A vindication of the ordinations of the Church of England in which it is demonstrated that all the essentials of ordination, according to the practice of the primitive and Greek churches, are still retained in our Church : in answer to a paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the nullity of our orders and given to a Person of Quality / by Gilbert Burnet.

A VINDICATION OF THE ORDINATIONS OF THE Church of ENGLAND, In answer to the former Paper.

THis Paper which you sent me being only a Repetition of those Objections which were long ago refuted by Master Mason, with great learning and judgment, and more lately by the most Ingenious Lord Primate of Ireland, D. Bramhall, there needs no∣thing else be said to it, but only to refer the Reader to those learned and so∣lid Writings on this Subject. The same Plea was again taken up by the Writers of two little Books published since his Majesties Restauration, entitled Erastus Senior and Erastus Iunior; which was thought so unreasonable even to some of

that Communion, that one of the learnedst Priests they had in England did answer them; and though he did not adventure on saying our Ordination was good and valid, knowing how ingrateful that would have been to his Party, yet he did overthrow all those Arguments a∣gainst it that are brought in this Paper, and shew'd they were of no force. This Writing of his has not been yet Printed, but I have perused it in the Manuscript. Yet that this may not seem to be a decli∣ning of the task you have invited me to, and because the Books I have mentioned are not perhaps in your hands, I shall say as much in answer to it as I hope may ful∣ly satisfy you or any impartial Reader.

The Substance of the first argument to prove that our Ministers are not Priests, is, That by the form of our Ordination the Power of Consecrating the Sacrament of Christs most holy body and blood, is not given: the words only importing a Power to dispense the Sacraments which any Deacon may do: Therefore the power of consecrating or making Christ's Body and Blood present, being essential to the Priesthood and our form not ex∣pressing it, and by consequence not gi∣ving it, it wants one essential requisite to the Priesthood, and therefore those that

are ordained by it, are not true Priests.

To which I answer,

1. If our Form be the same in which Christ ordained his Apostles, we may be very well satisfied that it is good and suf∣ficient. Now when our Saviour Or∣dained them, S. Iohn tells us that he said,* 1.1 Receive the Holy Ghost, whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted to them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained: this being that Mission which he gave them (as the preceding words do clearly import; As the Father hath sent me, so send I you) we can think no Form so good and so full as that he made use of. It is true, we do not judg any Form so essential as to annul all Ordinations that have been made by any other, for then we should condemn both the Ordinati∣ons of the Primitive Churches, and of the Eastern Churches at this day.

And this is the reason why even ac∣cording to the ancient and most general∣ly received Maxims of the Schools, Or∣ders can be no Sacrament (tho in the ge∣neral sense of the word Sacrament, it be∣ing no term used in Scripture, but brought into the Church, we shall not much dispute against its being called so) for by their Doctrin both Matter and Form of the Sacrament must be institu∣ted

by Christ, and are not in the power of the Church * 1.2. Now they cannot but acknowledg that the Form of giving Or∣ders in their Church, was not instituted by Christ, nor received in the Church for divers Ages, which made Pope Inno∣cent say that the Forms of Ordination were ordered and invented by the Church, and were therefore to be observed, otherwise it was sufficient in giving Orders, to say, Be thou a Bishop, or be thou a Priest; there∣fore though we do not annul Orders gi∣ven by any other Form, yet we have all reason to conclude that used by our Sa∣viour, to be not only sufficient, but abso∣lutely the best and fittest.

It is without all colour of reason, that the writers of that Church will have the words our Saviour pronounced, after he

had instituted the Eucharist, This do in re∣membrance of me, to be the form by which he ordained them Priests; for This do, must relate to the whole action of the Sacrament, the Receiving and Eat∣ing, as well as the Blessing and Conse∣crating; therefore these words are only a Command to the Church to continue the use of the Holy Sacrament in Re∣membrance of Christ. Nor do those of the Church of Rome think these were the words by which Christ ordained them Priests, otherwise they would use them and think them sufficient; but they use them not, but instead of them, say, Re∣ceive thou Power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead.

2. If this be ane essential defect in our Ordination, then there were no true Priests in the Primitive Church for divers Ages, and there are no true Priests at this day in the Greek Church; and yet neither of these can be acknowledg∣ed by the Church of Rome, for if they annul the Ordinations of the Primitive Church, they likewise annul their own which are derived from them. They do also own the Orders of the Greek Church to be valid, as appears by their receiving them into their Communion at

the Council of Florence, and by their practice ever since; which Morinus hath in the first part of his Work so fully pro∣ved from the decrees of Popes and Coun∣cils, that the thing can no more be doubt∣ed; and at this day there are Greek Churches at Rome, maintain'd at the Popes charge, in which Orders are gi∣ven according to the Greek Pontificals, as he informs us.

That in the Primitive Forms there were no express words of giving power to consecrate the Sacrament; I appeal to the Collection of the most Antient Forms of Ordination, that Morinus a Priest* 1.3 of that Church, and a Penitentiary in great esteem at Rome, has made, where it will be found that for many Ages this power was not given expresly, or in so many words. The most ancient Rubrick about this, is in the 4th. Council of Car∣thage, if those Canons be genuine, When* 1.4 a Priest is ordained, the Bishop blessing him and laying his hand on his head, all the Priests that are present shall likewise lay their hands on his head about the Bi∣shops hand: Where we see that the Impo∣sition of hands and the Bishop's blessing, was all the matter and form of these Or∣ders. Denis (called the Areopagite) tells* 1.5 us that the Priest that was to be Ordain∣ed,

kneeled before the Bishop, who laid his hand on his head and did Conse∣crate him with a holy Prayer, and then marked him with the sign of the Cross; and the Bishop and the rest of the Clergy that were present, gave him the Kiss of Peace. Here we find nothing but impo∣sition of Hands and Prayer. Now there being no general Liturgies nor Ordinals then in the World, but every Countrey (or perhaps every Diocess) having their own Forms, it was never defined in what form of words this Prayer and Be∣nediction should be used; but was left in∣different, so the substance of the Blessing were preserved. It is true, the Author of those Constitutions that are ascribed to the Apostles, sets down the Prayer of Ordination, for which he vouches Saint Iohn Author; which is, That the Priest* 1.6 might be filled with the spirit of Grace and Wisdom to help and govern the Flocks with a pure heart, that he might meekly teach the people, being full of healing Ope∣rations and instructive Discourses, and might serve God sincerely with a pure mind and willing soul, and might through Christ perfect the sacred Services for the people, in which there is nothing that gives in express words, the power of Conse∣cration.

In the most ancient Ritual that Mori∣nus could find, which belonged to the Church of Poictiers, and has been com∣posed about the middle of the 6th. Cen∣tury; there is no mention in the Prayer of Consecration of any such power.

The same Prayer of Consecration is also in another Ritual which he believes 900 years old: and also in another, that he believes 800 years old. It is true, in these Rituals there is a Blessing added, in which among other things the Conse∣crator Prayes, that by the obedience of the people the Priest may transform the Body and Blood of thy Son by an un∣defiled Benediction; but here is no pow∣er given, nor is this Prayer essential to the Orders so given, but a subsequent Benediction: Therefore the want of it cannot annul Orders. And in another MSS. Ritual belonging to the Abbey of Corbey, written about the middle of the 9th. Century, there is nothing but the Prayer of the Consecration of a Priest, which is the same with what is in the other Rituals, but the blessing which mentions the transforming of the Body of Christ, is not in it, by which it appears that it was not looked on as essential to Orders. And in another Ritual com∣piled for the Church of England, now

lying in the Church of Roüen, belie∣ved to be about 800 years old, the Form of Consecration is the same that it is in the other Rituals. The ancient Ri∣tual of the Church of Rhemes, about the same age, and divers other ancient Rituals agree with these. But the first mention of this power of saying Mass, given in the Consecration of Priests, is in a Ritual believed to be 700 years old, compiled by some near Rome, in which the Rite of delivering the Vessels, with these words, Receive power to offer Sa∣crifice to God, and to celebrate Masses, &c. is first set down; yet that is want∣ing in a Ritual of Bellay, written about the Thousandth year, so that it was not universally received for near an Age af∣ter it was first brought in. Now in all these Rituals the Prayer of Consecra∣tion is that which is now in the Pontifical only one of the Prayers of the Office *,* 1.7 but is not the Prayer of Consecration, from which two things clearly follow; First, that no Form of Ordination is so essential, but that the Church may change it and put another in its room, and if the other be apposite and fit, there is no fault committed by the Change, much less such a one as invalidates the Orders so given. Secondly, It is clearly made out,

that in the Ordinations of the Primitive Church for 900 years after Christ, there was no power of consecrating Christ's Body and Blood expresly given in the forms and words of Ordination. So that if the want of such words annuls our Or∣dinations, it will do the same to theirs; the consequence of which, will be; that there were no true Orders in the Church of God till the latter Rites in the Roman Pontifical were invented; and if that be true, then the Orders of the Roman Church which have descended from them, are not true, since they flow from men not truly ordained. And at this day the Greek Church (as is set down by* 1.8 the Learned and Pious Bishop of Vence treating of the matter and form of Orders) when they ordain 〈◊〉〈◊〉 give no such power, but the Bishop lays on his right hand on the Priest's head, and says, The grace of God that always heals the things that are weak, and perfects things that are imperfect, pro∣motes this very Reverend Deacon to be a Priest: Let us therefore pray for him that the grace of the most Holy Spirit come upon him. Then those that assist, say thrice for him, Kyrie Eleison. Then the Bishop makes the Sign of the Cross, and prays for the grace of God on the Priest thus ordained, holding his hand all the while over his

head; then he puts the Priestly Vesti∣ments on him, and gives him the Kiss of Peace, which is also done by the rest of the Clergy there present.

And Habert a Doctor of Sorbonne, who has published the Greek Pontifical with learned Observations on it, gives us this same account of their Ordinations which Morinus has confirmed by the several an∣cient Greek MSS. which he has published one of them being 800 years old, which a∣grees with it; and neither in the first Pray∣er, nor second (during both which the Bi∣shop holds his hands over the head of him that is to be Consecrated) is there any mention made of this power of consecra∣ting Christ's Body and Blood. And in the Rituals of the Maronites, Nestorians, and Copthites (all which Morinus proves are held good and valid by the Church of Rome) there is no such Power given in the words of Consecration: their Forms being almost the same with those used in the Greek Church: so that we generally find Imposition of hands with a Prayer of Grace, and a Blessing, were looked on as sufficient for Ordination: and this was taken from the practices of the Apostles, who ordained by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, as appears from the places ci∣ted in the Margent; and that these Pray∣ers

were, that God might pour out the* 1.9 gifts and graces of his Spirit on them: both the nature of the thing and some of the cited places do fully prove. From all which it appears, that either our Ordi∣nations are valid, or there are no true Orders in the whole Christian Church; no not in the Church of Rome it self.

3. The very Doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome shews, that the es∣sentials of Ordination remain still with us. By the Maxims of the Schools there must be matter and form in every Sacra∣ment; the Matter is some outward sensible action or thing; the Form are the words applyed to that action or thing which hallow it, and give the Character, when (as they say) the indelible Character is im∣pressed (which they believe is done by

Orders) The imposition of hands is held to be the Matter by almost all their Doctors, as is acknowledged by Bellar∣mine,* 1.10 Vasques, and most of the School∣men are of this mind. It is true, Eugenius in his Instruction to the Armenians, set down in the Council of Florence, declares that the giving the Sacred Vessels, is the Matter in Orders; but the Council of Trent (which was a far more learned and cautious Assembly than the other was, in which there was nothing but Ignorance and Deceit) determined that Priests have their Orders by the Imposition of hands; for treating of extream Unction, they decreed that the Minister of it was ei∣ther* 1.11 the Bishop or Priests lawfully ordained by them, by the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. And Bellarmine both from the Scriptures and the Fathers, proves that the Imposition of hands must be the Matter of this Sacrament, since they speak of it, and of it only. Now if this be the Matter of this Sacrament, then the Form of it must be the words joyned with it in their Pontifical, Receive the* 1.12 Holy Ghost. And the Council of Trent does clearly insinuate, that this is the form of Orders in these words; If any man say that in Ordination, the H. Ghost is not given; and therefore that the Bi∣shop

says in vain, Receive the H. Ghost, or by it a Character is not impressed—Let him be an Anathema. It is true, their Doctors to reconcile the disagreement of those two Councils, have devised the distinction of the power of Sacrificing and of the power of Jurisdiction in a Priest: The last they confess, is given by the Imposition of hands; the former, they say, is given by the delivering of the Sa∣cred Vessels.

And indeed, as Morinus doth often observe, the School-men being very ig∣norant both of the more Ancient Rites of the Church, and of the practice of the Eastern Churches, and looking only on the Rituals then received in the Latin Church, have made strange work about the matter and form of Ordination; but now that they begin to see a little further than they did, then they are of a far different opinion; so Vasques, whom the School-men of this Age, look on a•…•… an Oracle, treating of Episcopal Orders,* 1.13 says in express words, That the Imposition of hands is the Matter, and the words ut∣tered with it, are the Form of Orders, and that the Sacramental Grace is conferred in and by the application of the Matter and Form.

It is true, He joyns in with the com∣monly

received Doctrine of the Schools about the two powers given to Priests by a double matter and form, yet he cites* 1.14 b 1.15 Bonaventure; and a 1.16 Petrus Sotus, for this opinion that the Imposition of hands, and the words joyned with it, were the matter and form of Priestly Orders; and though Vasques himself undertakes to prove the other Opinion, as that which agrees best with the principles of their Church, yet it is visible he thought the o∣ther Opinion truer; for when he proves* 1.17 Orders to be a Sacrament, he lays down for a Maxim, that the outward Rite and Ce∣remony, the promise of Grace, and the command for the continuance, must be all found in Scripture before any thing is to be acknowledged a Sacrament: and when pursuant to this, he proves that the Rite of Orders is in Scripture, he assigns no other but the Imposition of hands: so that according to his own Doctrine, that is the only Sacramental Rite or the matter Orders.

And Cardinal de Lugo says, The giving* 1.18 the Bread and the Wine we know is not de∣terminately required by any divine Institu∣tion, since the Greeks are ordained with∣out it; therefore it is to be confessed that Christ only intended there should be some proportioned Sign for the matter of Or∣ders,

either this or that. And it is now the most commonly received Oponion, even amongst the School-men; that Christ neither determined the Matter nor the Form of Orders, but left both to the Church. And Habert proves that the Greek form of Ordination is sufficient to* 1.19 express the grace of God then prayed for, which is the chief thing in Ordina∣tion; and though the Greek Fathers do not mention these words that are now used as the Form in their days, yet he cites many places out of their writings, by which they seem to allude to those words, though the custom then received of speaking mystically and darkly of all the Rites of the Church, made that they did not deliver themselves more plainly about it; but he concludes his second Observation in these words: In those* 1.20 Sacraments where the Matter and Form are not expressed in Scripture, it must be supposed that Christ did only in general institute both to his Apostles, leaving a power with the Church to design, consti∣tute, and determine these in several ways; so that the chief Substance, Intention, and Scope of the Institution, were retained with some general fitness and analogy for signifying the effect of this Sacrament.

And if both the Eastern and Western

Churches have made Rituals, which though they differ one from another, yet are good and valid; it seems very unrea∣sonable to deny the Church of England, which is as free and independent a Church as any of them, the same right; for it is to be observed that the Catholick Church did never agree on one Uniform Ritual, or Book of Ordination, but that was still left to the freedom of particular Chur∣ches; and so this Church has as much power to make or alter Rituals, as any other has: Therefore the substantials of Ordination being still retained, which are Imposition of hands with fit Prayers and Blessings. It is most unreasonable to except against our Forms of Ordina∣tion.

Let it be also considered, that it is in∣deed true, that the last Imposition of hands, with the words, Receive the Holy Ghost appointed in the Pontifical, is not above 400 years old, nor can any An∣cienter MSS be shewed in which it is found; yet that is now most commonly received in the Church of Rome, to be the matter and form of Ordination; for all their Doctors hold, that either the de∣livering the Vessels, and saying, Receive Power to offer Sacrifice, &c. or the Im∣position of hands, with the words,

Receive the Holy Ghost, &c. is the Mat∣ter and Form of Orders. Agains•…•… the former, Morinus has said so much* 1.21 that I need add nothing; for by unan∣swerable Arguments, he proves that i•…•… not essential to Orders, since neither th•…•… Primitive Church, the Eastern Churche•…•…▪ nor the Roman Rituals; or the Writers o•…•… the Roman Offices, ever mention it ti•…•… within these 700 years, and at first i•…•… was only done in the Consecration o•…•… Bishops, and afterwards (by custom, no•…•… decree of Council or Pope being to b•…•… found about it) it was used in the Or∣dination of Priests.

The same Author doth also study to* 1.22 prove, that the Imposition of the Bishop•…•… hands, with the words, Receive the Holy Ghost, is not essential to Ordination, bu•…•… is only a Benediction superadded to it▪ and shews that it was not used in the Pri∣mitive Church, nor mentioned by any ancient Writer; and therefore he is o•…•… opinion that the first Imposition of hands gives the Orders in which both Bishop•…•… and Priests lay on their hands, and pray that God would multiply his Gifts o•…•… those whom he had chosen to the sunction o•…•… a Priest, that what they received by hi•…•… savour, they might attain by his help▪ through Christ our Lord. If this b•…•…

true, then two things are to be well obser∣ved. First, That the Prayer, which according to his opinion, is the Prayer of Consecration, was not esteemed so by the Ancient Rituals, in which it is only called a Prayer for the Priests that were to be Ordained; after which, the Prayer of Consecration followed; from which it appears that there was no constant rule in giving Orders; and that what the Church once held to be but a preparatory Prayer, was afterwards made the Prayer of Consecration; and that which they esteemed the Prayer of Consecration, was afterwards held but a Prayer of Be∣nediction. Secondly, That in the for∣mal words of Consecration (if his Opi∣nion be true) there is no power given of consecrating the Sacraments.

But Morinus is alone in this opinion, and it is certain that the general Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is, that the last Imposition of hands is the Matter of these Orders, and parallel to this is the Im∣position of hands in the consecration of a Bishop, with the words, Receive the Holy Ghost, which is undoubtedly the matter of Episcopal Orders: Therefore that same Rite with these words, is also the matter of the Priestly Orders. And it is a foolish and groundless Conceit, to

pretend there are two distinct power•…•… essential to the Priesthood to be confer∣red by two several Rites; for then a•…•… who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ordained by one of these Rite•…•… without the other (as were all th•…•… Priests of the Christian World, till with∣in these 700 years) had not the Priestly Office entire and compleat. And fur∣ther, according to their own Principles▪ the Character is an Indivisible thing, an•…•… inseparably joyned to the Sacrament; Therefore that which gives the Cha∣racter, gives the Sacrament. Now ac∣cording to their Doctrine, the Cha∣racter is given by the Imposition o•…•… hands: Therefore the Sacrament con∣sists in that. And all the other Rites are only Ceremonies added to it, which are not of the essence of it; from which i•…•… follows that we who use Imposition o•…•… hands, with the words, Receive the Holy Ghost, &c. use all that according to the Doctrine of that Church is necessary to it; and therefore they have no reason to except against the validity of our Orders, even according to their own Principles.

Fourthly, If by consecrating, o•…•… making present Christ's blessed Body, they understand the incredible Mystery of Transubstantiation, we very freely confess there is no such power given to

our Priests by their Orders: But I shall not digress from this Subject to another; therefore I may confine my Discourse to it; I acknowledg that we do receive by our Orders, all the power of conse∣crating the Sacraments which Christ has left with his Church.

First, When we are ordained to be Priests, there is given us all that which our Church declares, inseparable to the Priesthood; and such is the Consecrating the Eucharist: Therefore it being de∣clared and acknowledged on all sides; what Functions are proper to the Priest∣hood if we be ordained Priests, though there were no further Declaration made in the form of Ordination, yet the other concomitant actions and offices, shewing that we are made Priests, all that belongs to that function is therein given tous; this made Pope Innocent define that, Be thou a Priest, was a sufficient Form in it self.

Secondly, The great end of all the Priestly Functions, being to make recon∣ciliation between God and Man; for which cause Saint Paul calls it the Mini∣stery of Reconciliation; whatever gives the power for that, must needs give also the means necessary for it; therefore the Sacrament being a Mean instituted by our Saviour for the Remission of Sins,

which he intimated in these words. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood for the Remission of Sins; and the death of Christ being also the great Mean in or∣der to that end the power of forgiving sins Ministerially, must carry with it the power of doing all that is instituted for attaining that end.

Thirdly, The power of consecrating the Sacraments, is very fully and formal∣ly given in our Ordination, in these words. Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Holy Sacra∣ments; where they bewray great incon∣sideration, that think Dispensing is bare∣ly the distributing the Sacrament, which a Deacon may do; the word is taken from the Latin, and is the same by which they render those words of Saint Paul, Stewards of the Mysteries of God; or ac∣cording* 1.23 to the Style of the Church of Rome, which translates Mystery Sacra∣ment; Dispensers of the Sacraments of God; Therefore this being a phrase wherein St. Paul expressed the Apostolical Function, one might think it could serve to express the office of a Priest well e∣nough, so that Dispensing is more than Distributing; and is such a power as a Steward hath, who knows and consi∣ders every ones condition, and prepares

what is fit and proper for them; therefore the blessing of the Sacraments being a ne∣cessary part of the Dispensing of them, they being Blessed for that end and the Dispen∣sing them, including the whole Office in which the Church appoints the Sacraments to be dispensed, of which Consecration is a main part; these words do clearly give and manifestly import the power of con∣secrating the Sacraments.

Now the Question comes to this? what is meant by the word Dispensing; they say it is only to distribute the Ele∣ments; we say it is to administer the Sa∣crament according to the Office. If what we say be the true signification of it; then the power of consecrating the Elements, is formally given with our Orders. And that this is the true mean∣ing of it, appears both from common use; which makes it more than barely to Di∣stribute; and from the declared meaning of those who use it, which is the only rule to judg of all doubtful expressions: Now the declared meaning of our Church in the use of this word being so express and positive; from thence it follows, that by Dispense must be understood, to give the Sacrament according to the whole office of the Church.

The same is also to be said of the

words, Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments; for tho Minister and Serve in the Greek Tongue, be the same; yet Minister in our common acceptation, is all one with Administer, only Minister is more usual when the thing Ministred is Sacred or Holy; therefore this takes al∣so in it the whole Office of the Sacra∣ment: And as in the former words the Power is given; so in these words it is applyed and restrained in its exercise to a due vocation, to cut off idle it inerant and for the most part, scandalous Priests.

And thus far I have considered this first Argument at great length, both because it is that of which they make most use to raise Scruples in the thoughts of unlearned persons; and the clearing of it will make way for answering the rest. Therefore leaving this, I go to the second Argument; which is, That the offering of Sacrifice is an essential part of Priesthood. So Heb. 5. 1. and 3. therefore we having no such pow∣er conferred on us, cannot be true Priests.

To this I Answer.

First, It is strange Inconsideration to argue from the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Pastors of the Christian Church

ought to be Priests in the sense that is mentioned in that Epistle; the scope of which is to prove, That Christ is the only Priest of this New Dispensation: And the notion of a Priest in that Epi∣stle, is a person called and consecrated to offer some living Sacrifice, and to slay it, and by the shedding of the blood of the Sa∣crifice slain, to make reconciliation: This being the sense in which the Iews under∣stood it; the Apostle among other Ar∣guments to prove the death of Christ to be the true Sacrifice, brings this for one, that there was to be another Priesthood after the Order of Melchisedeck. For pro∣ving this, he lays down in the first four Verses of the 5th. Chapter, the Jewish notion of a Priest; then he goes on to prove that Christ was such a Priest called of God and Consecrated; this he prose∣cutes more fully in the 7th. Chapter, where he asserts that Christ was that other Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck, and v. 15. he calls him another Priest, and v. 23. and 24. makes this plainer in these words; And they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood: From which it is apparent that the Apostles design in these places,

is to prove that there is but one Priest in that sense mentioned chap. 5. v. 1. under the New Testament. And had the Wri∣ter of this paper read over that Epistle, he must needs have seen this, but this is one of the effects of their not reading the Scriptures carefully, that they make use of places of Scripture, never con∣sidering any thing more than the general sound of some words, without exami∣ning what goes along with them.

But as it is clear from that Epistle, that there is but one Priest in the strict no∣tion of it; so it is no less clear that there is but one propitiatory Sacrifice among Christians in its strict notion, for having mentioned the frequent Oblations to take away sins under the Mosaical Law, chap. 5. v. 3. he makes the opposition clear, chap. 7. v. 27. in these words. Who needeth not daily as those High Priests, to offer up Sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people; for this he did once when he offered up himself. And chap. 9. v. 7. having mentioned the High Priest's annual entring into the most Ho∣ly place; he sets in opposition to it v. 12. Christ's entring in once to the Holy place, having made Redemption for us by his own Blood. And v. 22. he says, Without shedding of Blood there was no Remission;

by which he does clearly put down all unbloody Sacrifices that are propitiatory: And v. 28. he says, Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. And chap. 10. v. 2. he says, That when the worship∣pers are once purged, then would not Sa∣crifices cease to be offered? To prove that the Sacrifices of the Law had not that vertue: Therefore we being purged by the Blood of Christ, must offer no more propitiatory Sacrifices; and all this is made yet clearer, v. 11. and 12. And every Priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same Sacri∣fices which can never take away sins. But this man after he had offered up one Sacri∣fice for sins for ever, sate down on the right hand of God. From all which you may see it is as plain as can be, that there is but one Priest and one propitiatory Sacrifice under the New Testament, for the places I have cited, are not some am∣biguous or dark Expressions, but full and formal Proofs, by which in a long Series of Discourse and Argument, the thing is put out of doubt. Therefore those of that Church do very unwisely ever to mention that Epistle, or to say any thing that may oblige people to look upon it; So that, except to such as they are sure will read no more of it than they will

shew them or cite to them, they had best speak of it to no body else.

Secondly, Though we deny all pro∣pitiatory Sacrifices, but that which our Blessed Saviour offered for us once on the Cross; yet we acknowledg that we have Sacrifices in the true strict and Scrip∣tural notion of that word; for propitia∣tory ones are but one sort of Sacrifice, which in its general notion stands for any Holy Oblations made to God; and in this sense, Thank-Offerings, Peace-Of∣ferings, and Free-will Offerings, were Sacrifices under the Law; so were also their Commemorative Sacrifices of the Paschal Lamb, which were all Sacrifices, though not Propitiatory. And in this sense * 1.24 our prayers and praises; a broken heart, and the dedicating our lives to the service of God, are Sacrifices, and are so called in Scripture; so also is the gi∣ving

of Alms. And in this sense we deny not but the Holy Eucharist is a Sa∣crifice of Praise and Thanksgiving; and it is so called in one of the Collects. It is also a Commemoration of that one Sacri∣fice which it represents, and by which the worthy receivers have the vertue of that applyed to them. The Oblation of the Elements of Bread and Wine to be Sanctified, is also a kind of Sacrifice; and in all these Senses we acknowledg the Sacrament to be a true Sacrifice, as the Primitive Church did.

But as we do not allow it to be a propi∣tiatory Sacrifice for the living, much less can we believe it such for the dead; or that the Priests consecrating and consuming of it, is a Sacrifice for the people; it being a Sacrifice as it is a Sacrament, which is only to those who receive it. And in these three points; First, That it is no propitiatory Sacrifice: 2. That the dead receive no good from it: 3. That the Priests ta∣king it alone, does no good to the peo∣ple who receive it not: We are sure we have all Antiquity of our side. But to digress upon that, were to go too far out of the way; and the Writers of Con∣troversies have done it fully. Therefore the power of Dispensing the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments gives all the

Authority that is in the Christian Church for offering of Sacrifices. And if they deny this, they must deny the validity of all the ancient Ordinations, for they can shew no such Form in any of their Ordinals.

Thirdly, What was said before of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome about the matter and form of Orders, as they are a Sacrament, shews that the power they give in the Ordination of Priests, of offering Sacrifices, is not essential to it, but only a Rite they have added to it; the want whereof can be no essential defect, and so can never annual our Orders: What was said before in Answer to the first Argument, is again to be remem∣bred here, that in all the Ancient Ri∣tuals there is no power of offering pro∣pitiatory Sacrifices given in the form of Ordination. It is true in the M SS. which lies in the Monastery of St. Ger∣man; there is a new Rite set down of delivering the Priestly Vestments, in which among other words these are ad∣ded: And Do thou offer Propitiatory Sacri∣fices for the Sins and Offences of the People, to Almighty God. Which words are now omitted in that part of the Roman Ponti∣fical, and made a part of the final Blessing given at the end of the Office, but this

at most is but 800 years old; and there∣fore cannot be essential to Orders since there were true Priests in the Christian Church 800 years before this was used. And to this day in the Greek Church there is no power given by the Consecra∣tion to offer propitiatory Sacrifices; for though in the second Prayer said in Or∣dinations in which God's Holy Spirit is prayed for upon the Priest, That he may be worthy to stand before the Altar of God without blame, and may preach the Go∣spel of his Kingdom, and holily admini∣ster the Word of his Truth: It is added, And may offer to thee Gifts and Spiritual Sacrifices, but there is no reason to gather from these words that they give power for offering Propitiatory Sacrifices. We acknowledg that we offer Gifts and Sacrifices in the Holy Eucharist; but we reject Propitiatory ones, and these words do not at all import them. And the truth of it is when the Writers of the Roman Church are pressed with the Ar∣guments before mentioned, that the Eu∣charist can be no Propitiatory Sacrifice: Since 1. there no Blood shed in it: 2. No Destruction is made of the Sacrifice; for it is only the Accidents and not the Blessed Body of Christ that the Priest consumes: 3. That Christ's Cross is called one Sa∣crifice

once offered: 4. That his being now exalted at the Father's right hand, shews his Body can no more be subject to be Sacrificed or mangled; When these with many Authorities from the Father's are brought, they are forced to fly to some Distinctions by which their Do∣ctrine comes to differ little from ours; but still those high and indecent Expres∣sions remain in their Rituals and Missals, which they are forced to mollifie, as they do those Prayers in which the same things, and in the same manner and words are asked of the Blessed Virgin and the other Saints, which we ask of God. And though they would stretch them to a bare Intercession, which the genuine sense of the words will not bear, yet they will never change them, for it is the standing Maxim of that Church ne∣ver to confess an error, nor make any change to the better.

The third Reason against our Orders of Priesthood, is a Repetition of the first, and is already answered.

The fourth Argument is, That none can Institute the Form of a Sacrament, to give Grace and make present Christ's Body and Blood, but the Authors of Grace, and those that had power over his Body and Blood; but they that In∣stituted

this Form, had only their Au∣thority from the Parliament; as appears by the Act it self, by which some Pre∣lates and other Learned men being im∣powered, did Invent the Form before mentioned, never before heard of ei∣ther in Scripture or the Church of God.

To this I Answer.

First, It is certain the Writer of this Paper did never think it would have been seen by any body that could examine it, but intended only to impose on some Il∣literate persons; otherwise he would ne∣ver have said that a Form which Christ himself used when he ordained his Apo∣stles, and which is used in their own Church as the proper Form of Ordina∣tion, was never before heard of in the Scripture or the Church of God.

Secondly, Those who compiled the Liturgy and Ordinal, had no other Au∣thority from the Parliament than Holy and Christian Princes did before give in the like cases. It is a common place and has been handled by many Writers; How far the Civil Magistrate may make Laws and give Commands about Sacred things? 'Tis known what Orders David and Solomon, Iehosaphat, Hezekiah and Iosiah, gave in such cases, They divided

the Priests into several Courses, gav•…•…* 1.25 Rules for their attendance, turned out •…•… High Priest and put another in his stead▪ sent the Priests over the Cities to teach the People; gathered the Priests and comman∣ded them to Sanctifie themselves, and the house of the Lord, and offer Sacrifices o•…•… the Altar. And gave orders about the Forms of their Worship, that they should praise God in the words of David and Asaph: and gave orders about the time 〈◊〉〈◊〉 observing the Passover, that in a case o•…•… Necessity it might be observed on the se∣cond Month; though by their Law it w•…•… to be kept the first Month. And for the Christian Emperors, let the Code or the Novels, or the Capitulars of Charles the Great, be read, and in them many Law•…•… will be found about the Qualification•…•…▪ Elections, and Consecrations of Church-men made by the best of all the Roman Emperors, such as Constantine, Theod•…•…▪ sius, &c. They called Councils to jud•…•… of the greatest points of Faith, which met and sate on their Writ, whose de∣terminations they confirmed, and added the Civil Sanction to them. And even Pope Leo, though a higher spirite•…•…* 1.26 Pope than any of his Predecessors were did intreat the Emperor Martian to an∣nul the second Council of Ephesus, an•…•…

to give order that the Ancient Decrees of the Council of Nice should remain in Force. Now it were a great Scandal on those Councils to say, that they had no Authority for what they did, but what they derived from the Civil Powers; So it is no less unjust to say, because the Parliament Impowered some Persons to draw Forms for the more pure Admini∣stration of the Sacraments; and Enacted that these only should be lawfully exer∣cised in this Realm, which is the Civil Sanction; that therefore these persons had no other Authority for what they did: Let those men declare upon their Consciences if there be any thing they desire more earnestly than such an Act for Authorizing their own Forms and would they make any Scruple to accept of it, if they might have it: Was it ever heard of that the Civil Sanction which only makes any constitution to have the force of a Law, gives it another Autho∣rity than a Civil one; and such Authori∣ty the Church of Rome thinks fit to ac∣cept of in all States and Kingdoms of that Religion.

Thirdly, The Prelates and other Divines that compiled our Forms of Or∣dination, did it by vertue of the autho∣rity they had from Christ, as Pastors of

his Church which did empower them to teach the people the pure Word of God, and to administer the Sacraments and perform all other holy Functions accor∣ding to the Scripture; the practice of the Primitive Church, and the rules of Ex∣pediency and Reason; and this they ought to have done though the Civil Powers had opposed it; in which case their duty had been to have submitted to whatever severities or persecutions they might have been put to for the Name of Christ, and the Truth of his Gospel. But on the other hand, when it pleased God to turn the hearts of those that had the chief Power, to set forward this good Work, then they did (as they ought) with all Thankfulness, acknow∣ledg so great a Blessing, and accept and improve the Authority of the Civil Powers for adding the Sanction of a Law to the Reformation, in all the parts and branches of it. So by the authority they derived from Christ, and the War∣rant they had from Scripture and the Primitive Church, these Prelates and Divines, made those Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal; and the King and the Parliament, who are vested with the Supream Legislative Power, added their Authority to them to make

them Obligatory on the Subjects. Which is all that is imported by the word Lawful in the Act of Parliament; the ordinary use whereof among Lawyers, is, A thing according to Law.

The •…•…th. Argument against the Va∣lidity of our Priestly Orders, is, That we have them from those that are not Bishops; which carries him to the next Conclusion, that our Bishops are not Bishops.

But before I follow him to that, I must desire you would consider with how much disingenuity this Paper is framed, that would impose on the easy Reader the belief of our first Refor∣mers not being true Bishops, when the Writer cannot but know that Arch Bi∣shop Cranmer was a Bishop as truly Con∣secrated and Invested, as any of the Ro∣man Church were, and was confirmed by the Pope, who sent him the Pall, and to satisfy you that they knew him to be such, they degraded him with the usu∣all Ceremonies before his Martyrdom. So that he being the Fountain of our Clergy that succeeded him, and be∣ing truly Consecrated himself, all those he Ordained, are by the doctrine of the Church of Rome, Bishops or Priests, since Orders according to their Doctrine

leave an Indelible Character, which can never be taken away. So that by their Principles no following sentence could deprive him of the power of Ordaining. It is true, there were many disorderly practices of some Popes in the latter Ages, in annulling Orders and re-ordain∣ing those ordained by others; for Pope Urban the second appointed those who were ordained Simoniacally, to be re-or∣dained. And Stephen the 4th. in a Sy∣nod, Decreed that all the Ordinations his predecessor Pope Constantine had made, were null and void, because he from a Layman was chosen a Pope, and though he passed through the Intermedial degrees of Priest and Deacon, yet he stopt not so long in them, as was appoin∣ty by the Canons, and upon the same ac∣count it was also judged, that Photius (the Learned Patriarch of Constantino∣ple, who in six days went through all the Ecclesiastical Decrees, from a Layman to a Patriarch) had no power of Ordain∣ing lawfully, and all the Orders he gave, were annulled by Pope Nicolaus. And to mention no more, the Orders given by Pope Formosus, were annulled by his Successor Pope Stephen the 6th. upon the pretence of some Crimes and Irregu∣larities with which he was charged; these

practices as they gave great Scandal, so they gave occasion to much disputing about the Legality and Canonicalness of these proceedings, for the Canonists and Schoolmen being generally very igno∣rant, and prepossessed with an opinion of the Popes Infallibility, studied to flatter the Court of Rome, all that was possible. Yet on the other hand there was so much to be said against these proceedings, that as appears by Petrus Damiani, Auxilius, and other Writers of that time, there was great perplexity and many different Opinions about them. But the ignorance and pas∣sion of those Ages appears evidently in this particular, for there is nothing more manifest than that the Ancient Church was of another opinion; and as in the debate between Pope Stephen and Saint Cyprian about the re-baptizing of Here∣tiques, the constant opinion and pra∣ctice of the following Ages, was against re-baptizing such as were baptized by those Heretiques who retained the essen∣tials of Baptism: So by the same parity of reason, and upon the same Arguments they held the Ordinations of Heretiques valid, that retained the essentials of Or∣dination.

In the case of Heretiques we have these

Instances, Faelix was consecrated Bishop* 1.27 of Rome by the Arians in the room of Liberius, whose banishment they had procured, and yet he was acknowledged a righteous Pope, and his Ordinations were accounted valid. In the General Council of Ephesus the Priests of the Messalian Heresie were appointed to be received into the Church, and continue Priests upon renouncing their Heresie. The same was also granted to Nestorians, Pelagians, Eutychians, Monothelites, and divers other Heretiques, as Morinus* 1.28 proves at length. And at this day though the Greek Church is condemned by the Roman, as Heretical in the point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, yet they are received according to their Orders into their Communion when they re∣nounce their Heresie. And their great* 1.29 Vasques says, that all the Schoolmen and Summists agree, that an heretical Excom∣municate or suspended Bishop has still the power of giving Orders, for which he cites many Schoolmen; and he like∣wise* 1.30 proves, that a Bishop after degra∣dation retains the same power: And the case of Schismaticks is no less clear, for to wave the Decision of the Council of Nice (which seems somewhat dubious) in the case of the Novatian Ordinations

we find frequently in St. Austins Trea∣tises and Conferences with the Donatists,* 1.31 that they offered to them, if they would return to the Unity of the Church, to receive them according to their Orders. So that they did not think Schism did take away the power of giving Orders. And in the case of that long and scanda∣lous Schism of the Papacy for fifty years together, when the one sat at Rome and the other at Avignon, though beside their Schism, Depositions, Excommunica∣tions and Censures of all sorts passed on both sides by each of those Popes against the other, and it must be confessed that one of them was the Schismatick, and by consequence the Censures fell justly on him; Yet both their Ordinations were held valid, and when the matter was setled at the Council of Constance, the Ordinations on no side were annulled or renewed. And though Petrus de Lu∣nay who was called Benedict the 13th. refused to submit to them and lay down his pretensions as the others did, yet when * 1.32 they gave sentence against him, there is not a word in it of annulling Or∣ders given by him. From all which it fol∣lows, that neither the pretence of Heresie, Schism, nor Censures will according to the practice either of the Primitive

Church, or of the Church of Rome even in these latter Ages, be of any force to invalidate our Orders.

Which was well seen by Morinus; and though he does not write upon this head with so much ingenuity, as he does on other points; yet he lays this down as a Maxim, That all the Ordinations of a He∣retiques* 1.33 and Schismatiques made ac∣cording the forms of the Church, and where the Heretiques that gave them were also rightly Ordained according to the forms of the Church, are valid as to their Substance, and are not to be repeated though they be unlawful; and both he that gave, and he that received them, sinned grievously; nor is it in any case lawful for a Catholick to receive Orders from Here∣tiques or Schismatiques; Therefore in those Ordinations, if all other things be done according to the form of the Church, and only the Crime of Heresie be charged on the Orders given, the substance of it is not thereby vitiated, but there is a perfect and entire Character begotten, on∣ly the use of it is forbidden; yet he that neglects that Interdict, though he becomes very guilty, begets a new Character on the person Ordained by him: Therefore Here∣tiques or Schismatiques so Ordained, need no new Ordination, but only a Reconcilia∣tion;

and what is said of Heretiques and Schismatiques, does hold much more of those who are Ordained by persons that are Excommunicated, deposed or degraded. And for those things that are essential to Ordination, enough has been said al∣ready to demonstrate what they be; to which I shall only add what that Author the most learned of all that ever treated of this Subject, says in the beginning of the next Chapter. In the Rite of Holy Ordination, there are some things of Di∣vine Institution and Tradition, which do always and in all places belong to holy Or∣ders; such as Imposition of hands, and a convenient Prayer which the Scripture has delivered, and the universal practice of the Church has confirmed. Now these our Church has retained; and therefore from all that has been said, I may with good reason conclude that all the Ordi∣nations that were derived from Arch∣Bishop Cranmer, having (as has been already shewed) the essentials of Ordi∣nation; and being done with the due numbers of Ordainers (as can be pro∣ved Authentically from the publick Re∣gisters) must be good and valid. And though we have separated from many er∣rors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and in particular have thrown

out many superstitious Rites out of the Forms of Ordination, that we might re∣duce these to a primitive simplicity; yet as we acknowledg the Church of Rome holds still the fundamentals of the Chri∣stian Religion; so we confess she retains the essentials of Ordination, which are the separating of persons for sacred em∣ployments, and the authorizing them with an Imposition of hands, and a Prayer for the effusion of the Holy Ghost; therefore we do not annul their Orders, but receive such as come from that Church, and look on them as true Priests by the Ordination they got among them, and such were our first Refor∣mers, from whom we have derived our Ordination.

Having followed this Paper through the first Conclusion, and the Arguments brought to confirm it; I come now to the second; which is, That our Bishops are not true Bishops. For which his first Argument is,

That our Bishops being no Priests, they can be no Bishops. This he thinks he has already proved, therefore he sets himself to prove that none can be a Bishop till he be first a Priest: About this I shall not dispute much; for we acknowledg that Regularly and Canonically it must be

so, and assert that ours were truly such; therefore we need not contend further about this; though he must be very ig∣norant of Antiquity if he does not know that there are divers instances in Church History of Laymen, nay, and Catechu∣mens chosen Bishops; and we do not find those Intermedial steps were made of ordaining them first Deacons and then Priests, but by what appears to us, they at once made them Bishops. But I shall wave this, only I must put this Author in mind of a great Oversight he is guilty of, when he goes about to prove our Bishops not to be true Bishops, because they were not true Priests: Does he not know that Bishop Ridley, and the o∣ther Bishops of King Edward's days, were Ordained Priests by the Rites of the Church of Rome. And this was acknow∣ledged by themselves, when they degrad∣ed them at Oxford, before they suffered; if those then were Priests, this is no Argument why they might not be Bishops: For in this matter, that which we ought to en∣quire into most carefully, is what they were; for if they were both Priests and Bishops, and if the Forms by which they ordained others, retained all the essen∣tial Requisites, then we who are derived from them, are also true Priests and Bi∣shops.

His second Argument is, No Ordina∣tion is valid, unless there be fit words used to determine the outward Rites, to signifie the Order given, which he says our own Writers (Mr. Mason and Dr. Bramhall) do acknowledg. But the words of Consecration do not ex∣press this, they being only, Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace, &c. which do not express the office of a Bishop; and having proposed these Arguments, that the unlearned Reader may think he deals fairly, he goes on to set down our Objections, and answer them.

First, It has been already made out that the Form, Receive the Holy Ghost, was that which our Saviour made use of when he ordained the Apostles, without adding, To the office of an Apo∣stle. For which it is to be considered, that all Ecclesiastical Orders being from the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost, which being one, yet hath dif∣ferent* 1.34 Operations for the different Admi∣nistrations; therefore the concomitant Actions, Words and Circumstances must shew, for which Administration the Holy Ghost is prayed for, since that general Prayer is made for all; but the Functions being different, the same Holy

Ghost works differently in them all. Therefore it is plain from the practice of our Saviour, that there is no need of ex∣pressing in the very words of Ordina∣tion, what power is thereby given since our Saviour did not express it, but what he had said both before and after, did determine the sense of those general words to the Apostolical Function.

Secondly, The whole Office of Con∣secrating Bishops, shews very formally and expresly what power is given in these words. Now though the Writers of the Church of Rome, would place the Form of Consecration in some Imperative words; yet we see no reason for that, but the complex of the whole Office is that which is to be chiefly considered, and must determine the sense of those words; So that a Priest being presented to be made a Bishop, the King's Mandate being read for that effect, he swearing Cano∣nical obedience as Bishop Elect, Prayers being put up for him as such, together with other circumstances which make it plain what they are about; those general words are by these qualified and restrain∣ed to that sense.

We do not fly here to a secret and un∣known Intention of the Consecrators, as the Church of Rome does, but to the

open and declared intention of the Church appearing in this: So that it is clear that the sense of those general words is so well explained, that they do sufficiently express and give the power and office of a Bishop.

Thirdly, In the Church of Rome the Consecration of a Bishop is made with these words, Receive the Holy Ghost. This being all that is said at the Imposi∣tion of hands, which as has been already proved, is the matter or sensible sign of Orders. And in the Prayer that follows these words, there is no mention made of the Episcopal Dignity or Function, and all the other Ceremonies used in the Consecration of a Bishop, are but Rites that are added for the more Solemnity, but are not of the essence of Ordination according to what is now most generally received, even in their own Church. And Vasques does set down this very Objection* 1.35 against the form of their Episcopal Ordi∣nation, as not sufficient, because it does not specify the Episcopal power; to which he answers, that though the words express it not, yet the other circumstances that accompany them do it sufficiently; by which it appears that this Argument is as strong against their Ordination as ours; and that they must make use of

the same Answers that we give to it.

Fourthly, The ancient Forms of Con∣secrating Bishops, differing so much one from another, and indeed agreeing in no∣thing but in an Imposition of hands, with a convenient Prayer; it has been already made out that there is no particular Form so necessary, that the want of it annuls Orders, and that the Church has often changed the words of these Prayers upon several occasions, and it was ever thought that if the words do sufficiently express the mind of the Church, there was no more scruple to be made of the validity of the Orders so given; for if the Episcopal Character were begotten by any of those Rites which the Church of Rome has ad∣ded of late such as the Chrism, the giving the Gospels, the Ring, the Staff, or any other set down in the Pontifical, then there were no true Bishops in the Church for many Ages. In the most Ancient Latin Ritual now to be found, there is nothing in the Consecration of a Bishop, but the Prayer which is now marked for the Anthem after the Consecration in the Pontifical. In a Ritual believed to be* 1.36 800 year old, the anointing is first to be found, but there is no other Rite with it in another Ritual somwhat later than the former; the giving the Ring and the

Staff, were used, which at first were the Ci∣vil Ceremonies of Investiture, and in the Greek Church, none of those Rites were ever▪ used, they having only an Impositi∣on of hands, and saying with it, The Divine Grace that heals the things that are weak•…•… and perfects the things that imperfect; pro∣motes this very Reverend Priest to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop: Let us therefore pray that the grace of the Holy Ghost may come upon him, then all that are assisting, say thrice, Kyrie Eleison. Then the Consecrato•…•… lays the Gospels on the head and neck of him that is Consecrated, having before Signed his head thrice with the sign of the Cross; and all the other Bishop•…•… touch the Gospels, and there is a Prayer said. And thus it is clear, that if those Rites in the Pontifical be essential to Epi∣scopal Orders, neither the Primitive Church nor the Greek Churches gave them truly, which are things they can∣not admit: Therefore it is most dising•…•…∣nuously done of them to insinuate 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unlearned persons, that our Orders an•…•… not good, when in their Conscience•…•… they know that they have all those Re∣quisites in them, which by the Principle•…•… of the most Learned men of their ow•…•… Church, are essentially and absolutely necessary to make them good and valid.

But I go next to see what Ingenuity there is in the Objections which he sets down in our Name against the former Arguments. There is nothing in which any man that writes of Controversie, shews his candor and fair dealing more, than in proposing the Arguments of the adverse party with their full and just weight in them: And it is a piece of Ju∣stice and Moral honesty, to which men are obliged, for to pretend that one brings what may be objected against his Opinion, and then not to set down any strong and material Arguments; but on the contrary, to bring some trifling and ridiculous things that no Learned persons did ever make use of, is to Lye: and really I cannot think the Writer of this Paper has common honesty in him, that will pre∣tend to set down our Objections, and yet passes them over every one. Our Arguments are drawn, 1. From Christ's own practices. 2. From the practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church. 3. From the practice of the Greek Church at this day. 4. From the Doctrine and the practice of the Church of Rome. These are the Arguments on which our Cause does rest, and upon these Authorities we are ready to put the thing to an Issue. But he was wiser than to mention any of

those, for he knew he could not get of•…•… them so well; and therefore that he might deceive those that are ready to take any thing off his hands upon trust, he brings Objections which he knows none of us will make.

To the first I need say nothing, having▪ I presume, said enough already, to shew that both our Priestly and Episcopal Or∣ders are good and valid.

But his second, is such a piece of fo•…•… dealing, that really he deserves to be very sharply reproved for it. In it he makes us object, That though the form of our Ordination since King Edward the 6th▪ his days, till his Majesties happy Restauration was invalid; yet that is s•…•…l∣ved by the Parliament that now sits, that appointed the words of Ordination to be, Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office of a Priest or for the office of a Bishop. And having set up this Man of Straw, he runs unmercifully at him, he stabs him in at the heart, he shoots him through the head, and then to make sure work of him, he cuts him all to pieces that he shall never live nor speak again; and all this out of pure Chivalry to shew his valour. He tells us the Salve is worse than the Sore, that by the change, the Form used before is confessed to be in∣valid,

else why did they change it? He tells us, Secondly, By this we acknow∣ledg all our Bishops and Priests till that time to be null. Thirdly, That they not being true Bishops, cannot Ordain validly, for no man can give what he has not. And fourthly, The power that Act gives, is only from the Parliament and not from Christ; and this destroys our Orders, Root and Branch. So there is an end of us, we are all killed upon the spot, never to live more. Yet there is no harm done, nor blood spilt, all is safe and sound. But to satisfie any per∣son whom such a scruple may trouble. Let it be considered,

First, That we pretend not that there is any greater validity in our Orders since the last Act of Uniformity, than was before; for those words that are added are not essential to the Ordination, but only further and clearer Explanations of what was clear enough by the other parts of these Offices before: There∣fore there is no change made of any thing that was essential to our Ordina∣tions, an Explanation is not a change; for did the Fathers of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople change or an∣nul the Faith and Creeds that the Church used before, when they added Expla∣nations

to the Creed. Therefore the adding of some explanatory words for cutting off the occasions of Cavilling, is neither a change nor an annulling our for∣mer Orders.

Secondly, The change of the Form of Consecration does not infer an annul∣ling of Orders given another way, for then all the Ordinations used in the Pri∣mitive Church, are annulled by the Ro∣man Church at this day, since the forms of Ordination used by them now, were not used in the former Ages; and the Forms used in the former ages are not looked on by them now to be the Forms of Consecration, but are only made parts of the Office, and used as Collects or Anthems; and yet here is a real change, which by their own Principles cannot infer a nullity of Orders given before the Change made.

Thirdly, If the addition of a few ex∣planatory words invalidates former Or∣ders, then the adding many new Rites, which were neither used by Christ nor his Apostles, nor the Primitive nor Eastern Churches, will much more in∣validate former Orders, especially when these are believed to be so essential as that they confer the power of consecra∣ting Christ's Body and Blood, and of

offering Sacrifices, and were for divers Ages universally looked on in that Church to be the Matter and Form of Orders, as was already observed of the Rite of giving the Sacred Vessels with the words joyned to it, which Pope Eu∣genius in express words, calls the matter of Priestly Orders, and the words joyned to them the Form (in his Decree for the Armenians in the Council of Florence) and even the Form he mentions is also al∣tered now, for the celebrating Masses are not in the Form he mentions, but are now added to that part of the Office in the Roman Church. Let the Pontifical be considered, in the Ordination of Priests; we find the Priestly Vestiments given, both the Stole and the Casula, then their hands are anointed, then the Vessels of the Sacrament are delivered to them, with words pronounced in every of those Rites, besides many other lesser Rites that are in the Rubrick. In the Con∣secration of a Bishop, his head is Anoin∣ted, then his hands, then his Pastoral Staff is blessed and put in his hands; next the Ring is blessed, and put on his singer, then the Gospels are put in his hands, then the Mitre is blessed, and put on his head; next the Gloves are blessed, and put on his hands, and then they se•…•…

him on his Throne: Besides many lesser Rites to be seen in the Rubrick. Now with what face can they pretend that our adding a few explanatory words, can infer the annulling all Orders given before that addition, when they have added so many material Ceremonies in which they place great significancy and vertue. Is not this to swallow a Camel and to strain at a Gnat, and to object to us a Mote in our eye, when there is a Beam in their own eye.

Fourthly, This Addition was indeed confirmed by the authority of Parlia∣ment, and there was good reason to de∣sire that, to give it the force of a Law, but the authority of these changes is wholly to be derived from the Convoca∣tion, who only consulted about them and made them and the Parliament did take that care in the Enacting them, that might shew they did only add the force of a Law to them; for in passing them, it was Ordered that the Book of Common-Prayer and Ordination should only be read over (and even that was carried upon some debate, for many as I have been told, moved that the Book should be added to the Act, as it was sent to the Parliament from the Convocation without ever reading it; but that seemed

indecent and too implicite to others) and there was no change made in a Tittle by the Parliament. So that they only Enacted by a Law what the Convoca∣tion had done.

As for what he adds that the Book of Ordination, is not to found in every Edition of the Common-Prayer-Book, with his gloss upon it, that most think the Bishops for shame suppress it. Really the Writer of this Paper must pardon me, to say, it seems he has no shame, that can set down in writing such a disinge∣nious Allegation: Pray who are these most that think so? [Most] in our Lan∣guage stands for the [greater part] now how many can he find that agree with him in this Gloss? I doubt, very few; for I am sure, not all his own Party, and not one of ours. So that upon a Cal∣culation those Most think will be found to be no more but himself and a very few ignorant persons on whom he has imposed this conceit. Every body knows that when a Book is once printed by publick Authority, and universally sold in the Shops, those in Authority cannot out of shame study to suppress it. But the use of the Book of Ordi∣nation not being so universal as are the other Offices of the Church; the Sta∣tioners

and Printers, who do chiefly con∣sider their Interest in the ready sale and vent of Books, do not print so many of them as of the other, there being at least 500 that use the Common-Prayer, for one that needs the other, and a Com∣mon-Prayer-Book without it, will sell cheaper than with it; therefore a great many Copies have it not. This is not as Most think, but as every body knows, the true reason why in many Copies of the Common-Prayer-Book, the Ordi∣nal is wanting. Let him name one Bi∣shop that would not permit it to be dis∣persed abroad or let him be looked on as a bold and impudent Slanderer.

Thus far I have followed this Paper in the two first Conclusions; and now I come to the Third; which is,

That Protestant Ministers and Bishops have no power to Preach, &c. from Christ, but only from the Parliament.

And this he proves, because they have no more power than the first Protestant Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker had, from whom all Jurisdiction was derived to the rest; Now he had no power from Christ; for first, They that Consecrated him had no such Ju∣risdiction, being no actual Bishops, two of them were only Elect and not actual

Bishops, and a third only a quondam Bi∣shop, but had no actual Jurisdiction, and a fourth was a Suffragan Bishop to Can∣terbury, who had no Jurisdiction but what he had from the Arch-Bishop of Can∣terbury, much less Authority to give him Jurisdiction over himself and all the other Bishops of the Land, because none can give what he has not.

This I must confess is such a piece, that no man can read it but he must con∣clude the Writer of it has no sort of Ecclesiastical Learning, or else has very little Moral honesty. I need not tell him that Matthew Parker was not the first Protestant Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; he knows Arch-Bishop Cranmer was both a Protestant and Arch-Bishop of Canter∣bury; but this may be easily passed over, there being more material Errors in this period. And

First, Does he believe himself, when he says that none can instal a Bishop in a Jurisdiction above himself? Pray then who invests the Popes with their Jurisdiction? Do not the Cardinals do it, and are not they as much the Popes Suf∣fragans as Hodgskins was Canterburi•…•…. So that if inferiors cannot invest one with a superior Jurisdiction, then the Popes can have none legally, since they

have theirs from the Cardinals that are inferior in Jurisdiction. This also holds in all the Patriarchal Consecrations. For Instance, when Iohn commonly called Chrysostome, a Priest of Antioch, was cho∣sen Patriarch of Constantinople, and Con∣secrated by the Bishops of that Province according to the Canons, if there be any force in this Argument, it will annul his Orders as well as Arch-Bishop Parker's, for the Writer must needs see the case is parallel.

Secondly, Or if he insists upon their being Elect to others Sees, and that one of them had no See at all. Let me ask him, if when St. Athanase was banished out of Alexandria, and others thrust in his place; or when Liberius was banished out of Rome, and Felix (whom they acknowledg a righteous Bishop) put in his place, they had ordained Priests and Bishops had these Orders been null, be∣cause they were violently thrust out of their Sees? Certainly Persecution and Violence rather makes the glory of Ec∣clesiastical Functions shine more brightly, but cannot be imagined to strip them of their Character, and to disable them for exercising the Offices of their function.

Thirdly, There are two things to be considered in the consecration of a Pri∣mate,

the one is the giving him the Or∣der of a Bishop, the other is the investing him with the Jurisdiction of a Metropo∣litan, for the former, all Bishops are equal in Order, none has more or less than another: therefore any Bishop duly Con∣secrated, how mean soever his Diocess be, is no less a Bishop than the greatest; the Bishop of Man is a Bishop as well as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; so that the Consecrators of Matthew Parker be∣ing Bishops by their Order, they had sufficient power and authority to Con∣secrate him. By which it appears there can be no question made of his being tru∣ly a Bishop. And as for his Jurisdi∣ction: Two things are also to be con∣sidered; the one is, The Jurisdiction annexed to that See. The other is his being rightly cloathed and invested with it. For the former it cannot be denied but the Jurisdiction of Metropo∣litans, Primates, and Patriarchs, has no Divine Institution: for all that any Bi∣shop has by divine Institution, is to seed the flock of his own Diocess, but the Ca∣nons and practice of the Church and the Civil Laws, have introduced a further Jurisdiction over the Bishops of a District or Province; this did rise by Custom upon the division of the Provinces of

the Roman Empire, and was settled over the World before any general Council did meet to make Decrees about it: And therefore the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, only approved what they found practi∣sed, and confirmed some new Divi∣sions of Provinces, that were made by the Emperors; and so the Kings in the Western Church did first give those Pre∣heminences to some Towns and Sees; for the original Dignity of Sees rose out of the Dignity of the Towns, which appears clearly in all the Patriarchats, chiefly in that of Rome and Constantinople. This is a thing so fully inquired into by many, but chiefly by the most Learned Petrus de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris,* 1.37 that I need say no more of it. And the Dignity of the See of Canterbury was from King Ethelbert, who first Erected that See. It is true, the Popes did af∣terwards usurp a new Jurisdiction over all Churches; they took upon them to Judg of the Dignity of all Sees, to send the Pall, to have reserved Cases, to grant Exemptions to the Regulars, with many other Encroachments on the Epi∣scopal Jurisdiction, which has been very fully inquired into, not only by Prote∣stant Writers, but by many of the Ro∣man

Communion, chiefly those of the Gallicane Church, and many of the Bi∣shops at the Council of Trent, studied to recover their Liberties that were troden under foot by the Court of Rome, but the Intrigues and cunning of that Court were too hard for them.

The other thing in Episcopal Institu∣tion, is the Installing or Inthroning the Metropolitan, that this was always done by the Bishops of the Province, is a thing so clear in Antiquity, that I am sure no man ever questioned it. Was not the famous Decision of the Council of Ephesus in the case of the Cypriotic Bishops a full proof of this, when upon* 1.38 the pretension of the Patriarch of An∣tioch, the thing was examined, and it was found that he had never used to Ordain Bishops there; and therefore the Rites of the Bishop of Constantia the Metropolitan were confirmed to him by that General Council: nor can one Instance be shewed in the first three Ages of a Me∣tropolitan coming to be Ordained by a Patriarch, as was afterwards for Orders sake appointed. And this appears more* 1.39 evidently by a Canon of the Council of Orleans, where it was decreed, That in the Ordination of Metropolitans the An∣cient Custom should be renewed, which

was generally neglected and lost, that a Metropolitan being Elected by the Bishops of the Province with the Clergy, and the People, should be Ordained by all the Bishops of the Province met together; This was Anno 538. By which we see they thought not of any Bull or Confirmation from Rome, but that Bishops, though subject to the Metropolitan's Jurisdiction, might Ordain him.

It is true, afterwards the Patriarchs chose the Metropolitans, but the Pa∣triarchs were either chosen, or at least confirmed by the Emperor; and though they sent Circulatory Letters to the Pope and the other Patriarchs to confirm their Elections (which the Bishops of Rome did likewise to them) this was only for keeping up the Unity of the Church, and for a more friendly and brotherly Cor∣respondence, but was not of necessity or as an homage which they owed the Pope; much less did they delay their Consecra∣tions till they obtained his Mandate, or abstain from any Act of Jurisdiction till they had his Confirmation, as is now appointed by the Pontifical, till they get* 1.40 the Pall. I have not given you the trouble of enlarging on many Proofs for making these things out, for they are so clear and uncontested, that I am con∣fident

no man is so disingenuous as to deny them under his hand, whatever some may whisper among illiterate persons who cannot contradict them. And though there has been so much already written to make those particulars out, that more needs not, and indeed cannot be said; yet if these things be questioned by any body, I shall make them out fully.

And now I come to his Second Argu∣ment; which is, That Matthew Parker (and all the other Protestant Bishops since his days) had his power of Juris∣diction only from the Queen, as appears by the Queens Letters Patents, and the Form of his Ordination, which was done upon the Queens Mandate without any Bull from the Pope (in which she acknowledges Cardinal Pool to have been a righteous Arch-Bishop; and so confesses Catholick Ordination and Ju∣risdiction to be lawful, valid, and good) which was necessary by the Laws of England; as appears from her Mandate in which she supplies any Defects they might have been under. Now all the Autho∣rity the Queen had, flowed from the Parliament, which annexed all Juris∣diction Spiritual or Temporal over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm to the Crown, by which they made her Pope:

So that by the very words of the Act, Matthew Parker had his Jurisdiction from the Queen, and she hers from the Parlia∣ment: Therefore the Protestant Priests and Bishops are only Parliamentary Priests and Bishops, and are not from Christ and his Church, but from their Kings, Queen, and Parliaments.

Here is such a heap of things so un∣justly and weakly said, that it must needs grieve all honest men to see a com∣pany of Priests going up and down the Kingdom studying to abuse weak and unlearned persons with such disingenuous Stories or Writings. Which I hope will appear more fully if you consider the fol∣lowing particulars.

First, It is certain that King and Par∣liament have the Supream Legislative Au∣thority in this Realm; and this they have from the Laws of God, Nature, and Society, confirmed by the Gospel which commands us to be subject to the Higher Powers. Therefore whatever they En∣act that is within the Limits of their Ju∣risdiction, is Law; and if it be not sin∣ful, is to be obeyed; if it be sinful, it is to be submitted to. For instance, if they set up a false Religion by Law, it does not make it a true Religion, but adds the sanction of Law, and is the civil

Warrant and Security for the Subject, therefore the Civil Power cannot change the nature of things to make Good Evil, or Evil Good; but only gives Authority and Security; and in this they are restrained in things Civil as well as Spiritual, for if they make unjust Laws in Civil things, the case is the same with their unjust Laws about Spirituals. Therefore it is to be concluded as the Fundamental Maxim of Civil Govern∣ment, that whatever may be done lawfully and without Sin, ought to be done when the Supream Civil Au∣thority commands it, and that the Sub∣jects ought to obey.

Secondly, Whosoever is empower∣ed by the King and Parliament to exe∣cute this their Supream Authority, has a full Right and Title to apply that Power so given or committed to him, having the execution of that Law put in his hands; and if any shall with∣out their Warrant or Authority from them usurp, or assume any sort of Power or Jurisdiction within this King∣dom, they are Intruders and Usurpers, and the success they have in it does no more justifie that Force than a Robber's does his Title to Goods un∣justly taken. And although some weak

Princes in hard times did yield it up to the Pope; yet both the Clergy them∣selves and the Parliaments, did of∣ten assert their own Authority, which was most eminently done by King Ed∣ward the First, and King Edward the Third; So that the Popes power here had no just Title but was a violent Invasion; for that they neither had it from Christ nor Saint Peter, nor by any Decree of General Councils; and that for 800 years after Christ it was never allowed them: that they never had it in the Eastern Churches, and that what they had in the Western Churches was only extorted by force and fraud from the Princes and States of Europe, and that they had no Law for it in England, are things so certain, that for proof of this, I shall refer my self to the Writers of their own Church, De Marca, Launoy, and Balusius, with many others. And at this very day the Pope has neither more nor less pow∣er in the other Kingdoms of Europe, than the Connivence of Princes or the Laws give him: Therefore the Pope had no power in England but what was unjustly usurped from the King and Parliament.

Thirdly, When the Supream Au∣thority

the King and Parliament have long endured an Encroachment upon them, that gives no just Title to it, nor hin∣ders them from asserting their own Rights when they find a fit opportunity for it, and neither devests them of their Authority nor the Subjects of their due Rights and Freedoms: Therefore the Government of the Kingdom and all the exercise of coercive Jurisdiction being inseparably annexed to the Su∣pream Authority; it was incumbent on them to shake off all Forrein Juris∣dict: they should have done it sooner but could never do it too soon.

Fourthly, The King and Parliament asserting their Authority in this Parti∣cular, and condemning the Popes Usur∣pations, they might commit the execution of it to whom they would: There∣fore they putting it into the Queens hands and her Successors, she had a good Right to exercise it, having a Law for it. This then being annexed to the Imperial Crown of the Realm by the Supream Authority of King and Par∣liament, the King hath the power of exercising it fully and only in his hands, and is to be obeyed in all his Injun∣ctions (that are not sinful) by the Laws of the Supream Authority in this

Kingdom which comes from God, and is confirmed by the Gospel.

Fifthly, Though the power of the Ministers of the Gospel comes only from Christ, yet the exercise of that Power and this or that person being put in this or that Living or Prefer∣ment, and having the right to the Tythes, and all the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual and Prerogative Courts, be∣ing things not appointed in the Go∣spel, the King having the Supremacy over the Ecclesiastical State, does not exceed his Limits when he reserves to himself such power that no person shall be vested with the Legal Autho∣rity for those things, but by his know∣ledg or upon his Order. It is true, he cannot make a man a Bishop or a Priest, nor can he take away Orders, for if Bishops should Ordain or Con∣secrate without or against his plea∣sure, he may proceed against both the Ordainers and Ordained, and can hin∣der their exercising any Function in his Dominions by Banishing or Im∣prisoning them, but •…•…he cannot de∣stroy or annul their Orders. So that the power of Ordination comes from Christ, and has a Spiritual Effect, what∣ever opposition the King may make,

but the exercise of that power must be had from him. If the King com∣mands an Heretick or a Scandalous person to be Elected or Ordained, Churchmen may well demur and offer their reasons why they cannot give O∣bedience, not for the want of Autho∣rity in the King, but because the mat∣ter is Morally evil: As they must also do, if the King should command them, to commit Theft or Murther. So that all Consecrations in this Land are made by Bishops, by the power that is inherent in them, only the King gives orders for the execution of that their power: Therefore all that the Queen did in the Case of Matthew Parker, and the Kings do since, was to command so many Bishops to exercise a power they had from Christ in such or such instances, which command was just and good, if the persons to be Ordained were so qualified as they ought to have been according to the Scrip∣tures.

Sixthly, Though the Command were unjust, yet that cannot be imagined a sufficient ground to annul the Ordina∣tion, for otherwise all the Ordinations appointed by the Anti-Popes of Avignon were null, since done upon Mandates

from a false Pope who had not power, which will annul all the Ordinations of the Gallicane Church which did sub∣mit to these Popes. And yet this can∣not be admitted by the Church of Rome. unless they also annul all the Eastern Bi∣shops; for the Patriarch of Constantinople is made by order from the Grand Signi∣or, and is upon that installed. If this therefore invalidates our Ordinations, it will do theirs much more, except they will allow a greater power to the Turk than to the King. So that this at most might prove the Church to be under an unjust violence, but cannot infer an in∣validating of Acts so done: therefore if Matthew Parker was duely consecrated, though it was done upon the Queens Mandate, he was a true and lawful Bi∣shop. For let me suppose another case parallel to this: if the Clergy should resolve they will no more administer the Sacraments upon the pretence perhaps of Interdicts, Censures, or some such thing. And the Prince or State commands them to administer the Sacraments (as was done by the Venetians in the time of the Interdict, and by many Kings in the like cases) can it be pretended that the Sacra∣ments they administer upon such Com∣mands are not the Sacraments of Christ,

but only of the King. So in like manner Orders given upon the Kings Mandate by persons empowered to it by Christ and the Church, are true Orders, even though the Mandate for them were unjust, tyrannical, and illegal.

Seventhly, Besides all that has been said, it is to be considered, that the power of choosing Bishops was in all Ages thought at most a mixed thing in which Laymen as well as Church∣men, had a share. It is well enough known, that for the first three Centu∣ries, the Elections were made by the people, and the Bishops that came to assist in those Elections did confirm their Choice and Consecrate the per∣son by them Elected. Now whatever is a Right of the people they can by Law transfer it on another. So in our case the people of this Realm, having in Parlia∣ment annexed the power of choosing Bi∣shops to the Crown, by which their Right is now in the King's person; Consecrations upon his Nomination must either be good and valid, or all the Consecrations of the first ages of the Church shall likewise be annulled, since he has now as good a Right to name the persons that are to be Consecrated, as the people then had. It is true, the Tumults and other dis∣scandal

orders in those Elections, brought great scandal on the Church, and so they were taken away and Synodical Ele∣ctions were set up; but as the former Ordinations were good before these were set up, so it cannot be said that these are indispensibly necessary, other∣wise there are no good Ordinations at at this day in the Church of Rome; these being all now put down, the Pope having among his other Usurpa∣tions taken that into his own hands.

Eighthly, It is also known how much Christian Princes, Emperors and Kings, in all ages and places, have medled in the Election of Bishops; I need not tell how a Synod desired Valentinian to choose a Bishop at Millan when Saint Ambrose was chosen, nor how Theodosius chose Nectarius to be Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, even when the second General Council was sitting. Nor need I tell the Law Iustinian made, that there should be Three pre∣sented to the Emperor in the Elections of the Patriarch, and he should choose one of them. These things are gene∣rally known, and I need not insist on them. It is true, as there followed great confusions in the Greek Empire till it was quite over-run and destroyed; so there

was scarce any one thing in which there was more doing and undoing than in the Election of the Patriarchs, the Em∣perors often did it by their own Au∣thority; Synodal Elections were also often set up, at length the Emperors brought it to that, that they delivered the Pastoral Staff to the Bishop by which he was invested in his Patriar∣chat; but it was never pretended nei∣ther by the Latin Church nor by the contrary Factions in the Greek Church that Orders so given were Null. And yet the Emperors giving the Investi∣ture with his own hand, is a far grea∣ter thing than our King's granting a Mandate for Consecrating and investing* 1.41 them. For proof of this about the Greek Church, I refer it to Habert who has given a full Deduction of the E∣lections in that Church, from the days of the Apostles to the last Age.

For the Latin Church, the Matter has been so oft examined, that it is to no purpose to spend much time about* 1.42 it. It is known and confessed by Pla∣tina, that the Emperors Authority in∣terveened when the Popes were crea∣ted. And Onuphrius tells, that by a De∣cree* 1.43 of Vigilius the Custom had got in, that the Elected Pope should not

be Consecrated till the Emperor had confirmed it, and had by his Letters Patents given the Elect Pope leave to be Ordained, and that Licence was ei∣ther granted by the Emperors them∣selves or by their Lieutenants [or Ex∣archs] at Ravenna: And One and twenty Popes were thus Consecrated, Pelagius the second only excepted, who being chosen during the Siege of Rome, did not stay for it, but he sent Gregory (afterwards Pope) to excuse it to the Emperor, who was offended with it: it continued thus till the days of Constantine, called Pogonatus, who first remitted it to Benedict the second, and the truth of it was, the power of the Greek Emperors was then fallen so low in Italy, that no wonder he parted with it. But so soon as the Em∣pire was again set up in the West by Charles the Great, Pope Adrian with a Synod, gave him the power of crea∣ting* 1.44 the Pope (as is set down in the very Canon Law it self) and of inve∣sting all other Arch-Bishops and Bishops and an Anathema was pronounced a∣gainst any that should Consecrate a Bi∣shop that was not named and invested by him. This is likewise told by Pla∣tina* 1.45 out of Anastasius. It is true,

though some Popes were thus chosen, yet the weakness of Charles the Great's Son, and the divisions of his Children, with the degeneracy of that whole Race served the ends of the growing power of the Papacy. Yet Lewis laid it down not as an Usurpation, but as a Right of which he devested himself, but his Son Lothaire re-assumed it, and did confirm divers Popes, and Anastasius tells that they durst not Con∣secrate* 1.46 the Pope without the Imperial Authority, and the thing was still kept up at least in a shadow till Hadrian the Third, who appointed that the Em∣perors Concurrence or Licence should not be thought necessary in the creating of a Pope. And from Hadrian the First, who dyed Anno 795. till Hadrian the Third, there were 89 years; and from Vigilius his days, who dyed Anno 555. there were 330 years. So long were the Popes made upon the Emperors Mandates. Nor did the Em∣perors part easily with this Right, but after that the Otho's and the Henry's kept up their Pretension, and came oft to Rome and made many Popes, and though most of the Popes so made were generally reckoned Anti-Popes and Schis∣maticks, yet some of them, as Clement

the Second, are put in the Catalogue of the Popes by Baronius and Binnius, and by the late publishers of the Coun∣cils Labbee and Cossartius: There was in∣deed great Opposition made to this at Rome; but let even their own Histo∣rians be appealed to, what a Series of Monsters and not Men, those Popes were; how infamously they were E∣lected, often by the Whores of Rome, and how flagitious they were, we refer it to Barronius himself, who could not deny this for all his partiality in his great Work. But in the end Pope Gre∣gory the Seventh got the better of the Emperors in this particular.

And now let the ingenuity of those Men be considered, who endeavour to Invalidate our Orders, and call our Priests and Bishops Parliamentary Priests and Bishops, because they are made up∣on the King's Mandate according to the Act of Parliament. When it is clear that for near 500 years together, their own Popes were Consecrated for the most part upon the Emperors Mandate. And it is certain the Kings of England have as much power to do the same here, as the Emperors had to do it at Rome.

The Emperors were wont also to

grant the Investitures into all the Bi∣shopricks by giving the Ring and the Staff, which were the Ceremonies of the Investiture, and so they both named and invested all the Bishops and Abbots. This Pope Gregory the Seventh thought was no more to be suffered than their creating the Popes, both being done by the same Authority: Therefore he re∣solved to wring them out of the Em∣perors hands, and take them into his own; and it was no wonder he had a great mind to bring this about, for the Bishopricks and Abbeys were then so richly endowed, that it was the Con∣quest of almost the third part of the Em∣pire, to draw the giving of them into his own hands. Therefore he first disgra∣ced these Laical Investitures by an ill name to make them sound odiously, and called all so Ordained, Simoniacks, as he also called the Married Clergy, Ni∣colaitans. Now every body knows how much any thing suffers by a scurvy Nick∣name raised on it. But he went more roundly to work, and deposed the Em∣peror, and absolved his Subjects from their obedience. What bloody Wars and unnatural Rebellions of the Children against the Father, followed by the Popes instigation, is well enough known.

In the end, his Son that succeeded him was forced to yield up the matter to the Pope.

In Spain it appears both from the* 1.47 12th. and 16th. Councils of Toledo, that the Kings there did choose the Bishops,* 1.48 which Baronius does freely confess.

And Gregory of Tours through his whole History, gives so many Instances of the Kings of France of the Merovini∣an Race, choosing and naming the Bishops, that it cannot be questioned; all the Writers of the Gallicane Church do also assert that their Kings gave the Investitures from the days of Charles the Great. But the Popes were still making inroads upon their Authority, for securing which Charles the Seventh caused the Pragmatic Sanction to be made. It is true, afterwards, Pope Leo the Tenth got Francis the First to set up the Concor∣date in its place, against which the As∣sembly of the Clergy at Paris did com∣plain and appealed to a General Council, and yet by the Concordate the King retains still the power of naming the Bishops.

In England there are some Instances of the Saxon Kings choosing Bishops, and though so little remains of the Re∣cords or Histories of that time, that it

is no wonder if we meet but few. Yet it is clear that King William the Con∣queror and both his Sons, did give the Investitures to the Bishops, and though upon a Contest between King Henry the First and Anselm about them, the King did yield them to him; yet upon Anselm's death he did re-assume that power: I need not say more to shew what were the Rights of the Crown in this matter, nor how oft they were asserted in Par∣liament, nor how many Laws were made against the Incroachments and tyrannical Exactions of the Court of Rome; these are now so commonly known, and have been so oft printed of late, that I need add nothing about them. Only from all I have said I suppose it is indisputably clear; That if Ordinations or Conse∣crations upon the Kings Mandate, be in∣valid, which this Paper drives at; then all the Ordinations of the Christian Church are also annulled, since for ma∣ny Ages they were all made upon the Mandates of Emperors and Kings. By all which you may see the great weakness of this Argument.

I shall to this add some Remarks on a few particulars of less weight that are insinuated in this Argument.

First, The Writer of it would in∣fer

from the Queens, calling Cardinal Pool the late and immediate Arch-Bishop and Pastor of Canterbury, that we ac∣knowledg Catholick Ordination valid, lawful, and good. If by Valid, Lawful, and Good, be understood that which retained the Essentials of Ordination, and was according to the then Law, there is no doubt to be made of it, but if he mean that all the Forms and Ceremonies of their Ordination are acknowledged to be Good, he will never draw that inference from these words.

Secondly, From the Clause of the Patents, that is for supplying all defects, considering the necessity of the times, he would infer, there was somwhat wanting in them, which was thereby supplyed. If by that [Want] he means an essen∣tial Defect, there was none such, for they were true Bishops. If he means only that some things were not accor∣ding to what the Law required, it is of no Force, for whoever makes a Law, can also dispense with it: Therefore the execution of these Laws being put in the Queens hands, she might well di∣spense with some particulars; all which the Parliament did afterwards confirm, and any defect in the point of Law might make them liable to the Civil powers,

but it can by no means be pretended that this should annul the Ordinations, though illegally gone about.

Thirdly, He would infer from the Act of Parliament, that the Queen is made Pope, when he knows that both by one of the Articles of the Church and another Act of Parliament, it is declared otherwise ex∣press words as follows,

where we attri∣bute* 1.49 to the Queens Majesty, the chief Government, by which Titles we under∣stand the minds of some slandrous folks to be offended; we give not to our Prin∣ces the Ministry either of God's Word or of the Sacraments; the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Eliza∣beth our Queen, do most plainly testifie: But that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God him∣self; that is, that they should Rule all E∣states and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Eccle∣siastical or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers.

So that there is nothing of the Spi∣ritual, much less of the Papal and Tyran∣nical Power given to the King by the Law.

Fourthly, From the power given to the Queen to Authorize such persons as she shall think fit to exercise that Juris∣diction,

he infers, they may be either Clergymen, Lawyers, Merchants, or Coblers, since the Statute requires no more but that they be born Subjects of the Realm. But this is as well grounded as all the rest, for though that Statute does not name the qualification of the persons, yet the other Statutes that En∣acted the Book of Common-Prayer and the Ordinal, do fully specifie what sort of persons these must be, and it is not necessary that all things be in every Sta∣tute.

Fifthly, He in the end of this Paper pretends that the reason why this pre∣sent Parliament altered the Ancient Forms; was, because they were null and invalid. The weakness and in∣justice of which was before shewed; so that nothing needs to be repeated. And in fine, it has been also proved, that as both the Greek and Latin Churches have made many alterations in their Ri∣tuals, so the Church of England which made these Alterations, had as good an Authority to do it by, as they had: To which I shall only add the words of the Council of Trent concerning the power of the Church for making such Changes when they give the reason for taking a∣way* 1.50 the Chalice. The Church has power

in the Sacraments, retaining the sub∣stance of them to change or appoint such things which she shall judg more expedient both for the profit of the Receivers, and for the Reverence due to the Sacraments, according to the variety of things, times, and places. Where, by their own con∣fession it is acknowledged, the Church may make alterations in the Sacraments * 1.51: So that it is a strange confidence in them to charge on us an annulling of former Orders, because of a small addition of a few explanatory words. And so much for his Paper.

Now having sufficiently answered eve∣ry thing in it; I hope I may be allowed to draw a few conclusions in opposition to his. And

First, We having true Priests and true Bishops, are a true Church, since we be∣lieve all that Christ and his Apostles de∣livered to the World.

Secondly, We being thus a part of the Catholick Church, every one that lives according to the Doctrine professed a mong us, mayand shall be saved.

Thirdly, We do truly eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood, having the Blessed Sacrament administred among us according to our Saviour's Institu∣tion.

Fourthly, We have as much power to Consecrate the Holy Sacrament as any that were Ordained in the Church for near a thousand years together.

Fifthly, We have the Ministerial pow∣er of giving Absolution, and the Mini∣stry of Reconciliation, and of forgiving Sins, given us by our Orders.

Sixthly, All men may (and ought to) joyn with us in the profession of the Faith we believe, and in the use of the Sacraments we administer, which are still preserved among us according to Christ's Institution; and that whosoever repents and believes the Gospel, shall be Saved.

Seventhly, All and every of the Ar∣guments he has used, are found to be weak and frivolous, and to have no force in them.

And thus far I have complied with your desires of answering the Paper you sent me, in as short and clear terms as I could. But I must add, that this ransacking of Records about a succes∣sion of Orders, though it adds much to the lustre and beauty of the Church; yet is not a thing incumbent on every bo∣dy to look much into, nor indeed, possible for any to be satisfied about: for a great many Ages, all those Instruments are lost;

So that how Ordinations were made in the Primitive Church, we cannot certainly, know, it is a piece of History and very hard to be perfectly known. Therefore it cannot be a fit Study for any, much less for one that has not much leisure. The condition of Christians were very hard, if private persons must certainly know how all Ministers have been Ordained since the Apostles days; for if we will raise scruples in this matter, it is impossible to satisfie them, unless the Authentick Re∣gisters of all the ages of the Church could be shewed, which is impossible; for tho we were satisfied that all the Priests of this Age were duly Ordained; yet if we be not as sure that all who Ordained them had Orders rightly given them, and so upward, till the days of the Apostles, the doubt will still remain. Therefore it is an unjust and unreasonable thing to raise difficulties in this matter. And in∣deed if we go to such nice scruples with it; there is one thing in the Church of Rome that gives a much juster ground these, than any thing that can be pretend∣ed in ours does; which is, the Doctrine of the Intention of the Minister being necessary to make a Sacrament. Se∣cret Intentions are only known to God, and not possible to be known by any man:

Therefore since they make Orders a Sa∣crament, there remains still ground to entertain a scruple whether Orders be truly given. And this cannever becleared, since none can know other mens thought or intentions.

Therefore the pursuing nice scruples a∣bout this, cannot be a thing indispensably necessary otherwise all people must be per plext with endless disquiet and doubtings. But the true touchstone of a Church must be the Purity of her Doctrine and the Con∣formity of her Faith with that which Christ and his Apostles taught. In this the Scriptures are clear and plain to every one that will read and consider them sin∣cerely and without prejudice, which that you may do, and by these may be led and guided into all Truth, shall be my con∣stant prayer to God for you.

Notes

• * 1.1

  S. Ioh. 20. 22.
• * 1.2

  Vasques in 3. parte, D. 129. c. 5. n. 71, 72. Says it is the con∣stant opi∣nion of the Catholicks, that the Sa∣craments consist of some things and words In∣stituted by God, which men can∣not alter or change, and that Christ de∣livered both the words and things of which the Sacraments consist. Which he says are necessary in all Churches, and rejects the Opi∣nion of Pope Innocent the 4th. and others who pretend that some things are necessary to the Sacraments in some Churches, which are not necessary in other Churches, and Disp. 239. in 3. p. c. 4. n. 36. He again resumes the same thing, and refutes Tapperus who thought that in some Sacraments in which Christ did not determine the Mat∣ter and Form, he left the power of assigning these with his Church. Which he denies, and says, no Power about the determination of the Matter and Form was left with the Church; but the assignation of those is believed, done by Christ, for since the institution of the Sacrament is by Divine right, the matter and form must be assigned by the same right; for proving which, he cites the Council of •…•…rent.
• * 1.3

  De ord. Sac.
• * 1.4

  Can. 3.
• * 1.5

  De Eccles. Hierar.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 8. Cap. 16.
• * 1.7

  D•…•…s San∣ctification.
• * 1.8

  Discourse sur les Or∣dres Sacres.
• * 1.9

  Acts 6. 6. Whom they see before the Apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. Acts 13. 3. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away▪ Acts 14. 23. And when they had Ordained (or literally imposed Hands) them Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presby∣tery. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be thou partaker of other mens sins. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 7. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of Fear, but of Power, and of Love, and of a sound mind.
• * 1.10

  Bellarm. de Sac. Ord. cap. 9.
• * 1.11

  Cap. de extr. Unct.
• * 1.12

  De Sacr. Ord. Can. 4.
• * 1.13

  Tom. 3. m. 3. Disp. 24. c. 3.
• * 1.14

  Disp. 239. Cap. 2. n. 5.
• b 1.15

  Lib. de Iu. Sacer. Lect. 5. de Sacr.
• a 1.16

  In 4. Disp. 24. pract. quaest. 4.
• * 1.17

  Disp. 235. c. 3.
• * 1.18

  Disp. de Sacr. 5. n. 87.
• * 1.19

  Observ. 1. & 2. de ord. Pres.
• * 1.20

  Tit. 8. de Cons. Pres.
• * 1.21

  Exerc. 7. cap. 1.
• * 1.22

  Exerc. 7. cap. 2.
• * 1.23

  1 Cor. 4. 1.
• * 1.24

  Psal. 142. 2. Let my Prayer be set forth beforethee as Incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the Evening Sacrifice. Psal. 52. 27. The Sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit, a broken and a contrite heart, O God thou wilt not despise. Hebr. 13. 15. By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving Thanks to his Name. Rom. 12. 1. I beseech you therefore, Brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy, accepta∣ble unto God, which is your reasonable service. Philip. 4. 18. But I have all, and abound; I am full, having re∣ceived of Epaphroditus, the things which were sent from you, an Odor of a sweet smell, a Sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.
• * 1.25

  1 Chro. 23. 6. 1 Chro. 24. 19. •…•… Kings 2. 27. 2 Chro. 17. 7, 8, 9. 2 Chro. 29. 4. 5. 15. & 27. Vers. 30. 2 Chro. 30. 2.
• * 1.26

  Ep. 43.
• * 1.27

  Ath. Ep. ad Solit. Bar. ad An. 355. n. 56, 57. Bar. ad An. 357. n. 63, 64.
• * 1.28

  Cap. 10, 11. Exerc. 5.
• * 1.29

  Disp. 141. cap. 1.
• * 1.30

  N. 8.
• * 1.31

  Collat. 2. cum Donat. & Ep. 50.
• * 1.32

  Sect. 3•…•….
• * 1.33

  Cap. 8. Exer. 5. num. 7.
• * 1.34

  1 Cor. 12. 5, 6.
• * 1.35

  Disp. 240. c. 5. n. 60.
• * 1.36

  Deus Hono∣rum omni∣um 7.
• * 1.37

  De Concor. Imp. & Sa∣cer.
• * 1.38

  Action. •…•…
• * 1.39

  Can. •…•…
• * 1.40

  •…•…e Pallio.
• * 1.41

  Tit. 17. Rit. Elec. Patr.
• * 1.42

  In vita Silverii▪
• * 1.43

  In Plat. in Pelag. 2.
• * 1.44

  Dist. 63.
• * 1.45

  In Pasch. 1.
• * 1.46

  In Leo. 4.
• * 1.47

  Can. 6. Can. 12.
• * 1.48

  Ad Anno 681. numb. 60.
• * 1.49

  Article 37. of the Civil Magist.
• * 1.50

  •…•…ess. 21. cap. 2.
• * 1.51

  See what Vasques has said of Changes in the forms of the Sa∣craments.