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
there are but two Forms of Imperative words in the Roman Ordinal before this Receive Power to offer Sacrifice c. and both spoken by the Bishop at the Vesting of the person to be Ordained with the Priestly Vestments For in the putting on the first sort of those Vestments he says Receive thou the yoke of the Lord for his yoke is sweet and his burden light and then immediately after at the putting on of another sort of Vestment he says Receive thou the Priestly Garment by which Charity is understood for God is able to encrease unto thee Charity and every perfect Work But by neither of these any thing of Priestly Power is given or do any of that Communion ever say so and therefore according to your own concession it must follow and it is that which the Learnedest of the Roman Communion say that the last imperative words in the Roman Ordinal which are spoken at the last imposition of hands Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained are the alone essential Form whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferred in that Church and this Form we had in our first Ordinal as well as they in theirs and much more fully because therein are also subjoyned these words And be thou a faithful dispencer of the Word of God and of his Sacraments in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which are wanting in the Roman Ordinal which are not any such notorious and idle Tautologies as you are pleased to call them For although they express nothing more then what is comprehended in the foregoing words Whose sins thou dost forgive c. yet they are explanator of them and do more explicitly tell us what is contained in them For a Priest doth no otherwise remit our sins in the Church of Christ then as he administers to us the means in order thereto in the Word and Sacraments and the concomitant Offices belonging thereto Fourthly I further observe in your Paper that you quote Mr. Fox to prove that those who were ordained by King Edwards Ordinal were ordained again in Queen Maries Reign I must confess Mr. Foxes Book is too large for any one so throughly to know every particular of it as positively to deny what you say to be contained in it But when you convince me of this and show me in Mr. Fox where any such thing is said then will I believe that Dr. Burnet hath dealt falsly with us by telling us the contrary in his History of the Reformation Part II. Page 289. But be it so or be it not so the cause doth not at all depend hereupon Fifthly You infer the nullity of our Orders because in the conferring of them no power is given to Consecrate the Eucharist To this I answer that the words of our Ordinal giving power to Administer the Sacraments give power also to Consecrate the Elements in the Holy Eucharist and in all such Forms the more general the words are it is always the better provided they are such as include all the particulars as it is certain the words of our Form in the Ordination of a Priest include all the particulars that belong to that Office. But if you urge that it is not only necessary to express the power of Administring the Sacraments in general but that it must also be done in particular I must then ask the question why the Sacrament of Baptism ought not also in particular to be mentioned in the Form as well as the Sacrament of the Eucharist and why may we not from the omission of this in the Roman Ordinal infer the nullity of their Orders as well as they the nullity of ours from the omission of the other and that especially since the Sacrament of Baptism may be justly esteemed the nobler of the two as being that which first gives us Life in Christ whereas the other only adds Strength and Nourishment thereto But here you will object to what I have said that our Ordinal gives power only to dispence the Sacraments and not to consecrate the Eucharist To this I answer that by the word dispence the Church means the whole of what belongs both to the Consecration and Administration of that Sacred Rite and words are alwaies to be understood according to the meaning and receiv'd interpretation of them that use them and not as they shall be limited or forced by the impertinent cavils of every contentious Adversary and you may always take this for a certain Rule that when in the management of Controversie men come to cavil about words it is an evident sign that they are run on ground as to all things else· But to this point you further say that those that have Authority only thus to dispence the Elements have not power to make present the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without which you hold this Sacrament cannot be administred To this I answer that if by making present the Body and Blood of Christ you mean a Corporeal presence by the transmutation of the Elements as the Church of Rome holds it is a monstrous opinion which we can never receive and I hope you are not gone so far as to swallow with them so absurd an opinion Sixthly You say Christ made his Apostles Priests when he said unto them Do this in remembrance of me and that you take this clearly to be the sense of the Church If you mean by the Church the Church of Rome I acknowledge what you say to be true they having so defined it in the Council of Trent but that the Church of England ever held this I utterly deny for it is a Doctrine peculiar to the Church of Rome and but of late date among them being first invented by some of the Schoolmen to serve a turn For about Six Hundred Years since and not sooner the Church of Rome taking up that most Sacrilegious practice of denying the Cup to the Laiety and being afterwards pressed with the institution of our Saviour who commanded the Administration to be in both Kinds to evade this they framed this subtle invention of saying that Christ in the institution of this Holy Sacrament made his Apostles Priests by saying unto them Do this in remembrance of me and that therefore the Commandement given them of Communicating in both Kinds belongs to them only as Priests and that the Laiety from this Commandment can claim no right thereto But this is a fetch which some of the wisest and ablest Men among them are ashamed of and it is particularly disowned by Estius Suarez and Christophorus a Castro as being neither agreeable to the Antients nor of any solidity in it self Seventhly You allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination to be sufficiently perfect which if granted will infer the Ordination of Arch-Bishop Parker and all the other Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign to be good and
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
his Holy Apostles for the Ministry to which he had chosen them And therefore those words that follow Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained must be they whereby the whole power and Authority of that their Ministry was given unto them and not a part of it only as the Romanists say and consequently these words must be the perfectest and most authentic form whereby to Ordain others also to the same Ministry III. But our Church in the first establishing of this Form for Preistly Ordination did not only appoint these words of our Saviour whereby he Ordained his Apostles but also out of their abundant caution as if they foresaw the Cavils our Adversaries now make by way of Explication subjoyned these other words also And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God and of his Sacraments by them explicitly expressing all the Priestly power in particular which we understand in general to be implicitly contain'd in the other that go before as I have already made out unto you that they are And although this should not be the true Explication of them as our Adversaries contend yet since the words are part of the Form they must give all that they express and therefore since they express the whole Priestly power though the other should not they must give it also to all those that are Ordain'd thereby and consequently the Form must be fully sufficient even in all that which you your self require to make it so But to this you object that those later words give power only to Dispense the Sacraments and not to Consecrate and therefore cannot give power to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist and make present the Body and Blood of our Saviour as you term it which you look on as the main of the Priestly power but only to Dispense it that is to distribute the Elements when Consecrated which a Deacon only can do To this I Answer 1. That the word Dispense is here made use of as a general Term which reacheth both Word and Sacraments and therefore cannot be limited to that particular sense of distributing the Elements only in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as you will have it but must comprehend whatsoever the Ministers of Christ who as his Stewards are intrusted with his Word and Sacraments are commanded by him to do in order to the giving out and dispensing of both for the Salvation of those to whom they are sent 2. The whole Objection being concerning the signification of the word Dispense you must not go for that to the Cavils of Adversaries but to the intent and meaning of our Church in the use of it For words have no otherwise their signification than according to the appointment and acceptation of those that use them and must always express that sense which by common consent and usage is intended by them And therefore since you plainly acknowledge as doth also your Erastus Senior whom you follow herein that the Church of England means and intends Consecration as well as Distribution by the word Dispense it necessarily follows that that must be the signification of it in this Form. For certainly a whole National Church intending such a sense by such a word for an hundred and fifty years together it is enough to make it signifie so though that were never the sense of it before because words not being necessary but only Arbitrary signs of things must always so signifie as is intended by the common consent of them that use them But 3. To come to the main solution of the matter the case is plainly thus Our Reformers making Scripture the Principal Rule of all their Establishments did in the appointing of this Form take the very words of it from thence as near as they could and therefore as they had the former part thereof out of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of St. John Verse 22 23. so had they the latter from the 4th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians Verse the first only with this difference that whereas the former are the very words of Scripture the latter instead of the very words Dispensers of the Mysteries of God to make the thing more plain and clear is express'd by other words equivalent thereto Dispensers of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments the Word of God and his holy Sacraments being on all hands acknowledged to be the whole of what is there intended by the Mysteries of God. And although the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is better rendred Stewards as in our Translation than Dispensers yet the Gentlemen of Rome can have no reason to find fault with us in this particular since herein we follow their own Bible the vulgar Latin which their Council of Trent hath decreed to be the only Authentic Scripture For at the first Reformation of our Church the Original Languages of the Holy Scriptures being but little known the Vulgar Latin Version was that which was then generally used among us and therefore the expression is put in our Form according as it was found in that Version for there it is Dispensatores Mysteriorum Dei and accordingly the Rhemists translate it The Dispensers of the Misteries of God and therefore the whole Controversie between us must be brought to this point only whether Dispensers of the Mysteries of God in that place doth signifie Priests or no and if it doth it must necessarily follow that it signifies the same also in our Form of Ordination where it is used And I doubt not if you will be pleased to look upon that Text of Scripture even as translated by our Adversaries themselves it will not be possible for you to perswade your self that when the Holy Apostle St. Paul there says of himself and the other Apostles So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and the Dispensers of the Mysteries of God he means it only as Deacons No certainly both those phrases Ministers of Christ and Dispensers of the Mysteries of God are equivalent Expressions denoting them as invested with the whole Ministry of the Gospel committed to them And if you will commit the decision of this Cause to Estius an Eminent and Learned Doctor of the Church of Rome he will plainly tell you so for on that Text of Scripture he so explains those phrases And on the 7th verse of the first of Titus he interprets Dispensatorem Dei i. e. the Dispenser of God to be Dei Vicarium ac Ministrum in Dispensatione Evangelii Sacramentorum i. e. Gods Vicar and Minister in the Dispensing of his Gospel and Sacraments and then immediately after he repeats the forementioned Text 1 Cor. 4.1 denoting Dispensers of the Mysteries of God in that place and Dispenser of God here to be both understood in the same sense And therefore according to him who was as Eminent a Doctor of their Church as any