publishing of it is demonstrable from their being there and consequently the publication of this Book must be after the publication of the Liturgy Now the Liturgy not being published after its review and amendment till the latter end of August 1662. its evident from thence that it must be after that time that this Erastus Senior first came forth and therefore it could not any way influence the alteration made in our Ordinal published with that Liturgy as you would have it the whole being perfected the January before for the Parliament began to fit January the 7th and the third Act which was passed we find to be the Act of Vniformity wherein this Liturgy with the Ordinal were confirmed and consequently it must in the very beginning of the Sessions have been made ready by the Convocation for them And whereas you require of me to tell you who those sober Papists were that exploded those Books at their coming out I name unto you Father Peter Walsh for one who was the person I mentioned to have wrote a Book against them which he presented to the late Bishop of Winchester and is now in several hands in Manuscript and Dr. Burnet tells you he had the perusal of it But you demand of me to let you see this in Print and then you say you may be of my mind to which I Answer that I gladly accept of the condition and if you will perform your promise hereon we shall have no occasion to dispute any further about this matter For although Father Walsh hath not yet Printed the Book I mention yet he hath the substance of it in the Preface to his History of the Irish Remonstrance where you may find it but because perchance this Book is not to be had in this place I will refer you to another of his where you will find him saying the same thing that is in his Preface to his four Letters lately published and common enough to be had in every Booksellers shop For there making an Apology to those of his Religion for calling the Bishop of Lincoln most Illustrious and most Reverend in the Letter to him which he wrote in defence of the Church of Rome as to the deposing Doctrine against a Book which his Lordship had published on that Argument he gives his Reasons for it in these following words I had about twelve years since in the Preface to my History of the Irish Remonstrance publickly in Print acknowledged my opinion to be that the Ordination of the Protestant Church of England is valid meaning it undoubtedly to be so according both to the publick Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Schools themselves and the ancient Rituals of all Catholick Churches Latin and Greek nay and to those Rituals of all the Oriental Heterodox Churches too as Morinus a Learned Oratorian hath recorded them Thus far Father Walsh and what can be a more express acknowledgment in a Papist of the thing which you require and this being in Print and to be seen by you when you please to consult the Book to which I direct you I hope you will remember your promise of being of my mind hereon and acquiesce in this Authority But he is not the only man of that Religion that allows our Orders to be good and valid abundance more are of his mind herein and several have taken the same freedom of expressing it although to the disadvantage of their own cause Father Davenport alias Sancta Clare another Priest of the Romish Church is altogether as express in this matter as Father Walsh for in his Exposition on the 36th Article of our Church he proves from Vasquez Conink Arcudius and Innocent the 4th that our Church hath all the
essentials of Ordination required in Scripture and as to our Form of Ordination he plainly says that if the difference of the words herein from their Form do annul our Ordinations it must annul those of the Greek Church too for the Form of the Greek Church altogether differs as much from the Form of the Roman as doth that of the English And Cudsemius one that writes violently enough against us speaks also to the same purpose which he would never have done but that the manifest certainty of the thing extorted this concession from him For he coming into England in the year 1608. to observe the state of our Church and the Order of our Universities was so far convinced of the validity of our Orders by his inquiry into this particular that in a Book Printed two years after on his return home he hath these words Concerning the state of the Calvinian Sect in England it so standeth that either it may endure long or be changed suddenly or in a trice in regard of the Catholick Order there in a perpetual Line of their Bishops and the Lawful Succession of Pastors received from the Church for the honour whereof we use to call the English Calvinists by a milder term not Hereticks but Schismaticks And in the late times when one Goffe went over unto the Church of Rome a Question arising about the validity of our Orders on his taking upon him at Paris to say Mass by vertue of his Orders received in our Church it was referred to the Sorbon to examine the matter where it being fully discussed they gave in their opinion that our Orders were good and this I have by the Testimony of one now an eminent Papist who some years since told me the whole Story from his own knowledge he being then in Paris when the whole matter was there transacted and although afterwards as he told me the Pope determined otherwise of this matter and ordered the Arch-Bishop of Paris to reordain him yet the Sorbonists still stuck to their opinion that he was a good Priest by his first Ordination And if you will know whence this difference in the determination arose it was that the one proceeded according to the merits of the cause and the other as would best sute with his own interest and the interest of the party he was to support The next thing which you require of me is to give you proof that it is now the received Doctrine of the Romanists that the essential Form of Ordination is in the power of the Church to alter To which I Answer That by the essential Form for the word essential is of your own interposing I suppose you mean that Form of words in the Roman Ordinal which joyned with the matter according to them imprints the Character and makes up the whole essence of Orders and understanding you thus I freely grant that the whole cry of the Romish Schools runs against this assertion their Doctrine being that both the Matter and Form of Orders as well as of their other Sacraments were instituted by Christ himself and that neither of them are in the power of any to alter but that they have been the same from the beginning as we now find them in their Ordinal and therefore cannot admit of any variation without annulling the whole Sacrament as they call it And that they have been thus preserved down unto us by constant Tradition from our Saviours time For they freely grant that they have no proof for them that they were thus instituted by Christ either from Scripture or from any of the Writings of the Antients And to this purpose the words of Estius 〈…〉 are as followeth And here you must know that we have the matter and form of every Sacrament not as much from Scripture as by a continued Tradition received down from the Apostles For the Scripture expresly delivers to us only the matter and form of Baptism and the Eucharist and of extream Vnction the matter only The others are left us only by unwritten Tradition thereby as from hand to hand to be received down unto us And in another place particularly as to the Matter and Form of Orders he tells us That the Antient Fathers of the Church spoke sparingly of them in their Writings And so others of them to the same purpose And for this they gave a Reason forsooth least those things being consigned to Writing might come to be known to unbelievers and so exposed to be scoffed at and ridicul'd by them for it seems they cannot but acknowledge that many of those Rites which they make use of as well in Ordination as in their other Sacraments of their own making are indeed ridiculous But here I must tell you that this is only the Doctrine of the Schoolmen and those which wrote after them But Morinus the Learned Oratorian I have often mentioned unto you taxeth them of great ignorance herein in that being totally unacquainted with the Antient Rituals and the practice of other Churches framed all their Doctrines according to the present Ordinal of their Church But since that Learned person hath Published so large a Collection of Antient Ordinals many of which have none at all of those Forms now in the Roman Ordinal and the practice also of the Greek Church which useth none of them is become better known this Doctrine of the Divine Institution of those Forms and that they cannot be altered or varied from becomes generally exploded and concerning this because you desire me to prove it unto you I will first give you the words of Habertus in his Observations on the Greek Pontifical in whom you have also the sence of the whole Sorbon who Licensed and Authorized his Book For he raising an Objection how it could be possible that the Orders conferred by the Greek Church as well as the Latin could be both right since Administred by different Forms gives this Answer thereto In the Sacraments of whose matter and form there is no express mention in Scripture it is to be supposed that Christ instituted both only in general to His Apostles leaving to the Church a power to design constitute and determine them several ways as it shall seem best unto them so that the chief substance intention and scope of the institution were still retained with some general fitness and analogy for signifying the effect grace and character of the Sacrament which analogy is alike and intire in both Rites as well the Greek as the Roman And the words of Hallier another Sorbonist and whose Book is in the same manner Licensed by that Learned Society of Divines speak the same thing for he laying down this as an evident conclusion from what he had afore said that many things had been added and changed about the Matter and Form of Orders and that through the whole Church as it is diffused over the whole World the same Rite of Ordination and the same Matter and the
have been pleased to call at my Study and the Books should there have been laid before you Your Paper cites the words of the third Canon of the Council of Carthage but all the four first Canons belong to this matter for in them that Council prescribing the manner of Ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons makes mention only of imposition of hands with the Blessing given by the Ordainer but nothing at all of any of those imperative Forms in which the Church of Rome now a days placeth the essence of Orders And as to the words of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite I find none such in that Author as are contained in your Paper and therefore I suppose you transcribed them not from the Book it self but only wrote after some person that had given you the summe of them and if I mistake not you have made use of Dr. Burnet in this particular for the passage which I refer to in Dionysius contains several pages in Folio for he having first described the manner of Ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons afterwards goeth over every single Rite in a very particular and exact manner and according to his way of Writing finds a Mystery in every one of them but amongst all those particulars which he so exactly recites there is none of the least mention made of any imperative Forms spoken at the imposition of hands or at the performance of any other Rite belonging to that matter and this silence of them where there is so particular a mention of every thing else is an undeniable presumption that there was then no such thing in use But to all that I have said in denying the antient use of those Forms you have this Answer that it seems irrational that there should be no words spoken by the Bishop at the laying on of his hand upon the Ordained and that at this rate the laying on of hands would seem only a dumb and insignificant sign and would in your opinion be nothing at all operative to the conferring of the Office on the person Ordained To which I reply First That how insignificant soever you may esteem the outward Ceremony without those words which you call the essential Form in the Consecration of a Christian Priest yet if you please to read the 8th Chapter of Leviticus you will there find that Aaron and his Sons were Consecrated to the Levitical Priesthood by the outward Ceremony only without as much as any one word spoken by Moses the Consecrator signifying the Holy Office to which they were set apart And Maimonides the most Authentick Writer among the Rabbies gives us an account that in after times the Consecration of the High Priest among the Jews was performed only by the Anointing with the Holy Oyl and Vesting with the High Priests Vestments and after the destruction of the first Temple in which the Holy Oyl was lost by Vesting him only For outward signs can by general institution be made as expressive of any thing of this nature as a form of words for words are only sounds appointed by the common consent of those that use them to be the signs of things and when outward actions are appointed to signifie the same things they are altogether as expressive and the King of France by delivering the Sword to the Constable and a Staff to a Marshal of France doth as effectually create those Officers by that outward Ceremony only as if he had done it by a Form of words the most expressive of the Authority and Power given that could be devised because the Laws of the Kingdom and the long received Customs of it have made these Ceremonies alone the well known manner of Constituting those Officers And had the Laws of the Christian Church or the long received usages of it made any outward Ceremony whatever in like manner the well known Rite of Ordaining a Priest it would be altogether as valid for this purpose without any Form of words whatever For Ordination being only a Ministerial act of delegating that Office to another which was received from Christ any thing that is sufficient to express this delegation whether words or signs doth sufficiently do the thing For if Forms be so necessary to Ordination what is it that makes them so It must be either the institution of Christ or the nature of the thing it self any other Reason for it I know not If it be from the institution of Christ let us be but convinced of that and we have done For in this case either to omit the Form or alter in the least from its first institution would make the whole performance culpable But if there be no institution of Christ for any such Form as I have already abundantly demonstrated that there is not all the necessity of such a Form must be from the nature of the thing it self Now if the nature of Ordination doth not necessarily require any such Form but that any of the Offices of the Church may be as well conferred by an outward Ceremony only by publick institution made significant and expressive of the thing done there appears no necessity for the use of any such Forms at all so as to invalidate those Orders that are conferred without them That which makes the Church of Rome so much insist upon the Matter and Form of Ordination is that they have made it a Sacrament and they observing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and the Sacrament of Baptism which are really Sacraments of Christs own institution to consist each of them as prescribed in Scripture of an outward sign and a form of words annext the former of which they call the matter and the latter the form of the Sacrament from hence they do infer that they are both essentially necessary to all those other Rites which they will have to be Sacraments also and because they find none such instituted in Scripture for them as they themselves acknowledge that they may not be without them introduce Matters and Forms as they call them of their own making And hence it is that they talk so much of the Matter and Form of Orders and will have both so essentially necessary to the conferring of them whereas would they argue aright in this point they ought not so much to have inferred the necessity of what they call Matter and Form for Ordination from that it is a Sacrament as that for this very reason it can be no Sacrament because it hath neither the one nor the other by Divine institution belonging thereto For the nature of a Sacrament according to their own definitions consists in this that it is an outward Ceremony consisting of things and words instituted and enjoyned by Christ himself with a promise of saving Grace annexed to the performance of it And since nothing of this can be made out to us from Scripture it doth from hence follow that although Orders be enrold among the number of the
from the antient practice of the Church by introducing a new matter of their own invention the delivery of the Sacred Vessels to the person Ordained a thing never practiced in any Church till brought into use by them about seven hundred years since yet this they are so zealous for in preference to the other that or imposition of hands that they do not only by the general received Doctrine of their Church give it the preheminence as the prime and principal matter essential to the Sacrament as they call it but abundance of them make that to be the only external sign that is so and reject the other although most undeniably of Apostolical usage into the number only of those accidental Rites which belong to that administration And this I mention only to let you see that although those men are so clamorous against us for altering the Ordinal at the Reformation they only are guilty of that alteration herein which is really culpable in that to introduce a new Rite or Matter as they term it of their own invention they give little or no regard to that which is truly Apostolical for so imposition of hands must undeniably be allowed to be But I intend not to make any dispute as to this particular having before said that Orders may be validly conferred without it by any other manner sufficiently expressive of the thing intended But here I desire to be understood that I hold it not justifiable for any Bishop so to do unless in some particular case where there may be an extraordinary reason to warrant the alteration Because when a Rite hath been so generally received in the Church and hath so venerable a stamp upon it as that of Apostolick usage the Example is so enforcing as even to reach almost the very nature of a Precept to oblige us to do the same thing But because we find no Precept or Institution in Scripture concerning this Rite as the Romanists themselves acknowledge that there is not we put it not into the essentials of Ordination so as to judge null and void such Orders as shall be conferred without it but in this case admit the old and well known Rule quod fieri non debet factum valet that which ought not to be done is valid when done For the Rite of imposition of hands being of so antient and venerable use in the Church as I have aforesaid I think it cannot be omitted unless in some extraordinary case as I have mentioned without a great fault both in him that shall give and him that shall receive Orders without it But however the Orders must be allowed to be good notwithstanding that omission because our Saviour who commands the chief Pastors of his Church to send others after them to administer in holy things even as they were sent enjoyned herein only the mission it self without prescribing any thing to them about the manner of it neither were his Holy Apostles after him directed by his Holy Spirit to leave any Rule or Precept to us as to this particular But it was left to the Governours of the Church to do herein according as they should see most fitting And for many Ages after Christ there was no such thing as a Uniform Ordinal in any Church but the thing was left to discretion as the manner of Consecrating Churches with us and every Bishop used his own method herein only imposition of hands was always retained but with such different and various Forms of Prayers Benedictions and other Rites as the Bishop Ordaining thought most fitting to make use of and from hence no doubt came all that variety of Ordinals which is to be found among those Morinus hath published for Uniformity either of Liturgies or Ordinals is of very late date even in the Church of Rome it self In England down to the very time of the Reformation there were five different Liturgies according to the different uses of the Churches of Sarum Hereford York Bangor and Lincoln and in Morinus there is an Ordinal for the use of England much differing from the rest and therefore it is no new thing for us to vary from the Church of Rome in this particular even while we own'd its Usurpations over us how much soever we are now quarrelled at on this account since we have been separated from them The sum of all is that there was nothing of constant use in Ordination but Imposition of hands the Benedictions Prayers and other Rites that accompanied being for the most part differing according to the different Churches in which they were used and therefore if the Ordainer were a person fully authorized and the person Ordained fully qualified for the Sacred Office to which he was admitted we never meet with any that disputed the manner of the Ordination Neither do we find that ever a Controversie was made in this matter to null and void the Orders of any Church from any defect in their Ordinal till the Church of Rome raised the present Cavil against us For although different Churches in former times did much differ as to this yet we find none so fond of their own Methods and Forms as to condemn others that varied from them but it was ever looked on as the right of every particular Church in this to follow their own establishmenâ—s And although the Romanists have in this the Greek Church as much differing from them as the Church of England yet we find them not making any quarrel with them upon this account but on the contrary allowing them to make use of their own Ordinals even after received into Communion with them and that even in those Churches which they have in Rome it self and were it not that the violence of their passion against us for our differing from them in other things made them overlook their Reason in this the same thing must have been allowed us also But it hath happened to them in this as is usual with such as contend in a bad cause that is wanting all true Reasons of opposition against us were forced to lay hold of any thing that might seem to bear an appearance of it without considering the inconsistencies which the charge bears even with their own Principles but they having begun are bound in Honour to proceed and I know no other reason they have of continuing this unreasonable Cavil against us about the validity of our Orders abundance of their own Divines being really ashamed of it as you may see from the Testimonies I have already produced to you from some of them concerning this matter who positively declare their Opinion to the contrary herein And no doubt were they to begin the Controversie anew with us amongst several other Articles of Opposition they have too rashly taken up against us this concerning the validity of our Orders would in the first place be totally superseded betwixt us But because in answering what you objected concerning the Forms of Ordination I have been led
old the Jews who were beyond all other people of the Earth most tenacious of the Traditions and Practices of their Forefathers might be the easier induced to joyn themselves to the Christian Worship and with less difficulty be Converted to the Truth thereof For the Holy Apostles being primarily sent to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel did as wise Master-builders of the Church of Christ well consider this and therefore in forming of the outward order of its worship and the Manner and Discipline of its Government conform'd themselves to the pattern of the Synagogue to which it succeeded as far as the Law of the Gospel and the nature of that Oeconomy they were then establishing would admit and hence among many other things came the name of Elders or Presbyters for the later is the same in Greek what the former is in English and the manner of Ordaining them by Imposition of Hands to be introduced into the Church of Christ Not that there was any Divine precept concerning either the one or the other but that both were continued in imitation of what was afore practiced in the Church of the Jews For therein those that had the Government of Ecclesiastical Affairs were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zekenim Presbyters or Elders Of their first appointment to this Office we read Num. 11. where Moses complaining that the charge of the whole Congregation was too heavy for him Seventy of the Wisest and Gravest of the People were appointed to be his Assistants herein and to bear part of the Duty with him in Instructing and Governing the people according to the Law which God had given unto them and in order hereto the Spirit of Wisdom and Prophesie rested on them and these constituted the grand Ecclesiastical Council of that Nation called the Sanedrim which determined all Controversies concerning the Law of God and directed to all other Establishments for the promoting of his Honour and Worship among them But besides these there were other Elders also in every particular City which had there the same charge upon them for that district which the others had for the whole Nation and were those which constituted the Presbytery of that place to take care of the Service of God in the Synagogues to minister in all the Duties of Holy Worship therein to instruct the people in the Law of God to exhort to the observance of it to give judgement according thereto in all Controversies and to exercise the power of binding and loosing in declaring what was Lawful and what was Unlawful to be done when any doubt or difficulty required their determination herein to correct such as transgressed the Law to Excommunicate the Incorrigible and also to receive them again by Absolution when penitent and to admit Proselytes into the Church by Baptism And in order to qualifie them for these Duties there were Schools or Universities in which they were bred up as Paul at the feet of Gamaliel the then President of the Sanedrim and chief Professor of Divinity in the University of Jerusalem to understand the Law of God and all other parts of Scripture and to know the determinations of the Learned which had been afore given concerning all points of doubt or difficulty occurring in any part thereof and when they had gone thorough such a Course of Study and Proficiency as rendred them sufficiently versed herein they were then ordained Elders or Presbyters by imposition of Hands and thereby authorized to all those Duties which I have afore mention'd to belong to that Office and this imposition of hands was then understood in the same manner as now with us to give the Assistance of Gods Holy Spirit for the performance of them And thus the Hebrew Doctors tell us that the Seventy Elders were Ordained by Moses and that at the performance of this Rite it was that the Spirit of Prophecy rested on them of which is mention Numb 11. v. 25. But in the Ordination of Joshua to be the Chief of them after the decease of Moses the Scriptures themselves expresly tell us that it was done by Imposition of Hands and that thereon the Spirit of God rested on him Num. 27. v. 18. and Deut. 34. v. 9. The Hebrew Doctors are very large and express concerning all these particulars and frequent mention is made of them in their Writings The words of Maimonides the most eminent of them are as followeth Whether the Elders or Presbyters were Members of the great Sanhedrim or whether they were Members of the lesser Councils or Presbyteries which were constituted in every City or whether they were of the Triumvirate only appointed to judge of Causes between man and man it was necessary that every one of them should be ordained by Imposition of Hands by others which had been so ordained before him And Moses our Master so ordained Joshua by the Imposition of his Hands for it is written Numb 27. v. 23. And he laid his hand upon him and gave him a charge And so also Moses ordained the Seventy Elders and the Holy Spirit rested on them and those Elders created others and they again others and so it hath been found that one hath been Ordained by another through all Ages up to the time of the Sanhedrim of Joshua and the Sanhedrim of Moses And this being the state of the Elders or Presbyters of the Jewish Church and the manner of their admission to that Office as I have described it doth answer in so many particulars what was after established in the Church of Christ as makes it most clear what I have afore said that the one was a pattern to the other herein and that all things of this nature which were introduced into the latter were by imitation translated from the former and this is the sense of abundance of Learned Men that treat of this matter as well Romanists as Protestants they all holding that the Holy Apostles to make the change the more easie from the old Oeconomy to the new in forming the outward Order and Discipline of the Church did not make all things new therein but borrowed from the Synagogue of the Jews as many of its usages as could be accommodated thereto And of all those things of which this may be said it is of none more manifest than of the name of Presbyters and the manner of Ordaining them by imposition of hands that they both came this way into the Church of Christ And an easie entrance was made them thereto by the similitude of the things themselves the Christian Presbyter being the same in the Church of Christ that the Jewish was in the Synagogue the duties in which they officiated very little differing and the end for which imposition of hands was made use of in their Ordination thereto totally the same as from what hath been afore said may sufficiently appear For what hath the office of a Christian Presbyter more than what I have afore described to belong to a Presbyter
that this Imposition of hands which is thus administred in the Ordination of a Presbyter with silence and without any Form of words at all spoken at the doing of it is the true and antient Imposition of hands which they have received down by Tradition from the former Ages of the Church and by which alone the Order is conferred and not the other Imposition of hands after administred I have these Arguments to make it most manifest unto you First Because this later Imposition of hands with the Form of words with which it is administred are both of them but lately introduced into their Church they being to be found in none of their Ordinals till about four hundred years since or do any of their Ritualists which are of ancienter date make the least mention of them whereas the other Imposition of hands is that which all of them make very particular expression of Secondly The true and ancient Imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Presbyter was always administred by the Bishop with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery also joyned therewith and this not only the Decrees of Councils but the Practice and Examples of the Holy Apostles themselves do direct to But the Presbytery in the Roman Ordinal do no where lay on their hands with the Bishop on the person to be Ordained to the Priestly Function but in this first Imposition of hands only which is administred without any Form at all in perfect silence and therefore this alone must be that Imposition of hands which confers the Order and this even the Council of Trent it self doth plainly enough say For in the 14th Session and 3d Chapter of Extream Unction treating of the proper Ministers of that Rite or Sacrament as they call it do there declare that they must be Aut Episcopi aut Sacerdotes ab ipsis rite Ordinati per Impositionem manuum Presbyterii i. e. Either Bishops or Priests regularly Ordained by them with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery From whence it follows that if those only are regularly made Priests who are so Ordained by the Bishop with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery as is here asserted that Imposition of hands alone in the Roman Ordinal must be the Rite which confers the Order where the Presbyters as well as the Bishop bear their part in the administration by laying on their hands also which is no where done in all that Office but in that first Imposition of hands only which is administred in perfect silence And for those reasons Morinus and Habertus both Priests of the Roman Church and Eminently Learned above most other of that Communion in the points we now treat of do plainly assert that this Imposition of hands is the essential matter of Orders and Merbesius a later Writer and several others also of that Church do assent with them herein And I hope Arguments and Authorities of this nature may be sufficient to convince you that there is no such necessity for those Forms in Ordination which you so much contend for or that Imposition of hands is altogether a dumb and insignificant sign when administred without them as your Paper asserts since by what hath been said it plainly appears that even in the Church of Rome it self for which you so earnestly argue in this particular the Imposition of hands which confers the Order of Priesthood is even that which is thus administred in perfect silence without any Form of words at all joyned therewith But because you lay so much stress upon the Matter and Form of Orders as if without being exact in these no Ordination can be fully and validly administred I think it proper also to acquaint you that all that Divinity concerning the Matter and Form of Orders which the Schoolmen make so much pudder about and is at present from them made so much use of in this Controversie by our Adversaries against us is totally of late invention there being nothing at all of it either in Scripture or any of the Writings of the Ancients for above twelve hundred years after Christ the very names of Matter and Form of Orders being till then totally unknown But about the year 1250. the Philosophy of Aristotle which makes the substance or essence of all things to consist of Matter and Form being translated out of Arabick into Latin was with great greediness received by the Schoolmen and soon incorporated by them into all their Divinity and thenceforth they taking him for their Text equally with the Scriptures themselves and according to his method in the definition of things ascribing to each its Matter and its Form introduced these terms also into the Doctrine of their Sacraments and observing these to consist of an outward Sign or Ceremony and a form of words spoken at the Administration of it for the sake of the agreement or similitude which is between the word formula a form of words and the word forma which signifieth the Aristotelical form made this form of words to be the essential Form and the outward Ceremony the essential Matter which makes up the whole nature and essence of every Sacrament and from hence it is that the matter and form of Orders which they make to be one of their Sacraments became first talked of among Divines and all that heap of Rubbish which the Schoolmen and those that follow them have built hereupon and no better foundation then this have you for making any form of words spoken in Ordination to be essential thereto Had our Saviour indeed instituted any form of words to be spoken at the Administration of the outward Rite as he did in Baptisme then I confess that Institution would have made it essential thereto and the whole would have been void and null without it However supposing Orders a Sacrament it could not be the essential Form thereof for that only can be the essential Form of a thing which gives it its determinate Essence and actually and ultimately constitutes it to be what it is and therefore nothing else can be the essential form of a Sacrament but that alone which actually gives it the nature and essence of a Sacrament which no form of words can do for if we consider in either of the Sacraments that are truely and undoubtedly such the outward visible sign and the Form of words alone they can make nothing of themselves but a liveless insignificant Ceremony unless something else be taken in to give the essence and nature of a Sacrament thereto In truth therefore as well the Form of words as the outward sign are both of them of the matter of the Sacrament and it is only the relation and conformity which both must have to the Institution of our Saviour with the concurrence of the Divine Grace according to the promise made in the institution which can make any Sacramental Administration to be truly and essentially such For no outward visible sign with any
form of words whatever unless it hath a Divine Institution whereto to refer and bears with it an exact conformity thereto can ever arrive to the true nature and essence of a Sacrament and therefore supposing Orders to be a Sacrament of the new Law as our Adversaries would have and that there was a Divine Institution not only for the outward sign but also for the form of words made use of in the conferring of them yet it can never be said that the form of words only without any further respect can give that determinate essence to the Sacrament as actually and ultimately to constitute it to be a Sacrament which is the nature of every essential form to do in respect of the thing to which it belongs and consequently can never be the essential form thereof And from hence you may plainly see that all which our Adversaries say of the essential form of Orders and on which from them you so much insist on hath neither Scripture Antiquity or Reason for its support but is totally grounded on no other foundation then the Philosophy of Aristotle and the mistakes and dotages of the Schoolmen built thereon As to what you say concerning the essential form being contained in the Prayers of the Roman Ordinal and that therefore before the imperative forms were added Imposition of Hands and Prayers were sufficient with them for the conferring of Orders but cannot be with us because in none of the Prayers of our Ordinal this essential Form is contained I Answer If by the essential Form you mean those very same words spoken by the Bishop at the administring of the outward Rite or Matter as they call it which the generality of the Romish Church call the form of Orders I deny that they are contained in any of their Prayers and if you think they are you should have told me in which But Secondly If by the essential Form you mean no more than words in the Prayers signifying the Office conferr'd which I suppose must be all that you mean thereby if you mean any thing that is sense then I answer that the prayers in our Ordinal do as fully contain that which you call the essential Form of Orders as any in the Roman Ordinal can be said to do And although you will not allow this of the Prayer immediately before imposition of hands or of that which follows immediately after in the Ordination of a Priest yet you cannot deny it of the Collect for the occasion where it is most proper to be looked for for that is as followeth Almighty God Giver of all good things who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in the Church mercifully behold these thy Servants now called to the Office of Priesthood and replenish them so with the truth of thy Doctrine and adorn them with innocency of Life that both by word and good Example they may faithfully serve thee in this Office to the glory of thy Name and the Edification of thy Church through the merits of Jesus Christ And if you look over all the prayers of the Roman Ordinal I think you cannot find in any of them the Office of a Priest more expresly mention'd than in this And therefore I hold still to my Inference that if the Prayers with imposition of hands may be sufficient for the conferring of the order of Priesthood in the Roman ordinal this must be also sufficient in ours And I cannot possibly see what farther you can object against this unless it be that the Prayer I have mention'd goeth before the Rite of imposition of Hands in our Ordinal whereas you may perchance think that it ought to come after rightly to answer the end for which I urge it But if you please to consider those passages of Scripture which tell us of the manner of ordaining practiced by the Holy Apostles as it is alwayes expressed in them to be done by Prayer and Imposition of hands so also shall you find that Prayer was first and Imposition of hands after So Acts 6. v. 6. in their Ordaining of the seven Deacons it is said that when they had prayed they laid their hands on them and so Acts 13. v. 3 of the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas to be the Apostles of the Gentiles When they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands upon them they sent them away which passages plainly evidence unto us that their method of Ordaining was first by Prayer in the name of the Church to Consecrate the person unto God for the Office to which he was set apart and then as in Gods stead according to the authority they had received from him in order hereunto by Imposition of hands to receive him to this Office and confer the power thereof upon him and that this was the completion of the whole administration made use of in this matter And although Acts 14. v. 23. it is said of Paul and Barnabas when they had Ordained them Elders or Presbyters in every City and had prayed with fasting yet we are to understand what is here last placed to have been first done it being a thing very usual with the Sacred as well as other Writers while they relate matters of fact not always to observe the exact order in which they were done as from many instances in Scripture may be made appear unto you and that this place is so to be understood we have the Rhemists themselves on our side who in their notes on this place plainly tell us that the Fasting and Prayers here mentioned were preparatives to Holy Orders In the next place you quarrel with me for misreciting your words which I confess is a great fault if I am guilty of it and would be contrary to that exact sincerity with which I ever desire to deal with all men especially in matters of Religion But having carefully reviewed both mine own and your Papers I can see no reason for this charge upon me In my Answer to your first Paper I observed that the grand defect which our Adversaries charge our Orders with is for omitting this Form in the Priestly Ordination Receive thou Authority to offer Sacrifice unto God and to Celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead which I told you could not be an essential defect because this Form it self was a novel addition and not used in the Church of Rome it self for near a thousand years after Christ To this you Answer in your second Paper in these words Although they have added that to theirs of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead yet in regard they do before in their Ordinal expresly give all Priestly power which we did not the other is but an instruction to let them know what power they had received and for what they were to make use of it by vertue of that all Priestly power expresly given them before From which words in Answer to what you charge me with I have these things to say
to the Pope which no Bishop took at his Ordination after the Supremacy of the Church was vested in the Crown And therefore Ridley and Farrer being made Bishops before that Act must necessarily be ordained by no other but the Roman Ordinal And therefore although in the beginning of King Edward's Reign before the Liturgy was establish'd some zealous Protestants taking encouragement from the favour they receiv'd from the Government might of their own heads in those Churches as were in their power make such alterations in the publick Worship and the Administration of the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and other holy Rites as you call new ways of their own Invention yet as to your Question Why might they not also as well Consecrate and Ordain according to their own Inventions I hope what I have said is a full answer that there could be no such thing At best you propose it only as a Conjecture which you inferr'd without any Reason or Argument in the least to enforce it And what I have said I hope may be sufficient to assure you that there can be none for it As to Mr. Acton's Paper to which you refer me I know nothing of it having never seen it or any thing else which came from him to the Gentleman you mention and therefore can give you no answer thereto In the last place you seem so taken with those Conceptions of yours which you have vented in the paper you sent me that you would perswade me not to attempt any further Answer but that tamely yielding this Question I should proceed to another which you propose concerning the consistency of the validity of our Orders with the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice But I must beg your pardon for not observing the first part of your Command in tamely yielding the Cause to those weak suggestions which you sent me I hope whatsoever your opinion might be of them before I have by this time shown you that there is nothing unanswerable in them and if I have transgressed in doing so I will endeavour to make amends for it in giving you full satisfaction to what is the second part of your Command in reference to the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice The Question which you propose concerning it is this Whether any Bishop or Arch-bishop can validly be made such without the Consent of his Superior or by faculty from him for his Consecration In order to the giving you full satisfaction as to this I will first set down the words of the Canon it self and then endeavour to Answer your Question concerning it And First The words of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice are as followeth Let ancient Customs still take place those that are in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these because such also is the Custom of the Bishop of Rome And accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be preserved to the Churches This also is altogether evident that if any man be made a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan this great Synod Decrees such an one to be no Bishop And if two or three out of a contentious humour shall oppose the Common Election duely and regularly made according to the Canon of the Church let the Majority of voices in this Case prevail Thus far the words of the Canon and the Argument which you deduce from hence is I suppose because Archbishop Parker was consecrated without the Popes Bulls therefore his Consecration must be void and null and he being for this reason no Bishop consequently could make none else so And therefore all the Bishops that have been since in the English Church deriving their Orders from him are in truth and reality no Bishops or invested with any power to ordain others and consequently that all Ordinations administred since in the Church of England being through this defect null and void we have no such thing as true Orders among us And thus far having urged your Argument for you with all the strength that the thing can bear in Answer thereto I shall lay down these following particulars 1. That you could not have lighted on any Canon of the Church more unluckily for the Cause of Rome which you are so zealous for than this you have mention'd it being that which directly overthrows the Supremacy of the Pope and puts him upon the level with all other Metropolitans of the Christian Church 2. That allowing this Canon to have all the force you will give it yet if Orders be an Institution of Jesus Christ they cannot be annull'd by any breach thereof for Ecclesiastical Canons are only the Ordinances of Men and therefore cannot annul or invalidate that which hath a Divine appointment for the original of its Institution and therefore in this case the saying of Becanus the Jesuit falls in very pat to answer your Objection Prohibitio Ecclesiae solum facit ut Ordinatio sit illicita non autem ut sit irrita The prohibition of the Church only makes that an Ordination may be illegal not that it can be null For the power which is given by God cannot be taken away by the prohibition of the Church But since a Bishop hath received power to ordain others according to Divine Institution although he lye under all the Canonical Impediments that possibly he can be liable unto to hinder him from the Execution of his Office yet if he will notwithstanding proceed therein to the conferring of Orders the Character is as fully given by him as he himself received it And in this case the old Rule I have afore mention'd must again take place quod fieri non debet factum valet although the thing ought not to be done yet is valid when done And therefore allowing what you say to be true that the Bishops who ordained Arch-bishop Parker without the Popes Bull as well as he himself that was thus ordained by them were guilty of the breach of this Canon yet at the most it can only be an uncanonical not an invalid Ordination 3. Therefore as to the words of the Canon this great Synod decrees such an one to be no Bishop can respect only his Benefice not his Office and Character that is that such an one as should be thus Ordained a Bishop of any place without the Consent of his Metropolitan should not be allowed to be Bishop of that place so as there to execute the Office or any where enjoy the Honour and Priviledges belonging thereto not that his Ordination should be looked on as invalid as to the Character and Office of a Bishop conferred on him thereby Because if that be given according to Christs Institution it cannot be taken away again by any Institutions of men whatever but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the Character being indelebly imprinted on him it is no more in the power of the Church to deprive him
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
they have to boast of Dispensers of the Mysteries of God and Dispensers of the Gospel or Word of God and the Sacraments were the Ministers of God or the Vicar of God that is such as in his stead did Administer to his People his Word and Sacraments which are Titles that never used to be given to any under the Degree of a Priest And if you will go unto the School-men and other Writers of the Church of Rome nothing is more common among them than by Dispensers of the Sacraments to mean the Priests of the Church of Christ and by the Act of Dispensing of them the peculiar Duty in which they Officiate And if there were any need of it Thousands of Instances may be given hereof IV. But after all their Cavils against our Form of Priestly Ordination as if it were not sufficient to confer the whole Priestly power they must themselves in their Ordinations of Priests confer this power by the same Form which we also use their second Form above mention'd or not confer it at all according to their own Doctrines in this particular For first they allow no Form to do any thing of this but what is an essential Form but from some of their own positions it must necessarily follow that the first Form cannot be an essential Form and therefore it must follow that the last Form only can be such in their Ordinations of Priests and consequently that by that only as the alone Essential Form the whole Priestly power must be given in their Ordinations of Priests or else it must not be given at all they having no other Form besides these two which they ever say to be essential to that Sacrament as they call it Now that the first Form cannot be an essential Form according to their own positions I prove by these following Arguments 1. That cannot be an Essential Form which is joyned with a Matter which is not Essential but the Matter with which the first Form is joyned the delivery of the Chalice and Patten to the Person Ordained cannot be an Essential matter and therefore the Form of words joyned therewith cannot be an Essential Form. The first proposition is that which none of the Gentlemen you converse so much with will deny because they well know that the Matter as well as the Form both concurring to the making up of the Essence of things the Form cannot be Essential to the Constituting of any thing where the Matter is not Essential also And therefore all I suppose will be requir'd of me to make this Argument out will be to prove the second Proposition that the delivery of the Chalice and Patten in their Ordination of Priests cannot be an Essential Matter and this I say must necessarily follow from their own positions And that first because abundance of the most Learned of them as Morinus Habertus Hallier and several others do plainly grant that this Rite was never used in the Church for near a thousand years after Christ and therefore it is impossible that it can be essential to Priestly Ordination unless you will allow that the Order of Priesthood could for so many years together be conferr'd without that which is essential thereto or else that all the Ordinations of Priests for all that time were null and void for want of it neither of which I suppose any of our Adversaries will ever say 2. I also say that this must necessarily follow from their own positions because they allow the Priestly Ordinations of the Greek Church to be good and valid which are administred without it For they Ordain by Imposition of hands only without ever using the other Rite of delivering the Chalice and Patten at all in their Ordinations and yet the Church of Rome is so far from disallowing their Orders so conferr'd that they do not only allow them to be good and valid but also permit those Greek Bishops which have come over to their Communion and have Churches maintain'd for them in Rome it self and by the Pope's own Charge still to Ordain after the same manner and by Imposition of hands only and Cardinal Lugo tells us that he himself saw Ordinations thus performed at Rome by Greek Bishops And therefore if this Ordination be thus allowed by them as compleat in its whole Essence which is thus administred without the delivery of the Chalice and Patten it must necessarily follow that according to this Concession this Rite which is the first Matter in the Roman Ordinations of Priests cannot be Essential to that Administration Which two Arguments are so prevalent with the Learnedest and best of that Communion that abundance of them in direct Terms assert Imposition of Hands to be the only Essential Matter whereby the Order of Priesthood is conferr'd Morinus directly says it in opposition to the other Matter the delivery of the Chalice and Patten which he excludes from being an Essential Matter for the same two Reasons I have laid down which he says are plain Demonstrations against it Bonaventure Petrus Sotus and Becanus the Jesuit who also deny this Matter to be Essential I have already made mention of Hallier the Learned Sorbonist I have afore cited is very large to prove that Imposition of Hands could only be the Essential Matter of Priestly Ordination for the first 800 years after Christ and at length concludes his Discourse concerning it with these words Diuturno tempore tam in Orientali quam in Occidentali Ecclesia retentum ut Hierarchici Ordines Episcoporum scilicet Presbyterorum Diaconorum sola manuum impositione conferrentur i. e. It was a long while retained both in the Eastern and Western Church that the Hierarchical Orders that is the Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons should be conferr'd by Imposition of Hands only And as low down as the year 1536. a Council then held at Cologne speaks of Imposition of Hands as the only Rite whereby Orders are administred the words of the Council are Impositionem manuum esse ostium per quod intrant qui Ecclesiarum gubernaculis admoventur i. e. That Imposition of Hands is the door whereby those enter that are appointed to have the Government of Churches and if it be the door whereby men enter into the Orders of the Church it is plain enough it must be the only Rite whereby they are admitted into them for by the door only is it that men are admitted into the house And thirteen years after another Council held at Mentz says as fully to the same purpose Collationem ordinum cum Impositione manuum velut visibili signo tradi i. e. That the Collation of Orders is delivered by Imposition of Hands as the visible sign By which words saith Vasquez seems to be denoted that the visible sign in which this Sacrament doth consist and by vertue of which the Power and the Grace is conferr'd is in Imposition of Hands But Arcudius is most express in this matter
Patribus Conciliis fit ulla mentio porrectionis Instrumentorum sed tantum Impositionis manuum i. e. Neither in the Scriptures nor in the Ancient Fathers and Councils is there made any mention of the reaching out of the Vessels the Chalice and Patten but of Imposition of Hands only And in Truth all what they say either from Scripture Ancient Councils or Fathers for their Sacrament of Orders makes Imposition of Hands the only Sacramental Sign thereof And all the Arguments which they bring from either of them to prove it to be a Sacrament go totally upon this that this Rite of Imposition of Hands made use of in the conferring of the Orders hath Grace annexed thereto and therefore it manifestly appearing that none of those ways which our Adversaries themselves make use of to prove a Divine Institution are able to make it out unto us that the delivery of the Chalice and Patten in Ordination is such the Consequence is plain that that Rite can never be a Sacramental Sign which hath Grace annex'd thereto and consequently the Sacramental Grace which they will have to belong to Orders cannot be given by that Rite with what Form of words soever it be administred but if there be any such thing at all belonging to Orders as that grace which is requisite to make it a Sacrament as our Adversaries say and we deny it must only be annex'd to Imposition of Hands and given by no other words than that Form with which it is joyned Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins c. and this even their own Council of Trent seems plainly to say for in one of its Canons it Decrees Si quis dixerit per Sacram Ordinationem non dari Spiritum Sanctum ac proinde frustra Episcopos dicere Accipe Spiritum Sanctum anathema sit i. e. If any one shall say that the Holy Ghost is not given by Holy Orders and therefore that the Bishop sayes in vain Receive the Holy Ghost let him be accursed Which words manifestly annex the grace which they will have given by this their Sacrament to the latter Form only And so Bannes an Eminent Writer of their own Church understands them For saith he Ibi Concilium declarat tunc Ordinari Presbyteros tunc dari illis Spiritum Sanctum cum iis dicitur Accipe Spiritum Sanctum c. i. e. The Council there declares that then the Priests are ordain'd and then the Holy Ghost is given unto them when it is said unto them Receive the Holy Ghost 3. The first Form cannot be an Essential Form according to their own Positions because from them it must necessarily follow that that Form can only be Essential by which the Character is given but the Character of Priesthood cannot be given by the first Form. For says Vasquez Gratia collata ex virtute Sacramenti character simul dantur ut omnibus in confesso est i. e. The grace which is conferr'd by vertue of the Sacrament and the Character are given together as is acknowledged by all And therefore if the Sacramental Grace which they will have conferr'd at their Ordinations of Priests cannot according to their own Doctrines be given by the first Form in their Ordinal as I have already made it appear that it cannot neither can the Character of Priesthood be given by it Besides the Character as they define it being a Spiritual Sign imprinted on the Soul and of it self indivisible it cannot be given by halves one part of it by the first Matter and Form and the other part of it by the second Matter and Form but must be imprinted all at once and therefore if they will have two Essential Matters and two Essential Forms joyned to them in the Ordination of Priests they must also allow two characters to be imprinted by them on the persons Ordain'd as Ferdinando De Castro Palao for this reason doth or else if they will allow but one Character only to that Order as is the current Doctrine of their Church they must also allow but one Essential Matter and Form whereby it is to be imprinted And if the Question be of the two Matters which of them must be that whereby this is done whether Imposition of Hands which was first practiced by the Apostles themselves and hath ever since been used in all the Christian Churches in the World through all Ages and in all Places as every one knows or else that other Rite the delivery of the Chalice and Patten which was never heard of in any Church for near a thousand years after Christ and at present is made use of only in the Roman I hope it will be no difficult matter for you to conclude that it can be no other but Imposition of Hands and therefore if that be the only Matter whereby the Character is imprinted certainly that Form of words which is joyned with that Matter Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins c. must be the only Form which concurs to the giving thereof and therefore according to what they themselves require to make a Form Essential that only can be the Essential Form of Priestly Ordination and the other cannot at all be Essential thereto Thus far therefore having made out that according to what they require to make a Form Essential the first Form in their Ordinal of Priestly Ordination cannot be such and since they allow no other besides this but the second Form to be an Essential Form in that Administration it must necessarily follow that if they will have the Form of their Priestly Ordination to be Essential and that the Priestly power cannot be conferr'd but by an Essential Form this second Form only Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins c. the same which we use in our Ordinal must only be that Essential Form whereby this is done and therefore notwithstanding all their Cavils against us as if we did not give the whole Priestly power by this Form in our Ordinations they must themselves in their Ordinations give it by the very same Form that we do or else not give it at all and so their Argument retort on themselves and invalidate their own Orders as well as ours But 2dly The same Consequence will also follow though we allow both their Forms to be essential as they will have that is that notwithstanding the first Form as well as the second be allowed according to them to be Essential yet it must be still the second Form the same which we use in our Ordinations that must confer the whole Priestly power in their Ordinations also or else it must not be conferr'd at all For if the first Form in their Ordinal confers nothing of the Priestly power it must be the second alone that confers it or else it must not be conferr'd at all among them Now that the first Form confers nothing of the Priestly power I prove by your own way of arguing against our Form. That Form which expresseth
Church as null and void I have only this further Request to make unto you that before you absolutely renounce our Communion on this account to go over to the Church of Rome you would be pleased well to consider these three particulars First Whether on your going over to the Church of Rome you can be sure to find valid Orders there Secondly Whether on supposition that you can you will any way better your self by them And Thirdly That supposing you do yet whether on other accounts it may not still be best for you to remain where you are And First Before you go over from us to the Church of Rome because you think our Orders not valid I desire you would consider whether you can be sure to find valid Orders there For if you do not you will lose the whole reason of your Change and be at the same loss among them that you at present pretend to be at among us But how you who are so scrupulous at our Orders can ever be satisfied with theirs if you act with any Sincerity in this Matter I cannot see possible For there are none of those Objections which they raise against our Orders for the nulling of them but may I assure you be urged with much more strength and reason against theirs If they urge against us the want of due Succession the many Schismes Disturbances and undue Elections of Popes which they have had afford us many instances to make it out against them with much more reason than they can object it unto us If they urge the defect of the Forms I have already shown you how all this Objection retorts upon themselves If they urge the Breach of Ecclesiastical Canons about Elections and Ordinations none have more broken them than themselves of which I have given you some few Instances and abundance of others might be added unto them If they urge the want of the Popes Confirmation at the Consecrating of our Bishops how many ages of the Church were there in which their own Bishops excepting only those of the Popes own Metropolitical Jurisdiction were always Consecrated without it If they urge Heresie or Schisme have not some of their own Popes as they themselves acknowledge been guilty hereof And if Simony be Heresie as is generaâ—ly held in that Church how few of them can be said to be free from it since most of them ascend the Papal Throne by buying the Votes of their Electors and to make themselves amends sell all the Ecclesiastical Benefices they dispose of afterwards as is too notoriously known to be denyed But waving these particulars that I may not be too long I shall insist only on one thing they hold which doth not only make it uncertain unto all men whether Orders are validly conferr'd on any that are Ordain'd in that Church but even morally impossible that there should be now any at all among them that is their Doctrin of the Intention which is that none of their Sacraments can be validly administred to any when there doth not concur with the Act of administration the intention of him that administers them of doeing thereby what the Church doth And this Doctrin whenever you go over to the Church of Rome you must receive as an infallible truth and if it be so then must necessarily follow what I say First that it must be alwayes uncertain in that Church whether Orders which they hold a Sacrament are validly conferr'd on any that are there Ordained or no because how validly soever they may be administered as to matter and form and all other things requir'd which the Spectators may be certain witnesses of yet the intention of the ordainer being that of which no man can be certain it is impossible the wisest and most diligent inquirer can ever be certain whether any Priest under whose conduct he shall put himself be validly Ordain'd a Priest or no. And therefore when you go over to the Church of Rome for the sake of more valid Orders then you think we have after your best inquiry it may be your lot to light always on such Priests from whose hands to receive the benefits of the Priestly Ministration as for want of the intention of the Ordainer were never truely Ordain'd Priests at all and consequently be at no better pass among them then now you think you are among us But this is not the worst of that which follows from hence For Secondly If the intention of him that administers the Sacraments be alwayes necessary to make the administration good and valid and consequently that orders which they hold a Sacrament cannot be validly conferr'd on any without the intention of the Ordainer concurring at the act of Ordination this will make it not only uncertain who are true Priests among them and who not but also morally speaking render it utterly impossible that they should at present have any at all among them validly ordained to that Office. For the case is plainly thus They all hold Baptisme to be absolutely necessary to the Priesthood and the Priesthood to be absolutely necessary to the Order of Episcopacy so that a man cannot be validly Ordain'd a Priest unless he be first validly Baptised or validly Ordain'd a Bishop unless he be first validly made a Priest and that neither of these can validly be done unâ—ess there be in him that performes that administration a right intention of doing thereby what the Church doth So then to make a man a true Priest among them there must be First the right intention of him that Baptised him to make him capable of the Priesthood and Secondly the right intention of the Bishop that Ordain'd him validly to conferre the Office upon him And then to impower the Bishop validly to Ordain he must be Baptised with right intention Ordained Priest with a right intention and lastly be Ordain'd Bishop with a right intention and then again he that Ordained him Priest must be Baptised with a right intention Ordain'd Priest with a right intention and Ordain'd Bishop with a right intention and the same must be sayd of him that Ordain'd him Bishop and so up through all the descents that have hapned in the transmission of the Priestly power from the time of our Saviour down to us which through so long a succession of near 1700 years must make all the Acts of right intentions in the administering of Baptisme and in the administering of Orders which according to the Roman Doctrin are necessary to make their Orders at present good and valid to amount to the number of many hundred thousands and if of all these any one hath fail'd from the beginning that one alone breaks the whole chain of succession asunder and all that comes after is made null and voyd thereby And that in so vast a number there should not be such a failure yea and many of them too is that which morally speaking I say is utterly impossible For how many have been made Priests and
Bishops among them who in the administering of the Sacraments have never intended at all to do thereby what the Church doth but at the same time they have performed the outward Acts have inwardly in their hearts out of malice wickedness or infidelity totally disregarded and contemn'd all that is meant or intended by them For have not many of them according to their own writers been Atheists many of them sorcerers and Magicians and many of such profligate lives and conversations as can never be supposed to have intended any thing at all of Religion in any of the Acts of their function which they have performed but being either by the road of their education or the desire of inriching themselves by Church preferments got into those holy Offices have gone on in the common tract to do as others did for the sake of the gain while at the same time in their minds they scoffed at and derided the whole Ministration And how many even of their Popes according to their own Historians have been such whom they make the fountains from which under Christ all Preistly and Ecclesiastical power is derived and if any impartial man will read their Lives I doubt not to say he will certainly conclude the better half of them to be of this sort And to add one consideration more how many since the Rigor of the Inquisition hath been set up in Portugal Spain and Italy that have been Jews in reality have for fear of the barbarous Tyranny of that Tribunal so far dissembled their Religion as the better to cloke it from discovery have taken upon them not only the outward profession of Christianity but the Orders of the Church also and have become Priests and Bishops therein as it is well known there have been several Instances of it in those Countries And can you think that any of them could either in the giving of Orders or Administring of Baptisme ever have any intention of doing thereby what the Church doth No they ever are the greatest Enemies of our Religion and all the Institutions of it and always Curse and abhor them whenever under this Mask they Minister in any of them And on all these accounts it cannot be possible but that through so long a time as near 1700 years there must be in every chain of Succcession whereby the Orders of that Church are said to be derived down to the present times many failures of this kind whereby totally to cut them off from all that follow after And therefore if this Doctrine of the intention of him that Ministers the Sacraments among them be true as it is held in that Church infallibly to be and to which as an infallible Truth you must give up your Faith whenever you list your self among them it must from hence follow that it cannot be possible that they can at this time have any Orders at all among them But Secondly Supposing their Orders be good yet before you go over to them on this Account I desire you in the next place to consider whether you can at all better your self by so doing For what benefit of their Ministry is it I beseech you that you would go over to them for Is it first for the sake of their Preaching of the Word But do not they in that Church lock this up in a Language which you cannot understand forbid Laymen to look into it that they may the better impose on them their Erroneous Doctrines and lead them whether they please And do they not instead thereof from their Pulpits mostly teach the Traditions of men as their Doctrines of Purgatory Pilgrimages Worshipping of Crosses and the Images and Relicts of Saints Masses for the Dead overplus of Saints Merit Pardons Indulgences and such like and filling their Sermons mostly with these and old Wives Tales which they relate concerning their Saints and the Miracles they Fabulously ascribe unto them to make room for these Fopperies wave the Divine Truths of the Gospel and turn Christ and his Apostles quite out of doors Or is it secondly for the sake of their prayers and publick Worship But how can those prayers do you any good with which you cannot joyn they being all in that Church in Latin a Language which you do not understand Or how can that Worship render you acceptable unto God which by reason of the many Superstitions and erroneous practices with which it is performed must it self be totally unacceptable unto him Or else is it thirdly for the sake of the Sacraments But 1. As to the Sacrament of Baptism the Church of Rome allowing it to be validly administred by Laymen you cannot want that in our Church and whenever you go over to them they will allow you your Baptism which you receiv'd among us to be good and valid without Baptizing you again And 2. As to the Sacrament of the Eucharist allowing their Priests to have full power to Consecrate it yet you can never be sure in that Church that they do As to the intention of doing what the Church doth there required you must ever be at a loss and you can be no better assur'd of the outward Act because the words of Consecration are always whisper'd in secret and I have read of one that was burnt among them for Consecrating the Eucharist in the Name of the Devil and as long as they do it in secret an opportunity so proper for the deeds of Darkness you can never be sure but that this or some other thing like it may be done again whenever you come to receive from them But waving these particulars and supposing the Consecration to be in all things aright performed as you would have it yet since they of late have so miserably defaced this Sacrament as to deny the Cup one of the Essentials of it to the Laity I cannot see how in that Church you that are a Lay-man can ever have the holy Eucharist at all administred to you For in all things the withdrawing of an Essential must necessarily cause a destruction of the whole and therefore since our Saviours institution makes both Elements Equally necessary and Essential to this Sacrament the withdrawing the Cup from the Laity makes it no Sacrament at all to them and consequently none that go over unto them on this account because they think our Priests have not sufficient Authority to Consecrate the Eucharist which is your grand Objection will at all better themselves thereby but from a doubt of an invalidity with us fall into a certain nullity with them and be totally depriv'd of the whole benefit of this Sacrament as long as they continue among them For I make no difficulty at all to assert but do here declare it unto you as my Opinion and let him disprove me that can that since the Church of Rome hath Sacrilegiously taken away the Cup from the Laity they have never Administred to them the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all but the want of this
little better And now Sir Having in this Paper thus fully handled the Argument you proposed and answered all the Objections which you made I leave it with you to work that effect on you which God shall give And am Your humble Servant H. Prideaux January 27th 1687 8. FINIS ERRATA The Author being an Hundred Miles distance from the Press when the Books was Printed the Reader is desired to excuse the wrong Pointing which is too frequent and these following Errors in the words of the Book PAge 2. Line 17. for never defective read never so defective p. 3. l. 13. f. the the cavil r. that cavil p. 5. l. 4. f. and to the best c. r. And to the best with a full point before And and none after remembrance p. 5. l. 12. f. resolution r. solution p. 8. l. 13. f. Forme r. former p. 9. l. 29. f. given thee the Spirit r. given us p. 16. l. 6. f. several successors r. several successions p. 16. l. 39. f. adhere to her r. adhered to her p. 19. l. 8. f. they had power r. they had no power p. 37. l. 26. blot out thing p. 39. l. 37. f. never will subsist r. never well subsist p. 44. l. 21. f. received r. reviewed p. 47. l. 5. blot out an eminent Jesuit p. 50. l. 37. f. to be Ordaining r. to be Ordained p. 74. l. 4. f forget r. forgo p. 79. l. 29. f. Meletias r. Meletius p. 81. l. 35. f. Odell r. Odett p. 82. l. 2. f. Presbyters r. Presbyter p. 82. l. 13. f. nulla tenentes r. Nullatenenses p. 85. l. 38. f. matter r. matters p. 92. l. 15. f. Aptungitum r. Aptungis p. 105. l. ult blot out and a Jesuite p. 111. l. 7. f. Vicar r. Vicars Some Books lately Printed for Brab Alymer A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy to which is added A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church By Dr. Isaac Barrow A Discourse against Transubstantiation By Dr. Tillotson A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux's A Discourse of the Sacrifice of the Mass in 4 o. A Discourse against Purgatory An Answer to a Book Entituled Reason and Authority Or the Motives of a late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholick Church In a Letter to a Friend Together with a Brief Account of Austin the Monk and Conversion of the English in 4 o. The Judgment of private Discretion in Matters of Religion Defended in a Sermon on 1 Thes v. 21. Preached at St. Pauls Covent-Garden Feb. 26. 1686. By Richard Kidder A Request to Roman Catholicks to Answer the Queries upon these their following Tenets 1. Their Divine Service in an unknown Tongue 2. Their taking away the Cup from the People 3. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks 4. The Adoration of Images 5. The Invocation of Saints and Angels 6. The Doctrine of Merit 7. Purgatory 8. Their Seven Sacraments 9. Their Priests Intention in Baptism 10. The Limbo of Vnbaptized Infants 11. Transubstantiation 12. The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass 13. Private Masses 14. The Sacrament of Penance c. A Defence of the Ordinations and Ministry of the Church of England In Answer to the Scandals rais'd or reviv'd against them in several late Pamphlets and particularly in one Entituled The Church of England truly Represented c. In 4 o. price 9 d. * These are words Writ by his own hand at the Conference * This is taken verbatim out of his Papers History of the Reformation Part 2. p. 144. De Deâ—perat Calvini cauâ—a cap. 11. pag. 108. (a) Lib. 4. Distinct 1. Sect. 18. (b) Lib. 4. Distinct 24. Sect. 2. (c) Estius ibid. Page 125. Page 485. De Sacramentis non iterandis cap. Presbyt * Exposit Paraphrast in Artic. 36. Ecclesiae Ang. pag. 325. * Lib. 8. c. 24. †Lib. 16. in Esaiam * Avadhah Tract 2. cap. 4. Sect. 12. * Matt. 10. v. 1. Luk. 9. v. 1. 6. †John 11. v. 51. * Dominicus Soto Silvester de Valentia aliique ‖ Gygas cum DD ab eo citat Q. 8. de pers n. 3. Maimonides in Tract Sanedrim cap. 4. (a) Lib. 3. Exercit. 7. cap. 2. (b) Page 224. (c) De Sacr. Ord. D. 6. g. 52. (a) Distinct 24. Part. 2. Art. 1. Quest. 4. (b) Lect. 5. de Sacramento Ordinis (c) In tertiam Thomae Disput 239. cap. 2. (d) De Sacramentis cap. 26. Quaest 4. * De Sacris Electionibus ordinationibus pag. 443. ‖ Vasquez in tertiam Thomae disput 240. n. 58. * 1 Disput 240. cap 4. De Sacramento ordinis cap. 5. ‖ Burnets History of the Reformation Part. 2. pag. 154. De Schismate Anglicane lib. 2. p. 205. ‖ De Sacramento ordinis cap. 26. Quaest. 2. * Socrates lib. 1. cap. 3. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 9. Hist a De Eâ—cl milit lib. 4. c. 8. b Tâ—n 1. p. 14. c See Raynold's Apology for his Theses p. 292. ‖ Hist lib. 5. c.ult. ‖ See Dr. Stillingfleet of the Phaâ—aâ—iâ—â—sâ—â—â— of the Church of Rome ‖ Andradius de Gen. Concil autoritate lib. 1. Defens Fid. Trident p 115 116. Binnius Tom. 2. pag. 243. ‖ Tom. 2. lib. 6. c 4. * De Sacris Electionibus ordinationibus Part. 3. Sect. 5. c. 4. Art. 2. (c) Tom. 2. lib. 6 cap. 4. (a) Mason lib. 5. cap. 1. (b) Concil Chalced can 6. Concil Melden can 52. Concil Valent. can 6. (c) Concil Nicen. can 15 16. * Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum lib. 1. cap. 2. (a) Ep. 6. ad severum Ep. 22. ad Amandum (b) Lib. 1. contra Pormenianum (c) Baron Annal. Tom. 10. ad annum 861. (d) Baron Annal. Tom 10. ad annum 867. (a) Bellarm. de Paenitentia lib. 3. cap. 2. (b) Isa 43. v. 25. (c) Mic. 7. v. 18. (d) Mar. 2. v. 7. Luk. 5. v. 22. (e) Lib 4. advers Marcion c. 10. (f) Adversus Haeres lib. 5. c. 17. (g) Comm. in 9. Matth. (h) Orat. 3 cont Arrianos (i) In lib. de rectâ fide ad Reginas (k) In cap. 5 â—ucae (l) In 9. Mat. Hom. 29. (m) Lib. 1. com in 9. Matthaei (n) In Marc lib. 1. cap. 10. (*) Concil Trident. Sess 14. cap. 4. ‖ Epist 13. †Alcuin de divinis officiis cap. 13. * Aquin. Opusc 22. cap. 5. (a) In Matthaeum cap. 16. (b) Lib. 4. distinct 18. e. f. (c) Ibid. f. (a) 2 Cor. cap. 5. v. 18. (a) 2 Cor. 5 v. 19. (b) Joh. 3. v. 5. (c) Mar. 16. v. 16. Acts 2. v. 38. (d) Mat. 26. v. 28. (e) Gal. 6. v. 1. (f) Jâ—m 5. v. 15 16. * Estius in Sentent lib. 4. distinct 12. Sect. 11. * 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. (a) Matth. c. 28. v. 18. (b) Com. in Mat. cap. 28. v. 18. (c) cap. 16. v. 33. (d) Phil. cap. 2. v. 9 10. * Chap. 7. * Rhemish Testament 1 Cor. 4. v. 1. * De Sacramentis Disp 2. Sect. 5. n. 85. (a) Part. 3. Exercit 7. c. 1. (b) De Sacris Electionibâ—s Ordinationibus Part 2. Sect. 2. châ—p 2. Art 1.2 () Ib. Art. 5. (d) Concil Cologr sub Hermanno Archiepiscopo cap. 1. (e) Concil Mogun sub Sebastiano Archiepiscopo cap. 25. (f) In Tertiam Thomae Disp 239. nu 42. (g) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 7. pag. 525. (h) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 4. pag. 510. (b) See Habertus on the Greek Pontifical ad Part. 8. Observat 9. pag. 142. (a) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 9. (b) Part. 2. Sect. 2. cap. 2. Art. 1. (c) in Pontifical Graec. pag. 121. (d) De Sacramento Ordinis c. 4. n. 6. (a) Sess 23. can 3. (b) De Sacramento Ordinis cap. 9. (c) In Tert. Thom. Disput 239. n. 19. (d) Concil Trident. Session 7. De Sacramentis in genere can 9. (a) De Sacramento Ordinis punct 5. * Concil Constan Sess 13.
the 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
Statute to be made must be Consecrated by the Roman ordinal only And therefore if the Argument will not hold as to Ridley yet certainly it must as to this other Holy Martyr that it was not for any defect in the ordinal by which he was consecrated that those Marian Persecutors that brought him to the stake would not allow him to be a Bishop But 2. Having looked over all the Statutes of the first year of King Edward the sixth I find no such thing as you say in any of them There is an Act indeed for a new way of Electing of Bishops but nothing as to the manner of their Consecration And there is another Act also which complains of Abuses in Matters of Religion and particularly as to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but this refers only to irreverent and abusive speaking of those Holy things and not to any innovations and changes made concerning them 3. In the third year of that Kings Reign there was I must confess an Act passed of the nature of what you say whereby the reformed Liturgy was first authorised in the Preamble of which mention is made of divers forms of prayers and different Rites and Ceremonies used both in Cathedral and Parish Churches not only in the daily Service but also in the Administration of Sacraments and that some of them had been lately introduced which are there called new Rites and Innovations And if this be that which you refer to as I suppose there are these two things to be said concerning it 1. That those various differences and disagreements of Rites and Ceremonies then used in the Church which this Act refer's to were not all from the Protestants but most of them from the Papists themselves who had different Forms of Prayers and different Rites and manners of Worship of long time before in this Land according to the different uses of Sarum York Bangor and Lincoln as the Act expresseth there being no such thing as a Uniformity of publick Worship in this Land till this Act and therefore you are not to understand that all those things were the innovations of Protestants which are prohibited therein 2. That it cannot be denied that Innovations caused by Protestants also are mentioned in this Act and that several zealous people in the Reign of King Edward finding the Government to favour a Reformation made too much hast to lay aside those Superstitions and Corruptions which offended them and went before the publick Authority herein in Reforming the publick Worship before any Law was made to give them Warrant so to do And hence came as various manners of Worship among Protestants as were among Papists before for the prevention of both which and bringing all things to an exact Uniformity this Act was made But that any of the Innovations mention'd in this Act were in the manner of Ordaining or that any Bishop in giving of Orders did ever vary from the old Ordinal used in King Henry the Eighths time till the Act made in the 4th year of King Edwards Reign did Authorise them so to do I utterly deny And that for these following Reasons First This Act plainly refers those Innovations to popular Zeal but those that had the power of Ordaining were only the Bishops the same persons who had the chief hand in making this Act and therefore there is no likelyhood that they should be guilty of those Innovations which are there so much complained of Secondly The Preamble of all Acts ever bearing Reference to the subsequent Law Enacted by them the former never useth to recite any other Abuses but what the later is made to be a Remedy against And therefore there being no Remedy in this Act against any Innovations made in the manner of Ordaining the Liturgy then Authorised not having the Ordinal in it or any the least mention therein that there was any such thing it is demonstration that none such could be meant or intended by the Preamble Thirdly It is so far from being likely that any Innovations should be made in the manner of Ordaining till the Law authorised it that if you please to ask your Brother who is a Lawyer he will tell you that it is impossible any such thing could be done by reason of the severe penalties and forfeitures which both the Ordainer as well as the Ordained must necessarily incur thereby For 1. For any Bishop to ordain by any other than the Legal Form or at all to vary from it which only the Roman Ordinal was for the three first years of King Edward the 6th's Reign would bring him into a â—raemunire which is one of the severest penalties the Law inflicts as containing a forfeiture not only of Lands Goods and Preferments but also of Liberty and Protection too during Life And whereas Hooper appointed to be Bishop of Glocester in that Kings Reign desired only to be Consecrated without the Episcopal Vestments and Oath of Canonical Obedience and got the Earl of Warwick then the greatest man in the Kingdom and who at that time govern'd all at his pleasure to intercede for him yet the Arch-Bishop would not consent thereto for his Answer was it would make him incur a Praemunire And 2. As to the Persons Ordained should they have received Orders by any other than Legal Forms it would have drawn a Legal Invalidity upon the whole Administration and left the persons so ordained although they might have had all the Essentials of Orders thereby utterly incapable of any Ecclesiastical promotion whatever a Legal Ordination being always a necessary requisite to make any man capable of an Ecclesiastical Benefice And therefore should Bishop Ridley or Bishop Farrer have been ordained by any new Form different from the Roman which was then the only Legal Ordinal in this Land they could not be Legally invested with their Bishopricks could acquire no right to their Temporalties or to have a place in Parliament or would any of their Acts or Leases have been good in Law and we never heard that any of those things were ever disputed till the Cruelty of the Marian Persecution came upon them Fourthly Sanders himself one of the most virulent Adversaries of our Reformation says the contrary for treating of this Parliament which authorised the new Ordinal in the Reign of King Edward he says it was then Enacted That whereas the Bishops and Presbyters of England were even unto that time Ordained in the same manner almost as with Catholicks excepting the Oath of Obedience to the Pope which all denied for the future Ordinations should be performed by another altogether differing Form prescribed by themselves Which is a plain Testimony from a Writer whose Authority I suppose none that are against us in this matter will deny that till the Parliament Enacted the making of a new Ordinal in the 4th year of King Edward the 6th Bishops and Priests were still ordained according to the Roman Ordinal in all things excepting the Oath of Obedience