THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS OF THE Church of England, Made out against the Objections of the Papists, in several Letters to a Gentleman of Norwich, that desired Satisfaction therein.  
By Humphrey Prideaux, D. D. Prebendary of Norwich.  
LONDON, Printed by John Richardson for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pigeons in Cornhill, over-against the Royal Exchange, 1688.   

Imprimatur, Hic Liber cui Titulis (Certain Papers, etc.) June 8. 1688.  
Jo. Battely.   

TO THE READER.  
THese Letters when first Written, were never designed for the Public, but only to endeavour the satisfaction of one particular Person, who applied to me for it, one Mr. Anthony Norris, late a Justice of Peace for the County of Norfolk. The Occasion hereof was the Conference, an Account of which as given me by the Person chiefly concerned begins this Book; at which Mr. Norris being present, and pretending not to be satisfied with what was then said in the behalf of our Orders, writes to me the second Paper hereafter Published concerning it, and that produced all the Letters that after follow. The last, I confess, was never sent unto him; for on my finishing of it, being assured by such accounts as I had received, that he was already gone over and firmly fixed on the other side, as afterwards appeared to be true at his Death, which happened about the beginning of April following, I thought it too late to make any further Application to him, and therefore threw my Papers by in my Study, as now totally useless for the end designed. But after his Death, great offence being taken against me on several Occasions by our Adversaries, instead of other things to object, I was challenged for not answering a Letter wrote by Mr. Acton, a Jesuit of this Place, which I supposing could be none other but the last I received from Mr. Norris, I again gathered my Papers together, to let them see that called upon me for an Answer, that I was ready to give it: And although it was afterwards denied that this Letter was at all intended thereby, but one sent to another Person which I never knew any thing of, yet having on this occasion put my Papers together, and looked them over, I was persuaded by those to whom I communicated them, that it might be of great use here to have them published. For the Romish Emissaries that haunt this place seeming to have studied no other part of the Controversy but that of our Orders, in their rounds where they go to and fro among us seeking whom they may delude, inculcate all the Arguments they can against the Validity of them; and making this the constant subject of what they have to say against us to such of our people as they would Seduce, tell them, that we have no Ministry, and consequently no Church, no Sacraments, and that therefore they must come over to them without examining any further into the Controversy between us. By which silly Snare having catched some few, stumbled others, and filled the place in a manner with this Controversy, I think an Antidote may be very proper where the Poison is so much spread, and therefore most what they have to say being put into the Letters sent me by this Gentleman, I hope my Answers to them may very well serve for this purpose. That which persuades me they may, is especially the plainness with which they are wrote, for the Gentleman to whom they are directed having never had the advantage of any Scholastic Education, I endeavoured to lay all things as plain and easy before him as I could, whereby what I say in them being adapted to the meanest Capacity, I hope none that reads them but may go along with them, and receive satisfaction thereby as to the whole which our Adversaries in the points discussed object against us. And that they may thus far be serviceable in our present Case to undeceive such as are deluded among us, and prevent others from being so is the sole end and design of my publishing of them.  
Although the Conference which occasioned those Letters was that I was no way concerned in or knew any thing of it till I had received Mr. Norris' Paper, yet since his account is drawn so much to the disadvantage of the Gentlemen concerned on our side, to publish that account alone would be to send abroad a Libel against them. And therefore that I might not be injurious to them in this particular, was the reason that I desired of them their Account also to publish therewith, and that is it which hear next immediately follows.  
H. Prideaux.   

THE ORDERS OF THE Church of England DEFENDED.  
The True Account of a Conference between Mr. Earbury, and Mr. Acton a Jesuit, concerning the Validity of the Ordination of the Church of England.  
THE Company being set, Mr. Earbury began to speak concerning the occasion of their being met there. Viz. That Mr. Thompson had departed from our Church and had been at a Popish Meeting, and that being demanded his Reason, he had given this, viz. That he thought that the Ministers of the Church of England were not in Orders; and that he had Friends who would prove it to our faces: and that therefore we were now come to Answer all Objections.  
Mr. Acton here Replied, That it was our duty to prove ourselves in Orders, and cited a part of Mr. Earbury's Letter for it, though any one may see that that Paragraph was not designed for that purpose. The words of the Letter are these; I shall most gladly meet you there, not out of a principle of ostentation or discontent, but merely out of a sense of that duty that I owe that Church of which I am a member (and as I hope to prove myself) a Lawful Pastor in it. Mr. Earbury told him, that he did not think himself obliged to it, but yet he would begin with the proving part, and proceeded thus.  
There are four things which your own Authors do think necessary to a due conveyance of Orders. First, Authority of the person Consecrating. Secondly, The Form. Thirdly, That which they call the Matter. Fourthly, Quality of the persons receiving Ordination.  
Mr. Acton excepted against the Form of Ordination made in Edward the Sixth's Time, and bid Mr. Earbury prove Syllogistically that that was sufficient to convey the character of a Priest; which Mr. Earbury immediately did by this Argument. If our Saviour's Form of Ordination was complete, viz. (Receive the Holy Ghost) than the Form used in Edward the Sixth's time (being the very same) must be complete also, but our Saviour's was complete therefore ours was. To this Mr. Acton answered, That our Saviour had a supreme Authority, and might use what Form he pleased (though never defective) but we had no Authority to use a defective Form. Mr. Earbury told him, that though we had not the same Authority to impose a Form, yet we had liberty to use that Form which our Saviour used, especially when the Form was expressive of the power given; and so offered to prove that the Form of Ordination in Edward the Sixth's time, was not deficient in expressing the particular office for which the Holy Ghost was given. Here Mr. Earbury's Amanuensis did throw up his Pen and Paper, so that Mr. Earbury was forced to write down his Answers to Mr. Acton with his own hand, and yet Mr. Acton was pleased to retain his own Amanuensis to observe all advantages. But whereas some do say that Mr. Earbury did allow of Mr. Acton's answers to his first Argument; this is so far from truth that Mr. Earbury for his vindication has sent this following note to Mr. Acton, viz. I do affirm that to assert that our Saviour used a form in Ordination, that was defective in Essentials, is derogatory from his wisdom, and little better than blasphemy. But to proceed, Mr. Earbury pulled out a Common Prayer-book, with our Form of Ordination, and therein showed that the designation of the person to the particular office of Priesthood, was sufficiently expressed in many places of the Form made in Edward the Sixth's Time.  
For first, The persons were to be presented to the Bishop with these words, Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these persons present to be admitted to the Order of Priesthood; Then the Bishop speaks to the people, Good people these be they whom we purpose, God willing; to receive this day into the Order of Priesthood; and the People pray God, Mercifully to behold his Servants now called to the Office of Priesthood: Not to mention other places in the Ordinal to the same effect, which Mr. Earb. then for brevity omitted and did argue from thence, that since the intention of the Church to ordain the person to the particular office of a Priest, was sufficiently expressed in the Ordinal before and after the imposition of hands, it was not absolutely necessary that the particular Office of Priesthood, should be expressed at the imposition of hands, for since the end of speech is only to express the intentions and conceptions of the mind, where that is sufficiently made known, there is no further need of words. Here Mr. Acton asked Mr. Earbury, whether the intention alone was sufficient to convey the Character? Mr. Earbury answered, No, and not as some say, Ay, and that he was contradicted therein by his Brother Kipping, which Mr. Earbury does affirm to be utterly false. For how could he affirm that the intention alone was sufficient when he was pleading for the validity of King Edward's Form, and when he found that they insisted on the the cavil Mr. Earbury gave in this answer in Writing, and gave it to them, viz. 
* These are words Writ by his own hand at the Conference.  I do assert that it is not absolutely necessary that the particular name of the Office of a Priest, should be expressed in the words that immediately are conjoined with the imposition of hands; and for that he gave two Reasons. 1. Because there was no positive command for it. 2. Because the Nature of the thing did not require it. Mr. Acton took no notice of the two Reasons annexed to the answer of Mr. Earbury, but proceeded to ask questions to this purpose; (for Mr. Earbury had no Amanuensis to take his very words) viz. Whether a Sacrament could confer a power that was not expressed? Mr. Earbury took his pen and wrote down this answer, viz. 
* This is taken verbatim out of his Papers.  I do answer to this, That if the particular Office to which the person is to be ordained be sufficiently understood from the foregoing part of the Ordinal, it is not essential to the due conveyance of Orders, that the words at the imposition of hands should express the particular office given by that Ordination. Here Mr. Acton would needs have Mr. Earbury instead of Office to put in the word Power; Mr. Earbury refused, and told him, that he was not come thither to make him his Dictator; at last Mr. Acton urging him, he took the Pen and would have altered it, as may be seen by the original Paper, but Mr. Kipping forbade it, and thereupon Mr Acton bid his Amanuensis write down, that Mr. Earbury, and Mr. Kipping did disagree between themselves. Then Mr. Acton did still proceed to ask Mr. Earbury more questions, viz. First, whether Mr. Earbury believed that the words of a Sacrament are operative and effective. Mr. Earbury answered, That he did believe the words of a Sacrament to be operative and effective by a Divine Concurrence. Mr. Acton then demanded whether supposing the Prayers before and after the imposition of hands were left out, that then the words of King Edward's Ordinal would confer the Character of a Priest. Mr. Earbury acknowledged that being there were different Orders in the Church, it would then be expedient that the intention of the Church as to the particular Order should be made known, for since the Office of a Bishop as well as of a Priest is conveyed by the same Holy Ghost, it is necessary that some part of the Ordinal should express for what end the Holy Ghost is then given: But since this is not the case of King Edward's Ordinal where the particular Office is expressed, Mr. Earbury asked what was that to the purpose; Mr. Acton then asked Mr. Earbury whether the Matter and Form of a Sacrament ought not to be conjoined? Whether that Baptism would be good, wherein the water was first sprinkled, and the Form of words spoken a quarter of an hour after. Mr. Earbury told him, That he would not determine whether such a Baptism was good, or no; in case of necessity where there was no wilful neglect of our Saviour's institution, but only an accidental miscarriage: and this Mr. Acton commanded his Amanuensis to put down as a great mark of his victory, and again pressed Mr. Earbury with the question, whether the Matter and Form ought not to be conjoined. Here Mr. Kipping declared his dislike against such unreasonable proceedings (as he had often done before) and earnestly desired Mr. Earbury not to condescend to answer their questions, and upon that Mr. Earbury told Mr. Acton, that if he had any Argument to propound, he should receive an immediate answer, but that he did not think himself obliged to give a positive answer to all the impertinent questions that Mr. Acton would be pleased to put to him; since he had said enough before to prove that this was nothing to the purpose. Here Mr. Acton made a Rhetorical flourish to the people, and bid them take notice that Mr. Earbury refused to answer his questions, and Mr. Acton then told Mr. Earbury that he could prove us to have no true Priesthood another way, viz. Because our Form of Ordination does not express the power of consecrating the Eucharist, and bid Mr. Earbury again prove that we had the power conveyed to us. Mr. Earbury undertook that task, and immediately wrote down this Argument. If by our Form of Ordination the whole power of a Priest be conferred, and the power of consecrating the Eucharist does belong to the Priestly Office, then by our Ordination we must necessarily receive the power of consecrating the Eucharist. But etc. This Mr. Earbury said was as plain as that all the parts were contained in the whole, and he further quoted Father Paul who in his History of the Council of Trent, does report it to be the opinion of some of their own most eminent Divines, That if their Church had not appointed another Form, these words (be thou a Priest) had been sufficient to convey the Character. Here Mr. Acton said, Ay, but I deny you to be Priests, Mr. Earbury asked him why? he said, because it was not expressed in our Form of Ordination; Mr. Earbury told him that now he was gone back to his first Argument, which had been confuted before, that he disputed in a circle, and that at this rate it was impossible ever to come to an end. Here Mr. Acton again asked Mr. Earbury whether a Sacrament could confer a power that was not expressed? Mr. Earbury wrote down this answer and read it to the Company, viz. I do say that the words of Ordination may confer a power that is not particularly expressed so it be included in a more general term. Mr. Earbury does not remember that Mr. Acton made any reply to this, but that he repeated the question without taking notice of it, and to the best of Mr. Earbury's remembrance. Here Mr. Thompson declared that he was as little satisfied as ever, for he expected to hear the Naggs-head Story, and concerning Matthew Parker's consecration, and of the Act of Parliament in the 8th. of Elizabeth for confirming our Ordination: but as for Matter and Form of a Sacrament, he understood not two words of it. Mr. Earbury then rose from the Table and spoke to this effect. viz. Sir, I have long suffered you to use me rather like a School boy than a disputant or a man, you have taken the liberty to ask questions and give no answer, but now you shall give a resolution to one Argument I shall propound, nor shall you find an evasion from it. viz. If persons Ordained by this new Form were permitted to officiate without Re-Ordination in Queen Mary's Reign, and if Cardinal Pool did actually dispense with them, than we have the judgements of Papists themselves, that the Form made in Edward the Sixth's time was not deficient in essentials. But Cardinal Pool did dispense with all persons Ordained by this Form, and returning to the Unity of the Church, Ergo, etc. Here Mr. Earbury does affirm that Mr. Acton was very loath to give any answer, alleging sometimes that Queen Mary was but a Woman, and sometimes that Mr. Earbury had now passed to another medium. Mr. Earbury replied, that such excuses should not serve his turn; that he had not passed to another medium, whilst Mr. Acton could say any thing material to his last, and that he expected a direct answer or a candid confession. Mr. Acton after long tergiversation, pulled out a little Book out of his Pocket, which he said was written by a Protestant Author, though the falsity of that is so apparent that none would assert it but those that are deficient either in sincerity or in judgement. The Pamphlet bears the name of Erastus Junior, and out of that he read the Story of Latimer, and Ridley; the latter of which was not degraded from Episcopal Orders at his death, because (as they pretend) Ordained by the new Form. Mr. Earbury acknowledged that Bishops Ordained by the new Form, were not degraded at their Martyrdom. But what then, if they fixed all notes of disgrace to increase the punishment of men put to death as obstinate Heretics, and yet received others in their Orders that returned to the pretended Unity of the Church, the Argument did still hold good. Mr. Acton replied, That if Queen Mary allowed some to be in true Orders that received them by the new Ordinal and not others, than she was a Knave and a Fool. Mr. Earbury answered that that was no fault or concern of his, that he would prove the matter of Fact by sufficient authorities, and that then the Controversy must needs be at an end.  
Here Mr. Shaw told Mr. Acton, That he had not dealt fairly, and that if he pleased he would maintain Mr. Earbury's Argument against him? Mr. Acton refused, saying, he had no reason to change his Man. Here there began to be many speakers, and some of the Romanists talked of Parliamentary Orders, and the Nagshead Story, but Mr. Earbury does not remember that Mr. Acton engaged in it.  
SIR,  
HAving perused your account of your Conference with Mr. Acton, it appears to me to be very faithfully delivered, to be impartially and candidly related: for to the best of my memory there is nothing that was material omitted, nor any thing added, that might tend to the prejudice of your Adversary; this is the real sense of him that is yours,  
John Shaw, Presbyter Angl.  
SIR,  
I Have perused the account of your discourse with Mr. Acton; and do find it to the best of my remembrance, to be a faithful and impartial relation of the whole Conference, And whereas the pretended account of A. N. has insinuated a notorious falsehood; much reflecting upon both of us, viz. That you should assert that the intention alone was sufficient, and that I should deny it; I think myself obliged to undeceive the Reader, for thus it was; when Mr. Acton asked you whether the intention was sufficient, you answered, that the intention as expressed in the Ordinal was sufficient, (or to that effect) and when again he asked whether the intention alone was sufficient; I replied, no, meaning intention barely considered without Matter and Form, to which you did assent: And this is the plain Truth, witness my hand  
Richard Kipping  
SIR,  
I Have read this account of the Conference between you and Mr. A. which, as well as I can pretend to remember a discourse so long ago, I take impartially to contain the most material things that passed between you, but if you have offended on any side 'tis in being too candid to your Antagonist; for I very well remember that you frequently urged Mr. A. to write down his Answers as you did yours which he always declined, by saying it would be night before you should bring any thing to a Conclusion; and would always cry you lost time when you writ any thing: this I doubt not you will easily call to mind, I do likewise very well remember Mr. S' words to Mr. A. and Mr. E. that they had not answered your first Syllogism, and that he would defend it against either of them, which they declined according as you relate it.  
Richard Tisdale, A. B.  
Novemb. 10. 1687. One of the Vergers of our Church brought me this following in a Letter from Mr. Anthony Norris of Norwich, but without any name thereto.  
A Summary of the Conference between Mr. Earbury and Mr. Kipping of the one part; and Mr. Acton and Mr. Brown on the other: Impartially set down to the best of his memory, by one that is of the Church of England, and was an Auditor at the said Conference, but neither side advised with in the drawing up this Account.  
The Question was, About the validity of the Church of England's Orders.  
THe two former Gentlemen took upon them to prove them to be good, and laid down this Rule, That for making of Orders valid there were necessarily required these four things, Authority, Form, Matter, and Capacity. The other Gentlemen did agree all of them to be necessary, but because they would shorten the dispute, would except against only that of our Form, for that it was altered from the ancient; and although they confessed their own had been altered, yet never was in the essentials. Then Mr. Earbury laid down this Proposition or Argument, that if our Saviour's Form were good by which he made Priests, than was ours good, but our Saviour's was good, therefore ours was. Mr. Acton distinguished upon his Major, and said that though with us nothing could be a true Form that did not express the power given, yet with our Saviour it was sufficient, though it did not, who being God could do that which none other could, and therefore with him any thing which he should please to make use of, that did not express the power given was a good and sufficient Form, though the same would not be so with us. The distinction was allowed, and so Mr. Earbury proceeded to prove that our Form did express the power, and accordingly produced his Common-Prayer-Book to show how it was therein expressed in the Form. Mr. Acton did allow it so to be in that Book, but alleged that in all our Prayer-Books from Edward the 6th. until 1662. the word Priest was not expressed in the Form of those. This Mr. Earbury granted, and said that though it did not, yet it was sufficient because it was intended, and then used several other Arguments to prove that it was intended. Mr. Acton then would know of him, whether he would maintain that the intention was sufficient, who did assert it was, but Mr. Kipping would not agree to it. Then upon Mr. Acton's ask Mr. Earbury, that though it were expressed in the Prayers, and not in the Form, if all were cut off but the Form and Matter, whether that were sufficient to make a good Priest; upon which Mr. Earbury would not then abide by his assertion, that the intention is sufficient. The two former Gentlemen proceeded then to another Argument to prove our Orders good, because they were allowed to be good by the Romish Church by Cardinal Pool, who allowed of the Orders given in Edward the 6th. days in the time of Queen Mary. Mr. Acton replied that now they come to offer another medium, which was not to be allowed of unless they would agree first that they had no more to say as to the Form, or were content to give that over. But they said it was nothing but what was still depending upon the former. Mr. Acton said, That though it was against the Rules of the Schools, yet he should go on, and proceed to give his answer unto their new medium, and so denied that they were ever owned to be good by Cardinal Pool, upon which the other Gentlemen told him they had not the Books present to prove it, but should do it in writing to him the next day, with citations of the Authors, that they would send to his Lodgings. Mr. Acton said, he was sure they never could do it, and though it belonged not to him to prove the contrary, yet he produced to them a Protestant Book setting forth the manner of the burning of Bishop Ridley (I think it was that Bishop) who being made Priest by the Popish Form they first degraded him of his Priesthood, but not of his Episcopal Orders telling him they would not degrade him of these, for that they never looked upon him for a Bishop, who was such by the Form of Edward the 6th. which did clearly prove they never allowed of the Orders to be good in Edward the 6th. days. The two former Gentlemen said they could stay no longer, and so took their leaves.  
If any other can say more than hath been in defence of our Orders, the Author hereof will be very thankful to receive it from them in Writing, which may come to him by the same hand by which he sends this, and desires this may be sent him back again.  
The Messenger that brought me the letter telling me that he had it from Mr. Anthony Norris though his name was not to it; I supposed it to be his, and therefore sending to Mr Earbury concerning it, he brought me that account of the Conference which begins this Book, and that with this following answer from myself was sent him the next day after.  
LAst Night a nameless Paper was brought me containing a relation of a certain discourse that happened between one Mr. Acton a Gentleman of the Romish Communion, and two Divines of our Church concerning the validity of our Orders, and as far as I find by that paper the grand objection brought against them was from the alteration made in our Ordinal, Anno 1662. as if that were a tacit consent on our side, that before this alteration was made our Ordinal was not sufficient, and therefore no Orders could be conferred thereby, and consequently that neither they which were ordained by it, or we that have derived our Orders from them have received any legal and sufficient Ordination thereby. To which I answer. 1. That the putting in of Explanatory words to make things clearer and render them more free from cavil and objection cannot be well termed an alteration. 2. That supposing really there had been any such alteration made as to the whole substance of the Form, yet this is no more than what the Church of Rome hath often done, there being scarce an age in which she hath not considerably varied from herself herein, as may be seen by comparing those many different Forms of Ordination used in the Church of Rome, which are collected together by Morinus a Learned Priest of that Church, in his book de Ordinationibus. 3. The alterations, or rather explanatory Additions made in our Ordinal in the Year 1662. were not inserted out of any respect to the controversy we have with the Church of Rome, but only to silence a cavil of the Presbyterians, who from the old Ordinal drew an Argument to prove that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest, because (as they say) their Offices were not at all distinguished in the words whereby they were conferred on them when ordained, or any new power given a Bishop which he had not afore as a Priest. For the words of Ordination in King Edward's Ordinal are for a Priest as followeth, [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Sacraments, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: And for a Bishop [Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands. For God hath not given thee the Spirit of Fear, but of Power, and Love, and Soberness. And they so continued till the review of our Liturgy. Anno 1662. and then to obviate the abovementioned cavil of the Presbyterians those explanatory words were inserted, whereby the distinction between a Bishop and a Priest is more clearly and unexceptionably expressed. So that now the words of Ordination for a Priest are [Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, etc.] And for a Bishop [Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and remember that thou, etc.] But 4. Having thus stated the Case, and laid before you the differences between the new Ordinal and the Old; Now to come to the main of the objection, I assert that had the old Ordinal been continued without any such Addition, although it might not so clearly have obviated the cavils of Adversaries, yet the Orders conferred by it would have been altogether as valid. And as to the Objection made by the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, that the words of our old Ordinal do not sufficiently express the Office conferred thereby, this must be understood either in reference to the Priestly Ordination, or the Episcopal or both. And 1. As to the Priestly Ordination there seems not to be the least ground for it, because the Form in the old Ordinal doth as fully express the Office, Power and Authority of a Priest as need be required in these words. [Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Sacraments.] Wherein the whole of the Priestly Office is expressed. But 2. As to the Episcopal Ordination the whole pinch of the Argument seems to lie there, because in the old Form of the words spoken at the imposition of hands, the Office and Authority of a Bishop (they say) is not so particularly specified. To this I answer first, That I think this sufficiently done in the words of the Form, [Remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands, for God hath not given us the Spirit of Fear, but of Power and Love, and Soberness.] For they are the very words of St. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, (Epist. 2. c. 1. ver. 6, 7.) Whereby he exhorts and stirs him up to the Execution of his Episcopal office, and they have always been understood to refer thereto, and therefore I think they may be also allowed sufficient to express the same Episcopal office, when spoken to any other, and fully determine to what Office the Holy Ghost is given by imposition of hands in the Form mentioned, and properer for this purpose than any other, because of the greater Authority which they must have, in that they are taken out of the Holy Scripture. But if men will cavil on, and still object that the Name of Bishop is not expressed in the Form, or the duties and power of that Office with sufficient clearness specified in the words mentioned, the objection lies much more against the Roman Ordinal than ours, as being much more defective herein. For the whole Form used therein at the Consecration of a Bishop is no more than this, [Receive the Holy Ghost] that being all that is said at the imposition of hands, and asserted by them to be the whole Form of Episcopal Ordination. And therefore Vasques a Learned Jesuit, and most Eminent School-man makes the same objection against the Roman Ordinal, that the Romanists do against ours. For in Tertiam Thomae Disp. 240. c. 5. N. 57 His words are, Illa verba [accipe Spiritum Sanctum] quae a tribus Episcopis simul cum impositione manuum dicuntur super Ordinandum usque adeo generalia videntur, ut proprium munus aut gradum Episcopi non exprimant, quod tamen necessarium videbatur pro formâ, i. e. These words Receive the Holy Ghost, which are spoken by three Bishops together with imposition of hands over the person to be Ordained seem to be so general, that they do not express the proper office and degree of a Bishop, which yet did seem necessary for the Form of his Ordination. But to this he himself gives a solution (N. 60. of the same chapter) in these following words. Neque obstat id quod supra dicebamus, verba illa accipe Spiritum Sanctum admodum generalia esse, nam quamvis in illis secundum se consideratis non denotetur munus aut gradus peculiaris Episcopi, & pro quocunque alio ordine dici possent, tamen prout proferuntur adhibitâ a tribus Episcopis in unum Congregatis manuum impositione pro materia recte quidem denotant gradum Episcopi ad quem electus ordinatur. Sic enim simul imponentes per verba illa denotant se eum in suum consortium admittere, & ad hoc Spiritum sanctum tribuere, ac proinde in eodem ordine Episcopali secum ipsum constituere. Cum tamen manuum impositio ab uno tantum Episcopo adhibita, & eadem verba accipe Spiritum Sanctum, paucis aliis additis ab eodem in ordinatione Diaconi prolata neque secundum se neque prout ab ipso Episcopo dicta & huic materiae applicata peculiare munus aut gradum Diaconi denotent, neque enim prout dicta a uno Episcopo cum tali materia denotare possunt ordinatum admitti ad consortium Episcopi in hoc potius ordine quam in alio, cum unus Episcopus tam sit minister ordinis Sacerdotii & Subdiaconatus, quam Diaconatus: e contrario vero tres Episcopi solius ordinis Episcopalis ministri sint, ideo autem existimo Christum voluisse ut Ecclesia illius tantum verbis, quae secundum se Generalia sunt in hac ordinatione uteretur, ut denotaret abundantiam gratiae Spiritus Sancti, quae Episcopis in Ordinatione confertur. Plus enim videtur esse dari Spiritum Sanctum absolutè, quam dari ad hunc vel illum effectum peculiarem, i. e. Neither doth that hinder, which I have said before, that these words [Receive the Holy Ghost] were too general. For although by these words considered in themselves the Office or peculiar degree of a Bishop cannot be denoted, and they may be also said for any other Order; but as they are pronounced (the imposition of hands of three Bishops joined together being also had therewith for the matter of Ordination) they do truly denote the degree of a Bishop, to which the person Elected is Ordained. For they after this manner laying on their hands all together by those words do denote that they do receive him into their fellowship, and to this end do give the Holy Ghost, and therefore do place him in the same Episcopal Order with themselves, whereas the imposition of hands made use of by one Bishop only, and the same words [Receive the Holy Ghost] with a few others added to them spoken by the same Bishop in the Ordination of a Deacon do not either as considered in themselves, or as spoken by the Bishop, and applied to this matter denote the peculiar office or degree of a Deacon, neither can they as spoken by one Bishop, with such a matter denote the Ordained to be admitted into fellowship with the Bishop rather in this Order than in another, seeing one Bishop is as well the Minister of conferring the Orders of Priesthood, and of the Sub-Deacon, as of the Deacon. But on the contrary three Bishops are only the Ministers of conferring Episcopal Ordination. And I do therefore think it to be the Will of Christ, that his Church should in this Ordination use such words as considered in themselves are only general, that it might denote thereby that abundance of Grace of the Holy Ghost which is conferred on Bishops in their Ordination. For it seems to be much more that the Holy Ghost be given absolutely, than that it be given for this or that peculiar effect. Thus far the Learned Jesuit, and if this may be allowed to be a sufficient solution of the objection against the Ordinal of the Church of Rome, it must also be a sufficient solution of the same objection against our Ordinal. For with us as well as in the Church of Rome there are always three Bishops present at the Ordination of a Bishop, which altogether lay on their hands on the Bishop Elect when Ordained, and not only this Circumstance, but many others in the Administration of this Office according to our Ordinal do as fully show what Order the Person, on whom they thus lay on their hands, and pronounce the abovementioned Form of Consecration over, is to be admitted to. The complex of the whole office shows it. For the person to be Ordained, or consecrated is presented to the Metropolitan as one to be made a Bishop; he takes the Oath of Canonical obedience to the Metropolitan as one to be made a Bishop; is prayed for as one to be made a Bishop; is examined or interrogated as one to be made a Bishop; is vested in the Episcopal Robes, and is Ordained by a Form never used but in the Ordination of a Bishop; and all these together with many other like circumstances in that office, too long all to be put down, are certainly sufficient to determine the words of the Form to the Episcopal office only, were there nothing in the words themselves to do it, as it is certain there is not in the Form used by the Church of Rome to this purpose.  
As to what was said in reference to Bishop Ridley's degradation only from his Priestly office before his Martyrdom to prove his Episcopal office not then allowed to be valid, I observe these following particulars.  
First, That in these times of bitter persecution against us, our adversaries (as is usual in such cases) proceeded rather according to their Rage and Fury, than the just rules either of Truth or Reason, or what they themselves were used to practice at other times.  
Secondly, That the voiding of Leases made by Protestant Bishops in King Edward's time depending upon the voiding of their Orders; This was so earnestly endeavoured by those Popish Bishops that came in their places in Queen Mary's time for secular interest.  
Thirdly, That notwithstanding those were thus dealt with, that would not come in to the Church of Rome at its restauration in Queen Mary's days, yet those that did, although Ordained by King Edward's Ordinal, kept both their Livings and their Orders too (and those not a few) without any new Ordination, all being salved by a dispensation, which could not have been done had their Orders by that Ordinal been conferred contrary to Christ's institution, against which there can be no dispensation by any power on Earth whatsoever.  
Fourthly, All that B. Bonner pretended to (who was the fiercest for the invalidity of all our Orders, and reaped most benefit thereby in the voiding of Bishop Ridleys' Leases) was to supply the defects of them, not totally to annul what was done before as appears by the injunctions, which he procured from the Queen to carry with him in the first visitation of his Diocese after his res; toration. And what these defects were as to the Priestly office he himself tells us in a Book which he wrote against our Orders. For all there which he assigns (and which is in Truth the whole, which the Gentlemen of Rome insist upon when they come close to the point,) is that in our Ordinal of Ordaining Priests this form was wanting [Receive thou power to offer Sacrifices to God, and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead,] and if this be a defect in our Ordinal, and on this account an Essential part is wanting in our Orders (as they contend) it hath also been a defect in the Church of Rome itself, which for near a thousand years together never used any such form in their Ordination, and it is not now used to this day either in the Greek Church, or the Churches of the Maronites upon Mount Libanus, although the Church of Rome allows the Orders of the former to be good, and the latter are members of their own Communion. Nay, it is further to be observed, that those Greeks which live in Rome not only under the Pope's Jurisdiction to which they have submitted, but also under his very nose, and have Churches there maintained for them at his cost and charges, are still allowed to be Ordained by their own Ordinal, in which this Form is wanting, as the abovementioned Morinus a Learned Priest of the Romish Communion, and one that lived sometime at Rome doth attest, and therefore if for this defect (as they call it) our Orders be null and invalid (as now they would have) why do they allow them to be good and valid in others, which have received them with the same defect also, or rather how can they be good and valid in themselves, who have received them from such, as for near a thousand years (as I have afore observed) never used this Form.  
H. Prideaux. Nou. 11 th'. 1687.  
But sometime after hearing that what was urged concerning Bishop Ridly's not being degraded from his Episcopal Orders at his Martyrdom, to be much talked of amongst Mr. Acton's Friends, as if it were an argument which did invincibly overthrow what Mr. Earbury asserted concerning our Orders having been admitted to be good in Queen Mary's time, I sent Mr. Norris this further paper concerning that matter.  
SIR,  
I Being desirous to give you satisfaction to the utmost concerning the point you proposed to me, think myself obliged to add this further paper to that I have already sent you to undeceive you as to what was objected concerning Bishop Ridley's not being allowed to be a Bishop at his Martyrdom. The Argument as I take it from the paper you sent me runs thus. Mr. E. urged that our Orders were allowed as to their essentials to be good in Queen Mary's days, and only culpable as to Canonical defects. And this he proved, because such as had received Orders by our Ordinal in King Edward's days, on their coming in again into the Communion of the Church of Rome in Queen Mary's Reign were not Ordained again, but were received to officiate in their functions by a dispensation only. But a dispensation cannot salve an essential, but only a Canonical defect, it not being in the power of any authority on Earth to dispense with an essential of Christ's institution. To this Mr. A. answered by denying the matter of fact, that they that were thus Ordained were not so received to administer in their functions by virtue of a dispensation only, as Mr. Earbury alleged; but that their Orders in Queen Mary's days were reckoned totally null and void, and for proof hereof urged Bishop Ridley's being degraded from his Priestly office at his Martyrdom, but not from his Episcopal. For he being ordained Priest by the Popish Ordinal they allowed him these Orders to be good, but having been made Bishop by King Edward's Ordinal; for that reason they would not allow him to be a Bishop, whereas Archbishop Cranmer who had received both Orders by the Romish Ordinal was degraded from both, as being allowed for that reason to be legally made both Priest and Bishop. And this I suppose is the utmost that Argument can be made of by whomsoever urged, and so I find it laid down by Mr. Walker in his Relation of the English Reformation. But the whole goes upon a very gross mistake. For Bishop Ridley was made Bishop of Rochester in the first year of King Edward the sixth's Reign, having been designed for that See by King Henry the 8th. his Father, and consecrated not by the new Ordinal, which they find so much fault with, but by the old Popish one on the 5th. of September, Anno Domini 1547. For the Act of Parliament which appointed the making of the new Ordinal was not enacted till the first of February in the 4th. year of King Edward's Reign, Anno Domini 1549. and it was the March after in the beginning of the year 1550. before it was fully completed, so that Ridley was two years and a half Bishop before the new Ordinal had any being, and therefore could not be ordained by it, or his Episcopal orders invalidated for any defect therein. However I acknowledge the matter of fact to be so as urged, and that Bishop Ridley was treated at his Martyrdom just as they relate, being degraded by them from his Priestly orders, but not from his Episcopal, because they would not allow him ever to have received any such. But if you ask me the reason then of this their proceeding with him I can give you no other than what I have told you before in my last paper I sent you, i. e. The blind rage and impetuous malice of those that persecuted this Learned and Holy Bishop, which hurried them on to such things in their proceedings against him, as were neither agreeable to reason or their own established doctrine as to this particular.  
For first they cannot say he was no legal Bishop although ordained by their own Ordinal because this was done in time of Schism after King Henry the 8th. had separated from the Church of Rome. For if this be granted it will then follow by the same reason that neither Heath, Thurlby, nor Bonner himself (who were the chief supporters of the Papal cause in Queen Mary's days,) were true Bishops, as being consecrated in the same manner as Ridley was after this separation. Neither,  
Secondly, Can it be said that his Orders were null for the pretended crime of Heresy. For this contradicts the whole current of their own Divines who all hold, that orders imprint an indelible character in the person ordained, which neither Schism, Heresy, or any thing else can ever blot out, but that whosoever is to be ordained a Bishop although he be an Heretic doth not only receive this character, but also can beget the same character in any other that shall be ordained by him. And therefore according to this Doctrine, although Bishop Ridley had been an Heretic, and all his Ordainers Heretics also, as they would have them to be, yet would his Ordination be good, and as true a character of the Episcopal office be Imprinted on him as on any other. And this they are necessitated to grant from the practice of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church, who ever received Heretics on their Repentance into the same orders, which they had afore received from those Heretical Bishops, to whose doctrine they had adhered without any new Ordination. For although it be acknowledged a great sin, either to give or receive Holy orders to propagate false and Heretical Doctrines, yet it hath ever been allowed that they are good and valid whenever thus conferred, and that the true characters of a Bishop and a Priest may be found among the worst of Heretics, as well as the best of Christians, because the abuse of the office doth not annul the Commission. But that being written in indelible characters in the soul of him that is ordained, they tell us, it shall there for ever remain, not only in this Life, but also in that which is to come, and then not only in Heaven but also in Hell itself, and that to all Eternity, as may be shown out of several of their best reputed Authors. And thus far therefore it is plain that it was not any defect in the ordinal, by which Bishop Ridley was ordained, or the pretended crime of Heresy or Schism, either in him or in them that ordained him Bishop, that could null and make void his Episcopal Orders, according to the Doctrine of the Romanists themselves, that were so forward to pass this sentence upon him, and there being no other reason which they can allege for it to justify these their proceedings with him, it doth necessarily follow, that their denying him to be a Bishop can be resolved into nothing else, but that same rage and malice against him which made them take away his Life. And proceedings of this nature are no strange things in the Church of Rome, nothing having been more common among them than in the height of their animosities to void and annul the orders of those they had a quarrel with: and instances enough of this may be given especially among the Successions of Pope Formosus, every new Pope almost for several Successors after him annulling all the Acts of his Predecessor, and some of them the orders also conferred by him for no other reason, but for the hatred which they bore each other according as they were of different parties for or against the proceedings of Formosus that was Pope before them. And if the truth be fully examined into, no other reason will appear for their like proceedings with us. We are not of their party, but after having long submitted to their unreasonable usurpations, and unwarrantable impositions will now bear them no longer, but having cast off this heavy yoke from our necks have thereby cut them short of a great part of their Empire, and deprived them of vast incomes, which they annually received out of those Kingdoms in larger sums then from any other nation under their bondage, and therefore looking on us as the Egyptians did on the Israelites, when they withdrew themselves from their bondage, although it were to serve the living God, pursue after us with the same malice, and when out of the bitterness of it they have deprived so many of us of our Lives, no wonder they will not allow us our orders. But how bad soever either our orders, our Liturgy, or any other part of the Reformation established among us, may at present be esteemed; yet we have heard of the time, when if his Holiness might but have had his Supremacy and his Peter-pences again, all might have been allowed to be good and valid Pope Paul the 4th. and after him Pope Pius the 4th. having several times offered it Queen Elizabeth to confirm all that was done in the Reformation of this Church, and allow both our orders and our Liturgy too, provided she would again restore them to that Authority and Revenue which their Predecessors formerly had in this Land. And as long as there was any hope for the succeeding of this project, Papists were permitted both to frequent our Churches and join with us in our Prayers, and it was the General practice of that whole party for the first ten years of her Reign so to do. But afterwards when the Court of Rome found that the Queen was immovably fixed against what they proposed, and all likelihood taken from them of again recovering their power in this Land by any Concession from her, than first began they in the 11th. year of her Reign to command their Votaries to make a total separation from us, and to proceed in the most rigorous manner possible by Excommunications, Sentences of Deposition, underhand Treasons, and open violences against the Queen and all that adhere to her, to condemn our Church of Apostasy from the Faith, and to denounce all her establishments, which afore of their own accord they had offered to confirm and allow, to be Heretical, False, Diabolical, and what other like name they were pleased to affix thereto, and all this for no other reason, but because we would not again admit them to that Tyrannical supremacy over us, which had on so just grounds been cast out of our Land, by which it appears that Empire is the only thing in reality which those men look after, and all things else are to be allowed or denied as they may comport therewith.  
I am Sir, Your affectionate Friend, Humphrey Prideaux.  
The same Messenger that carried this Paper to Mr. Norris brought from him this following in Answer to the first Paper I sent him, it being on Friday Night November the 25 th'.  
SIR,  
THE ensuing are my promised thoughts upon your Paper, which neither Mr. Acton nor any of those Gentlemen had the least hand in.  
The exception amongst others which our Adversaries take against our Orders is, that in the Ordinal of Edward the Sixth's days the power given by that Form of making Priests did not express for what office, which our Church judged so necessary that it should, that in the review of it in Charles the Second Time that defect was supplied by the addition of the word Priest, which the Bishop is now to express in the Form when he lays his hands upon the person to be ordained unto that office.  
In your paper you vindicate the former Ordinal by these several ways.  
First, That the addition did not suppose any defect in it before, but was put in only to avoid the cavils of the Presbyterians, who at that time were assembled by Commission with our Churchmen upon review of our Liturgy.  
Secondly, For that it was before agreeable to Christ's own practice.  
Thirdly, To the Practice of the Romish Church, who also owned our Priesthood to be good by the Concessions of Cardinal Pool. It being nothing but the truth which I look at, have therefore fairly and candidly summed up and recited the utmost strength of your Paper.  
To your first I say, That for the word Priest and Bishop to be added to the new Form for avoiding all cavils from the Presbyterians, who so much hated the name of both, I will appeal almost to all the World, whether that could be thought to be the true Reason. Besides ourselves do grant that even to those very men it was thought defective, for the very same reason the Romanists did, and therefore must necessarily conclude it to be very deficient being so apparent unto them as well as unto the others. But the true reason of that addition I take to be from two books, which came out not above a year before called Erastus Senior, and Erastus Junior, which did make appear, that the power given at our Ordination of Priests was not expressed in the Form of that office, by which they were no more Priests than any Layman confirmed by the Bishop. If our Church had not thought it essentially necessary to have made that addition, she never would so have exposed our Ordinal to the just censures of our adversaries in so high a concern for a mere circumstantial matter, which alteration was not in the preliminary part of it, or in the prayers before or after, but in the very essential part of it, and therefore by such an addition she could not but think it very defective before.  
To your second I say, That although our Saviour who also was God could confer the whole office of Priest without any Form expressing the power given, or could make any Form sufficient for that end yet doth it not therefore follow that we can do it, but in the ordinary way. But when our Saviour said, Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you remit, etc. They were not by those very words alone made complete and entire Priests, they were thereby so far as to remit sins; but not to Consecrate or Make present the body and blood of Christ, which power he gave them, when he instituted the Eucharist, and said, this do in Remembrance of me. Now though the word Priest was not expressed in our Saviour's Form, yet was it by equivalency, by expressly giving them all the power that belonged to that office. If our Saviour had only said, be thou a Priest, it had been as sufficient for all the offices of it, as when he expressly gave them power to perform all the offices of it without expressly giving the Title. But our Ordinal did not express the whole power given either by name or equivalency. For it did not give power to Consecrate the Eucharist, though it did to be dispensers and faithful Ministers of it, which amounts to no more than distributers which every Deacon is as capable of as a Priest. And if dispensing should import to be Stewards of the Mysteries of God, that also imports no more than to be Conservators, or trusties of what should be committed to them, not that they are thereby the makers of it. That because I am entrusted or made Steward it should therefore necessarily follow that I have power to make that with which I am entrusted, I hope our case depends not upon such a forced and unnatural a consequence.  
If it should be objected that our Saviour did not then give the power to Consecrate the Eucharist, when he said to his Apostles, Do this in remembrance of me, but was only a command to continue the Rite and Custom of it in the Church, and therefore were complete Priests from those words only by which he gave them power to remit sins. To this I answer, That if our Church had thought any sufficiently empowered to Consecrate the Eucharist by virtue only of those words to remit sins, we then must make her highly guilty of notorious idle Tautology in her Form of Ordination, when after she hath given power to remit sins should also at the same time distinctly give power to dispense the Sacraments. But by her giving such distinct power to dispense the Sacraments after she had given power to remit sins, she could not think that to be the sense of our Saviour's words, but the other, that by bidding them do this in Remembrance of him, that he did then give them power to Consecrate the Eucharist, which I take clearly to be the sense of the Church, whose Authority I shall prefer before any single persons whatsoever. Besides that our Saviour should then command them to do that which they had power for to do, is more like to a cruel Tyrant than a most Merciful and Compassionate Master.  
To your Third and last I say, That the Romanists making alteration in their Ordinals signify nothing, unless you can show me where they have done it in such an essential part of it as we have. Although they have added that to theirs of offering sacrifice for the living and the dead, yet in regard they do before in their Ordinal expressly give all Priestly power, which we did not, the other is but an instruction to let them know what power they had received, and for what they were to make use of it by virtue of that all Priestly power expressly given them before, as appears by the words in their Ordinal, which in ours was neither given in general, nor in particular to Consecrate or make present Christ's body and blood in the Holy Eucharist, as was observed before. If we had then as now but said be thou a Priest, I grant it had been sufficient for all the offices of it, although none of them had been particularly expressed in our Ordinal.  
As to what Morinus hath said about the Greek and Roman Ordinals not giving distinct power expressly to Consecrate makes nothing at all, so long as they gave them all Priestly power: Unless you can prove any of their Ordinals do not expressly give them Priesthood, the exceptions out of him of not giving power to Consecrate is nothing at all to the true state of the Question between us.  
Sir, As to what you say from Vasquez relates only to a Bishop, who doth not thereby receive any new character, than what he had afore as a Priest, and is only the same power and character further extended which was before virtually in him from his Priesthood, and therefore those words [Receive the Holy Ghost and stir up the grace, etc.] may be sufficient alone for that, though not for a Priest, who doth receive a new power and character. Besides the same Author in the same Tome which you quote doth expressly say that by the words, Receive the Holy Ghost, and whose sins you remit, etc. doth not alone make an entire Priest, and that he hath not power to Consecrate by virtue of them, and you know, Sir, the point between us now is only that of Priesthood.  
As to that Sir which you say, That they would not degrade Bishop Ridley of his Episcopal office was not upon account that they thought him no Bishop, but for the benefit of the Leases to his Successor Bonner. But why then did they at the same time degrade Latimer of his Episcopal office, who was made such by the Roman Ordinal; which Ridley was not by which Sir you may plainly see what the true reason was of both, which I take not at all to be what Sir you were pleased for to surmise.  
Finally, whereas you were pleased to say our Priests were owned for good by the Romanists themselves, when you shall be pleased Sir to make proof thereof I shall think it then time, and not before to take it into my consideration, in the mean time Sir if you please to look into Mr. Fox, and do believe what he says, you shall find what complaints he makes of the Roman Clergy against the Protestant Clergy in Queen Mary days, what havoc they made with the latter in that they would force them all to be Re-Ordained again. Sir, I am still in the same Communion which if I should ever change, it can be imputed to nothing more than from some of our own Clergymen, of whom I do expressly exempt yourself,  
SIR, I am your most humble Servant, A. N.  
Three days after I had also this following paper sent me by the same Gentleman in answer to the last I sent him.  
SIR,  
I Could not conveniently before yesterday read over your second Paper supplemental to your first. As to Bishop Ridley you may find by Mr. Mason's Vindication of him by the reasons he urged, that he did account him to be Consecrated not by the Old but by the New Ordinal, and the Pope's Commissioners refusing to degrade him as to that Office, and yet did Bishop Latimer in both is a clear Testimony that they would not do it to the one because they thought him consecrated by the New Ordinal. Besides Dr. Burnet hath expressly declared that Ridley was made Bishop by the New Ordinal in King Edward's time. Besides other Bishops they did not degrade.  
As to their coming to our Churches until the 10th. of Queen Elizabeth, so to my knowledge did most of the Prebendarys of your Cathedral with the rest of the Episcopal party constantly frequent the Presbyterian Churches all along in the late times, and yet they did not think those men's Orders to be good who officiated, that took them not from the Bishop.  
As to the Persecutions and Cruelties of our Adversaries, they were much to blame for them, but as it was done from a Law of the State Civil, and not from the Church, so I suppose you do believe with me that Religion forceth no man's will and Nature, and that there may be as great villains embrace a true Religion, as there be that do a false, so that nothing can be concluded from thence.  
If I have said in my Compendium sent you, that Mr. Acton asserted our Saviour's way in making Priests was defective, I did then much belly him, for he said no such thing, and I am confident, Sir, you are much mistaken, that any such thing should be in that Paper.  
I shall be always ready to hear whatever reasons you shall be pleased to offer and do think none can do more than yourself, for which I shall also think myself much obliged that ever shall be  
SIR, Your most Humble Servant, A. N. Nou. 28. 1687.  
Both which Letters came to me in the time of our Audit, when I was totally engaged in a work of another nature, in passing my accounts as Treasurer and Receiver of our Church for the foregoing year, however notwithstanding the hurry this put me in all day, that one that still owned himself to be of our Communion might not want that satisfaction which he pretended to desire, I made a shift to steal so much time from my sleep at night as to write him this following answer.  
SIR,  
LAST Friday having sent you my second Paper in order to your further satisfaction about the point proposed, I did at the same time receive another from you, containing your Animadversions upon my first, wherein I find the main objection that sticks with you is that in our old Ordinal The Form used in Priestly ordination is so defective as not to be sufficient to confer the office, so that through this defect all that have been Ordained by that Ordinal, and all such as have since derived their orders from them so ordained are in reality and truth no Priests, and all this only for want of the word Priest in the Form of Ordination. Which objection I thought I had sufficiently prevented by telling you in my first Paper, that though the word Priest was wanting in the Form, yet the whole of his office was expressed therein, and that must be allowed to be sufficient even by the Papists themselves, since in their Ordinal it is never as much as once mentioned in all those many Forms, which the Bishop speaks over the Person ordained, when he confers the office upon him. And therefore if it be sufficient in their Ordinal to express the sum of the Priestly office without naming the word by which it is called, I know not why it may not also be allowed to be sufficient in ours. But it seems you are not satisfied that the sum of the Priestly office is expressed in the Form of our Ordinal: whereby a Priest is ordained, and you bring several reasons to the contrary. The business which I told you in my last I am now engaged in will not permit me at present to give you a full Answer to all you object, but I having an obligation upon me from another occasion to examine this to the bottom do now only desire your patience awhile, and all that I have to say on this point shall be communicated unto you. In the interim I have these following particulars to observe upon the Paper you sent me.  
First, You much mistake what I mention in reference to the Presbyterians, if you please to consult my Paper again you will find nothing concerning their being in Commission with our Church at the Review of our Liturgy. For the thing is by no means true, the Liturgy having been reviewed in Convocation, where the Presbyterians had nothing to do. There was indeed a meeting at the Savoy in order to bring things to a composure, but nothing that I said in my Paper was intended by me to have the least reference thereto, and I wonder how my words could be wrested to it. All that I meant by what I said in reference to them (and this I thought I had expressed plainly enough to be understood) was that in their Cavils and Objections in the late times against Episcopacy and the superiority of the Episcopal office above the Priestly they drew one Argument against us from our own Ordinal, such as they call Argumentum ad Homines, and from the very Form whereby our Bishops are ordained endeavour to prove upon us, that they have nothing in their office which is not also contained in the office of a Priest, The Form of their Ordination expressing nothing (as they urged) which doth not belong to a Priest as well as a Bishop even according to our own definition of the Priestly office. And to take away the foundation of his Argument (as I have been told) those words were put into the Forms as might express a more explicit and clear distinction between the two Functions. And although I do not much insist hereon (the thing not being at all material to the controversy in hand) yet I have reasons that persuade me I have not been misinformed. For the Papist at that time was an adversary not at all thought on. The Church had then just recovered itself from that many years oppression which it had suffered from the Presbyterians, and therefore had their thoughts at that time totally set how to fence themselves against the enemy that last hurt them without having any such regard to the other Adversary, at that time low enough and not at all formidable. But whether this were so or no sure I am the two Pamphlets you mention Erastus Senior, and Erastus Junior could have no influence in that matter. For Erastus' Senior (and which of the two I suppose by the Title was first Printed) makes mention (Page the last) of this alteration in our Ordinal then already made, and although he says it was done after the Printing of that Book, yet certainly it must be before the Publishing of it, otherwise how could mention hereof be made therein. But whensoever they were Printed or Published, they were so far from being in the least likely to influence so grave and learned an Assembly, as that of the Church of England Assembled in Convocation by any thing written in them, that they were considerable for nothing as much as the contempt which they met with from all sorts of people as scandalous and idle pamphlets, and so they were Reputed among some of the soberest of the Papists themselves as having no grounds for what they went upon but unreasonable calumnies, false suggestions and deceitful argumentations, which so far moved the indignation of a learned Priest of that Religion, that he thought himself concerned to disown the whole that was contained in those Pamphlets by Writing a Book against them.  
Secondly, Whereas you lay much stress upon the imperative words used by the Bishop at the imposition of hands, and will have them to be of the essentials of Ordination; and challenge me to show when the Church of Rome ever made any such alterations in them as we have done, in answer hereto I lay down these following particulars.  
1. That those words are no more essential to Ordination, than any other part of the Ordinal. Had those words indeed been enjoined by Christ, and commanded by him to be always used in Ordination, than I must confess the altering of them would have been a very criminal deviation from our Saviour's institution, and might infer a nullity in the whole Administration. But the Church of Rome doth not pretend to any such divine Authority for any of their Forms, but it is at present their most generally received Doctrine that the very Form of Ordination as well as the preliminary and concomitant prayers (which you allow alterable) are in the power of the Church to alter, add and new word them as they shall judge most convenient, and if the Church of Rome hath this liberty, I know not why the Church of England may not be allowed to have it also.  
2. Those imperative words in which you place the essence of Ordination are so far from being thus essential thereto, that for above a thousand years the Church of Rome itself never had any such in any of their Ordinals, as may appear from the Collection Morinus hath made of them in his Book de Ordinationibus. But the whole Rite of Ordination for all that time was performed by imposition of hands and prayer only, without any such imperative words at all spoken by the Ordainer to the person Ordained to denote his receiving the office conferred on him, as is now made use of both in ours as well as in the Roman Ordinal. And the Council of Carthage which is the ancientest we find to have directed concerning this matter prescribes nothing herein, but imposition of hands and prayer only. And in the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, and believed by many of the Romish Communion to be genuine, and by all to be very ancient mention is made of imposition of hands and prayer as the only things made use of in Ordination. And if you will go to the Scriptures, you will find the Holy Apostles made use of nothing else in the Ordination of the seven Deacons, and when Paul and Barnabas were set a part by the Commandment of the Holy Ghost to go preach the Gospel to the Gentiles we find mention of nothing else done in their designation to that Ministry. And therefore Morinus a Priest of the Church of Rome lays down this Doctrine, that nothing is absolutely necessary to Ordination but imposition of hands with a convenient prayer, for this only (he saith) the Scripture hath delivered and the universal practice of the Church hath confirmed. But I having promised you a fuller Examination of this point shall at present no longer detain you, only thus much I could not but observe unto you at present to let you see how miserably you are imposed on by such as would make those things essential to Ordination, which if granted will infer a nullity not only in our Orders, but also in all the Orders of all that have been Ordained in the Church of Christ for above a thousand years after his first establishing of it here on Earth, and consequently also make their own Orders null and void which have been derived from them.  
Thirdly, You grant that these words in the Roman Ordinal [Receive power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead] are a novel addition and by no means essential to Orders, but only words of instruction to let them know that are Ordained what power they had received by that Priestly office, which afore they were in express words invested with, and for what purpose they were to make use of it. In Answer to which I shall lay down these following particulars,  
1. That in granting this you grant the whole point in controversy between us and the Church of Rome concerning this matter. For whatsoever they may tell you about altering the Form in our Ordinal, all this is impertinent cavil made use of only to deceive the less wary and ensnare the ignorant. The only point which they will insist upon when they come to dispute this matter in earnest is, that by our Ordinal we do not give our Priests the power of offering up the sacrifice of the Mass. For they say that in the office of a Priest are contained two powers, the power of Sacrificing, and the power of Absolving from Sin, and that this twofold power is conferred by a twofold Matter and Form in Ordination. That in conferring the first power the delivering of the Sacred Vessels is the matter, and these words [Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God, etc.] are the Form, and in conferring the second power imposition of hands is the matter, and these words [Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive, etc.] the Form. And therefore judging both these powers essentially and indivisibly contained in the office of a Priest, and that both these Rites the first by the Authority of the Council of Florence, and the second by the Authority of the Council of Trent, are essentially necessary to the conferring these Powers, do for this reason deny the validity of our Orders, because in our Ordinations we only make use of the latter matter and form, and totally omit the former; and therefore (say they) we have not the whole power of Priesthood conferred on us, but only that of remitting sins as your Paper mentions, and on this account the other part of offering Sacrifice, which is the main essential, (as they say) being wanting all becomes null and void for lack thereof: And this is the plain state of the Controversy between us, and therefore if you are convinced by what I wrote you in my first Paper that those words [Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to Celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead] are not necessary in Ordination, because in so many Ages never used in the Church (as can be undeniably proved they were not) you have conquered the whole Objection that is in earnest made against our Orders, and the Controversy is at an end between us. For Secondly, That which you say that all Priestly power, and consequently this power of Sacrificing is given in the Roman Ordinal in other words before the speaking of these [Receive thou power to offer Sacrifice, &c] will appear by examining the Ordinal itself to be altogether a mistake. For if this be given, it must be done either in the Prayers of the Office, or in the Imperative words spoken by the Bishop to the person Ordained. In the Prayers you will not say, for then the Prayers in our Ordinal must be allowed to be as valid for this purpose also, in which the Priestly Office is as fully expressed both by Name and Description as in theirs. And in the Imperative words you cannot say it: For there are but two Forms of Imperative words in the Roman Ordinal before this, [Receive Power to offer Sacrifice, etc.] and both spoken by the Bishop at the Vesting of the person to be Ordained with the Priestly Vestments. For in the putting on the first sort of those Vestments, he says, [Receive thou the yoke of the Lord, for his yoke is sweet, and his burden light] and then immediately after at the putting on of another sort of Vestment, he says, [Receive thou the Priestly Garment by which Charity is understood, for God is able to increase unto thee Charity, and every perfect Work]. But by neither of these any thing of Priestly Power is given, or do any of that Communion ever say so, and therefore according to your own concession it must follow (and it is that which the Learnedest of the Roman Communion say) that the last imperative words in the Roman Ordinal, which are spoken at the last imposition of hands, [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained] are the alone essential Form, whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferred in that Church, and this Form we had in our first Ordinal, as well as they in theirs, and much more fully, because therein are also subjoined these words, [And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Sacraments, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,] which are wanting in the Roman Ordinal, which are not any such notorious and idle Tautologies as you are pleased to call them. For although they express nothing more than what is comprehended in the foregoing words, [Whose sins thou dost forgive, etc.] yet they are explanator of them, and do more explicitly tell us what is contained in them. For a Priest doth no otherwise remit our sins in the Church of Christ then as he administers to us the means in order thereto in the Word and Sacraments, and the concomitant Offices belonging thereto.  
Fourthly, I further observe in your Paper that you quote Mr. Fox to prove that those who were ordained by King Edward's Ordinal were ordained again in Queen Mary's Reign. I must confess Mr. Fox's Book is too large for any one so throughly to know every particular of it, as positively to deny what you say to be contained in it. But when you convince me of this, and show me in Mr. Fox where any such thing is said, then will I believe that Dr. Burnet hath dealt falsely with us by telling us the contrary in his History of the Reformation, Part II. Page 289. But be it so or be it not so the cause doth not at all depend hereupon.  
Fifthly, You infer the nullity of our Orders, because in the conferring of them no power is given to Consecrate the Eucharist. To this I answer, that the words of our Ordinal giving power to Administer the Sacraments, give power also to Consecrate the Elements in the Holy Eucharist, and in all such Forms the more general the words are it is always the better, provided they are such as include all the particulars, as it is certain the words of our Form in the Ordination of a Priest, include all the particulars that belong to that Office. But if you urge that it is not only necessary to express the power of Administering the Sacraments in general, but that it must also be done in particular; I must then ask the question, why the Sacrament of Baptism ought not also in particular to be mentioned in the Form as well as the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and why may we not from the omission of this in the Roman Ordinal infer the nullity of their Orders as well as they the nullity of ours from the omission of the other, and that especially since the Sacrament of Baptism may be justly esteemed the nobler of the two, as being that which first gives us Life in Christ, whereas the other only adds Strength and Nourishment thereto. But here you will object to what I have said, that our Ordinal gives power only to dispense the Sacraments, and not to consecrate the Eucharist. To this I answer, that by the word dispense the Church means the whole of what belongs both to the Consecration and Administration of that Sacred Rite; and words are always to be understood according to the meaning and received interpretation of them that use them, and not as they shall be limited or forced by the impertinent cavils of every contentious Adversary; and you may always take this for a certain Rule, that when in the management of Controversy men come to cavil about words, it is an evident sign that they are run on ground as to all things else· But to this point you further say, that those that have Authority only thus to dispense the Elements, have not power to make present the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, without which you hold this Sacrament cannot be administered. To this I answer, that if by making present the Body and Blood of Christ, you mean a Corporeal presence by the transmutation of the Elements, as the Church of Rome holds, it is a monstrous opinion, which we can never receive, and I hope you are not gone so far as to swallow with them so absurd an opinion.  
Sixthly, You say Christ made his Apostles Priests when he said unto them, Do this in remembrance of me, and that you take this clearly to be the sense of the Church. If you mean by the Church the Church of Rome, I acknowledge what you say to be true, they having so defined it in the Council of Trent; but that the Church of England ever held this I utterly deny; for it is a Doctrine peculiar to the Church of Rome, and but of late date among them, being first invented by some of the Schoolmen to serve a turn: For about Six Hundred Years since, and not sooner, the Church of Rome taking up that most Sacrilegious practice of denying the Cup to the Laiety, and being afterwards pressed with the institution of our Saviour, who commanded the Administration to be in both Kind's; to evade this they framed this subtle invention of saying that Christ in the institution of this Holy Sacrament made his Apostles Priests, by saying unto them, Do this in remembrance of me, and that therefore the Commandment given them of Communicating in both Kind's belongs to them only as Priests, and that the Laiety from this Commandment can claim no right thereto. But this is a fetch which some of the wisest and ablest Men among them are ashamed of; and it is particularly disowned by Estius, Suarez and Christophorus a Castro, as being neither agreeable to the Ancients, nor of any solidity in itself.  
Seventhly, You allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination to be sufficiently perfect, which if granted will infer the Ordination of Archbishop Parker, and all the other Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign to be good and valid, which is a thing our Adversaries will never yet grant us. For you say that a Bishop at his Ordination doth not receive any new Character, but hath only the same Power and Character which he had before as a Priest further extended in him; and it is well known that Archbishop Parker, and most of the others that were made Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, if not all, (for I will not be positive in a thing where I am not certain) were made Priests by the Roman Ordinal, and therefore if the words of our Form be sufficient to extend the Character and Power of a Priest (as you phrase it) to the Office of Episcopacy, those that you will allow to have been before good Priests, you must also allow to have been made good Bishops by our Form. But here I must beg leave to tell you, that our Church holds a Bishop to be as much essentially distinct from a Priest, as a Priest is from a Deacon: For that which makes the distinction of Orders is the distinct Powers which belong unto them. For as a Priest hath a distinct Power from a Deacon which makes his Office to be essentially distinct from the Office of the other, so hath a Bishop also a distinct Power from a Priest, which makes his Office essentially distinct from the Office of Priesthood, that is, the Power of Ordaining, which a Priest hath not, and this you must allow, or else fall in with the opinion of the Presbyterians, and grant that a Priest hath as much power to Ordain as a Bishop.  
And this is all which at present I shall think fit to take notice of in your Answer to my first Paper. I have now also by me your Answer to my second Paper, and must beg your pardon, that my Business this Week hath been such at our Audit, (as you well know) that I could not have leisure sooner to send you a Reply. For as I take it very kindly of you that you will apply to me concerning any doubt, which you may have as to your Religion, so shall I think myself obliged to do all that lies in me for your satisfaction. And as to your Answer to my second Paper, nothing is more easy than to show you how much you have been imposed on by them which tell you those things you write me therein. As to Bishop Ridleys' Consecration by the Popish Ordinal, I thought I had given you demonstration for that by showing unto you in the last Paper that I sent you, that Bishop Ridley was Consecrated, as it appears by the Archbishop of Canterbury's Register, Sept. 5 th'. Anno Dom. 1547. in the First Year of King Edward's Reign, whereas it is evident by the public Records of the Kingdom, that the Act of Parliament which prescribed the making of the New Ordinal was not Enacted till February 1. Anno Dom. 1549. in the Fourth Year of King Edward's Reign, and concerning this you may receive satisfaction by consulting Kebles Collection of the Statutes of this Kingdom, Pag. 674. at the top of the Page. But you urge against this Mr. Masons and Dr. Burnet's Authority, who (you tell me,) say the contrary. But that you may see how much you are abused by those who impose on you such things; I will set down in words at length what both these Authors say as to this matter: And first Mr. Masons words are Page 209. at the bottom of the page, as followeth; Primo leges de antiquis Ordinalibus abrogandis, & de novis stabiliendis latae sunt Annis Edwardi Tertio & Quarto, ut patet ex Statutis; Ridleius autem Primo Edwardi, Ferrarus ejusdem Regni anno secundo est sacratus, uterque ante veterum Ordinalium abdicationem, & per consequens uterque secundum vestram Formam; i. e. The Statute for abrogating the Old Ordinal and making a New was first Enacted in the Third and Fourth of Edward the Sixth, as is apparent from the Statute Book; but Ridley was Consecrated the First Year of King Edward's Reign, and Ferrar in the Second Year, both before the abrogating of the Old Ordinal, and by consequence both according to your Form. So far Mr. Mason, and as to Dr. Burnet if you please to consult him in his Second Part of his History of the Reformation, Page 290. you will there find him saying these words; So they did not esteem Hooper and Ridley Bishops, and therefore only degraded them from Priesthood, though they had been Ordained by their own Forms, saving only the Oath to the Pope. And this I hope will fully convince you that I have told you nothing but truth in this matter, and that you have been most grossly abused by those that have informed you the contrary.  
As to what you say concerning evil men's being of the true Religion, you very much mistake my meaning, if you think that I did infer in mine the illness of the Popish Religion from the ill actions of those that professed it; for to do this would be to argue against all Religion, there being abundance of wicked men of all Religions whatever; and all Arguments of this nature are very foolish, unless the sins and iniquities of such men as we find fault with proceed from the allowed Doctrines of the Church, of which they are; and on this account I must tell you, I think the Romish Church abundantly culpable. But this was not at all the thing I referred to in telling you of their Cruelties and Persecutions against us, but only to let you know that then they were in such a rage against us, that all they did in reference to the disallowing of our Orders may very well be construed rather to proceed from the violence of that alone, than any rational judgement which they made of this matter, it being a thing very usual between contending parties, for men to be carried so high in their animosities, as rather to act by their Passions then their Reason in what they do and allege against each other. And this I take to be the case of the Church of Rome in most of its proceedings with us, but in none more manifestly then in the denying of the validity of our Orders, which even according to their own Doctrines and positions are more defensible than those which even they themselves administer by their own Ordinal. As to other things in your two Letters which I have omitted to speak to, they are either such as need not answer, or else such as I shall more fully examine on the other occasion which I have mentioned, and therefore at present have nothing more to add, but my most hearty prayers to Almighty God, that he would be pleased so to direct and assist you in your inquisitions concerning this matter, that after having fully tried it, you may hold fast that which is good. I am  
SIR, Your most Affectionate Friend H. Prideaux. Thursday, Dec. 1. 1687.  
On my having concluded this Letter to Mr. Norris I received another from him, retracting what he said in his last; it is as followeth;  
SIR,  
WHat in my last I appealed to Dr. Burnet for is in part a mistake, who doth not own Bishop Ridley to be made by the New Ordinal, though made Bishop in Edward the Sixths' time, but he expressly says, that though it doth not appear, that they reordained any made in his time at the beginning of Queen mary's, yet afterward in her time they disowned any Orders to be valid given by the New Ordinal. To me there is no question at all, but that the Commissioners in Queen Mary's days, who refused to degrade him of his Episcopal Office when they did him of his Priestly, did look upon him as made such by the new Ordinal, because being made Bishop in K. Edward the sixth's time when the new Ordinal was composed might reasonably take it for granted.  
But the main Question to the purpose is this and which our side took upon them to prove, that our orders were good and valid, because such who were made by that Ordinal were owned and approved to be good by the Romanists. When I find any instances given that they were so owned and approved of by them, that I confess will be a great point gained to the determining of the Controversy, Sir, I am  
Your Most Humble Servant, Anthony Norris.  
In Answer to which Letter I added this following Postscript to my last above-written.  
HAving concluded this Letter, and being on delivering of it to be Transcribed for you, I received another from you, acknowledging your error as to what you quoted Dr. Burnet for, in reference to the Ordinal by which Bishop Ridley was Consecrated. And since you now grant that point that he was Consecrated by the Roman Ordinal, you must allow that it was without any reason that the Papists in Queen Mary's time would not allow him to be a Bishop (for their refusing to allow him because they thought he had been Consecrated by the New Ordinal, which you suggest is a mistake, which within so short a compass of time they could not possibly be guilty of) and this may be sufficient to make any impartial man suspect that all their other proceedings with us in this matter are without reason also, and to have risen from nothing else but the violence of their passion, which will not permit them to allow us any thing, whom they account Heretics and Schismatics from their Church, that may make either for our cause or our reputation. And whereas you call upon me to make out Mr. Is Argument that our Orders were allowed good in Queen Mary's time, although I do not think it lies upon me to make good whatsoever another man may say in this matter, yet I will deal as freely with you as you desire, and therefore must tell you that from the Histories of those times, as far as I have been conversant in them, it appears to me that none that were Ordained by the New Ordinal were reordained in Queen Mary's days, but only had those things supplied to them from the Roman Ordinal, which were left out in ours, that is, the delivery of the Sacred Vessels with these words, [Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass for the Living and the Dead] and this you allowing not to be essential to Orders, the admitting of our Priests to officiate, by doing this only to them, sufficiently proves they had the whole essence of Orders before. But I have told you before whether this be so or not so, the Controversy doth not at all depend hereupon: For if all must be conceded that an Adversary shall think fit to deny, this would put a very speedy end to all Controversy, and nothing else would be required to carry the Cause, but for a man stoutly to deny whatsoever his Adversary may claim unto himself. I must also here take notice unto you that Mr. Acton's proceedings with Mr. Earbury were in my judgement very unreasonable, and Mr. Earbury was too easy in yielding to him therein. For both by your Paper as well as by that Mr. Earbury brought me, it appears, that Mr. Acton required it of Mr. Earbury to make good our Orders, and put him upon the proving part herein; whereas in reality his business was to be only on the defensive. Our Orders have now been used in our Church, and received among us as good and valid for near One Hundred and Fifty Years, if they must now be rejected as null and void, let them that will have it so produce their Reasons, and if we are able to Answer these it is all that can be required of us in this matter, and therefore let Mr. Acton, or any of his Brethren, bring such Reasons against our Orders, or allege such defects for their nullity as we cannot Answer, and then I will plainly grant the Cause is theirs as to this Point.  
This Postscript together with the Letter to which it was annexed being sent to Mr. Norris, and also a Message therewith to desire him to lend me his Erastus' Junior, it being a Book I had never seen: He returned me this following Letter.  
SIR,  
I Have but now seriously perused over your last Paper, which will never have the effect upon me that you design, unless I can find that Mr. Acton cannot Answer it. Now as I have heard him say he will challenge no man, so also that he will refuse none that shall challenge him, nor will he meddle with any thing which relates not unto him; but if it does, he will then be concerned in it. So that Sir, if you shall please to write me a Line or two, ordering me to get Mr. Acton to Answer it, he will then be obliged to undertake it, which will be the only way of giving me the best satisfaction which you seem to be zealous in, and for which I shall ever look upon myself,  
SIR, Your most Obliged Humble Servant, Anthony Norris. Dec. 8. 1687.  
Sir, I have neither of both the Erasstus' now, although about three Months since I read them over.  
To which Letter I sent this following Answer the next day after I received it.  
SIR,  
I Have received yours in Answer to the last I sent you, wherein you tell me that what I have wrote therein shall never have that effect upon you which I design, unless you find that Mr. Acton cannot Answer it; and because Mr. Acton tells you, that he will challenge no man, or at all meddle with any thing, but where concerned, unless challenged to it; you persuade me to challenge him to Answer my Paper sent you, that so he may be unavoidably engaged (as you think) to enter the List with me on this point, and then according as he or I shall prevail in your judgement, so you seem resolved to make choice of your Religion, either the one way or the other. To which I Answer, as to the design you mention, I have none other upon you, but to serve you in giving you the satisfaction you applied to me for in the point proposed; but if you are afore resolved right or wrong, that nothing shall have any effect upon you in order hereunto, I cannot help that. If this be your mind (as any one may well suspect from your last to me) you would have done well to have spared me all this Trouble, and taken your own Course. As to Mr. Acton I have nothing to do with him, or he with me. You were pleased to send me your Doubts, and to desire me to give you satisfaction in them, and according to your request I have endeavoured it to the best of my power, and to that intent have been at the pains to write you several Papers, and if I have not in them fully cleared to you all those things you scruple, you may be pleased to show me where the defect is, and I shall readily supply it by a further Examination thereof unto you. But if you have nothing of this further to say unto me, or any Objections at all to make against the Answers I have sent unto you, it is reasonable to expect that you should rest satisfied, and give me no further trouble. As to the project of challenging, which you propose, I must beg your pardon that I think it a method by no means proper for me to pursue; for I know not into what snare this may lead me, or how far such an action of mine may be interpreted to do me a mischief; and besides it is a course altogether improper to the matter in hand. For although you should have a Title to your Estate as good as can be given you, yet I suppose you would not think this a sufficient reason for you to challenge any man to dispute it at Law with you, but would hold the possession without giving yourself any further trouble till there comes an assailant to disturb you. And our Case is exactly the same. We have all the Orders which were first instituted in the Church of Christ legally and rightly conveyed to us, and we claim to hold them upon as good a Title as any Christian Church in the World; and being thus in possession it is not our part to challenge any one to dispute this with us; but the very nature of the thing puts us totally upon the defensive, and I shall not act any other part in this matter. If Mr. Acton, or any of his Brethren think our Possession wrong, and our Title false, it is their part to be the Challengers, and we no otherwise concerned then to appear as Defendants, and put in our Answer to their Plea against us: And therefore if you are so earnest to have this point disputed, you must go unto our Adversaries for a Challenger, and if you can find any one among them, that will take this part upon him in the point proposed, let him lay all his Arguments together, all that Erastus Sen. or Erastus Jun. can furnish him with, and as many else as he can get, and let him urge them with all the Art and Skill he can, and be he Mr. Acton, or be he Mr. Webster, or be he any one else of the most able Champions of that Communion, I will give him an Answer in Print. And this is all I have to say to you in this matter, and if you have any thing further to say to me you may be pleased to take your Liberty; only next Week I shall be constantly employed in another matter, which will not permit me to attend any thing else, and therefore for so long must beg your respite; and I am  
SIR, Your affectionate Friend, Humphrey Prideaux. Dec. 9 1687.  
About six days after I sent this, I received from him this following Answer to my former, bearing date Dec. 14. 1687.  
SIR,  
YOur not complying to what I desired, which I told you would be the best expedient for my satisfaction to been debated with Mr. Acton, hath put me alone upon undertaking to give you my thoughts upon your last Paper.  
As to your cautions of being imposed upon by the Adversary, I see no reason for to conclude it; besides I would have those who think me so to be, to take notice, that I am above one and twenty years of Age, and though I be no Scholar nor Linguist, it may be I have seen the World as much as some that be, whatever Dr. Brevint has said of them in his Witch of Endor, I never found any thing from them of what he reports, but ever found them very modest, fair and candid, although they have been very good Scholars; neither shall I on the other side embrace any thing against my Reason and Judgement to avoid the imputation of being ignorant and unwary.  
I have viewed over your first Paper again, and cannot find myself to be mistaken therein, where you plainly say, that the Presbyterians objected that in the Ordinal there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest, because their Offices were not at all distinguished in the words, by which they were conferred on them when Ordained, and then to obviate the abovementioned cavil of the Presbyterians the explicatory words were inserted: Which Objection being the same with the Papists, and the Presbyterians never enduring the words Bishop or Priest, the inserting of them could not be to remove the cavils of the Presbyterians, but must necessarily be for those of the Papists; besides as to what further you say, that the Presbyterians vindicated their Form from hence to be as good as ours, when as it is well known, that they used no Form at all, but what was ex tempore, which I have seen them myself when they have Ordained, that their prayers have been all ex tempore; and so far were they from vindicating their Ordinal by being conformable unto ours, that they looked upon ours to be so highly Idolatrous, that in the late times I see them make Bonfires of them, with the Common-Prayer Books; and though the Papists were inconsiderable for number, yet I know the Church of England looked upon them all along to be more formidable than all the Sects together in point of weight.  
I have also now again viewed over both the Erastus', and especially that Page which you quoted, and cannot find any mention made in any part of them that hint any thing of the alteration of our Ordinal, and therefore might be published before that alteration, which you say could not be, which doth also further appear they were by the dates of their publishing. And as for those sober Papists which you tell me exploded them at their coming out; when I see it in Print from them, I may be then Sir of your mind; and also that it is the received Doctrine of the Romanists, that the very essential Form of Ordination is in the power of the Church to alter, of which you have not yet given me the least proof, and you know ours is in that very part of it.  
And though Morinus should have observed that for One Thousand Years that the Imperative, be thou a Priest, was not used in their Ordinals, yet he doth not say it did not expressly give all Priestly power in other words, or by equivalency, by giving full power to perform all the Offices of it, which Sir I told you ours did not; and that it did not give power to Consecrate, and make present the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, not by way of Transubstantiation I meant, but only in the sense and words of our own Church, that is, verily and indeed; which is more than to be present only by a mere Figure, or to be only Commemorative. And although he further tell us, that the whole Rite was performed by Prayers and imposition of hands: This doth no way exclude the other which I said before; for when St. Paul minded Timothy to stir up the gift given him by imposition of hands, he named nothing else but imposition of hands; yet can any think there was not also Prayers, and a form of words used at the laying of hands upon him.  
And whereas Sir you say the Council of Carthage, which is the Ancientest hath directed concerning this matter, prescribes herein nothing but imposition of hands and prayers only: You should Sir have given me the very words of that Council, whereby I might have seen whether any such thing could have been inferred from them; and since you were not pleased to recite them, I will take upon me to do them for you, which words are these; When a Priest is Ordained, the Bishop blessing him and laying his hands upon his head, all the Priests that are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head about the Bishop's hand. Doth this Canon prove any thing more than that it is a command only for the Priests then present to lay their hands also upon the head of the person Ordained about the Bishop's hand at the same time he bless him, and lay his hand upon him: This doth no way show us what the Ordinal of the Church was in those days: This Canon had been proper to have been offered in case any had denied imposition of hands, which being required, doth it therefore follow nothing else was essential, because the rest of the Priests present were required also to do it with the Bishop? If a learned Papist should have offered me such an Argument or Authority as this, I might then have concluded Sir with yourself, that I thought him about to impose upon me.  
I will also tell you the words of Dionysius, whom you quote, but not recite; That the Priest who was to be Ordained kneeled before the Bishop, who laid his hand on his head, and did Consecrate him with an Holy Prayer, and then marked him with the sign of the Cross, and the Bishop, and the rest of the Clergy then present gave him the Kiss of Peace. Although he mentions all these, yet where doth he say that these were the only things, as you were pleased to say he said they were. Can any one rationally conclude from this, that there was no form of words used when the Bishop laid his hand upon the Ordained; or that he should then say nothing; it must be thought at the least that at that very time he used such a Prayer, in which might be contained the very essential Form, for any thing that Dionysius hath to the contrary. And now Sir give me leave to mind you of this distinction, for the better understanding my meaning in what I have formerly said, and shall have occasion hereafter to mention: That where the essential Form, or any part of it be contained in the Prayers, Prayers and Imposition of hands is all that is necessary; but the Prayers of the Roman Ordinal have the essential Form contained in them, which in ours is not, therefore with us, Prayers and Imposition of hands are not sufficient, though they may be with them. And this is my Answer to what else you quote from Morinus de Ordinationibus; and also to that of the seven Deacons and Disciples, which you say were made such only by imposition of hands upon them, which you tell me there was nothing said, or any words used; which if there were not, but only hands imposed, you must give me leave to tell you, that it looked then but like a dumb sign, and do not see how it could be more operative than if the same person had stroaked a good Boy on the head and said nothing; but if there were words used at the imposition of hands, than was it not done by imposition of hands only, as you affirm; and if words were used, as it is not to be doubted, then must they certainly be such as be pertinent unto that Ceremony, which must express the power thereby given.  
Sir, you tell me that I have conquered the Objection, and brought the Controversy to an end, by granting, That the offering Sacrifice to God, and celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead, was a novel thing, and therefore not essential to Orders. But I deny that I ever granted any such thing, although I did that for the celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead, to be within these Five Hundred Years expressed in the Roman Ordinal, but not for offering Sacrifice unto God, which I said no such thing, but am assured that it was ever in their Ordinal, and also their celebrating Mass for the Living and Dead was all along before the practice of that Church; and therefore the Objection remains still in as much force as ever, and the Controversy as far distant from an end as ever it was before. Might I take leave to add to a Proposition, and make it run contrary to the true intent and meaning, it were an easy matter soon to salve any Questions; but that way would never give the Proposer any satisfaction at all. You also tell me, [That whereas I say all Priestly power is given in the Roman Ordinal in the words before, speaking this, Receive power to offer Sacrifice, will appear by examining the Ordinal itself to be altogether a mistake, because if it be good it must be in the prayers of the office, or in the imperative words spoken by the Bishop to the Ordained; in the prayers you will not say, for then the prayers of our Ordinal might be allowed to be as valid for this purpose, in which the Priestly Office is fully expressed both by Name and Description, as in theirs.] To which I Answer.  
That in examining the Roman Ordinal, I say it will not appear to be a mistake, which lay on your part to prove that it is in their prayers: This I deny, for I say that it is, and that therefore the prayers of our Ordinal must be as valid; this also I deny, because they do not give such power; and also that the Priestly Office is as fully expressed both in name and description to as good purposes as in theirs; for our prayers before doth only give God thanks for calling them to the Office and Ministry appointed for the Salvation of Mankind; it doth not actually confer that Authority upon them; and the prayer after is only for a Blessing upon the Ordained, which also doth neither confer any Authority upon them: But those of the Roman doth actually confer all Priestly power. And whereas Sir you say that the Learnedest of the Romanists say, that the last imperative words in their Ordinal, which are spoken at the last imposition of hands, (Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.) are the alone essential Form, whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferred; when I find this can be proved, I may further let you know what I can say to it; it may be sufficient for some part of the Priesthood, but not for all the Offices of it.  
To that which you say, that the words of our Ordinal giving power to Administer the Sacraments, give power also to Consecrate the Elements. This I denied, and gave you my Reasons against it before, to which again I refer you. I urged no such thing as you would have me of a general and particular, and therefore your Answer to those distinctions is besides the business. Indeed I Objected, as you say, that our Ordinal gave power only to dispense the Sacraments, and not to Consecrate; to which you Answer, that by the word dispense, the Church meant the whole that belongs both to the Consecration and Administration of them that use them: There is no Papist, I believe, but will grant that the Church meant and intended it; but the intention of the Church can never vest any thing with Priestly Authority without it be actually and expressly conferred upon them by Herald For if a King's intentions be never so great to make a Justice of Peace, yet he is not thereby at all invested with that Authority.  
You deny that the Church of England thought any part of Priesthood conferred upon any by virtue of these words, [Do this in remembrance of me] then I say, if no Power or Authority was thereby given by virtue of these words, how can She give any by bidding them dispense the Sacraments for to Consecrate them? And why then so many Arguments used about the extension and limitation of those words of our Church? And then as I told you before, how shall our Church be acquitted from idle Tautologies, which I did not charge Her with, as you were pleased to tell me I did, but under such suppositions and circumstances which I take that She doth disown.  
You further tell me, that I allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination sufficiently perfect, but you must give me leave to tell you that I do not, whereby all your train of consequences from thence come to nothing: What I said of a Bishop having no new Character, I said it only in the person of Vasquez, to Answer the Objection which you made out of him; for the same Vasquez as I told you did say, that by the alone words (Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.) were not sufficient to make an entire Priest, although they were for a Bishop; from whence I inferred that in Vasquez's judgement a Bishop received no new Character, but myself was ever of opinion that they did.  
As to Bishop Ridley, I am fully satisfied that they refused to degrade him, as not being made Bishop by the Roman Ordinal; and you may find by the Statutes in the First Year of King Edward, that then they took upon them to Administer Sacraments in new ways of their own invention, for which an Act that year was made prohibiting of them, and why might they not also as well Consecrate and Ordain according to their own inventions? But of this I shall say no more, but refer you to Mr. Acton's last Letter sent to Mr. Earbury, which though I did before, yet never see it since I received your last Paper.  
Sir, I suppose you cannot offer any thing now material unto this point, than already you have, which I believe none could have said more; that if you please we will supersede this Question, and proceed to another, which is of as great disatisfaction to me as any, and that is, Whether any Bishop or Archbishop can validly be made such against the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice; which says, That no Bishop shall be made without the consent of his Superior, or by faculty from him for his Consecration.  
A. N.  
SIR,  
YOU must pardon me that other business hath hindered, that I have not been able to look on your Paper till several days after it came to my hands. And although thereby I sufficiently perceive you are resolved against receiving any satisfaction in the point you applied to me for it, yet I will endeavour it this one time more, be the effect of it what it will.  
And first as to your complaint against me for not complying with your proposal, as to Mr. Acton; I thought in my last I had so far convinced you of the absurdity of it, that I should have heard no more of that. If you would have him Answer my Papers, your intimacy with him, of which you so often acquaint me, I should think might be sufficient to engage him to it without that challenge from me, which you are so importunate for. I am sure this gives you a better title to make this proposal to him, then to require the other so absurd and unreasonable a thing from me, with whom you never exchanged a word in your life, unless by these Letters. What I wrote you was for your satisfaction, and I told you, if you had any thing further to Object I was ready to hear it, and give you a further Answer, and you might take whom you pleased into your Consult as to this matter: But for me to challenge Mr. Acton as you proposed, would be an act of folly, which I desire to be excused from: For that possession of right which we are in as to the point controverted between us, doth by no means make it proper for me to take this part upon me. Besides he is a person I never had any thing to do with, or ever received the least provocation from him, and for me in this case to challenge him, as you would have me, is in the whole nature of the thing altogether unreasonable, and in respect of that Protection from His Majesty by which he is here, may be also dangerous unto me, and I must tell you truly, I durst not so far confide in you as not to mistrust there may be a snare laid for me hereby.  
As to your huff about the Cautions which you tell me I gave you against being imposed on, and the imputation of being ignorant and unwary, which from some words in the Paper which you Answer, you will needs take home to yourself. To the first I Answer, that since you seem to acknowledge you do not understand Latin, by telling me you are no Scholar nor Linguist, and yet quote Fathers, Councils and Schoolmen: I think it possible, notwithstanding your grand conceit of your abilities, to manage Controversy that you may be very well imposed on; and therefore that such a caution (if I gave you any) might pertinently enough be recommended unto you: But as I remember I rather showed you where you were most grossly imposed on, in reference to some very much mistaken grounds you went upon, and false Quotations which you Objected by way of Answer to what I had formerly said, then gave you any advice or caution in this matter. And as to the imputation of being ignorant and unwary, which you will needs take home to yourself, if you will do so I cannot help that, only I can say I never intended it. All that was said was in reference to some Arguments the Romanists insisted on, which I told you were coined for the ignorant and the unwary, and that for other men they had other things to insist upon. For it is the well known artifice of those men to have different sorts of Arguments for different sorts of people, which they apply according as they find they will best suit; and this was all I intended to acquaint you with by that expression, and not in the least to reflect on yourself. As to your knowledge of the world which you value yourself so much upon, I verily believe all to be true what you say, and that you are altogether as well versed in it as you would have me to understand you are, but I do by no means think that this doth any way the better capacitate you for the judging of matters in Religion, but quite the contrary: For the things of this World, and the things of God are usually put in that opposition to each other in Scripture, and are in their nature so contrary the one to the other, that they never will subsist together, but where there is a mind addicted to the former, it always is a great obstruction to the later, and usually puts such a bias upon the judgements of men in all their inquiries concerning Religion, as makes them ever run that way where their interest most inclines them, and I should be glad to be assured this is not your case, I having been so often told that it is so.  
As to those modest, fair, candid and learned Gentlemen whom you so much magnify, and with whom of late you have got so great an intimacy, I am not so much acquainted with any of them as to enter in any dispute with you about the Character you give them, and am so far from detracting from it, or being in the least disturbed by any thing you tell me of this nature, that nothing is more acceptable unto me, then to hear of men endowed with those worthy qualifications, and none shall be more ready than myself to reverence them, wherever they are found, although in an Adversary. What passage it is in Dr. Brevints Witch of Endor you reflect on, for telling you the contrary of those men I know not, (it being a Book I have not this long time seen) only this I know, that he is too worthy a person to impose a lie upon the World, especially in so unjustifiable a matter, as that of raising a false accusation against any one, and too well acquainted with that sort of men by his long converse among them in the Court of France, (where he attended many years as Chaplain to the Princess of Turenne, and had all the opportunities imaginable of informing himself concerning them) as to be in any likelihood of being deceived in any thing that he may relate in reference to them. And it is by no means an argument of his dealing falsely in this matter, that you find two or three in this place, that to your observation may seem to be otherwise then he relates: For what is said by him I suppose was never intended to belong to all, there being no Protestant which will not freely acknowledge that there are several men in the Church of Rome of great Eminency both for Learning and Goodness, notwithstanding the Errors they are under as to matters of Religion, and we are so far from repining at it that we all heartily wish there were more such among them, they being the only men from whom we may hope for an happy issue to the Controversy between us, by bringing all those corruptions (which they well know) to the same Reformation. But however in this place, where you now converse with them, I think you may very well be deceived in taking all for Gold that glisters. You are to consider what is the design which brings those men among us, it is to make Proselytes to their Church, and draw men over to their Religion, and you cannot but apprehend that it chiefly behoves them that come on such an errand to put their best side outward, and recommend themselves to the good opinion of those they would seduce by all the appearances of Virtue, Goodness and Piety, that they can put on, which is an artifice too well known to be the constant practice of those that would deceive the people. And therefore notwithstanding their Sheep's Clothing, they may be still for any thing you know inwardly ravening Wolves. For here they appear not as they are, but only according to the part which they are to act among us; if you will truly know them those places are properest for this where they appear in their own colours, at their own homes in Roman Catholic Countries, where they have no such designs to carry on as with us, which require the mask and the disguise, and if you will not go so far yourself to be informed concerning them by your own view, you must be content only to know them by such Pictures as others have drawn of them, who have there seen them at the life. And if you will not rely upon the fidelity of Dr Brevint for this, I will refer you to one of their own Communion, the Author of the Sure and honest means for the Conversion of Heretics, a Book first wrote in French, and now lately published in our Language, in which I suppose you may have it at any Booksellers shop in this Town: But I would not have you to understand me to say any thing of this by way of reflection on the Gentlemen you mention, for they are totally unknown to me, and therefore I can say nothing of them as to their particular persons, either good or evil; all that I intent hereby is to vindicate Dr. Brevint, and to let you know that notwithstanding any thing you may have observed concerning this sort of men, all that hath been said by that worthy person concerning them may be still true.  
In your next Paragraph you tell me, I plainly say, what is plainly most false, and do from he beginning to the end of it so grossly prevaricate, by misreciting what I said of the Presbyterians giving the occasion for the alteration of the Ordinal in 62, and by distorting and wresting it to such meaning for your purpose, as the words can never bear, that it sufficiently appears you are more zealously concerned that the Calumnies of our Adversaries in this particular might stick upon us, then to receive that satisfaction herein which you pretend to desire. Now for the more evidencing of this matter I shall lay down my words, and your Quotation of them together, that so by comparing of them it may appear how unfaithfully you have dealt with me herein.  
My words in my first Paper.  The alterations, or rather explanatory additions made in our Ordinal in the year 1662., were not inserted out of any respect to the Controversy we have with the Church of Rome, but only to silence a cavil of the Presbyterians, who from the Old Ordinal drew an Argument to prove that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest, because (as they say) their offices were not distinguished in the words whereby they were conferred on them when Ordained, or any power given a Bishop which he had not afore as a Priest. 
Your Quotation of them.  That the Presbyterians objected that in the Ordinal there was no difference between a Bishop and a Priest, because their offices were not at all distinguished in the words by which they were conferred on them when Ordained, and that to obviate the above mentioned cavil of the Presbyterians, the explanatory words were inserted. 
Now Sir be you your own Judge whether you have fairly recited what I have said, or whether my words can at all bear that meaning which you will needs put upon them: Do I mention any thing of the Presbyterians objecting against the sufficiency of the Ordinal, or urging this reason for it, that the offices of Priest and Bishop were not sufficiently distinguished in the words by which they were conferred, or that the explanatory words were inserted to give them satisfaction herein, as you would have me say? Or can any man that is not grossly deficient either in his understanding or his integrity put this sense upon my words? Do you think I am ignorant that it is the Fundamental Doctrine of the Presbyterian Sect, that there is no difference at all between a Bishop, and a Presbyter or Priest? Or that I could possibly say that they should urge it for a defect in our Ordinal, that those offices are not sufficiently distinguished therein, when it is their main principle that there is no distinction at all between them, but that they are only two names signifying the same Function? Or can any thing which I said have any other reference, but to an Argument which I told you they drew from our Ordinal to prove this against us. That the Presbyterians hated the name of Priest, I freely grant, and so do we too as it means a Sacrificing Priest, in the sense of the Romanists: But that the name of Bishop was so odious to them I deny. For it is found in Scripture, it is found in all the Ancient Writers of the Church, and therefore they could not be so impious as to hate a name which had the stamp of such Authority upon it. All the Controversy was about the signification of this name, whether it did import an Order distinct from the Order of Priesthood, and this they denied; and in their disputes against us in the late times concerning it, made use of an Argument against us, (as I told you) which was drawn from our own Ordinal, and from the Form of Consecrating a Bishop urged, that according to the Doctrine of our own Church, the Office of a Bishop could not be distinct from the Office of a Presbyter or Priest, because no new Authority was given him in that Form (as they would have it) which he had not afore as a Presbyter or Priest; and therefore to make a more clear distinction between the two Functions, and take away all occasions for their urging of this against us for the future in the defence of that Error, the explanatory words were inserted, and on no other account. When I wrote you my former Paper I confess I quoted no other Authority for this but that I had been told so. But since looking into Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation, I there find him saying the same thing in these words: So they agreed on a Form of Ordaining Deacons, Priests and Bishops, which is the same we yet use, 
History of the Reformation, Part 2. p. 144.  except in some few words that have been added since in the Ordination of a Priest or Bishop, for there was then no express mention made in the words of Ordaining them, that it was for the one or the other Office, in both it was said, Receive thou the Holy Ghost in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: But that having been since made use of to prove both Functions the same, it was of late years altered as it is now. Nor were these words, being the same in giving both Orders, any ground to infer that the Church esteemed them one Order, the rest of the office showing the contrary very plainly. Thus far Dr. Burnet; and he having published it within twenty years after the thing was done, when so many were alive that were Members of Convocation when the alteration was made, and especially Dr. Gunning and Dr. Peirson, who I understand were the prime advisers of it, it is impossible he could want true information in this particular, or be so impudent as to impose it on the World, if otherwise then he relates, when there were so many in being, who from their own knowledge could convince him of falsity herein. And therefore the thing being so plain, I hope you will rest satisfied in this particular. But I must not let you go yet, for you are not only contented to wrest and misrecite what I have wrote you for your satisfaction, but also charge me with whole sentences of which I never said one word, or any thing like it: For in which of my Papers, I beseech you, do I ever say that the Presbyterians vindicated their Form to be as good as ours, or what the least Foundation is there given you in any of them to forge my name to such a saying. I very well know those men were against all Forms as well as you, and therefore need not your information in this particular: But it seems by your so great intimacy with our Adversaries, (which you so often tell me of) you have learned their tricks, to wrest, falsify and misrecite; the only methods they have to support so bad a cause. But that there may in this matter be no more room for this, I shall distinctly lay down what I hope may obviate all further cavils concerning it, in these following particulars.  
First, That the Objection of the Presbyterians was not against the Ordinal but against Episcopacy.  
Secondly, That it being the Doctrine of the Presbyterians that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter, or Priest, is one and the same, and not at all distinct, but that both names equally belong to every Presbyter; to prove this they made use of an Argument against us from our Ordinal, urging that the Form of Episcopal Ordination therein superadded no new Authority to that which was afore given him by the Priestly, and therefore that both Offices were the same according to our own Ordinal.  
Thirdly, That if this Argument implies any defect in our Old Ordinal, it placeth it only in the Form of Episcopal Ordination, and not in the Priestly, and concerning this only you have several times told me your whole doubt is.  
Fourthly, The Presbyterians urging this is by no means an Argument that there is any such defect in the Form of Episcopal Ordination in our Old Ordinal, for God forbid all should be true which Adversaries use to urge against each other in their disputes about Religion.  
Fifthly, That if this be a defect in our Old Ordinal the Papists have no reason to urge it, theirs being much more defective, as I have already told you; for in the Consecration of a Bishop at the imposition of hands they use no other Form then these words only, [Receive the Holy Ghost.]  
As to what you tell me that the Papists are more formidable to the Church of England then all the Sects together, in point of weight; if you speak this in reference to their Doctrines, or any thing that they can say to defend them, I am so far from being of your opinion that of all the Sects that have infested the Church of Christ, which have been able to make any plausible show of Argument for themselves, I think theirs, bating the Patronage of Princes, (to which it chiefly owes its support) to be the most defenceless, which may sufficiently appear by the present management of the Controversy between us, in which their cause hath been so miserably baffled that they are in a manner plainly put to silence. Few now of those many Tracts which are written against them, being at all Answered by them. And when sometimes with a great deal of noise they send forth a Pamphlet against us, their performance is always so lame, and what they have to say for themselves so far short of giving any satisfaction in the Points controverted between us, that it is sufficiently evidenced hereby that their cause is such as will not bear a defence.  
The next thing you tell me is, that you have received your Erastus' Senior and your Erastus' Junior, and can find no mention made in any part of them of the alteration of our Ordinal; it seems than you have them both to serve the cause you would maintain, although you denied you had either, when I would have borrowed one of them of you, in order to the better giving you the satisfaction which you desired. But because you say you cannot find the passage I refer to, I will give you the words as I find them in the last page of the Erastus Senior, which I have; they are as followeth; Since the Printing of this they have acknowledged the justness of our exception to their Forms, by amending them in their new Book, Authorized by the late Act for Uniformity, etc. which words being put after the conclusion of the Book, do sufficiently enough themselves express that they were put there between the time of finishing and publishing of it; that it was after the finishing of it is said in them, and that it was before the publishing of it is demonstrable from their being there, and consequently the publication of this Book must be after the publication of the Liturgy. Now the Liturgy not being published after its review and amendment till the latter end of August, 1662. its evident from thence that it must be after that time that this Erastus Senior first came forth, and therefore it could not any way influence the alteration made in our Ordinal, published with that Liturgy, as you would have it; the whole being perfected the January before; for the Parliament began to fit January the 7th. and the third Act which was passed we find to be the Act of Uniformity, wherein this Liturgy with the Ordinal were confirmed, and consequently it must in the very beginning of the Sessions have been made ready by the Convocation for them.  
And whereas you require of me to tell you who those sober Papists were that exploded those Books at their coming out, I name unto you Father Peter Walsh for one, who was the person I mentioned to have wrote a Book against them which he presented to the late Bishop of Winchester, and is now in several hands in Manuscript, and Dr. Burnet tells you he had the perusal of it. But you demand of me to let you see this in Print, and then you say you may be of my mind; to which I Answer, that I gladly accept of the condition, and if you will perform your promise hereon we shall have no occasion to dispute any further about this matter. For although Father Walsh hath not yet Printed the Book I mention, yet he hath the substance of it in the Preface to his History of the Irish Remonstrance, where you may find it; but because perchance this Book is not to be had in this place, I will refer you to another of his, where you will find him saying the same thing, that is in his Preface to his four Letters lately published, and common enough to be had in every Booksellers shop. For there making an Apology to those of his Religion, for calling the Bishop of Lincoln most Illustrious and most Reverend, in the Letter to him which he wrote in defence of the Church of Rome, as to the deposing Doctrine, against a Book which his Lordship had published on that Argument; he gives his Reasons for it in these following words; I had about twelve years since in the Preface to my History of the Irish Remonstrance, publicly in Print, acknowledged my opinion to be, that the Ordination of the Protestant Church of England is valid, meaning it undoubtedly to be so, according both to the public Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Schools themselves, and the ancient Rituals of all Catholic Churches, Latin and Greek, nay, and to those Rituals of all the Oriental Heterodox Churches too, as Morinus a Learned Oratorian hath recorded them. Thus far Father Walsh, and what can be a more express acknowledgement in a Papist of the thing which you require; and this being in Print, and to be seen by you when you please to consult the Book to which I direct you; I hope you will remember your promise of being of my mind hereon, and acquiesce in this Authority. But he is not the only man of that Religion that allows our Orders to be good and valid, abundance more are of his mind herein, and several have taken the same freedom of expressing it, although to the disadvantage of their own cause. Father Davenport, alias Sancta Clare, another Priest of the Romish Church, is altogether as express in this matter as Father Walsh; for in his Exposition on the 36th Article of our Church, he proves from Vasquez, Conink, Arcudius, and Innocent the 4th. that our Church hath all the essentials of Ordination required in Scripture; and as to our Form of Ordination, he plainly says, that if the difference of the words herein from their Form do annul our Ordinations, it must annul those of the Greek Church too; for the Form of the Greek Church altogether differs as much from the Form of the Roman, as doth that of the English. And Cudsemius, one that writes violently enough against us, speaks also to the same purpose, which he would never have done but that the manifest certainty of the thing extorted this concession from him. For he coming into England in the year 1608. to observe the state of our Church, and the Order of our Universities, was so far convinced of the validity of our Orders by his inquiry into this particular, that in a Book Printed two years after, on his return home, he hath these words; Concerning the state of the Calvinian Sect in England, it so standeth, 
De Desperate Calvini cau●a, cap. 11. pag. 108.  that either it may endure long, or be changed suddenly, or in a trice, in regard of the Catholic Order there in a perpetual Line of their Bishops, and the Lawful Succession of Pastors received from the Church, for the honour whereof we use to call the English Calvinists by a milder term, not Heretics, but Schismatics. And in the late times, when one Goffe. went over unto the Church of Rome, a Question arising about the validity of our Orders, on his taking upon him at Paris to say Mass by virtue of his Orders received in our Church; it was referred to the Sorbon to examine the matter, where it being fully discussed, they gave in their opinion that our Orders were good; and this I have by the Testimony of one now an eminent Papist, who some years since told me the whole Story from his own knowledge, he being then in Paris, when the whole matter was there transacted; and although afterwards, as he told me, the Pope determined otherwise of this matter, and ordered the Archbishop of Paris to reordain him, yet the Sorbonists still stuck to their opinion that he was a good Priest by his first Ordination. And if you will know whence this difference in the determination arose, it was that the one proceeded according to the merits of the cause, and the other as would best suit with his own interest, and the interest of the party he was to support.  
The next thing which you require of me is to give you proof that it is now the received Doctrine of the Romanists, that the essential Form of Ordination is in the power of the Church to alter. To which I Answer, That by the essential Form (for the word essential is of your own interposing) I suppose you mean that Form of words in the Roman Ordinal, which joined with the matter (according to them) imprints the Character, and makes up the whole essence of Orders; and understanding you thus, I freely grant that the whole cry of the Romish Schools, runs against this assertion, their Doctrine being, that both the Matter and Form of Orders as well as of their other Sacraments, were instituted by Christ himself, and that neither of them are in the power of any to alter, but that they have been the same from the beginning, as we now find them in their Ordinal; and therefore cannot admit of any variation without annulling the whole Sacrament (as they call it.) And that they have been thus preserved down unto us by constant Tradition from our Saviour's time: For they freely grant that they have no proof for them that they were thus instituted by Christ, either from Scripture, or from any of the Writings of the Ancients. And to this purpose the words of Estius 〈…〉, are as followeth. 
(a) Lib. 4. Distinct. 1. Sect. 18.  And here you must know that we have the matter and form of every Sacrament, not as much from Scripture as by a continued Tradition received down from the Apostles: For the Scripture expressly delivers to us only the matter and form of Baptism and the Eucharist, and of extreme Unction the matter only: The others are left us only by unwritten Tradition, thereby as from hand to hand to be received down unto us. And in another place particularly as to the Matter and Form of Orders he tells us; 
(b) Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. Sect. 2.  That the Ancient Fathers of the Church spoke sparingly of them in their Writings: And so others of them to the same purpose. 
(c) Estius, ibid.  And for this they gave a Reason forsooth, lest those things being consigned to Writing might come to be known to unbelievers, and so exposed to be scoffed at, and ridiculed by them; for it seems they cannot but acknowledge that many of those Rites which they make use of, as well in Ordination as in their other Sacraments of their own making, are indeed ridiculous. But here I must tell you that this is only the Doctrine of the Schoolmen, and those which wrote after them: But Morinus the Learned Oratorian, I have often mentioned unto you, taxeth them of great ignorance herein, in that being totally unacquainted with the Ancient Rituals, and the practice of other Churches, framed all their Doctrines according to the present Ordinal of their Church. But since that Learned person hath Published so large a Collection of Ancient Ordinals, many of which have none at all of those Forms now in the Roman Ordinal, and the practice also of the Greek Church which useth none of them is become better known; this Doctrine of the Divine Institution of those Forms, and that they cannot be altered or varied from, becomes generally exploded; and concerning this, because you desire me to prove it unto you, I will first give you the words of Habertus in his Observations on the Greek Pontifical, in whom you have also the sense of the whole Sorbon, who Licenced and Authorized his Book. For he raising an Objection how it could be possible that the Orders conferred by the Greek Church as well as the Latin could be both right, since Administered by different Forms, gives this Answer thereto: In the Sacraments, of whose matter and form there is no express mention in Scripture, 
Page 125.  it is to be supposed that Christ instituted both only in general to His Apostles, leaving to the Church a power to design, constitute and determine them several ways, as it shall seem best unto them; so that the chief substance, intention and scope of the institution were still retained, with some general fitness and analogy, for signifying the effect, grace and character of the Sacrament, which analogy is alike and entire in both Rites, as well the Greek as the Roman. And the words of Hallier, another Sorbonist, and whose Book is in the same manner Licenced by that Learned Society of Divines; 
Page 485.  speak the same thing; for he laying down this as an evident conclusion from what he had afore said, that many things had been added and changed about the Matter and Form of Orders; and that through the whole Church, as it is diffused over the whole World, the same Rite of Ordination, and the same Matter, and the same Form is not used; that the Eastern Churches perform Ordinations by one Rite, and the Western by another, without disallowing the Orders of each other; he solves the matter by telling us that Christ instituted only in general, that there should be Matter and Form in Ordination, but left it to the Church to determine the particular; that is, what particular Matter, and what particular Form should be made use of in this Administration. And Morinus also speaks to the same purpose; for in his third Book de Ordinationibus, Exercit. 7. cap. 6. n. 2. he saith, That Christ determined no particular Matter and Form in Orders, and in another place, cap. 3. n. 6. he tells us, That it strikes him with astonishment that there should be such an alteration both as to Matter and Form in that Sacrament; as by examining the Ancient Liturgies he finds there hath been. And Cardinal Lugoes words are altogether as express in this matter, who in his Book de Sacramentis, Disput. 2. Sect. 3. plainly saith, That Christ left the Church at Liberty, both as to the Matter and Form of Orders. And so also saith Arcudius a Learned Greek, that was designed to have been a Cardinal, in his Book de Sacramentis, lib. 6. cap. 4. where he lays it down as that which the most Learned hold, That the Sacrament of Orders (as he calls it) is so instituted by Christ, that the Ordaining of Ministers should be performed by some words and external signs, by which the Ministry to which they were Ordained might be sufficiently signified; but that any particular external signs should be made use of rather than others, was totally left by him to the arbitrament of the Church. And he quotes for proof hereof the third Chapter of the 23th Session of the Council of Trent, where it is said only, That Ordination is to be performed with words and external signs, without assigning what words or what signs these aught to be, from whence he infers they may be any. And to the same purpose also speaks Tapperus of the Forms of the Sacraments in general, and of the Sacrament of Orders in particular; whom Vasquez as to both those takes great pains to confute. And there is another of the same opinion, whose Authority must be certainly infallible with those of that Communion, 
De Sacramentis non iterandis cap. Presbyt.  that is Pope Innocent the 4th. who saith, It is found to be a Rite used by the Apostles, that they laid hands on persons to be Ordained, and poured out prayers over them, but we find not any other observed by them, from whence we believe, that unless there had been Forms afterwards invented, it would have been sufficient for the Ordainer to have said, be thou a Priest, or any other words of the same importance, but in after times the Church Ordained those Forms which are now observed. And Father Davenport, alias Sancta Clara, hath those words: 
* Exposit. Paraphrast. in Artic. 36. Ecclesiae Ang. pag. 325.  Many Doctors do not without probability think that Christ appointed neither the Matter nor Form of Orders, but left both to be assigned by the Church. And thus far having produced the authorities and proofs which you required, I hope I have given you satisfaction herein, and that the opinion of the Schoolmen in asserting that the essential Form of Orders (as you call it) is immutable, and not in the power of any Church to alter, is altogether wrong. And that it is so, those that assert the Doctrine which I have laid down in opposition to them, have this unanswerable Argument for it, that those very essential Forms (as they call them) of Priestly Ordination, which they would have to be instituted by Christ himself, and always from the beginning to have continued in the Church immutably the same, are both of so late date, that the one of them was never used till within these four hundred years, and the other not till within these seven hundred years at the farthest, as by comparing the Ancient Ordinals of the Romish Church doth manifestly appear.  
In the next place you tell me, that although Morinus should have observed that for a thousand years the imperative Form [be thou a Priest] was not used in the Roman Ordinals, yet he doth not say they did not expressly give all Priestly power in other words, or by equivalency, by giving full power to perform all the Offices of it, which you deny our Old Ordinal did. To this I Answer, That I know of no Ordinal that ever had this Form in it, [be thou a Priest] or of any that was ever Ordained by it to the Priestly Office, neither do I refer you to Morinus for any thing concerning it. In your Papers I observed you were much stumbled at the additional alterations we made in the Forms of our Ordinations, as if these additions being in an essential part (as you suppose) must necessarily infer an essential defect to have been in our Ordinals before, and consequently make null and void all the Orders of our Church, conferred by them; or if otherwise, that we could not justify the alterations we have made. To alter the introductory and concomitant prayers you seem willing to allow us a power, but not to make any change in so essential a part as the Form itself, and challenge me to show you when ever the Church of Rome did so. In Answer whereto I told you, that those Forms which you think so essential to Orders are so far from being so, that the Church of Rome itself, for near a thousand years after Christ, never used any such Forms at all, that is, any imperative words at all, denoting the conferring of the Office by the person Ordaining, but the whole Rite was performed by prayer and imposition of hands only, without any imperative words at all spoken to the person Ordained, denoting his taking Authority to execute either the whole, or any part of the Office conferred on him; and for the making out of this I referred you to Morinus his Collection of Ancient Ordinals, wherein he having published sixteen of the most ancient Rituals of Priestly Ordination of the Latin Church that could be found; in the ten first of them no such Form doth at all appear to be used, but in all of them the whole Rite of Ordination is performed by imposition of hands and prayer only; and the eleventh Ordinal in his Collection, composed as he judgeth in the tenth Century, is the first that used this Form; [Receive thou power to offer Sacrifice unto God, and to celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead,] and the other, [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained] is not found till in the last of them, composed about four hundred years since. And this I think to be a plain demonstration of the novel introduction of those Forms into the Roman Ordinals. And that they were totally unknown to the Ancients I endeavoured further to make appear unto you, by showing you, that in none of their Writings there is any mention made of them, no not in those places where they professedly treat of Orders, and all the Rites belonging thereto, as in the Canons of the Council of Carthage, which prescribes the whole manner of Ordination, and in the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, which is also very particular in describing all the Rites belonging thereto; and in neither of these is the least mention made of any such imperative Forms, or any thing like thereto; and I added also those places of Scripture which give us an account of the Ordination of the seven Deacons, and of Paul and Barnabas, to be the Apostles of the Gentiles, in which there is nothing from whence we can infer the use of any such imperative Forms, but that prayers and imposition of hands was all that was then done in those Ordinations. And from all this I did (I think with sufficient reason) infer that those Forms in which the Church of Rome placeth the essence of their Orders, are so far from being thus essential to them, that for many Ages they never used any such at all in any of their Ordinations: And I might also, for the inferring of the same Conclusion, have made use of many other such like Authorities, as of the Apostolical Constitutions published under the name of St. Clement Bishop of Rome, 
* Lib. 8. c. 24.  which makes mention of the Bishops laying on his hands on the Presbyter, to be Ordaining and saying a prayer over him, but nothing of any imperative Form, bidding him to take Authority to do either the whole or any part of his Office then conferred on him. And the Authority of 
† Lib. 16. in Esaiam.  St. Hierom, a Cardinal of the Church of Rome, is most express in this matter, that the whole Rite of Ordination was completed, impositione manus & imprecatione vocis, i. e. by the imposition of the hand, the prayer of the voice. But you except against all those Arguments, and deny them to be conclusive, because there being in none of those Authorities I have mentioned, any words excluding the use of those Forms, the not mentioning of them in the places I have quoted you think is by no means an Argument that there were none such, and you tell me, that should any Learned Papist have offered you such an Argument as this, you should conclude then that he went about to impose upon you. And yet Sir I can tell you of several Learned Papists which use these very same Arguments to prove the same thing; Habertus doth it as to one of them, and makes use not only of some of those Authorities I have mentioned, but also of several others, as of St. Gregory, Isodore and Amalarius, as may be seen page the 124th of his Observations on the Greek Pontifical. And Morinus doth it as to all of them, and so doth Pope Innocent the 4th. in the words I have afore cited out of him; for in them he tells you that it is found to be a Rite used by the Apostles, to lay hands on the persons to be Ordained, and pray over them, but that he finds not any other Rite observed by them, and from hence concludes that the Forms now used in the Church of Rome were invented afterwards. And I could name several others that argue in this very thing after the same manner; but instead of enlarging any further upon that head, I will take leave to show you how much you are mistaken in thinking this no good way of arguing from the very nature of the thing itself. For the thing which I take to prove is, that those Forms now used in the Church of Rome are not Ancient, and the only way I have to prove this, is to search Antiquity for it, and if I can find no footsteps in any Ancient Ritual of any such Forms used in Ordination, or any mention made of them in those Ancient Writers of the Church, which treat of Ordination, all that understand affairs of this nature must allow it a good Argument, to conclude from hence, that they were not at all anciently in use, and in things of this nature there is no other way of Arguing, and it is that which all Learned Men, that write of Church Antiquities, and the usages of the Ancients, constantly use, and ten thousand instances may be given hereof; for to deny those Authorities, which I have insisted on, to be good against the ancient use of those Forms, because there are no words in them expressly excluding them, is that which, when you consider again, you must acknowledge to be a very unreasonable thing; for how can you expect that the negation of the use of a thing should be expressed in any Writer before the thing itself was ever invented, or came in practice. Those imperative Forms now in use in the Church of Rome were not then as much as thought of; and how then could the Writers of those passages I have quoted, express any thing either negatively or affirmatively concerning them: And that which you require to make the Argument strong on my side, would really make it conclude the contrary way; for whereas those passages have only a silence as to those Forms, should they have also words den●ing the use of them, they would rather prove the Antiquity of their use, then make against it; because the mention of them in any manner whatever would necessarily prove them to have been in use before mentioned, otherwise how could any mention be made of them at all. But since in all the Writing of the Ancients, they are never as much as once mentioned, no not in those places where they, treating of Orders, and the manner of Ordination, could not possibly pass them over in silence were there any such things then in use; nor any of the ancient Rituals of Ordination for near a thousand years having the least footsteps of them, nor the Greek Church having any thing like them, it is as strong an Argument as possibly the nature of the thing can bear, that anciently there were no such things at all as those Forms, which the Church of Rome will now have to be the grand essentials of all their Ordinations; and there is no rational man but must be convinced hereby: For were they anciently known, and looked on as things so essential to Ordination, as the Church of Rome would have, it is utterly impossible there could be such a total silence of them for so many Ages after Christ, as I have mentioned in all that have wrote of this matter.  
As to my not giving you the very words of the Council of Carthage, and of the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which I quoted, I am not to be blamed in this matter, because those passages which I referred to taking up several Pages, would be too long to transcribe; especially I being then involved in other business, which would not allow me time for so tedious and needless a task: If you doubted of my fidelity, as to the quoting of those passages, you might have been pleased to call at my Study, and the Books should there have been laid before you. Your Paper citys the words of the third Canon of the Council of Carthage, but all the four first Canons belong to this matter, for in them, that Council prescribing the manner of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons, makes mention only of imposition of hands, with the Blessing given by the Ordainer, but nothing at all of any of those imperative Forms in which the Church of Rome now a days placeth the essence of Orders. And as to the words of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, I find none such in that Author as are contained in your Paper, and therefore I suppose you transcribed them not from the Book itself, but only wrote after some person that had given you the sum of them; and if I mistake not, you have made use of Dr. Burnet in this particular, for the passage which I refer to in Dionysius contains several pages in Folio; for he having first described the manner of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons, afterwards goeth over every single Rite in a very particular and exact manner; and according to his way of Writing finds a Mystery in every one of them; but amongst all those particulars which he so exactly recites, there is none of the least mention made of any imperative Forms spoken at the imposition of hands, or at the performance of any other Rite belonging to that matter; and this silence of them, where there is so particular a mention of every thing else, is an undeniable presumption that there was then no such thing in use.  
But to all that I have said in denying the ancient use of those Forms, you have this Answer, that it seems irrational that there should be no words spoken by the Bishop at the laying on of his hand upon the Ordained, and that at this rate the laying on of hands would seem only a dumb and insignificant sign, and would in your opinion be nothing at all operative to the conferring of the Office on the person Ordained: To which I reply.  
First, That how insignificant soever you may esteem the outward Ceremony, without those words which you call the essential Form in the Consecration of a Christian Priest, yet if you please to read the 8th Chapter of Leviticus, you will there find that Aaron and his Sons were Consecrated to the Levitical Priesthood by the outward Ceremony only, without as much as any one word spoken by Moses the Consecrator, signifying the Holy Office to which they were set apart. And 
* Avadhah, Tract. 2. cap. 4. Sect. 12.  Maimonides the most Authentic Writer among the Rabbis, gives us an account, that in after times the Consecration of the High Priest among the Jews was performed only by the Anointing with the Holy Oil, and Vesting with the High Priests Vestments, and after the destruction of the first Temple in which the Holy Oil was lost, by Vesting him only. For outward signs can by general institution be made as expressive of any thing of this nature, as a form of words; for words are only sounds, appointed by the common consent of those that use them to be the signs of things, and when outward actions are appointed to signify the same things they are altogether as expressive; and the King of France, by delivering the Sword to the Constable, and a Staff to a Marshal of France, doth as effectually create those Officers by that outward Ceremony only, as if he had done it by a Form of words, the most expressive of the Authority and Power given that could be devised, because the Laws of the Kingdom, and the long received Customs of it have made these Ceremonies alone the well known manner of Constituting those Officers: And had the Laws of the Christian Church, or the long received usages of it, made any outward Ceremony whatever, in like manner, the well known Rite of Ordaining a Priest, it would be altogether as valid for this purpose without any Form of words whatever. For Ordination being only a Ministerial act of delegating that Office to another which was received from Christ, any thing that is sufficient to express this delegation, whether words or signs, doth sufficiently do the thing. For if Forms be so necessary to Ordination, what is it that makes them so? It must be either the institution of Christ, or the nature of the thing itself; any other Reason for it I know not. If it be from the institution of Christ, let us be but convinced of that and we have done. For in this case either to omit the Form, or alter in the least from its first institution, would make the whole performance culpable. But if there be no institution of Christ for any such Form, (as I have already abundantly demonstrated that there is not) all the necessity of such a Form must be from the nature of the thing itself. Now if the nature of Ordination doth not necessarily require any such Form, but that any of the Offices of the Church may be as well conferred by an outward Ceremony only, by public institution made significant and expressive of the thing done; there appears no necessity for the use of any such Forms at all, so as to invalidate those Orders that are conferred without them. That which makes the Church of Rome so much insist upon the Matter and Form of Ordination is, that they have made it a Sacrament; and they observing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and the Sacrament of Baptism, which are really Sacraments of Christ's own institution, to consist each of them, as prescribed in Scripture, of an outward sign and a form of words annexed, the former of which they call the matter, and the latter the form of the Sacrament, from hence they do infer that they are both essentially necessary to all those other Rites, which they will have to be Sacraments also; and because they find none such instituted in Scripture for them, (as they themselves acknowledge) that they may not be without them, introduce Matters and Forms (as they call them) of their own making. And hence it is that they talk so much of the Matter and Form of Orders, and will have both so essentially necessary to the conferring of them; whereas would they argue aright in this point, they ought not so much to have inferred the necessity of what they call Matter and Form for Ordination, from that it is a Sacrament, as that for this very reason it can be no Sacrament, because it hath neither the one nor the other, by Divine institution, belonging thereto. For the nature of a Sacrament, according to their own definitions, consists in this, that it is an outward Ceremony consisting of things and words, instituted and enjoined by Christ himself, with a promise of saving Grace annexed to the performance of it. And since nothing of this can be made out to us from Scripture, it doth from hence follow, that although Orders be enrolled among the number of the Sacraments in the Church of Rome, it was never so in the Church of Christ. For where have we in Scripture any external sign, where any Form of words commanded to be made use of in the Administration of Orders? Or where any promise of saving Grace annexed thereto. All that we find instituted in Scripture concerning this matter, is, that as Christ sent the Apostles so they should send others, and that none should Preach except they were sent; but as to the manner of this mission or sending, nothing is at all instituted or prescribed unto us in Holy Writ; but the whole of this is left to the Church, and those chief Pastors of it which have the Authority of giving those Missions committed to them, so to order and appoint it according to the various circumstances of times, places and things, as they shall judge will be most fitting, provided it be agreeable in all things to the Word of God, and sufficiently declarative of the thing intended: And this the abovementioned Arcudius, an Eminent Doctor of the Church of Rome, plainly acknowledgeth: For in his Book de Sacramentis, lib. 6. cap. 4. he tells us, that Orders may be conferred by any manner of Rite, so it express a will of delivering that Spiritual Power to the person Ordained. Some Examples indeed we have of Ordinations in Scripture, as when Christ Ordained his Apostles, and after, when the Apostles Ordained the seven Deacons, and the Church of Antioch, Paul and Barnabas to be the Apostles of the Gentiles, and the manner of these Ordinations is also described unto us, but no Precept is at all given us of this matter, or any thing in the least commanded or enjoined concerning it, much less any promise of saving Grace annexed thereto. The Popish Translation of the New Testament indeed tells us of Grace given by the imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 4. v. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. v. 6. but in those places the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grace, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Gift, as our Translation hath it; not the gracious working of the Holy Ghost in us, in order to Sanctification and Holiness of Life, but only a gift freely given to qualify and enable, in order to the performance of the Office conferred, and what those gifts are you have described in the 12th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where you find them either to be ordinary or extraordinary. The extraordinary gifts were such as accompanied the Ministry of the Apostles, and first Preachers of the Gospel, as being necessary to create belief in a World then totally infidel, as to those things they taught; and these were the gift of working Miracles, the gift of divers Tongues, the gift of healing all manner of Diseases, the gift of Prophesying, and such like. The ordinary gifts are such as have ever since been continued down in the Church to those that are Legally called to the Administration of Divine things; as the Power of Teaching the Word, of Administering the Sacraments, of Blessing the People in the Name of God, of offering up acceptable Sacrifices of Praise and Prayer unto him for them, and such like; and these are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or gifts of the Holy Ghost, which were given by imposition of hands in Ordination; and in order to these only is it that the Bishop says therein, [Receive the Holy Ghost] which Gifts do only empower and assist, in order to the performance of the Office conferred, not unto Holiness and Righteousness of Life, wherein consists that saving Grace whereby we are sanctified unto Everlasting Life; and are so far of themselves alone from conducing any thing thereto in the persons endowed with them, that we often find them consisting with the greatest iniquities; for Judas 
* Matt. 10. v. 1. Luk. 9 v. 1. 6.  had them to the working of Miracles, casting out of Devils, and healing all manner of Diseases, that was the worst of Traitors; and Caiaphas the High Priest of the Jews, although one of the wickedest of men, had also like gifts of the Holy Ghost given him with his Office, and by virtue thereof we find him making a most clear Prophecy of our Saviour, and the Redemption to be wrought by him for Mankind in dying for us, at the same time when he was acting the highest piece of Treason against him; for 
† John 11. v. 51.  the Scripture tells us, that being High Priest that year he Prophesied. And from all this which I have said, it manifestly appearing that Orders is no Sacrament, there can lie no necessity from hence for any of those Matters and Forms (as they call them) which the Church of Rome requires in order thereto; so as that the Administration should be necessarily annexed to them (as that Church asserts) but that all the Holy Offices or Orders of the Church of Christ, whether of Bishops, Priests or Deacons, may be conferred by the one of them alone, without the other, as well as by both together, when made sufficiently declarative of the thing designed, or by any other like significant Rite, which shall be appointed in order thereunto. For taking the administration of Holy Orders thus in the true nature and notion of the thing without reckoning it a Sacrament, it will appear to be no other than the delegating or transmitting from one Succession to another, those Offices which have by Divine Authority been instituted in the Church of Christ, for the ministering of the Holy things of God therein; and therefore there can remain nothing in them which may necessarily require any thing more to be done, to carry them down from one to another in a due and Legal Succession, than what is practised in all other Offices wherein one man succeeds another; but that they may in the same manner, by a person fully Authorized thereto, be validly and fully conferred by any Rite and Manner whatever, sufficiently declarative of the thing intended; and whether it be done by an outward Ceremony alone, or a Form of words alone, or both together; either may be sufficient, when either by common use or public institution, they have a significancy given them to denote the thing designed.  
And thus far having treated of the Forms of Ordination used in the Church of Rome, I hope I have fully satisfied you that they are no such essential immutable things, as you seem to be of opinion that they are But if those Writers of that Church, which are so earnest for this, had asserted it of the matter of Order, [Imposition of hands] they would have had a much better plea on their side, because it must undeniably be granted, not only from the Writings of the Ancients, but also from Scripture itself, that imposition of hands from the very beginning of Christianity, hath been always a Rite most constantly made use of in the conferring of Holy Orders. But as to this the Church of Rome hath nothing to cavil with us, it being as constantly used in all Protestant Churches as in theirs. And besides herein they themselves have most shamefully deviated from the ancient practice of the Church, by introducing a new matter of their own invention, the delivery of the Sacred Vessels to the person Ordained; a thing never practised in any Church till brought into use by them, about seven hundred years since; yet this they are so zealous for in preference to the other, that or imposition of hands, that they do not only, by the general received Doctrine of their Church, give it the pre-eminence as the prime and principal matter essential to the Sacrament, (as they call it) but abundance of them make that to be the only external sign that is so, and reject the other, although most undeniably of Apostolical usage, into the number only of those 
* Dominicus Soto, Silvester, de Valentia aliique.  accidental Rites which belong to that administration. And this I mention only to let you see, that although those men are so clamorous against us for altering the Ordinal at the Reformation, they only are guilty of that alteration herein which is really culpable, in that to introduce a new Rite or Matter (as they term it) of their own invention, they give little or no regard to that which is truly Apostolical, for so imposition of hands must undeniably be allowed to be. But I intent not to make any dispute as to this particular, having before said, that Orders may be validly conferred without it, by any other manner sufficiently expressive of the thing intended. But here I desire to be understood that I hold it not justifiable for any Bishop so to do, unless in some particular case, where there may be an extraordinary reason to warrant the alteration: Because when a Rite hath been so generally received in the Church, and hath so venerable a stamp upon it, as that of Apostolic usage; the Example is so enforcing as even to reach almost the very nature of a Precept to oblige us to do the same thing: But because we find no Precept or Institution in Scripture concerning this Rite, (as the Romanists themselves acknowledge that there is not) we put it not into the essentials of Ordination, so as to judge null and void such Orders as shall be conferred without it, but in this case admit the old and well known Rule, quod fieri non debet factum valet, that which ought not to be done is valid when done: For the Rite of imposition of hands being of so ancient and venerable use in the Church (as I have aforesaid) I think it cannot be omitted, unless in some extraordinary case, (as I have mentioned) without a great fault both in him that shall give, and him that shall receive Orders without it. But however the Orders must be allowed to be good, notwithstanding that omission; because our Saviour who commands the chief Pastors of his Church to send others after them, to administer in holy things, even as they were sent, enjoined herein only the mission itself without prescribing any thing to them about the manner of it; neither were his Holy Apostles after him directed by his Holy Spirit to leave any Rule or Precept to us, as to this particular: But it was left to the Governors of the Church to do herein, according as they should see most fitting. And for many Ages after Christ there was no such thing as a Uniform Ordinal in any Church, but the thing was left to discretion, as the manner of Consecrating Churches with us, and every Bishop used his own method herein, only imposition of hands was always retained; but with such different and various Forms of Prayers, Benedictions, and other Rites, as the Bishop Ordaining thought most fitting to make use of; and from hence no doubt came all that variety of Ordinals which is to be found among those Morinus hath published; for Uniformity either of Liturgies or Ordinals is of very late date, even in the Church of Rome itself. In England down to the very time of the Reformation there were five different Liturgies, according to the different uses of the Churches of Sarum, Hereford, York, Bangor and Lincoln; and in Morinus there is an Ordinal for the use of England, much differing from the rest; and therefore it is no new thing for us to vary from the Church of Rome in this particular, even while we owned its Usurpations over us, how much soever we are now quarrelled at on this account, since we have been separated from them. The sum of all is, that there was nothing of constant use in Ordination, but Imposition of hands; the Benedictions, Prayers, and other Rites that accompanied being for the most part differing, according to the different Churches in which they were used, and therefore if the Ordainer were a person fully authorized, and the person Ordained fully qualified for the Sacred Office to which he was admitted, we never meet with any that disputed the manner of the Ordination: Neither do we find that ever a Controversy was made in this matter to null and void the Orders of any Church, from any defect in their Ordinal, till the Church of Rome raised the present Cavil against us: For although different Churches in former times did much differ as to this, yet we find none so fond of their own Methods and Forms, as to condemn others that varied from them; but it was ever looked on as the right of every particular Church in this, to follow their own establishmen●s. And although the Romanists have in this the Greek Church as much differing from them as the Church of England, yet we find them not making any quarrel with them upon this account; but on the contrary, allowing them to make use of their own Ordinals, even after received into Communion with them; and that even in those Churches which they have in Rome itself, and were it not that the violence of their passion against us for our differing from them in other things, made them overlook their Reason in this, the same thing must have been allowed us also. But it hath happened to them in this as is usual with such as contend in a bad cause, that is, wanting all true Reasons of opposition against us, were forced to lay hold of any thing that might seem to bear an appearance of it, without considering the inconsistencies which the charge bears even with their own Principles; but they having begun are bound in Honour to proceed, and I know no other reason they have of continuing this unreasonable Cavil against us about the validity of our Orders, abundance of their own Divines being really ashamed of it, as you may see from the Testimonies I have already produced to you from some of them concerning this matter, who positively declare their Opinion to the contrary herein. And no doubt were they to begin the Controversy anew with us, amongst several other Articles of Opposition they have too rashly taken up against us, this concerning the validity of our Orders would in the first place be totally superseded betwixt us.  
But because in answering what you objected concerning the Forms of Ordination, I have been led also to speak of the Matter, Imposition of hands, that I may leave nothing that I have said liable to Objection, I think it requisite a little further to explain myself concerning this particular. Although there be some Doctors of the Church of Rome that hold Imposition of hands only to be an accidental Rite, and the delivery of the Sacred Vessels the sole essential Matter of Orders; yet the most General received Opinion among them is, that they are both essential matters, but make the delivery of the Sacred Vessels the most principal matter, as being that whereby they say is conferred the power of Order, enabling to consecrate the Eucharist, and offer the Sacrifice of the Mass; whereas by the other imposition of hands is only conferred the power of Jurisdiction, which they make to be by much the inferior and less noble part of the Sacerdotal Function; and in this Doctrine of theirs I think them guilty of a double Error: For,  
1. Since Imposition of Hands hath been of such constant use in the Church of Christ from the beginning in all Ordinations, and hath been Consecrated thereto by the practice of the Apostles themselves, (as from Scripture is most evident) they detract from the Veneration which is due to so ancient a Rite, and to the Example of the holy Apostles, who used it alone without any other, by putting it in the second place after a Rite of their own invention, and making it thus inferior thereto; I mean the delivery of the Sacred Vessels, which doth not appear from any of their Ordinals or any other ancient Record of the Church, to have been in use among them above seven hundred years, as Morinus a Priest of their own makes it out unto us. But,  
2. I think them as much in a mistake on the other hand, by making this or any other Rite essential to this Administration, since there is no Divine Institution establishing any thing at all concerning it. That the Scriptures tell us not of any such, the Romanists themselves freely grant; but what they cannot make out from hence they would prove unto us by the Tradition of their Church; for by that they tell us it hath been delivered down from one Age to another, that both these Rites which they hold to be the essential matters of Priestly Ordination were instituted and commanded by Christ himself; and they pretend also to give us a Reason, as I have afore noted, why this Institution should be rather thus preserved down to subsequent Ages by an unwritten Tradition than by the written Word; but this Tradition being most apparently false as to one of them, the delivery of the Sacred Vessels (which its plain for a Thousand years was never heard of in the Church, as I have shown) is by no means a sufficient Testimony to be relied on for the other. That the Apostles ordained by imposition of hands, and that all Churches herein followed their Example, is most certain: But that it is to be received as an essential to the administration in which it is used upon the account of a Divine Institution we have no Authority for it, but from the later Writers of the Church of Rome, which is by no means sufficient to make us subscribe thereto. And if the Apostolical practice be urged on their side, the answer is most certain, that all things are not to be held to be of Divine Institution which the Apostles did, or do they for this reason lay a necessary obligation upon the Church as such, because we have their Example for the practice of them. For their Example is not sufficient to infer a Divine Institution for those things which they did, where we have that alone without any precept unto us for the doing of them also, as from abundance of Instances in Scripture of things practised by them, and now totally abolished, may most apparently be made out unto you. And this way of arguing would infer such difficulties upon the Romanists themselves, as they will never be able to answer: For waving other instances, to come to the particular now in hand, if imposition of Hands in Ordination were on this account to be held for a Divine Institution, what shall become of the so Generally received Axiom of the Church of Rome, 
‖ Gygas cum DD ab eo citat. Q. 8. de pers. n. 3.  Summus Pontifex solo verbo potest facere & Sacerdotem & Episcopum; That the Pope without imposition of Hands, or any other Rite whatever, can make both a Priest and a Bishop by speaking the word only; so that if he say unto any one, be thou a Priest, or be thou a Bishop, his saying so only without any further Ceremony shall be sufficient fully and validly to confer either of the said Offices: For the Pope is no more excused from any thing that is of Divine Institution, than any other of his Communion; and I suppose none of their Doctors will say that he is. But that although in a High degree he Lords it over all, yet he is equally with all subject to the Laws of him whose Vicar he pretends to be. But if it be asked then that if there be no command of Christ for this Rite, nor any obligation from a Divine prescript for the use of it, how came it from the beginning of Christianity to be the practice of all the Apostles, and what other reason can be given for so early and general observance of it? To this I answer, That it was a Rite which was received in conformity to the ancient use of it in the Jewish Church to the same purpose: And that I may give you satisfaction herein, I shall trace the thing to its first Original, and give you a thorough account of it; and in so doing, I hope I shall not only answer the present objection, but also clear the way for the removing of all those other difficulties which you have raised to yourself about this particular.  
The Public Service of God among the Jews was twofold: First, That of the Temple; and Secondly, That of the Synagogue. That of the Temple consisting only of Sacrifices, Oblations, and the Ceremonies belonging thereto, which were all Typical Representations of the Grand Sacrifice of Christ our Saviour, once to be offered for all. When he had offered this Sacrifice by dying on the Cross for us, they all received their Completion, and thenceforth became totally Abolished. But the Service of the Synagogue not consisting of Ceremonial Observances, but of the Moral Duties of Prayer, Praise, Thanksgiving, and in Exhortations and Instructions to the obeying of God's Holy Will and Commandments, to which there is a natural and perpetual obligation, was still from the Jewish Oeconomy which ceased continued on to the Christian that followed after it in its stead; and that as far as the nature of things would bear, according to the same Rules of Discipline, Order and Practice also as formerly; that there being as little variation as possible, as to the observance of those Duties in the new Oeconomy, from the former practice of them under the old, the Jews who were beyond all other people of the Earth most tenacious of the Traditions and Practices of their Forefathers, might be the easier induced to join themselves to the Christian Worship, and with less difficulty be Converted to the Truth thereof. For the Holy Apostles being primarily sent to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel, did as wise Master-builders of the Church of Christ well consider this, and therefore in forming of the outward order of its worship, and the Manner and Discipline of its Government, conformed themselves to the pattern of the Synagogue, to which it succeeded as far as the Law of the Gospel, and the nature of that Oeconomy they were then establishing would admit; and hence among many other things came the name of Elders or Presbyters, (for the later is the same in Greek what the former is in English) and the manner of Ordaining them by Imposition of Hands to be introduced into the Church of Christ: Not that there was any Divine precept concerning either the one or the other, but that both were continued in imitation of what was afore practised in the Church of the Jews. For therein those that had the Government of Ecclesiastical Affairs, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zekenim, Presbyters or Elders. Of their first appointment to this Office we read Num. 11. where Moses complaining that the charge of the whole Congregation was too heavy for him, Seventy of the Wisest and Gravest of the People were appointed to be his Assistants herein, and to bear part of the Duty with him in Instructing and Governing the people according to the Law which God had given unto them; and in order hereto the Spirit of Wisdom and Prophecy rested on them, and these constituted the grand Ecclesiastical Council of that Nation called the Sanedrim, which determined all Controversies concerning the Law of God and directed to all other Establishments for the promoting of his Honour and Worship among them. But besides these there were other Elders also in every particular City, which had there the same charge upon them for that district, which the others had for the whole Nation, and were those which constituted the Presbytery of that place to take care of the Service of God in the Synagogues, to minister in all the Duties of Holy Worship therein, to instruct the people in the Law of God, to exhort to the observance of it, to give judgement according thereto in all Controversies, and to exercise the power of binding and losing, in declaring what was Lawful and what was Unlawful to be done when any doubt or difficulty required their determination herein, to correct such as transgressed the Law, to Excommunicate the Incorrigible, and also to receive them again by Absolution when penitent, and to admit Proselytes into the Church by Baptism. And in order to qualify them for these Duties, there were Schools or Universities, in which they were bred up as Paul at the feet of Gamaliel (the then Precedent of the Sanedrim, and chief Professor of Divinity in the University of Jerusalem) to understand the Law of God, and all other parts of Scripture, and to know the determinations of the Learned, which had been afore given concerning all points of doubt or difficulty occurring in any part thereof, and when they had gone through such a Course of Study and Proficiency as rendered them sufficiently versed herein, they were then ordained Elders or Presbyters by imposition of Hands, and thereby authorized to all those Duties which I have afore mentioned to belong to that Office; and this imposition of hands was then understood in the same manner as now with us to give the Assistance of God's Holy Spirit for the performance of them. And thus the Hebrew Doctors tell us that the Seventy Elders were Ordained by Moses, and that at the performance of this Rite it was that the Spirit of Prophecy rested on them; of which is mention Numb. 11. v. 25. But in the Ordination of Joshua to be the Chief of them after the decease of Moses, the Scriptures themselves expressly tell us, that it was done by Imposition of Hands, and that thereon the Spirit of God rested on him; Num. 27. v. 18. and Deut. 34. v. 9 The Hebrew Doctors are very large and express concerning all these particulars, and frequent mention is made of them in their Writings. The words of Maimonides, the most eminent of them, are as followeth. 
Maimonides in Tract. Sanedrim cap. 4.  Whether the Elders or Presbyters were Members of the great Sanhedrim, or whether they were Members of the lesser Councils, or Presbyteries which were constituted in every City, or whether they were of the Triumvirate only appointed to judge of Causes between man and man, it was necessary that every one of them should be ordained by Imposition of Hands by others which had been so ordained before him. And Moses our Master so ordained Joshua by the Imposition of his Hands; for it is written Numb. 27. v. 23. And he laid his hand upon him and gave him a charge. And so also Moses ordained the Seventy Elders and the Holy Spirit rested on them; and those Elders created others, and they again others, and so it hath been found that one hath been Ordained by another through all Ages, up to the time of the Sanhedrim of Joshua, and the Sanhedrim of Moses.  
And this being the state of the Elders or Presbyters of the Jewish Church, and the manner of their admission to that Office, (as I have described) it doth answer in so many particulars what was after established in the Church of Christ, as makes it most clear what I have afore said, that the one was a pattern to the other herein, and that all things of this nature, which were introduced into the latter, were by imitation translated from the former; and this is the sense of abundance of Learned Men that treat of this matter, as well Romanists as Protestants; they all holding, that the Holy Apostles, to make the change the more easy from the old Oeconomy to the new, in forming the outward Order and Discipline of the Church, did not make all things new therein, but borrowed from the Synagogue of the Jews, as many of its usages as could be accommodated thereto. And of all those things, of which this may be said, it is of none more manifest than of the name of Presbyters, and the manner of Ordaining them by imposition of hands, that they both came this way into the Church of Christ. And an easy entrance was made them thereto by the similitude of the things themselves; the Christian Presbyter being the same in the Church of Christ that the Jewish was in the Synagogue; the duties in which they officiated very little differing, and the end for which imposition of hands was made use of in their Ordination thereto, totally the same; as from what hath been afore said may sufficiently appear: For what hath the office of a Christian Presbyter more than what I have afore described to belong to a Presbyter or Elder in the Synagogue of the Jews, excepting only the administering of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which answered not to any thing of the Synagogue, but to the Paschal Feast; which was a Service totally appropriated to the Temple, and the City of Jerusalem in which it stood. And what other end is designed by imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Christian Presbyter, but the giving of the Holy Ghost? the same which I have told you was also imported by the same Ceremony in the Ordination of a Presbyter for the Synagogue only, it was given in the Christian Church in a larger degree then in the Jewish, and also for a more excellent ministration, the one being derived only from Moses for the teaching of the Law, and the other from Christ our Lord, for the preaching of his Gospel, and the administering of all the benefits thereof unto Everlasting Life. And thus far I hope I have made it clear, how this Ceremony of imposition of hands, made use of in our Ordinations, came into the Church of Christ, that is, not by any Divine Law or Precept from our Saviour, but only by imitation from what was afore practised in the Synagogue of the Jews: But however since we find it introduced by the Apostles themselves, and in all Ordinations practised by them from the beginning, who were in so extraordinary a manner guided by the Holy Spirit of God in all that they did of this nature; this is sufficient to infer a Divine Approbation of the use thereof, although not a Divine Institution perpetually obligatory thereto; and therefore we cannot, without being guilty of the greatest rashness, vary from it to any invention of our own, for which we can have no such assurance; and this with the apt significancy which the Ceremony itself hath of the thing intended, no doubt hath been the reason that it hath ever since been continued in the Church of Christ down to this time; there being no Church or Sect of Christians (that I know of) which think any Ordination at all necessary, that do not make use of this Ceremony therein. Now the manner how Orders were first administered hereby, we gather from Scripture to be thus; when any persons were made choice of to officiate in any of the Holy Offices of the Church, whether of Bishop, Priest or Deacon; First, God Almighty was sought to in their behalf by a solemn Fast, to which the Ember weeks do now answer, and then the Congregation being met, the Ordainer, whether one of the Apostles themselves, or of the Bishops that succeeded them, having by a Prayer particular for that purpose, recommended the person to be Ordained to the mercy and favour of God, that he would be pleased to accept of him to that Holy Function to which he was set apart, and impart unto him such a measure of his Gifts and Graces as might fully enable him to all the Duties thereof; then as the proper Minister of God, by his Divine appointment, for this purpose, laid his hands upon him for his receiving all that which had in his behalf been thus prayed for; it being by this Ministerial act, as it were by the hand of God himself, reached out unto him; and this was always looked upon as the very act whereby the Office was given, and the full completion of that administration whereby any were admitted thereto, and for several Ages after we find no other Ceremony used therein. But Imposition of hands alone was all along looked on as the sole Ceremonial act whereby the Office was conferred, whether it were of Bishop, Priest, or Deacon; it being thereto as the Seal to the Patent by which they acted in their Ministry, and the application thereof that which impowered them to all the duties of it. And for this reason, among the Greeks, Ordination and Imposition of hands are signified by the same word; and also in the Writings of the Apostles themselves, we have instances hereof, Acts 14. v. 23. and 2 Cor. 8. v. 19 in both these places the word which by the Romanists themselves is Translated to Ordain, is in the Original Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies to lay on hands, which sufficiently imports, that in that Ceremony the whole act of Ordination was understood to consist, without any of those imperative Forms, which you seem to lay so much stress upon, we having no Authority in the least to make it out unto us that any such were at all in use for near a thousand years after Christ, as I have already shown: Neither is there any such necessity for them (as you urge) to declare the intent of the Ceremony, or which of the different Orders of the Church it is which is conferred thereby in Ordination; seeing this may be as well manifested by a public declaration to the people in the beginning of the administration, and also in the subsequent prayers, which were offered up unto God in behalf of the person to be Ordained, for his accepting of him to the Office, and his imparting to him his Divine Gifts, to enable him to the Duties of it, as it is evident that it was done by both these ways in the Primitive Church, without any such Forms as you think so necessary thereto; for to express the thing the more plainly to you; when a Fast had been appointed in order to the Ordination of a Presbyter, when the Congregation being met, the end of that meeting was declared, for the Ordaining of such an one there present to be a Presbyter, and when by particular Prayers he had been recommended to God for his imparting to him his Gifts and Graces for that Office, (as was the ancient manner of Ordination) after all this had been done, when the hands of the Bishop and the Presbytery were laid on him for the conferring of the Office, certainly there needed no new declaration to express the end for which it was done. And that this was anciently the practice of the Church of Rome itself, thus to Ordain by Imposition of hands, without any such Forms annexed; we have a most evident proof from their own Ordinal, it being still thus retained therein: For in the Roman Ordinal, Imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Priest is twice administered; the last time indeed it hath a Form annexed, the same almost which we use; [Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.] But of the first the Rubric of the Ordinal says; Pontifex stans ante faldistorium suum cum Mitrâ & nulla oratione nullove cantu praemissis imponit simul utramque manum super caput cujuslibet Ordinandi successiuè nihil dicens, idemque faciunt post eum omnes Sacerdotes qui adsunt; i. e. The Bishop standing before his Faldstool with his Mitre on his head, without any Prayer or Hymn premised, puts both his hands successively on the head of every one to be Ordained, without speaking any thing at all, and after him all the Priests that are present do the same thing. Now that this Imposition of hands, which is thus administered in the Ordination of a Presbyter, with silence, and without any Form of words at all spoken at the doing of it, is the true and ancient Imposition of hands which they have received down by Tradition from the former Ages of the Church, and by which alone the Order is conferred, and not the other, Imposition of hands after administered, I have these Arguments to make it most manifest unto you.  
First, Because this later Imposition of hands with the Form of words with which it is administered, are both of them but lately introduced into their Church, they being to be found in none of their Ordinals, till about four hundred years since; or do any of their Ritualists, which are of ancienter date, make the least mention of them; whereas the other Imposition of hands, is that which all of them make very particular expression of.  
Secondly, The true and ancient Imposition of hands in the Ordination of a Presbyter was always administered by the Bishop, with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery also joined therewith, and this not only the Decrees of Councils, but the Practice and Examples of the Holy Apostles themselves do direct to: But the Presbytery in the Roman Ordinal do no where lay on their hands with the Bishop on the person to be Ordained to the Priestly Function, but in this first Imposition of hands only, which is administered without any Form at all, in perfect silence; and therefore this alone must be that Imposition of hands which confers the Order, and this even the Council of Trent itself doth plainly enough say. For in the 14th Session and 3d Chapter of Extreme Unction, treating of the proper Ministers of that Rite or Sacrament, as they call it, do there declare that they must be, Aut Episcopi aut Sacerdotes ab ipsis rite Ordinati per Impositionem manuum Presbyterii; i. e. Either Bishops or Priests regularly Ordained by them with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. From whence it follows, that if those only are regularly made Priests who are so Ordained by the Bishop with the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery (as is here asserted) that Imposition of hands alone in the Roman Ordinal, must be the Rite which confers the Order, where the Presbyters as well as the Bishop bear their part in the administration, by laying on their hands also, which is no where done in all that Office, but in that first Imposition of hands only, which is administered in perfect silence. And for those reasons 
(a) Lib. 3. Exercit. 7. cap. 2.  Morinus and 
(b) Page 224.  Habertus, both Priests of the Roman Church, and Eminently Learned above most other of that Communion, in the points we now treat of, do plainly assert that this Imposition of hands is the essential matter of Orders, and 
(c) De Sacr. Ord. D. 6. g. 52.  Merbesius a later Writer, and several others also of that Church do assent with them herein. And I hope Arguments and Authorities of this nature may be sufficient to convince you that there is no such necessity for those Forms in Ordination which you so much contend for; or that Imposition of hands is altogether a dumb and insignificant sign, when administered without them, as your Paper asserts; since by what hath been said it plainly appears, that even in the Church of Rome itself, for which you so earnestly argue in this particular, the Imposition of hands which confers the Order of Priesthood, is even that which is thus administered in perfect silence, without any Form of words at all joined therewith.  
But because you lay so much stress upon the Matter and Form of Orders, as if without being exact in these, no Ordination can be fully and validly administered. I think it proper also to acquaint you, that all that Divinity concerning the Matter and Form of Orders, which the Schoolmen make so much pother about, and is at present from them made so much use of in this Controversy by our Adversaries against us, is totally of late invention; there being nothing at all of it either in Scripture, or any of the Writings of the Ancients for above twelve hundred years after Christ, the very names of Matter and Form of Orders being till then totally unknown. But about the year 1250. the Philosophy of Aristotle, which makes the substance or essence of all things to consist of Matter and Form, being translated out of Arabic into Latin, was with great greediness received by the Schoolmen, and soon incorporated by them into all their Divinity; and thenceforth they taking him for their Text, equally with the Scriptures themselves, and according to his method in the definition of things ascribing to each its Matter and its Form, introduced these terms also into the Doctrine of their Sacraments; and observing these to consist of an outward Sign or Ceremony, and a form of words spoken at the Administration of it, for the sake of the agreement or similitude which is between the word formula, a form of words, and the word forma, which signifieth the Aristotelical form, made this form of words to be the essential Form, and the outward Ceremony the essential Matter which makes up the whole nature and essence of every Sacrament; and from hence it is that the matter and form of Orders (which they make to be one of their Sacraments) became first talked of among Divines; and all that heap of Rubbish which the Schoolmen and those that follow them have built hereupon, and no better foundation than this have you for making any form of words spoken in Ordination to be essential thereto. Had our Saviour indeed instituted any form of words to be spoken at the Administration of the outward Rite, as he did in Baptism, than I confess that Institution would have made it essential thereto and the whole would have been void and null without it. However supposing Orders a Sacrament, it could not be the essential Form thereof, for that only can be the essential Form of a thing which gives it its determinate Essence, and actually and ultimately constitutes it to be what it is, and therefore nothing else can be the essential form of a Sacrament, but that alone which actually gives it the nature and essence of a Sacrament; which no form of words can do, for if we consider in either of the Sacraments that are truly and undoubtedly such, the outward visible sign, and the Form of words alone, they can make nothing of themselves but a liveless insignificant Ceremony, unless something else be taken in to give the essence and nature of a Sacrament thereto. In truth therefore, as well the Form of words as the outward sign are both of them of the matter of the Sacrament; and it is only the relation and conformity which both must have to the Institution of our Saviour with the concurrence of the Divine Grace according to the promise made in the institution, which can make any Sacramental Administration to be truly and essentially such. For no outward visible sign with any form of words whatever, unless it hath a Divine Institution whereto to refer, and bears with it an exact conformity thereto, can ever arrive to the true nature and essence of a Sacrament; and therefore supposing Orders to be a Sacrament of the new Law, as our Adversaries would have, and that there was a Divine Institution, not only for the outward sign, but also for the form of words made use of in the conferring of them, yet it can never be said that the form of words only, without any further respect, can give that determinate essence to the Sacrament as actually and ultimately to constitute it to be a Sacrament, (which is the nature of every essential form to do, in respect of the thing to which it belongs) and consequently can never be the essential form thereof. And from hence you may plainly see, that all which our Adversaries say of the essential form of Orders, and on which from them you so much insist on, hath neither Scripture, Antiquity or Reason for its support; but is totally grounded on no other foundation than the Philosophy of Aristotle, and the mistakes and dotages of the Schoolmen built thereon.  
As to what you say concerning the essential form being contained in the Prayers of the Roman Ordinal, and that therefore before the imperative forms were added, Imposition of Hands and Prayers were sufficient with them for the conferring of Orders; but cannot be with us, because in none of the Prayers of our Ordinal, this essential Form is contained. I Answer, If by the essential Form you mean those very same words spoken by the Bishop at the administering of the outward Rite or Matter as they call it, which the generality of the Romish Church call the form of Orders, I deny that they are contained in any of their Prayers, and if you think they are, you should have told me in which.  
But Secondly, If by the essential Form you mean no more than words in the Prayers signifying the Office conferred (which I suppose must be all that you mean thereby, if you mean any thing that is sense) than I answer, that the prayers in our Ordinal do as fully contain that which you call the essential Form of Orders as any in the Roman Ordinal can be said to do. And although you will not allow this of the Prayer immediately before imposition of hands, or of that which follows immediately after in the Ordination of a Priest, yet you cannot deny it of the Collect for the occasion, where it is most proper to be looked for; for that is as followeth: Almighty God, Giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in the Church, mercifully behold these thy Servants now called to the Office of Priesthood, and replenish them so with the truth of thy Doctrine, and adorn them with innocency of Life, that both by word and good Example they may faithfully serve thee in this Office, to the glory of thy Name, and the Edification of thy Church, through the merits of Jesus Christ. And if you look over all the prayers of the Roman Ordinal, I think you cannot find in any of them the Office of a Priest more expressly mentioned than in this: And therefore I hold still to my Inference, that if the Prayers with imposition of hands may be sufficient for the conferring of the order of Priesthood in the Roman ordinal, this must be also sufficient in ours. And I cannot possibly see what farther you can object against this, unless it be that the Prayer I have mentioned goeth before the Rite of imposition of Hands in our Ordinal, whereas you may perchance think that it ought to come after, rightly to answer the end for which I urge it. But if you please to consider those passages of Scripture which tell us of the manner of ordaining practised by the Holy Apostles, as it is always expressed in them to be done by Prayer and Imposition of hands, so also shall you find that Prayer was first, and Imposition of hands after: So Acts 6. v. 6. in their Ordaining of the seven Deacons, it is said, that when they had prayed they laid their hands on them; and so Acts 13. v. 3 of the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas to be the Apostles of the Gentiles, When they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands upon them, they sent them away; which passages plainly evidence unto us, that their method of Ordaining was first by Prayer, in the name of the Church, to Consecrate the person unto God for the Office to which he was set apart; and then, as in God's stead, according to the authority they had received from him, in order hereunto by Imposition of hands to receive him to this Office, and confer the power thereof upon him, and that this was the completion of the whole administration made use of in this matter. And although Acts 14. v. 23. it is said of Paul and Barnabas, when they had Ordained them Elders or Presbyters in every City, and had prayed with fasting; yet we are to understand what is here last placed to have been first done, it being a thing very usual with the Sacred as well as other Writers, while they relate matters of fact, not always to observe the exact order in which they were done, as from many instances in Scripture may be made appear unto you; and that this place is so to be understood, we have the Rhemists themselves on our side, who in their notes on this place plainly tell us, that the Fasting and Prayers here mentioned were preparatives to Holy Orders.  
In the next place you quarrel with me for misreciting your words, which I confess is a great fault, if I am guilty of it, and would be contrary to that exact sincerity with which I ever desire to deal with all men, especially in matters of Religion: But having carefully reviewed both mine own and your Papers, I can see no reason for this charge upon me. In my Answer to your first Paper, I observed that the grand defect which our Adversaries charge our Orders with, is for omitting this Form in the Priestly Ordination, [Receive thou Authority to offer Sacrifice unto God, and to Celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead] which I told you could not be an essential defect, because this Form itself was a novel addition, and not used in the Church of Rome itself for near a thousand years after Christ. To this you Answer in your second Paper in these words; Although they have added that to theirs of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead, yet in regard they do before in their Ordinal expressly give all Priestly power which we did not, the other is but an instruction to let them know what power they had received, and for what they were to make use of it, by virtue of that all Priestly power expressly given them before. From which words, in Answer to what you charge me with, I have these things to say.  
First, That this being designed to Answer what I before said in reference to the Form; [Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God, and celebrate Mass both for the Living and the Dead] I suppose no one that should read your Paper but would understand your abovementioned words therein to be a concession of the whole of it to be a novel additional in the Roman Ordinal; and if it be not so, your Answer will by no means seem pertinent to the thing objected.  
Secondly, Whereas you limit your concession to the later part of the abovementioned Form only, and say you did only grant, for the Celebrating of Mass for the Living and the Dead, that it was within these five hundred years first expressed in the Roman Ordinal, but not for offering Sacrifice to God, your own words above recited show this to be most false; for there you say, [Although they had added that to theirs of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead, etc.] which plainly expresseth the novel addition to be of offering Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead, and not of Celebrating Mass only. And this I think is sufficient not only to clear myself from being guilty of that misreciting which you charge me with, but also to retort it upon yourself; who it is plain, to fix this charge upon me have falsified and basely prevaricated about your own words.  
And whereas you say you are assured, that the offering of Sacrifice to God was ever expressed in the Roman Ordinal, and that the Celebrating Mass for the Living and the Dead, was all along before the practice of the Church. I Answer.  
First, That if by Sacrifice you mean a true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice, as the Church of Rome now holds, whoever it was that hath assured you that the Ordinals of the first Ages of Christianity ever gave a Priest power of offering any such, hath abused you with a most gross falsity, and basely slandered the Primitive Church, in charging such an impiety upon them. And  
Secondly, As to Celebrating Mass for the Living and the Dead; it is a cheat, which the innocent and pure times of Christianity could never be guilty of; for it is an imposture of their own invention, cunningly devised by them to get Money, and of no earlier date than their new found Regions of Purgatory, on which it depends, the one being a Brat of the other, and both without any the least right or title to give them a Legitimation among the true and genuine Doctrines of Jesus Christ. But thoroughly to handle these particulars would be to desert the subject in hand to run into other Questions; and therefore I shall say no more of them at present, but that I shall be ready to make them out unto you whensoever you shall desire.  
And whereas you put me upon the proof of what I said, that the Learnedest of the Roman Communion hold, that the last imperative words spoken at the last Imposition of hands, [Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.] are the alone essential Form whereby the Orders of Priesthood are conferred, and express yourself in a manner concerning it, implying as if I had told you more than I can make out, it lies upon me to do myself right, as well as to give you satisfaction in making good what I have said in this particular, and I assure you I want not Authorities enough in order hereunto: For Bonaventure in his 4th. Book 
(a) Distinct. 24. Part. 2. Art 1. Quest. 4.  on the Sentences, plainly saith it: And so doth also Petrus Sotus, in his Book de Institutione Sacerdotum 
(b) Lect. 5. de Sacramento Ordinis. ; both of them making Imposition of Hands with these words, [Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.] the only essential Matter and Form of Priestly Ordination: And Vasquez 
(c) In tertiam Thomae, Disput. 239. cap. 2.  thus understands them as excluding all other Matter and Form to be essential thereto. And most express to this purpose are the words of Becanus, an eminent Jesuit, and one that particularly bend his Fury against the Church of England: For speaking of the twofold Ceremony made use of in Priestly Ordination, the Delivery of the Sacred Vessels, with this form of words, [Receive power to offer Sacrifice, etc.] and Imposition of Hands with this form [Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.] 
(d) De Sacramentis, cap. 26. Quaest. 4.  he concludes that the later only is essential to the Sacrament (as he calls it) and that the former is no more than an accidental Rite belonging thereto. And that this must necessarily follow from such other Doctrines as they hold, I shall hereafter have a more particular occasion to make out unto you, when I come to treat of that which I have in my former papers promised you, and which you so much call upon me to give you satisfaction in; that is, the sufficiency of our Forms to confer all Priestly Power on the Persons ordained by them. And to this also, I shall refer the consideration of what you say in the two next Paragraphs, as being the place most proper for it.  
What you tell me in the next place after concerning Episcopal Ordination, is all prevarication: In my first paper to you I proved the validity of our Form for Episcopal Ordination by the same reason by which Vasquez proves it for the Church of Rome, and in your answer you plainly allow it to be good and fully grant that this Form [Take the Holy Ghost, etc.] made use of in our old Ordinal for Episcopal Ordination may be sufficient alone for that purpose, and assign this reason for it, because a Bishop in his Ordination doth not receive any new Character, but hath only that power and character further extended which was afore virtually in him from his Priesthood. But than you tell me, This is nothing to the Point between us, that being not of the Episcopal Office, but of the Priesthood only, which you think our Forms not sufficient to confer. But now in your answer to what I replied thereto, you deny all this which you have said. For you tell me, First, That you did not allow our Form of Episcopal Ordination to be sufficiently perfect: And Secondly, That you did not say, that a Bishop did not receive a new character, but only in the person of Vasquez, and that this is not your opinion; but how much you falsify and prevaricate in saying this, your own words (to which I refer you) are an undeniable evidence against you, be who will judge between us in this matter. But be it so as you will have it, this will not however serve your turn. For though you will not allow the Form of our Episcopal Ordination to be good, yet there is no Roman Catholic but must; and what you pretend to say in the person of Vasquez, is not Vasquez's opinion, but plain the contrary.  
And First, I say, All Roman Catholics must allow the form of our Episcopal Ordination to be good, because it contains therein the whole of theirs; and therefore if theirs be good, ours must be so also. For the Form of Episcopal Ordination in the Roman Ordinal is, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, i. e. Take the Holy Ghost; which very words are also in ours, and although there are other words added after, yet these cannot be said to detract from the perfection of the Form, but abundantly to add thereto, as expressing an Exhortation to the duties of the office, for which the ordained receives the Holy Ghost in the very words of the Holy Apostle St. Paul to Timothy, whom he had afore by like giving of the Holy Ghost, ordained a Bishop. Hallier 
* De Sacris Electionibus & ordinationibus. pag. 443. , I confess, makes mention also of the delivery of the Book of the Gospels in Episcopal Ordination, to be an essential Matter; and these words spoken at the doing of it [Receive the Gospel, and go preach to the people committed to thy Charge, for God is able to increase unto thee his Grace, who liveth and reigneth to all Eternity] to be an essential Form; that is, a partial essential Form, which with the other, as a partial essential Form also, makes up the whole essence of that Ordination; but he proposeth this only as an opinion which may seem probable without citing any Authority to make it out or naming any other Writer on his side to back him herein; and in truth I know not of any that do, there being none that I have met with who assign the Matter and Form of this Administration, but agree with Armilla Major and 
‖ Vasquez in tertiam Thomae disput. 240. n. 58.  Vasquez herein; who say, That Imposition of Hands is the alone Matter of Episcopal Ordination; and these words [Receive the Holy Ghost] the alone Form; and that in the applying this Matter and this Form together, the Sacrament doth consist. But allow it to be as Hallier proposeth, that the delivery of the Book of the Gospels is a partial essential Matter, and the words spoken at the doing of it in the Roman Ordinal, a partial essential Form; and that this Rite as well as the other must concur to make up the true essence and perfection of Episcopal Ordination; yet even as to this, our Ordinal will be as perfect as theirs; for with us also, not only the Book of the Gospels, but the whole Bible is delivered by the Ordainers to the Bishop Ordained: And although our form spoken at the doing of it be not exactly the same with that in the Roman Ordinal, yet it includes the whole sum and substance of it in other words, (which is all that they themselves require to make a form sufficient) and not only this, but also in a much more perfect and fuller manner expresseth the whole intent of that Ceremony than the other doth: And therefore after all that can be said in this matter, whatsoever cavil an Adversary may make against the form of our Priestly Ordination, there is none the least pretence or colour in our Episcopal Ordination on this account as much as to suggest an exception.  
And Secondly, As to the opinion of Vasquez, in whose person you pretend it was that you said that a Bishop in his Ordination doth not receive any new Character, but hath only that Power and Character further extended which was afore virtually in him as a Priest; it is plain he says no such thing, but asserts quite the contrary: For his words are in Tertiam Thomae Disput. 240. c. 5. N. 54. that in the Ordination of a Bishop there is no such thing as the extension of the Priestly Power and Character, but that a new power is conferred. And although he says this is done the Sacerdotal character still remaining yet since he allows Episcopal Ordination to be a 
* 1 Disput. 240. cap 4.  Sacrament he must allow it also to imprint a new character as well as give a new power or else contradict the general Doctrine of his Church, which universally holds that the Sacrament of Orders always imprints a Character, and besides to say that Episcopal Ordination gives a new power and not a new Character is a thing inconceivable; the new Character being nothing else according to their own definitions, but a new power; but however it sufficiently obviates all that you say, that he plainly declares his opinion to be that there is no such thing as the extension of the former Character and Power in Episcopal Ordination, but that a new power is conferred thereby; and therefore it is most evident that you say not this in the person of Vasquez, but as a Doctrine which you have picked up from our Adversaries, among whom it is generally asserted that the Episcopal Office doth not constitute a new order, or confer a new power different from the Sacerdotal, but is only the Sacerdotal, farther extended as you express it; but this is a Doctrine which I could easily show you involves so many absurdities as to be no better than downright nonsense; 
De Sacramento ordinis cap. 5.  as Bellarmine himself in a manner confesseth it to be, but since you say this is not your opinion there is no occasion for it.  
As to Bishop Ridleys' not being consecrated by the Roman ordinal, although you have run into so many demonstrable mistakes about it already, and have been so often told that this is a thing on which the cause doth not at all depend, yet I perceive you will not forget it, but tell me that you are fully satisfied that it was so as you say; but if what you mention in your paper is all you have to urge for it, I perceive you are one that can very easily be satisfied in any thing which you think may make for the Cause of Rome against us. For to deal plainly with you, there is neither Truth, Sense, nor Reason, in that which you write on this particular. You say that you find in the Statutes of the first of King Edward the 6th. that they (meaning I suppose the Protestants) took upon them to Administer Sacraments in new ways after their own inventions, and that for this reason an Act was made that year prohibiting of them; and from hence you infer that new ways were also made use of in ordination; and consequently that Bishop Ridley was ordained by some such new way, and not by the Roman ordinal; and this seems to be the last refuge you have to make out what you would have allowed you in this point. But in truth you having been mired amongst abundance of Absurdities concerning it already, the more you strive to get out, the deeper you get in. For,  
1. Granting what you say to be true, that there was such a Statute in the first year of King Edward, prohibiting the Administration of Sacraments, and among them that of orders, according to new ways; yet certainly after this Statute was made, and those new ways prohibited as you say, none durst ordain but by the old way of the Roman ordinal, till the other which was afterwards used, was Established by Law in the fourth year of that King's Reign; and therefore, if not Ridley who was consecrated in the first year of King Edward before any Parliament sat; yet certainly Farrer, who was made Bishop in the second year of his Reign after the time when you will have this prohibiting Statute to be made must be Consecrated by the Roman ordinal only. And therefore if the Argument will not hold as to Ridley, yet certainly it must as to this other Holy Martyr; that it was not for any defect in the ordinal by which he was consecrated that those Marian Persecutors that brought him to the stake would not allow him to be a Bishop.  
But 2. Having looked over all the Statutes of the first year of King Edward the sixth I find no such thing as you say in any of them. There is an Act indeed for a new way of Electing of Bishops but nothing as to the manner of their Consecration. And there is another Act also which complains of Abuses in Matters of Religion, and particularly as to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; but this refers only to irreverent and abusive speaking of those Holy things, and not to any innovations and changes made concerning them.  
3. In the third year of that King's Reign, there was I must confess an Act passed of the nature of what you say, whereby the reformed Liturgy was first authorised in the Preamble of which mention is made of divers forms of prayers and different Rites and Ceremonies used both in Cathedral and Parish Churches, not only in the daily Service but also in the Administration of Sacraments, and that some of them had been lately introduced, which are there called new Rites and Innovations. And if this be that which you refer to, as I suppose, there are these two things to be said concerning it.  
1. That those various differences and disagreements of Rites and Ceremonies then used in the Church, which this Act refers to, were not all from the Protestants, but most of them from the Papists themselves; who had different Forms of Prayers, and different Rites and manners of Worship of long time before in this Land, according to the different uses of Sarum, York, Bangor and Lincoln, as the Act expresseth, there being no such thing as a Uniformity of public Worship in this Land till this Act; and therefore you are not to understand that all those things were the innovations of Protestants, which are prohibited therein.  
2. That it cannot be denied that Innovations caused by Protestants also, are mentioned in this Act, and that several zealous people in the Reign of King Edward, finding the Government to favour a Reformation, made too much hast to lay aside those Superstitions and Corruptions which offended them, and went before the public Authority herein in Reforming the public Worship, before any Law was made to give them Warrant so to do: And hence came as various manners of Worship among Protestants, as were among Papists before; for the prevention of both which, and bringing all things to an exact Uniformity, this Act was made. But that any of the Innovations mentioned in this Act, were in the manner of Ordaining; or that any Bishop in giving of Orders, did ever vary from the old Ordinal used in King Henry the Eighths' time, till the Act made in the 4th. year of King Edward's Reign did Authorize them so to do, I utterly deny: And that for these following Reasons.  
First, This Act plainly refers those Innovations to popular Zeal, but those that had the power of Ordaining were only the Bishops, the same persons who had the chief hand in making this Act; and therefore there is no likelihood that they should be guilty of those Innovations which are there so much complained of.  
Secondly, The Preamble of all Acts ever bearing Reference to the subsequent Law Enacted by them; the former never useth to recite any other Abuses, but what the later is made to be a Remedy against: And therefore there being no Remedy in this Act against any Innovations made in the manner of Ordaining (the Liturgy then Authorised not having the Ordinal in it) or any the least mention therein that there was any such thing, it is demonstration that none such could be meant or intended by the Preamble.  
Thirdly, It is so far from being likely, that any Innovations should be made in the manner of Ordaining till the Law authorised it, that if you please to ask your Brother, who is a Lawyer, he will tell you that it is impossible any such thing could be done by reason of the severe penalties and forfeitures which both the Ordainer as well as the Ordained must necessarily incur thereby. For,  
1. For any Bishop to ordain by any other than the Legal Form, or at all to vary from it, which only the Roman Ordinal was for the three first years of King Edward the 6th's Reign, would bring him into a praemunire, which is one of the severest penalties the Law inflicts, as containing a forfeiture, not only of Lands, Goods and Preferments, but also of Liberty and Protection too during Life. And whereas Hooper, appointed to be Bishop of Gloucester in that King's Reign desired only to be Consecrated without the Episcopal Vestments, and Oath of Canonical Obedience; and got the Earl of Warwick, than the greatest man in the Kingdom, and who at that time governed all at his pleasure, to intercede for him; yet the Archbishop would not consent thereto, 
‖ Burnet's History of the Reformation, Part. 2. pag. 154.  for his Answer was it would make him incur a Praemunire. And,  
2. As to the Persons Ordained, should they have received Orders by any other than Legal Forms, it would have drawn a Legal Invalidity upon the whole Administration, and left the persons so ordained (although they might have had all the Essentials of Orders thereby) utterly incapable of any Ecclesiastical promotion whatever, a Legal Ordination being always a necessary requisite to make any man capable of an Ecclesiastical Benefice: And therefore should Bishop Ridley, or Bishop Farrer have been ordained by any new Form different from the Roman, which was then the only Legal Ordinal in this Land, they could not be Legally invested with their Bishoprics, could acquire no right to their Temporalties, or to have a place in Parliament, or would any of their Acts or Leases have been good in Law; and we never heard that any of those things were ever disputed till the Cruelty of the Marian Persecution came upon them.  
Fourthly, Sanders himself, one of the most virulent Adversaries of our Reformation, says the contrary; for treating of this Parliament, which authorised the new Ordinal in the Reign of King Edward, he says, 
De Schismate Anglicane. lib. 2. p. 205.  it was then Enacted, That whereas the Bishops and Presbyters of England, were even unto that time Ordained in the same manner almost as with Catholics, (excepting the Oath of Obedience to the Pope, which all denied) for the future Ordinations should be performed by another altogether differing Form, prescribed by themselves. Which is a plain Testimony from a Writer whose Authority, I suppose, none that are against us in this matter will deny, that till the Parliament Enacted the making of a new Ordinal in the 4th▪ year of King Edward the 6th. Bishops and Priests were still ordained according to the Roman Ordinal in all things excepting the Oath of Obedience to the Pope, which no Bishop took at his Ordination after the Supremacy of the Church was vested in the Crown. And therefore Ridley and Farrer being made Bishops before that Act, must necessarily be ordained by no other but the Roman Ordinal. And therefore although in the beginning of King Edward's Reign, before the Liturgy was established, some zealous Protestants taking encouragement from the favour they received from the Government, might of their own heads in those Churches as were in their power, make such alterations in the public Worship, and the Administration of the two Sacraments, of Baptism and the Lords Supper, and other holy Rites, as you call new ways of their own Invention, yet as to your Question, Why might they not also as well Consecrate and Ordain according to their own Inventions? I hope what I have said is a full answer that there could be no such thing. At best you propose it only as a Conjecture, which you inferred without any Reason or Argument in the least to enforce it. And what I have said, I hope may be sufficient to assure you that there can be none for it. As to Mr. Acton's Paper, to which you refer me, I know nothing of it, having never seen it, or any thing else which came from him to the Gentleman you mention, and therefore can give you no answer thereto.  
In the last place you seem so taken with those Conceptions of yours which you have vented in the paper you sent me, that you would persuade me not to attempt any further Answer, but that tamely yielding this Question I should proceed to another which you propose, concerning the consistency of the validity of our Orders with the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice. But I must beg your pardon for not observing the first part of your Command in tamely yielding the Cause to those weak suggestions which you sent me; I hope whatsoever your opinion might be of them before, I have by this time shown you, that there is nothing unanswerable in them; and if I have transgressed in doing so, I will endeavour to make amends for it in giving you full satisfaction to what is the second part of your Command in reference to the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice. The Question which you propose concerning it is this: Whether any Bishop or Archbishop can validly be made such, without the Consent of his Superior, or by faculty from him for his Consecration? In order to the giving you full satisfaction as to this, I will first set down the words of the Canon itself, and then endeavour to Answer your Question concerning it.  
And First, The words of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice are as followeth. Let ancient Customs still take place, those that are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these, because such also is the Custom of the Bishop of Rome. And accordingly in Antioch, and other Provinces, let the Privileges be preserved to the Churches. This also is altogether evident, that if any man be made a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, this great Synod Decrees such an one to be no Bishop. And if two or three, out of a contentious humour, shall oppose the Common Election duly and regularly made according to the Canon of the Church, let the Majority of voices in this Case prevail. Thus far the words of the Canon; and the Argument which you deduce from hence, is, I suppose, because Archbishop Parker was consecrated without the Pope's Bulls, therefore his Consecration must be void and null; and he being for this reason no Bishop, consequently could make none else so: And therefore all the Bishops that have been since in the English Church, deriving their Orders from him, are in truth and reality no Bishops, or invested with any power to ordain others; and consequently that all Ordinations administered since in the Church of England, being through this defect null and void, we have no such thing as true Orders among us. And thus far having urged your Argument for you with all the strength that the thing can bear, in Answer thereto I shall lay down these following particulars.  
1. That you could not have lighted on any Canon of the Church more unluckily for the Cause of Rome, which you are so zealous for, than this you have mentioned, it being that which directly overthrows the Supremacy of the Pope, and puts him upon the level with all other Metropolitans of the Christian Church.  
2. That allowing this Canon to have all the force you will give it, yet if Orders be an Institution of Jesus Christ, they cannot be annulled by any breach thereof; for Ecclesiastical Canons are only the Ordinances of Men, and therefore cannot annul or invalidate that which hath a Divine appointment for the original of its Institution; and therefore in this case the saying of Becanus the Jesuit falls in very pat to answer your Objection: 
‖ De Sacramento ordinis. cap. 26. Quaest 2.  Prohibitio Ecclesiae solum facit ut Ordinatio sit illicita non autem ut sit irrita. The prohibition of the Church only makes that an Ordination may be illegal, not that it can be null. For the power which is given by God, cannot be taken away by the prohibition of the Church. But since a Bishop hath received power to ordain others according to Divine Institution, although he lie under all the Canonical Impediments that possibly he can be liable unto to hinder him from the Execution of his Office, yet if he will notwithstanding proceed therein to the conferring of Orders, the Character is as fully given by him, as he himself received it: And in this case the old Rule I have afore mentioned, must again take place, quod fieri non debet factum valet; although the thing ought not to be done, yet is valid when done: And therefore allowing what you say to be true that the Bishops who ordained Archbishop Parker without the Pope's Bull, as well as he himself that was thus ordained by them were guilty of the breach of this Canon, yet at the most it can only be an uncanonical, not an invalid Ordination.  
3. Therefore as to the words of the Canon, [this great Synod decrees such an one to be no Bishop] can respect only his Benefice, not his Office and Character; that is, that such an one as should be thus Ordained a Bishop of any place without the Consent of his Metropolitan, should not be allowed to be Bishop of that place, so as there to execute the Office, or any where enjoy the Honour and Privileges belonging thereto; not that his Ordination should be looked on as invalid, as to the Character and Office of a Bishop conferred on him thereby: Because if that be given according to Christ's Institution, it cannot be taken away again by any Institutions of men whatever, but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, the Character being indelebly imprinted on him, it is no more in the power of the Church to deprive him of that, than to deprive him of his Baptism.  
4. You must not look on Ecclesiastical Canons in how solemn a manner soever made to be such Sacred and immutable things as to put a necessary obligation upon the Church indispensably to observe them through all times after. For they are no more than other humane Laws made to obviate the present Grievances, and regulate the disorders of the Body for which they are made; and in the same manner also as the Circumstances of Time, Place and Things alter, frequently grow into disuse and become obsolete thereby; and that this particularly was the case of that Canon of the Council of Nice, which you insist on, will plainly appear; for it was never designed as a Law to reach the whole Church of Christ through all times and places of its Establishment so as for ever to lay an obligation upon all that are Christians to observe it. Neither was it ever in the power of any Council to make any such, but as most other Canons so especially this was made upon a particular occasion, and that occasion was this. 
* 
Socrates lib. 1. cap. 3.  
Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 9 Hist.   During the Maximian Persecution there was one Meletias' Bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt, who in the heat of that Persecution having sacrificed to Idols to save his Life was for this reason, by Peter Bishop of Alexandria his Metropolitan, in a Synod of the Bishops of the Province, deposed from his Bishopric; but he not acquiesceing in this Sentence became the Head of a Sect, and in a Schismatical way in opposition to the Metropolitan, not only retained his Bishopric which he was deposed from, but also took upon him to act as Metropolitan himself, and ordained Bishops throughout all Egypt, which by ancient Custom was the Right of the Bishop of Alexandria only in that Province, of which Alexander one of the Successors of Peter in the See of Alexandria complaining at the Council of Nice, the 4th. and 6th. Canons of that Council were framed on purpose for the redress hereof, and the prevention of all other such like disorders for the future; thereby it was decreed, that all Bishops for the future should be ordained in the provincial Synods, where all the Bishops of the Province met together; but if this could not be so conveniently done it might be performed by any three of them with the Consent of the rest signified by letters and the allowance and confirmation of the Metropolitan; but that if any one should be ordained without the Consent of the Metropolitan, he should not be allowed to be a Bishop. And that as this was practised in Rome so should it be also in Alexandria, Antioch, and other Provinces according to the ancient Custom already received concerning that matter. And so the Nicene Fathers themselves give an account thereof in their Synodical Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, written concerning it. But as this was ordained upon that particular occasion, so also was it with respect to the then present state and circumstances of the Church, which at that time stood totally independent of itself alone, and was altogether governed by its own Rules without the interposition of Princes, (Constantine the first Christian Emperor being but newly Converted to the Faith). But afterwards when whole States became Christian, and Bishops were made temporal Barons of Kingdoms, and had vast Privileges and Revenues given them by the Secular Power, the Elections were for the most part made according to the Commands of the Prince; and instead of that Judicial Approbation which is in this Canon given the Metropolitan, nothing afterwards was left him but the Vassalage of necessarily obeying the Mandate of the Prince, in Consecrating whomsoever he should appoint to the Benefice. For when Bishops became thus great in the State as well as in the Church, Princes might well think themselves concerned who the persons should be that should be advanced to those Dignities, and therefore seldom suffered any to be invested in them but such as they had first approved; and this they had a great Right to do, as being for the most part the Founders and Patrons of the Benefices. Although afterwards the Quarrel about investitures between the Western Princes and the Church of Rome, made some alterations in this matter, yet the Metropolitan was not at all helped thereby, as to the right of Confirmation given him by this Canon at Nice, but what was taken from Princes was swallowed by the Pope, who by this Canon can claim no Right at all to interpose in this matter but is utterly excluded from it except in his own Province only. For from thenceforth his Bulls were always thought requisite to all Consecrations and Confirmations of Bishops, which put an absolute force upon the Metropolitan, or whom else he should command in this matter, which cannot be resisted. However Princes found another way to salve themselves after those Investitures were wrested from them, that is, by not allowing any Election to be made without their Licence, and by sending whensoever they thought fit, with the Licence, a Mandate to the Electors to choose the person they nominated which is at present the General practice of all Popish States: So that instead of the Election of the people, and the Confirmation of the Metropolitan which by the Nicene Canons, and ancient practice of the Church were the only ways of making Bishops, now Princes have the Elections, and the Pope the Confirmations, and the Metropolitan is utterly excluded from all that which by virtue of this Canon was his ancient Right herein. And having thus laid matters before you, I hope Sir, by this time you may see how little reason you have to infer any thing against us as to the Legality of our Ordinations from the Canon you have mentioned; it being that which hath so long since grown obsolete, and totally out of use even amongst Papists themselves. And if any of those Gentlemen whom you converse so much with, and whose Learning and Merits you so highly applaud, shall tell you that it is otherwise; and that all those ancient Canons must be still in their primitive force, and every thing be called uncanonical and illegal which is not agreeable to them: I desire you would ask them these following Questions.  
First, That whereas the 4th. Canon of the Council of Nice Decrees that there shall be three Bishops at least at the Ordination of a Bishop, whence comes it to pass that now a days in the Church of Rome, it is allowed (as 
a De E●cl. milit. lib. 4. c. 8.  Bellarmine and 
b T●n. 1. p. 14.  Binnius confess) to be performed by one only?  
Secondly, That whereas the 9th. Canon of the said Council of Nice Decrees, that none shall be made Presbyter without being examined and found worthy: And the 10th. that those that are rashly admitted shall be again degraded: And the 11th. Canon of the Council of Neo Caesarea, which was ancienter than that of Nice, that none shall be ordained a Presbyter till the age of Thirty, How comes it to pass that so many in the Church of Rome are made not only Presbyters, but also Bishops and Cardinals, not only before Thirty, but also before they have been of an age capable of any of those Qualifications, which Examination is appointed to inquire about: For 
c See Raynold's Apology for his Theses, p. 292.  Ferdinando de Medici's was made Cardinal by Sextus quintus before he was thirteen years old; and John de Medici's before him (who was afterwards Pope, by the name of Leo the 10th.) was made Bishop at the 8th. and Cardinal at the 13th. year of his age; and Cosmus Bishop of Fano, who died by an act of Sodomy committed upon him by one of the Bastards of Paul the third, the Pope who called the Council of Trent, was not then above eighteen years old; and Odell Chatillon, and Alphonso of Portugal were both Bishops and Cardinals; the former at the 11th. and the later at the 7th. year of his age. And 
‖ Hist. lib. 5. c.ult.  Glaber Rodolphus tells us also, that Benedict the 9th. was but twelve years old when he was created Pope; and he could not be well mistaken herein, since he lived in his time.  
Thirdly, You may ask them further, That whereas the 18th. Canon of the Council of Nice doth Ordain, that no Deacon shall sit among the Presbyters, but that a Presbyter shall be always above a Deacon, and a Bishop above a Presbyters, how comes it now to be lawful for Deacons, when made Cardinals, to take place not only of Presbyters, but also of Bishops, Archbishops and Patriarches too? whereas they being no more than the Pope's Deacons, can according to the ancient Orders of the Church, claim no higher place thereby than the Deacons of any other Bishop.  
And Fourthly, I desire it may be also asked them, that since the 6th. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon so severely prohibits all absolute Ordinations (that is, such as are made without a Title) as utterly to exclude all from the Office to which they are so Ordained; How comes it to pass that it is so Common a practice of the Church of Rome, to ordain Bishops without Bishoprics? such as the Bishop of Chalcedon, the Bishop of Adramytium, and the Bishop of Amasia, and abundance of those nulla tenentes men. And if the Titles they bear be urged to excuse them from the breach of this Canon, it is a mockage which will not serve their turn. For the Title is only an empty name which they assume without any intent of ever being in reality Bishops of those places from whence they take them, or of at all executing any pastoral charge in them. And if it were otherwise without this mockage in the thing, yet since this very 6th. Canon of the Council of Nice which you insist on, saith that all Bishops are to be ordained by their own Metropolitan, what hath the Pope to do to Ordain Bishops for those places, where he hath no Jurisdiction at all either as Metropolitan or Patriarch, as it is certain he hath not in any of those Bishoprics from whence those Titles are usually assumed. For they take them almost always from the Bishoprics of the Eastern Empire, which never acknowledged the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, but had always Patriarches of their own at Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria, whose Jurisdiction continues even to this day. And under them those very Bishoprics being always provided of Bishops of their own Legally Ordained, and Legally Invested with them, I ask further how comes it to pass that contrary to the 8th. Canon of the Council of Nice, the Pope makes Bishops of those places where there are Bishops already. And therefore if the Breach of ancient Canons, must void Ordinations, certainly these can be no Bishops.  
To go over all the rest of the Ancient Canons of the Church, and show how in the most wholesome things they ordained, the Church of Rome hath now totally deviated from them, would be too long a Task; what I have already said is sufficient to let you see that they have no regard to them themselves; and therefore nothing can be more unreasonable then to exact the observance of them from others, especially in such things as the alteration of Circumstances, and the necessity of the times have made unpracticable, as it is plain what you require from us in the point of Ordaining at our Reformation then totally was. For,  
Fifthly, To have the Pope's consent to the Ordination of those Bishops that were made at the Reformation was a thing impossible to be had and in that case all Laws as well Ecclesiastical as civil necessarily lose their force. For the Laws of the Land had made it Treason to ask it of him, and if they had not, to be sure the Pope would never grant it to those who would not conform, with him to all the Erroneous Doctrines, and corrupt practices of his Church. Must we therefore have no Bishops, and no Ministers because he would not give his consent we should? or must we still have retained all those corruptions and errors which he would impose upon us to obtain it, If the latter be said (and I suppose this is what our adversary would have,) it would put a necessity upon us to receive even the Alcoran or the Talmud, with all the impieties and absurdities of them for necessary Doctrines of Faith and manners whensoever the Pope should please, and we durst not trust his Infallibility to secure us from this, since we know the time when a Pope 
‖ See Dr. Stillingfleet of the Pha●a●i●●s●●● of the Church of Rome.  of Rome was in Conspiracy with the Mendicant Friars to have imposed a new Gospel on the World in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which if received would have made us worse than Turks or Jews. Now put the case the plot had taken, and this Gospel by his Authority had been received in the same manner as Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, half Communion, Purgatory, praying to Saints, Image Worship, and other like Impostures of that Church now are by the same Authority only for Infallible Truth, must we have received it too to gain his consent to our Ordinations, or else must we have had no Orders at all because he would not give it unto us unless we renounce our Christianity to obtain it from him? I thank God our Condition is not such, for the Laws of Christ give every Bishop equal Authority to Ordain, and although some restrictions and limitations as to the Exercise of this power may have been put by the Laws of the Church, for the better Order and more regular Government of it; yet all those Laws according to the Doctrine of the 
‖ Andradius de Gen. Concil. autoritate lib. 1. Defence. Fid. Trident p 115, 116. Binnius Tom. 2. pag. 243.  Romanists themselves must always give place whenever the necessity of times or things require it. And therefore though the Consent of the Pope to our Ordinations had been required by the firmest Laws which the whole Universal Church could have established, yet when such a necessity is put upon us as that we cannot have his Consent without submitting to those Errors and Corruptions as would make all our Orders an abomination in the presence of him for whose Service they were Ordained (as was the Case of our first Reformers) it would become absolutely necessary to Ordain without it.  
But Sixthly, Allowing the Nicene Canon you insist on, still to retain the utmost force you can give it, yet there is nothing in it which requires what you would have in reference to us. For all that is there said is, that in all Provinces the Bishops should be Ordained by the consent of the Metropolitan, which was very well provided for the preservance of peace and good Order in the Church. But the Bishop of Rome is not our Metropolitan, and in truth in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, the time to which your Objection refers, we had no Metropolitan at all in this Province; Cardinal Pool the last Metropolitan being then newly dead, and the Metropolitical see of Canterbury vacant thereby; and into his place it was that Archbishop Parker was Ordained: But here you will say, that as the provincial Bishops were to be Ordained by the Metropolitan, so the Metropolitans were to be Ordained by the Patriarch; and the Bishop of Rome being our Patriarch, for this Reason Archbishop Parker ought not to have been Ordained without his Consent, and that his Ordination was illegal for want thereof. But to this I say,  
1. That this is not at all said in the Canon you insist on, that extending no farther than to Metropolitans in respect of their Comprovincials, as it is also plainly expressed in the Fourth Canon of that Council. For in truth Patriarches were not then in being neither could be, that Division of the Empire into Dioceses consisting each of many Provinces, which gave occasion for the first constituting of Patriarches, being but just then made; and therefore it must be some time after before there could be any Birth given to that Institution, and in the Council of Chalcedon, which was held 126 years after that of Nice is the first time we find any mention of it, no ancient Records of the Church before that time in the least giving us any account thereof.  
2. Supposing Patriarches should have been then meant, yet Britain was never of the Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome; which is sufficiently made out not only by our Learned Dean of Paul's in his Origines Brittanicae cap. 3. but also by several of the Roman Communion also, and especially by Father Barns a Benedictine Monk, who wrote a Book particularly to that purpose.  
3. I deny that it was the ancient practice of the Church for Metropolitans to be Ordained by the approbation of the Patriarch, or that his consent was at all thought requisite hereto. For the Custom was when a new Metropolitan was chosen, that he should be Ordained by his own Comprovincials. And so was Archbishop Parker, he having been Consecrated by four Bishops of his own Province; and that this was a practice not only introduced by ancient usage, but also established by many Decrees and Canons of the Church, not only 
‖ Tom. 2. lib. 6. c 4.  Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris, but also 
* De Sacris Electionibus & ordinationibus. Part. 3. Sect. 5. c. 4. Art 2.  Hallier, another eminent Doctor of the French Church, do give us a large Account: And it is but of late date, that the Bishops of Rome interposed herein, as is told you in a Pamphlet just now come from France concerning the proceedings of the Parliament of Paris upon the Pope's Bull, for therein the King's Advocate tells that Parliament, that for the four first Ages of that Monarchy, there was no such thing as suing to Rome for Benefices: And Petrus 
(c) Tom. 2. lib. 6 cap. 4.  de Marca tells you the same thing. And having said thus much, I know not any thing which can be further urged for the support of your last Objection, requiring the Pope's consent to our Ordinations, unless you fly to that Paramount Supremacy challenged to him by so many, which makes him the only Supreme Pastor of the Church, under Christ, and all other Bishops as his Delegates, which act only by his Authority, and have no other but what is derived from him: And if you say this, all the Answer I shall give you thereto is, that this is a pretention so extravagant, and so totally void of all manner of ground for its support, that not only the Protestants, but also the better part of his own Communion utterly deny it unto him.  
And now having gone through your Paper, all that remains for me further to do in order to your full satisfaction is, that I perform my promise in making good unto you, that supposing an Imperative Form of words in Ordination to be so essentially necessary as you would have it, yet the Forms made use of in our Ordinal for the Ordination of a Priest were before the additions made to them by the Convocation in the year 1662., altogether sufficient in order thereto. For as there is Matter and Form (as they call them) in all Ordinations administered by the Church of Rome, so also is there in ours, that is, an outward visible sign at the performance of the administration, and a Form of words expressing the thing intended thereby; the former of which they call the Matter, and the latter the Form of Ordination. And as there is a double Matter and Form in their Ordinal for the Ordaining of a Priest, so is there also in ours; and that all things may appear the more clearly to you, what I have hereafter to say concerning them in order to the satisfying you in the point proposed. First, I shall lay them down both together, that is, the Matters and Forms of their Ordinal as well as the Matters and Forms of our Ordinal, as they were before the additions made to the Forms that are aforementioned; that having that in your view which is the subject of the whole Dispute, you may the better understand what shall be urged concerning it. Secondly, I shall from both of them observe some few particulars unto 〈…〉 leading to the same end. And then Thirdly, Having stated your Objection as fairly, and to the best advantage of your Cause that I can, I shall in the last place proceed to Answer it with such Arguments, as I hope will give you full satisfaction.  
First, As to the Matter and Forms for the Ordination of a Priest both of the Romish Ordinal as well as those of ours, as they were before the additions made to the Forms in the year 1662. They are as followeth;  
In the Romish Ordinal. In the Ordinal of the Church of England. The first Matter is the delivery of the Chalice with Wine and Water in it, and the Paten on the top of it, with the Host thereon: To the person to be Ordained to the Priesthood; The first Matter is the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop and Presbytery, assisting with him at the Ordination on the Head of the Person Ordained. The first Form is these words, spoken by the Bishop at the delivery of the said Chalice and Paten; Receive Power to offer Sacrifice unto God, and to Celebrate Masses both for the Living and the Dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen. The first Form is these words, spoken by the Bishop at the time of the said Imposition of Hands; Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His Holy Sacraments, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. The second Matter is the Imposition of both the Hands of the Bishop that Ordains, on the Head of the person Ordained. The second Matter is the delivery of the Bible by the Bishop to the person Ordained. The second Form is the words spoken by the Bishop at the time of the said Imposition of his Hands; Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted unto them, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained. The second Form is these words, spoken by the Bishop at the said delivery of the Bible; Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed.  
And thus having laid before you the Matters and Forms (as they call them) made use of in both Ordinals. Secondly, The particulars which I think requisite to observe unto you from both of them in order to the better clearing unto you the point proposed, are  
1. That as to the Matters and Forms of the Roman Ordinal, although the opinions of their Writers and Doctors are very various about them, yet that which is now most generally received among them is, that both these Matters and Forms are essential to the conferring of the Office, and that the first Matter and Form gives Power over the Natural Body of Christ; that is, to Consecrate the Eucharist, wherein they will have Christ's Natural Body by virtue of their inconceivable Transubstantiation to be really present, and the other Matter and Form give Power over His Mystical Body; that is, the people of His Church to absolve them from their sins. The first they call the Power of Order, and the second the Power of Jurisdiction; and in these two they say the whole Office and Authority of the Christian Priesthood is conferred.  
2. That as to these very particular Matters and Forms in their present Ordinal, although the Schoolmen were generally for having them of Divine Institution, and not to be varied from (as is above noted); yet the generality of Learned Men among them at present are of another opinion, as holding it only of Divine Institution that there should be Matter and Form in general in all Ordinations; but what the particular Matter and Form should be was left to the Church to determine, and consequently that nothing else is necessary, but that the Matters bear with them some fitness to signify and denote the thing intended, and that the Forms be fully expressive of the Power and Office conferred thereby: And this as to the Forms seems to be the opinion which you allow: For you do not absolutely require that we should use the Roman Forms, as if no Orders could be validly conferred without them; but only that we should either use them, or such as are equivalent with them, wherein the whole Priestly Power may be expressly given to the person Ordained, and your opinion that by ours this is not done, seems to be the whole reason of your Objection.  
3. As to those Signs and Forms of words annexed to them, made use of in our Ordinal, which in conformity to the Language of the Romanists, we also call Matter and Form; we do not think either of them so essential to the administration as to null such Orders as may be conferred without them, provided it be done some other way sufficiently declarative of the thing intended: For we look on nothing to be of Divine Institution in Orders but the Mission itself; that is, that the Chief Pastors of our Church send others as they are sent; and when this is done by a person fully Authorized thereto, we look on all to be performed in this particular which the Praescripts of our Saviour direct us to. As to the manner of the Mission, and the method of Ordaining thereto, we think this entrusted with them to whom the Authority of granting the Mission is given, to order and appoint it, as they may think will best express the thing they do. However we do by no means approve the receding from the ancient and long received practice of the Church herein, but think that those usages which can be traced up to the primitive and purer times of the Church, especially if they reach so high as the Apostolical Age, when the Holy Spirit of God was given in an extraordinary manner to be a conduct in all things of this nature, do from the practice of those Holy and Inspired Men which then used them, receive such plain evidence of their conformity to the will of God, that they cannot, unless in some extraordinary case, without the greatest rashness be varied from, as I have before said. And this our first Reformers having a full sense of did not in the compiling of the Ordinal, which you find so much fault with, indulge their own fancies; but as true Reformers, laying Scripture and Primitive Practice before them for the Rule of what they did, made it their endeavour to reduce all things thereto, and therefore finding from Scripture and the practice of the Church from the beginning, that Prayers and Imposition of Hands was the ancient manner of Ordaining, they carefully retained both these in our Ordinal, Prayers very fitly composed to recommend the person unto God for the Office to which he is appointed, and Imposition of Hands to execute the Authority received from God to confer it on him. And although there be no instance of any Imperative Form of words to be at all made use of in any of the ancient Ordinals for near a Thousand Years after Christ, (as is above noted) yet since the later Ages have introduced them, and they appear to be of great use, the better and more clearly to express and declare the intent and meaning of the outward Rite to which they are annexed, we have those also in our Ordinals, and in the choice of them, making Scripture our Rule, we do for the Ordination of a Priest use the very same Form of words which our Saviour himself made use of when He Ordained His Holy Apostles to the same Office; Joh. 20.22, 23. Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained, adding also thereto these words, both as explanatory of them, and exhortatory to the duties of the Office conferred, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments; and then to express the Authority by which this is done, is subjoined, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. The want of which in the Roman Ordinals is a defect they cannot be excused from. And this outward Rite or Sign of Imposition of Hands, and this Form of words annexed thereto was the whole manner appointed by our first Reformers for the conferring of the Office of Priesthood on those that were Ordained to it, and so it continued till in the first Convocation after the late King's Restauration, Anno 1662. after Receive the Holy Ghost, these additional words, for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the Imposition of our Hands, were for the reasons which I have aforementioned unto you, also inserted in that Form.  
4. Therefore you are to understand that the second Matter and Form of our Ordinal abovementioned were not at all intended to confer the Order or any part thereof, but only to 
(a) Mason lib. 5. cap. 1.  assign the place for the execution of the Office already received. For by the first Matter and Form Imposition of Hands, and the Form of words annexed, the person Ordained thereby is fully and wholly made a Priest or Presbyter of the Church of Christ; and all that is done by the second Matter and Form, is to admit him thus Ordained, to be a Priest or Presbyter of that Congregation; that is of that Diocese, (the whole Diocese being as one Congregation or Parish, in respect of the Bishop Ordaining) to execute the Duties of his Office, expressed by Preaching of the Word, and Administering the Holy Sacraments, in the place where he shall be appointed thereto, and this was so ordered conform to the Ancient Canons of the Church, which very severely forbid 
(b) Concil. Chalced. can 6. Concil. Melden. can. 52. Concil. Valent. can. 6.  all absolute Ordinations; that is, all such Ordinations whereby Orders are given at large, without intitling the Person Ordained to any particular Church for the executing the Duties of the Office received. For it was the Ancient Custom, that every Bishop should Ordain his own Presbyters and none other; and that when he Ordained them he should admit them to be Presbyters of his Church, either to officiate in the Mother Church itself where the Bishop had his Chair, or else in some of the other inferior Churches of the Diocese, which all belonged thereto; and whether they did the one or the other, they were all reckoned as Presbyters of that one Church, the Diocese anciently being looked on as one Parish, and all the Christians of it as one Congregation united together under their Bishop, and conformable hereto is it that the Bishop saith in the Ordinal abovementioned. Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed; i.e. Take thou Authority to execute the Office of a Priest in this Diocese in that particular Church or Parish thereof where thou shalt be appointed so to do. But since the Ancient Canons 
(c) Concil. Nicen. can. 15, 16.  which forbade Presbyters ever to forsake that Church or Diocese whereof they were first admitted Presbyters, to go into another Diocese, is now through the whole Christian World grown quite obsolete, and would be of much more prejudice than benefit now to be observed. At the aforesaid review of our Ordinal in the Year 1662. this Form also hath received an Alteration, and what was afore in this Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed, is now in the Congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereto; and thereby that Faculty or Licence to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments which was afore given as to the Diocese only where the Person was Ordained, is now made General as to the whole National Church in any part thereof, whereof the Person thus Ordained to the Priesthood shall be lawfully called to execute the Duties thereof.  
And having premised these things unto you concerning the Matters and Forms made use of in the Ordinals of both Churches, for your clearer understanding of what is on either side intended by them; I now come to your Objection, which according to the best advantage that it can be stated I apprehend to be thus. You looking on a Form of Words fully expressing the whole Priestly power to be indispensably necessary and absolutely essential to all Ordinations of Priests, think our Orders of Priesthood invalidly administered as failing in an essential, because we have no such Form expressing the whole Priestly power at our Ordinations of Priests. For the Form which we use, you say, is not such, as by no means expressing the whole Priestly power, because it makes no mention of Consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and making present the Body and Blood of our Saviour (as you term it) which you look on as the chiefest and main power of the Priestly Office, but only empowers to forgive Sins. And although you allow our Form at present, since the insertion of those words, [for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God] to be sufficiently perfect, because in the word Priest you think may be included all that belongs to him, yet still judge our Orders to be invalid by reason of the former defect; because, say you, if the Presbyters of the Church of England were not validly Ordained by the first Form till the addition abovementioned was inserted in the Year 1662., then through this defect, those who were chosen out of them to be Bishops could not validly be ordained such, because they were not afore Presbyters or Priests, none being capable in your opinion to be Bishops, who have not been first made Priests, and consequently could not have Authority to Ordain others by any Form of Words how perfect soever afterwards devised. And this being your Objection urged in its utmost strength for the Cause you argue for, I am now to tell you in Answer thereto, that the whole of it goes upon three very great Mistakes.  
The First is, That any such a Form of Words is Essential to Orders.  
Secondly, That the Order of Priesthood is absolutely necessary to qualify a man for the Order of Episcopacy. And,  
Thirdly, That our Form of Priestly Ordination doth not include the whole Priestly power.  
As to the First, Although we allow such Forms very useful to make a more clear declaration of the intent and meaning of that act whereby the Office is conferred, and therefore do ourselves retain them in our Church, yet that any such should be essential to the Administration, so as to null and make void the Orders that are conferred without them, is that which wants all manner of Evidence either from Scripture, Ancient Practice, the nature of the thing itself, or any other reason whatever, which I have already made sufficiently clear unto you. And therefore without repeating what I have before said, I shall pass on to the other two particulars in which you are equally mistaken.  
For Secondly, That the Order of Priesthood is absolutely necessary to qualify a man for the Order of Episcopacy, so that none can be made a Bishop unless he were first a Priest, is that you can have no ground for. The Holy Scriptures from whence alone the essential requisites of Christ's Institutions are to be sought for, say no such thing; but for any thing which appears there to the contrary, Titus and Timothy were at their first Ordination made Bishops, without ever being admitted into the Inferior Orders at all, but received all the power of them included in that of Episcopacy. And in all probability many such Ordinations were at first made. For in the Beginning things could not be so settled in the Church that the Regular method of calling men always from the inferior Offices to the higher should then be observed, but without all doubt in that state of the first planting of the Gospel, either as the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost then given to some men, recommended them, or the necessities of the Church required, there were frequent reasons of conferring the Episcopal Office at first, where no other had been received in order thereto. And if you will have any regard to the opinion of Petavius, one of the Learnedest Men which the Society of the Jesuits ever had, he tells us that in the first times of the Church there were none or very few simple Presbyters at all; but that all or the most part of those that then Officiated in Churches were Ordained Bishops: His words are, 
* Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum lib. 1. cap. 2.  Primis illis Ecclesia temporibus existimo Presbyteros vel omnes vel eorum plerosque sic ordinatos esse ut Episcopi pariter ac Presbyteri gradum obtinerent; i. e. In those first times of the Church, I am of opinion that Presbyters either all or the most part of them were so Ordained that they obtained both the degree of a Bishop and Presbyter together. But whatsoever was done at first, afterward I allow when Churches increased, and in each of them there was the subordination of many Presbyters and Deacons assisting under the Bishop for the performance of the Divine Offices, and the Discipline and outward Policy of the Church was brought to a settled order; Then that which is the usual practice of most other bodies, became also to be the Rule of Christians in constituting the Ministers and Officers of the Church, that is, to advance them by degrees from one Order to another, and not to place men in the highest Order till they had approved themselves worthy by the well discharge of their Duty in those inferior thereto; and accordingly thenceforth on Vacancies, Bishops were made out of the Presbyters, and the Presbyters out of the Deacons; and although this method might be introduced even in the times of the Apostles themselves, yet it was not by any Divine Institution, so as to make it absolutely necessary a man be a Deacon before he can be a Presbyter, or a Presbyter before he can be a Bishop, but only by Ecclesiastical appointment for the well regulating the Order of the Church and the better providing for the benefit of it, those in all reason being presumed to be the most fitting for the Superior Orders that had been prepared for them by long exercising themselves in, and faithfully discharging the duties of the Inferior. But however this Rule was not always observed, but often when the benefit of the Church required, and the extraordinary qualifications of men recommended them, Bishops were made not only out of Deacons, but also out of Laymen too; and that by one Ordination, the giving of the Superior Order being always then understood to include therein all the power of the inferior. Thus several of the first Ages of the Church were made Bishops from Laymen, and those Histories which tell us of it acquaint us but with one Ordination whereby they were advanced thereto. And Pontius the Writer of the Life of St. Cyprian, tells us of him, that he was made a Presbyter without ever being a Deacon, and so was also Paulinus of Nola 
(a) Ep. 6. ad severum, & Ep. 22. ad Amandum.  as he himself tells us in his Epistles. And from Optatus it is manifest that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was made so from a Deacon without ever being Ordained a Presbyter in order thereto. For there arising a disturbance in the Church of Carthage about Caecilianus' being made Bishop there, and the main objection lying against his Ordination because Ordained Bishop by Faelix Bishop of Aptungitum, whom they looked on as a Traditor, and one that had deserted the Faith in time of Persecution: Optatus tells us, 
(b) Lib. 1. contra Pormenianum.  Iterum à Caeciliano mandatum est ut si Faelix in se sicut illi arbitrabantur nihil contulisset, ipsi tanquam adhuc Diaconum ordinarent Caecilianum; i. e. Caecilianus again commanded that if Faelix conferred nothing on him as they imagined, then let them (speaking to the Bishops of the adverse party than met together) again ordain Caecilanus as if he were as yet only a Deacon. Which plainly infers that before Faelix ordained him Bishop, he was no more than a Deacon, And Photius 
(c) Baron. Annal. Tom. 10. ad annum 861.  the learned Patriarch of Constantinople in his Epistle to Pope Nicolas, acknowledgeth that even in his time some Ordained Bishops from Deacons without ever making them Presbyters, and that with several it was then looked on as the same thing to make a Bishop from a Deacon as from a Presbyter without at all admitting to the intermediate Order. And a while after the same thing is also 
(d) Baron. Annal. Tom 10. ad annum 867.  objected to the Latins by the Greeks, and although their heats then ran very high about the aforesaid Photius, yet on both sides this is only mentioned as a breach of the Ecclesiastical Canons, and that those were to be condemned that did the thing, not that the Ordination was void which was thus administered. Regularly I do acknowledge it ought to be otherwise, and that none be made Presbyters before they have been Deacons, or Bishops before they have been Presbyters, and that it is always best for the Church to observe this Order. And so also must it be acknowledged that in all form bodies of men, regularly none aught to be advanced to the highest Office but those that have first gone through the inferior, as is manifest in all Corporations, and that it is ever best for the public good of those Societies, and the well governing of them, that this Order should be always observed. But however if at first dash one should be placed in the highest Office, without going through the inferior, this doth not vacate his Commission received from a lawful Authority; but he is to all intents and purposes as fully invested with the whole Power and Authority of that Office, as if he had regularly ascended thereto by the usual degrees through all the subordinate Offices, and in the power of this one Office only hath the powers of all the others conferred on him, because it eminently includes them all. And the same is to be said as to those that are Ordained Bishops without going through the inferior Orders. Although this be done contrary to the Rule of the Church yet this doth not vacate their Commission which they have received by a lawful Authority at their Ordinations, but by virtue thereof they are made true Bishops of the Church of Christ, and have received full power to all the Duties incumbent on them as such; not only that which is peculiar to the Order of a Bishop, but also the powers of all other inferior Offices included therein. For the Orders of the Church do so include one the other, that the same Act of Ordination which gives the power of the higher Order, doth therein also give the powers of all other Orders inferior thereto; as for Example, when a man is made a Presbyter or Priest, though he had never been a Deacon, yet he hath full power to all the Acts and Duties of a Deacon, as being included in his Priesthood; and so when a man is made a Bishop, though he had never been either Priest or Deacon, yet he hath full power to all the Acts and Duties of both these Offices, as being included in that of his Episcopacy: And this is no more than may be made good by Instances from all the subordinations of power in the World, in which this is always most certain that the higher degree of power ever includes all the other Degrees inferior thereto, and that Act which gives that one superior degree, gives all the others therewith, as included in it. And all the Argument which the Romanists bring against this to prove it must be otherwise as to those several degrees of power in the Church which make the Offices of Bishop, Priest and Deacon therein, is drawn from a similitude they make between them, and the three sorts of Souls which distinguish between the three several sorts of living Creatures in this World, that is the Vegetative Soul, the Sensitive and the Rational. For as the Vegetative is necessarily presupposed to the Sensitive, and the Sensitive to the Rational; in such manner as nothing can be a Rational Creature which is not a Sensitive, or a Sensitive which is not a Vegetative, so say they the order of a Deacon is necessarily presupposed to the order of Priesthood, and the order of Priesthood to that of Episcopacy; and no one can be a Bishop which is not first a Presbyter, or a Presbyter which is not first a Deacon. But this Argument if it makes any thing to the purpose, must infer a very ridiculous thing, that is, that God cannot make a Man, unless, by giving him first the Vegetative Soul, he makes him a Tree or a plant; and then secondly, by giving him the Sensitive Soul he makes him a Brute; and then thirdly and lastly, by giving him the Rational Soul he makes him a Man; whereas nothing is more certain than that by that one Act whereby he gives the Rational Soul, he gives all the powers of the other two included therein. And therefore if this similitude were to decide the Controversy between us, instead of making out any thing for them, it will most manifestly give the whole on my side, it being one of the fullest and clearest that can be thought on most plainly to illustrate unto you the whole state of what I have said in this particular. For although the Vegetative Soul, as in Vegetables, is distinct from the Sensitive; and the Sensitive, as in Brutes, is distinct from the Rational; yet the Sensitive doth so include the Vegetative, and the Rational the Sensitive, that the very same act which gives the Sensitive Soul gives also the Vegetative, and the very same act which gives the Rational gives both Sensitive and Vegetative also included therein. And just so is it of the three Orders of Deacon, Priest and Bishop in the Church of Christ. For although the Order of a Deacon in a simple Deacon is distinct from the Order of Priesthood, and the Priesthood as in a simple Priest distinct from the Order of Episcopacy, yet the Order of Priesthood doth so include the Order of a Deacon, and the Order of Episcopacy both that of Priest and Deacon, that the very same act of Ordination which gives a man the Order of Priesthood, gives him also that of a Deacon, and that very same act which gives him the Order of Episcopacy, gives him also both that of Deacon and Priest included in it, and consequently that it is no more necessary a man should be a Deacon before he can be a Priest, or a Priest before he can be a Bishop, than that he must be made a Vegetable before he can be an Animal, and an Animal before he can be a Rational Creature; than which nothing is more absurd. And thus far having shown you that the inferior Orders of the Church are not so essentially necessary to qualify for the superior as you imagine, but that a man may validly be ordained a Bishop, though he was afore neither Priest nor Deacon; it will infer, that although that should be true which you object against us, that our first form of Ordination of Priests till the Addition inserted in the year 1662. was defective, and that by reason of this defect all the Priestly Ordinations conferred by it were null and void, yet our Episcopal Ordination may be still good, as being administered by no such defective Form, but by one which includes all that, and in the very same words which the Romanists themselves say is the alone essential Form of their Episcopal Ordination, (as is afore taken notice of) and therefore though we had no true Priests all the while this defective Form was used, yet we still had true Bishops fully invested with the power of Ordaining others, and consequently now at least since the Form whereby they Ordain is mended according to your mind, we must have true Priests also, and therefore whatsoever defect according to your opinion might be formerly in our Priestly Ordination by reason of our Forms, yet now this defect is fully mended and supplied, you have no reason on this account to forsake our Communion.  
But Thirdly, That there was never any such defect in our Forms, the main mistake which you go upon is that which in the last place I am to convince you of. For although before the addition inserted in the Form of our Priestly Ordination, it might not be so well fenced against all the unreasonable Cavils of Adversaries as now it is, yet it was altogether as full in the expression of what was done, and totally sufficient for the end designed, which I doubt not I shall fully and evidently make appear unto you by these following Reasons.  
I. Because these words, [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained] are as full and comprehensive an expression of the whole Priestly power as possibly can be devised. For what are Priests but the Ministers of Jesus Christ, to lead men to that Reconciliation with God, and that Forgiveness of Transgression from him which he hath purchased for us? And what are the appointed means whereby they do this, but the Administering the Sacraments, the preaching of the Word, the declaring Gods Promises and Threats, the exhorting to Repentance and newness of Life, the correcting by Ecclesiastical Censures such as are notorious Sinners, the Absolving them when penitent, and the Intercession of Holy Prayer for all? This therefore being the end of their Calling, and these the Means they are to make use of in order thereunto, those words which appoint them unto the End, must necessarily appoint them also to all those Means leading thereto. For in this Case the Means are always included in the End; and whosoever gives a Commission for the accomplishing of any End, must necessarily also in that Commission include an Authority to all the Regular Means leading thereto. And therefore the End of the Priests Calling being to be the Ministers of Jesus Christ for the Forgiveness of Sins, these words in our Ordinal [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained] which do most plainly appoint the Persons Ordained to this end do necessarily appoint them also to all the means leading thereto; the preaching the Word, the Consecrating as well as administering the Sacraments, and all things else which Christ hath commanded his Ministers to do in order to this End, and consequently they do give every branch of the Priestly-power which by the Institutions of our Saviour do belong thereto. In answer to this I doubt not those Gentlemen you converse so much with, will tell you, that those words cannot be so understood as to comprehend all those Ministerial Acts of the Priestly Office. Because in the 20th. Chapter of St. John's Gospel from whence we as well as they own to have taken them into our Ordinals, and therein to use them in the same sense as there used, they have according to them another interpretation, not to mean Forgiveness of Sins as by the outward assistance of all the Ministerial Acts of the Priestly Office leading, preparing and qualifying men thereto, but only as it is given by that one act thereof whereby they take upon them in their Sacrament of Penance (as they call it) properly, directly and absolutely by a judicial Sentence to forgive the sins of those that Confess unto them. For such an Authority those Usurpers upon the power of God Almighty claim to themselves, and alleging this Text of Scripture as the Charter by which they hold it, will not have it to be understood of any thing else, and in the Council of Trent thunder out their Anathema against all those that understand it to extend to any other act of the Priestly Office but this only. For the words of that Council are Sess. 14. Can. 3. If any one shall say that those words of our Saviour [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained] are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the Sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church ever understood from the beginning, but wrest them contrary to the Institution of the Sacrament, to the Authority of Preaching the Gospel, Let him be accursed. In Answer to which I will show you,  
1. That there is no such power given to the Priest, as is claimed by them from those words.  
And 2. That therefore they can be understood in no other sense than that which comprehends the whole Priestly power, as I have already explained. And,  
1. The power which they claim from these words is to be Judges on Earth in Christ's stead between God and Man, and to have full Authority as such to pass sentence upon all that after Baptism shall fall into Transgression, either for Life or Death, according as they shall judge fitting, and therefore call all such to their Tribunal, telling them that Christ hath 
(a) Bellarm. de Paenitentia lib. 3. cap. 2.  constituted them Judges upon Earth with such a power that without their Sentence of Absolution none that have fallen into sin after Baptism can be again reconciled unto God. And therefore they make their Sentence of Absolution to be that very Act whereby the Sin is forgiven, and take from God that Prerogative which he hath reserved to himself alone. For 
(b) Isa. 43. v. 25.  it is he only that blotteth out transgressions, and 
(c) Mic. 7. v. 18.  none other is a God like him that pardoneth iniquity; and therefore was it that the Jews when our Saviour said, thy sins are forgiven thee, reasoning among themselves, asked the Question, 
(d) Mar. 2. v. 7. Luk. 5. v. 22.  Who can forgive sins but God alone; and this saith Tertullian, 
(e) Lib 4. advers. Martion. c. 10.  They deservedly did as not knowing his Divinity. For than it was a thing looked on as most certain amongst all the Scribes and Doctors of the Jewish Church, that none but God alone could forgive Sin, and so was it also by the Ancient Fathers of the Church of Christ. And therefore they make this one of their greatest Arguments, whereby they prove the Divinity of our Saviour, that he did forgive Sins. For saith Irenaeus, 
(f) Adversus Haeres. lib. 5. c. 17.  If none can forgive sins but God alone, and our Lord did forgive them, it is manifest that he was the Word of God, made the Son of Man. And the same Argument is also made use of by 
(g) Comm. in 9 Matth.  St. Hilary, 
(h) Orat. 3 cont. Arrianos.  St. Athanasius, 
(i) In lib. de rectâ fide ad Reginas.  St. Cyril, 
(k) In cap. 5. ●ucae.  St. Anbrose, 
(l) In 9 Mat. Hom. 29.  St. Chrysostom, and 
(m) Lib. 1. come. in 9 Matthaei.  St. Jerome, and in the Ages after by 
(n) In Marc lib. 1. cap. 10.  Venerable Bede, and several others; which sufficiently shows that they never understood any such pardoning power as those men now claim ever to be given to man, but to be always reserved unto God alone. That the Pastors of the Church of Christ have Authority to apply the Promises of God to all his People, by declaring Absolution from Sin to all that truly Repent, and on the other hand to denounce his Punishments against all that continue in iniquity, I freely grant; and also that they have power for the better Government of the Church by way of Discipline to exclude all such from Communion who are open and notorious Sinners, and restore them again when amended by Repentance. But as to that power of the Priest now claimed in the Church of Rome of remitting Sins properly, directly, and absolutely by a Judicial Sentence, and that none can be reconciled to God unless thus absolved by them, or at least supplying the defect by an earnest desire of their Absolution when not readily to be had, (as 
(*) Concil. Trident. Sess. 14. cap. 4.  in perfect Contrition they will allow) is what God never gave unto them, or the ancient Fathers of the Church ever challenged. For the losing of men by the Judgement of the Priest, which the Ancients speak of cannot be understood of any such extravagant power granted unto them, but only of that power of Discipline of which I have spoken, whereby they restored such to the peace of the Church, and admitted them again to Communion who had afore been excluded from it. And their Language concerning this matter is generally such as will admit no other Interpretation. For they mostly express it by the Terms of bringing them to Communion, of reconciling them to the Communion, or with the Communion, restoring the Communion to them, admitting them to Fellowship, granting them Peace, and such like. Neither do we find that they did ever use any formal Absolution as this, I Absolve thee; but their reconciling them to the Church, and receiving them again to Communion who had been excluded from it, was the only way of Absolving then in practice among them; which was so far from that extravagant power of absolving now challenged by the Romish Priests, that it was looked on as no more than what a Deacon could do, and accordingly in the absence of the Priest was it Customary to be performed by them in the Western Churches, and that not only in the days of St. 
‖ Epist. 13.  Cyprian, but also down as far as the time of 
† Alcuin. de divinis officiis cap. 13.  Alcuinus, who lived eight hundred years after Christ. And afterwards when Priests began to appropriate this power solely to themselves, and Forms of Absolution came into the Church in the latter Ages, they were at first always by way of Prayer and Intercession to God for the persons absolved, and it was not till Thomas Aquinas' time 
* Aquin. Opusc. 22. cap. 5.  about 400 years since that this Authoritative Form I Absolve thee was ever made use of; and that came not in without great opposition from many Learned Men of that time, as Gulielmus Altisiodorensis, Gulielmus Parisiensis, Hugo Cardinalis, and several others, who were then so far from allowing any such power in Priests, as now challenged, that they plainly declare, that to remit Sins and the Eternal punishments due unto them, was so properly the work of God alone, that the Absolution of the Priest can operate nothing at all that way, but must always presuppose the Absolution of God going before it, as being no more than the restoring of those to the peace of the Church which had been afore by their true Repentance restored to peace with God. The words of Hugo Cardinalis are, 
(a) In Matthaeum cap. 16.  The Priest cannot bind or lose with or from the Bond of the fault and the punishment due thereunto, but only declare him to be bound or loosed, as the Levitical Priest did not make or cleanse the Leper, but only declare him to be infected or clean. And to the same purpose speaks also Peter Lombard the Master of the Sentences, and much more fully in these words, 
(b) Lib. 4. distinct. 18. e. f.  God alone doth forgive and retain Sins, and yet he hath given power of binding and losing unto the Church, but he bindeth and looseth one way, the Church another. For he only by himself forgiveth sin, who both cleanseth the Soul from the inward blot, and looseth it from the debt of Everlasting Death. But this hath he not granted unto Priests, to whom notwithstanding he hath given the power of binding and losing, that is to say, of declaring men to be bound or loosed. Whereupon the Lord did first by himself restore Health to the Leper, and then sent him to the Priests, by whose Judgement he might be declared to be cleansed; so also he offered Lazarus to his Disciples to be loosed, having first quickened him. And again a little after, 
(c) Ibid. f.  In remitting or retaining Sins, the Priests of the Gospel have that Right and Office which the Legal Priests had of old under the Law, in curing of the Lepers. These therefore forgive sins or retain them, whilst they show and declare that they are forgiven or retained by God. Which sayings do plainly infer, that to pardon the Crime and remit the punishment is the proper work of God only; and that the Absolution of the Priests hath no real operation at all that way, but must presuppose the party to be first absolved and justified by God, their absolution being only declarative of what God hath afore done, in applying the promises of God for the Remission of Sins to all such as have truly repent, for their Consolation and Comfort, rather than that the least stain of their Gild is removed thereby. To the outward peace of the Church indeed such absolutions can restore men, but not to peace with God, unless a true and hearty Repentance hath done it before, and if after this on the evident manifestation of the Repentance the Absolution of the Priest comes, it is only to declare what God hath done before, not to add or in the least to conduce any thing thereto, so as any pardon or forgiveness should follow his Sentence which was not granted or given before by God himself, who is he alone that can do it. And not only those two whose words I have laid down do say this, but also several others, who are now reckoned amongst the eminentest Doctors and chiefest Fathers of the Romish Church that lived in their times; as Gulielmus Altisiodorensis, Alexander Halensis, Bonaventura, Occam, Gabriel Biel, and others. And to say otherwise would be to run Counter to the whole Tenor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For therein Faith and newness of Life are laid down as the stated terms on which alone men shall become capable of that pardon from God, which Christ hath purchased for us; and if men arrive to that measure thereof which God requires, they will be most certainly pardoned, whether the Priest will or no, and if not, all the Absolutions in the World shall do them no good. And therefore for to say as the Romanists do, that without their Absolution the most penitent cannot be reconciled to God, and that with it even the wicked can, such as are only attrite (as they call them) is a Doctrine I confess well devised for their own Interest, Grandeur, and Empire over men, but so far from having any foundation in the Gospel, that nothing can be more contrary thereto: For it overthrows the main design of it in making men rely upon their false pretended power of Absolution for the gaining Reconciliation with God, instead of addicting themselves to that Holiness and Righteousness of Life in order thereto, which it is the main aim of the Gospel to lead us into. And herein it is in the highest degree injurious both to God and Men. To God it is injurious, because it robs him of his power of forgiving Sins to give it unto men, absolutely excluding him from it without their forgiving them first at their Absolutions: And it is injurious unto men, because it cheats them of their Souls in making them rely upon false hopes for the Salvation of them, whereby Thousands and Ten Thousands have been undone for ever. For thereby they are taught, that though they be attrite only, that is, have only that Carnal Sorrow for Sin which ariseth from fear of the punishments due thereto, without any of that true saying Repentance which is founded on the Love of God, yet this so imperfect a tendency to Repentance shall by Confession and the Absolution of a Priest applied thereon be made so perfect as to be fully sufficient to blot out the guilt and render the man clean and pure from all his Transgression, whereby it comes to pass that Carnal men who are easily persuaded to approve of that Doctrine, which shall make the enjoyment of their Lusts and the Hopes of Salvation consistent together, totally acquiesceing herein, never think of that true Sorrow which worketh Repentance unto Salvation: But after a glut of sinning having frighted themselves by reflecting on the punishments due thereto, into a kind of sorrow for it, which they call attrition, in this case for the remedy of all only apply to the Priest for his Absolution, never denied to any so prepared, and when they have this, looking on all old scores quite wiped off thereby, run on anew in the same course of Iniquity, till another such fright sends them again for another Absolution; and when that is obtained, then to sinning again as before, and so on in the same round, from Absolution to Transgression, and from Transgression to Absolution, without ever thinking of any other way of saving their Souls, till at last Death overtakes them in a state of total impenitency, and they become utterly lost and undone for ever. And it is to be feared that they have in that Church deluded more men into Hell by this one Doctrine only, than they have led to Heaven by all the other they have taught. And thus far having shown you that there is no such power at all given to Priests, as from these words of St. John [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins, etc.] it will necessarily follow that no other meaning can be affixed unto them than what I have explained unto you, and therefore they must necessarily include not this pardoning power alone, as the Romanists will have (there being none such at all given) but all the Ministerial Duties of the Priestly Office which Christ hath appointed to bring men unto God and reconcile them unto him, and hence is it that the Holy Apostle St. Paul saith, that there is 
(a) 2 Cor. cap. 5. v. 18.  given unto us the ministry of reconciliation. For our Office doth consist in this that we are appointed the Ministers of Christ to reconcile men unto God. And if any one undertakes the office of reconciling a Rebellious Son unto his Father, the way whereby he is to effect this, is not by pardoning the Son all the faults he hath committed; a power which none can imagine the Father would ever give out of his own hand, but by bringing the Son to such Terms of Submission and Amendment, as that the Father may think fit himself to pardon him, and accept him again to his Favour. And this is the Case with us, who are made the Ministers of Christ to Reconcile men unto God our Heavenly Father against whom we have all Rebelled. The way whereby we are to accomplish this, is not by taking upon us in God's stead to pardon and absolve from Sin all that have offended against him, this being a power which God will never give from himself to any, but all that we have to do in order to it, is to make use of those means which Christ hath appointed to bring men to such terms of Repentance and Newness of life as God may think fit himself to pardon them and receive them to his Mercy. And these means are the preaching of the Word, the administering of the Sacraments, the intercession of Prayer, and the public Discipline of the Church. For by preaching the Gospel we make it 
(a) 2 Cor. 5 v. 19  the word of Reconciliation to all that believe: by the Sacrament of Baptism we give the Spirit 
(b) Joh. 3. v. 5.  of Regeneration, and admit men into the Covenant of Grace 
(c) Mar. 16. v. 16. Acts 2. v. 38.  for the remission of sins: by the Holy Eucharist we administer to their growth in Grace, and reach out unto them 
(d) Mat. 26. v. 28.  the blood of the Covenant shed for many for the remission of sins: by our Discipline, Offenders are corrected and 
(e) Gal. 6. v. 1.  restored again to the right way from whence they had deviated: And by our prayers 
(f) J●m. 5. v. 15, 16.  of Faith God is entreated for his people. And these being the only means whereby men can attain to the Mercies of God for the pardon of their Sins, we that administer to them these means may be said in some sense also to pardon them, not absolutely and directly, but in the same manner as a Physician cures his sick Patient, not by giving the Health, for this is only God's work, but only by administering the means. For it is very frequent to ascribe the effect to those that administer the means to dispose towards it, though they have no hand at all in the efficiency itself, whereby it is brought to pass, and in this sense is it that these words of our Saviour in the Gospel of St. John are to be understood, Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained. Not that Christ gave unto his Apostles thereby an absolute power to remit sins, but that he committed to them the Administration of all those means, whereby alone Remission was to be obtained. So that whosoever would receive from them the benefit of those means should thereby have their sins remitted unto them, and whosoever would not, should have them retained for ever. And in this sense is it that John Ferus a Commentator of the Romish Communion who writ about 150 years since understands the words, for saith he in the Explication of them, Though it be the proper work of God to remit sins, yet are the Apostles said to remit them also not simply, but because they apply those means, whereby God doth remit sins, which means are the word of God and his Sacraments. For these means of Salvation with the rest I have mentioned are the Keys which Christ hath given to his Ministers whereby the Gates of Heaven are opened to all such as will receive the Gospel at their hands, and become obedient thereto, and for ever shut against all that will not. For by these only are men let in to Everlasting Life, and without these all must be excluded from it for ever, there being no other means but these alone established by our Saviour whereby men can be admitted to partake of that Salvation he hath purchased for us, or be made capable of that Reconciliation with God required in order thereto. And therefore those means being thus necessary to gain us pardon and forgiveness, so that by them only it can be obtained, and without them never granted to any; hence is it, that our Saviour when he committed to his Apostles the Power and Authority of administering those means he expresseth it in these words, [Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,] implying thereby that he made them the Ministers of reconciling men to God for the Pardon of their Sins, and entrusted them with all the means in order thereto, so that to whomsoever the benefit of their Ministry in the applying of those means should be extended, Pardon and Forgiveness should be administered thereby, and to whomsoever it should not, it should be denied for ever. And in this sense the Ministers of the Gospel may be said to remit or retain sins, because they alone administer the means whereby they are remitted, and without which they are retained for ever. But yet so that the Ministry is only theirs, the Power totally Gods; they only do the outward Act, God alone gives the Spiritual Effect. And this being the sense and meaning of the words, they do in as full and comprehensive a manner include the whole Priestly power, as possibly could in so few words be devised, and consequently must in as full and perfect a manner give it to all that are ordained to the Priesthood by them. For they appointing us to the End for which we are made Ministers, that is to bring men unto God for the pardon of their Sins, must necessarily appoint us also to all the means which are ordained in order thereto: The preaching the Word, the administering the Sacraments, the reconciling of Penitents, the intercession of Prayer, and whatsoever else can be said to be any branch of the Priestly Office; and although it must be confessed that we do not allow the Priestly power to extend so far as our Adversaries of Rome will have it, yet this can move no Controversy in this matter, because the words being so general as to institute and appoint us to what is on all sides allowed to be the sole end of our Office that is to be Ministers of Christ for the forgiveness of sins to those to whom we are sent, they must necessarily include whatsoever Christ hath ordained as a means to be administered by us in order thereto, and therefore if Christ hath appointed all those things to be branches of the Priestly power, which they assert, they must necessarily be all contained in these words, and the power of administering them also be given to all that are ordained to the Priesthood by them, and consequently the Form in which they are contained is so far from being chargeable with the defect you mention of not expressing the whole Priestly power, that how large soever you may think the Priestly power to be, it is abundantly sufficient to express it all, because in so clearly and perfectly expressing the whole End for which we are made Priests, it also necessarily includeth all the means that Christ hath appointed us to administer in order thereto, and all the powers which he hath given to qualify us for it, how many and how large soever they may be.  
II. To convince you further of the sufficiency of this Form for Priestly Ordination, I desire you again to consider what was urged by Mr. Earbury at the Conference you gave me an account of, that these words [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose Sins you etc.] are the very same wherewith Christ Ordained his Apostles; and therefore if they be not sufficient to make us Priests, they could not be sufficient to make them Priests, and consequently through this defect there are no Priests at all in the Church of Christ. For if Christ did not sufficiently give the office and power of Priesthood, it was not sufficiently received, and consequently there must be no such thing at all among us. And therefore those who on this account deny us our Orders, while they are so earnest to cast this Reproach upon us, do not only strike at us, but through our sides do wound even the Holy Apostles also, and Christ himself, because the same Argument which they urge against us from the insufficiency of the Form to invalidate our Orders, invalidates those of the Holy Apostles themselves, and blasphemously accuseth Christ our Lord of insufficiently giving them the Mission on which they were sent. But you tell me of a Salvo that Mr. Acton hath found for all this, by answering, That though with us nothing could be a true Form which did not express the Power given, yet with our Saviour it was sufficient though it did not, who being God could do that which no other could, and therefore with him any thing which he should please to make use of, that did not express the power given, was a good and sufficient Form though the same would not be so with us. But this is so strange a piece of Divinity, as sufficiently shows that Gentleman was put to a very hard push, when he was forced to give this in answer to what was urged against him; and truly it is so plainly absurd in itself, and impious in its Consequences, that I thought not at first that I needed say any thing to make it appear so unto you, and therefore took no notice of it in the Answers I sent you to your first Paper; but since I find in your Letters after, that you are so fond of it as to think it a very good Answer to whatsoever shall be urged on this Argument, I desire you would consider these following particulars.  
1. That this Answer plainly alleging the Form whereby Christ Ordained his Apostles Priests, to be in itself imperfect and insufficient, doth make that Ordination to be defective in that which the Romanists account the prime and main essential of it. And to bring in the Divinity of our Saviour as a Salvo doth not at all mend the matter, but makes it much worse, because it chargeth him, even with his Divinity too, of doing that which is in itself imperfect and insufficient, and of being guilty thereby of a defect, in one of the principal Acts whereby he constituted his Church, that is in Ordaining those Pastors and Governors over it to whose Care it was to be committed. A thing which cannot be said of him that is infinitely perfect in all his doings, without the highest Blasphemy against him. To say, That Christ as God could do what no other could, is indeed true as to all acts of his Divine Power, and it is in vain for any of us to endeavour to do as he doth in any thing of this nature, wherein he is infinitely above our utmost imitation. But in things of Moral and Religious practice, which we are to do likewise, our safest way is always to come as near as we can to what he hath done before us, and we are ever best secured from Error or Defect when we do so. For in all things of this Nature he is our grand Exemplar, whose steps we are to follow, and whose Actions we are to Copy after as far as we are able, and as long as we do this it is impossible that either defect or flaw can be found in any of our doings: For by his Divinity he is infinitely perfect in his Nature, and infinitely perfect in all his Doings, and no Act of his can ever have the least imperfection or insufficiency therein. But when any of his Works are such as we must not pretend to do after him, the reason of this always is from that height of Perfection in them which we cannot reach, and not from any imperfection which makes them unwarrantable for us to do likewise. And therefore to say that our Saviour by virtue of his Divinity could do that which would not be justifiable for us to do after him, by reason of any imperfection or insufficiency to be found therein, as your Answerer plainly doth, is no less than the highest Blasphemy against him.  
2. I desire you to consider, that by the same words whereby Christ Ordained his Apostles to be his Ministers in his Church, he Ordained also the very Office itself: For than he first instituted the Office, when he first appointed them to it, and therefore those words by which our Saviour first Ordained his Apostles for the Office of his Ministry, are so far from being defective in the Expression of the Power thereof, that it is impossible it can have any power at all but what is expressed by them. For they are the Original Charter of its Institution, and from whence alone the limits and extent of its Authority are to be known. And therefore we may very well judge of the extent of the Office, from its Correspondency with the Words, but not of the sufficiency of the Words from their Correspondency with what we think the extent of the Office; because the Office itself being first instituted by these Words, can have nothing in it but what is expressed by them▪ And therefore if it be the same Office of Priesthood we receive at our Ordinations, which Christ Ordained his Apostles to, certainly the same words which he then made use of must always be the perfectest form whereby to make expression thereof. Had the Office been afore instituted and afterwards expressed by halves, we could then have recourse to the first institution to make clear eviction hereof, and from thence the deficiency would plainly be made out: But that the words of its first institution from whence it received its whole being and establishment should be imperfect or deficient is that which cannot be said, unless you will accuse the Institutor Christ our Lord of being deficient in the Institution itself, and not making and appointing the Office as well and as perfectly as he ought, a Consequence which I suppose your Answerer will by no means be willing to own.  
3. This Answer is not that which the Romanists ever use to give in this Case, or will the Gentleman you had it from, I suppose, abide by it, however it came to drop from him. For when the perfection of this Form is urged from this, that it was the same by which our Saviour ordained his Apostles, their usual answer is, That there are two powers in the Priestly Office, the power of Order, and the power of Jurisdiction as I have afore explained; the former of which they say was given the Apostles by our Saviour before his Crucifiction at his last Supper, when he said unto them [This do in remembrance of me,] and that it was the later only which was given after his Resurrection, by these words [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins, etc.] for the conferring of which they allow this Form to be most full and sufficient, and for that purpose use it in their own Ordinal; but deny it to comprehend any other branch of the priestly Office, or that our Saviour intended to confer any other thereby. And this you yourself seem well enough to understand, you having expressed as much in one of your Letters. But this also goes upon two very great mistakes;  
1. That Christ Ordained his Apostles priests of the New Covenant, when he said unto them at his last Supper [This do in remembrance of me.  
2. That Christ Ordained any at all to be Ministers of his Church before he had actually purchased it by the shedding of his blood. And,  
1. It is a great mistake that our Saviour Ordained his Apostles Priests of the New Covenant by those words at his last Supper [This do in remembrance of me] For this is not a command particular to them to Consecrate and Administer that Sacrament which Christ then Instituted, but to all the Faithful also to be partakers of it, which the words plainly infer; for what else can the Command [This do] refer to, but to the whole Sacramental Action before mentioned, the receiving and eating which belong also to the Laity as well as the Blessing and Consecrating, which is the Duty of the Priest only. And if the words be not so understood, there will be no Command of our Saviour obliging the Laity to be partakers of this Sacrament at all, but the Priests may be always left to Consecrate it and eat it themselves, as, contrary to all primitive practice and many Canons of the Church they nowadays for the most part do. Nay further they will be under no obligation to partake of it, but only to Bless and Consecrate it; and so if this Interpretation takes place, the whole Institution may become frustrate thereby, and the Law of our Saviour be absolutely made of none effect for the sake of the Traditions and Inventions of Men. And therefore Estius an eminent Doctor of the Romish Church 〈…〉 plainly acknowledgeth that this Command of our Saviour [This do in remembrance of me] must extend to all the people. His words are, 
* Estius in Sentent. lib. 4. distinct 12. Sect. 11.  Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illud facere etiam ad plebem refert edentem & bibentem de hoc Sacramento quando ait, hoc facite, i.e. Paul in the Eleventh Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians plainly refers that of doing to the People eating and drinking of this Sacrament, when he saith in the words of our Saviour (ver. 25.) [This do, etc.] And to say otherwise would be to run Counter to all the ancient Doctors of the Church, there being none of them for many hundred years after Christ that ever understood those words of our Saviour in that sense which now the Church of Rome will have, but always looked on them as a general precept belonging to all Christians of observing that Holy Rite in Remembrance of his Death and Passion in the same manner as was then instituted by him. But when the practice of the half Communion became to be generally received in the Church of Rome, than the Schoolmen being put to their shifts to reconcile it with the Institution of our Saviour who himself Celebrated it, and also commanded the Celebration of it in both kinds, at last lighted on this fetch of making the Apostles Priests by these words of our Saviour [This do in remembrance of me] spoken by him after his giving them the Bread; and therefore say that the Cup which was Administered afterwards, was given them only as Priests, and that the Laity are not at all to be admitted thereto by virtue of that Command. But here it is to be observed that our Saviour spoke these words, [This do in remembrance of me] 
* 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25.  twice in that Institution, first after the distributing of the Bread, and then again after the giving of the Cup: And therefore if Christ made them Priests by those words, it will follow, That either he made them Priests twice, a Doctrine which the Church of Rome will by no means allow, (Orders being a Sacrament, as they say, never without the guilt of Sacrilege to be reiterated on any) or else that the last saying of those words as well as the first did both equally concur to the conferring of that Office upon them, and consequently that they were not made perfect Priests till the Ordination was completed by the last saying of them after the Cup was Administered, which clearly overthrows their whole Hypothesis.  
2. Our Saviour was so far from making his Apostles Priests of the New Covenant at his last Supper, that nothing can be a greater mistake than to suppose that he should at all Ordain any such before he had actually by his Death and Passion purchased and Established that Church wherein they were to Minister. Our Saviour indeed at his first choosing of them to be always with him designed them for this Office, and all along the time of his Ministry here on Earth, taught them and instructed them in order thereunto: And so also an Heir expectant of a Crown may design some of his Followers to be his Officers and Ministers of State in his Kingdom, but cannot actually constitute them as such till he himself be actually possessed of the Sovereign power to enable him thereto. Neither can our Saviour be said actually to have invested his Apostles with the Offices he designed them for, till he had actually possessed himself of that Kingdom, his Church, in which they were to Minister before him, and thereby received that power which he was to delegate to them, which cannot be said till after his Death and Passion. For till then the Christian Church itself could not have any Being, that being the act of Redemption whereby our Saviour first purchased it to himself, and laid the foundation of its Establishment; and all the whole oeconomy thereof bears reference thereto and totally commenceth from it. Till then the former oeconomy of the Jewish Church remained in its full force. For the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of it in which it did consist, being all Types of that great and truly propitiatory Sacrifice of our Saviour, whereby the work of our Redemption was wrought, and appointed to prefigure and foreshow it, till that Sacrifice itself should be actually offered once for all: Till that was done it was necessarily to continue in its full Obligation to all those Observances. And therefore our Saviour himself even to the time of his Death paid full Obedience to them. But when that Sacrifice was actually offered, and our Saviour gave himself up unto death upon the Cross to be a propitiation for us, and thereby completed that great work of our salvation for which he came among us, than all the Types ceased, at the fulfilling of the thing Typified, all those shadows of good things to come totally vanished at the appearance of the things themselves which they foreshowed, and the whole Law became fulfilled thereby, and all the intents and meanings thereof totally accomplished. And therefore by this great work of our Salvation the whole Jewish oeconomy receiving its completion, and all the Legal Institutions thereof absolutely ceasing by being fulfilled, Matth. 5. v. 17. thenceforth the Christian succeeded in its stead, that Church, that Kingdom of our Saviour, which by this his bloodshedding he purchased to himself; and therefore from that time being fully invested with the whole Sovereignty over the Church of God, he tells his Holy Apostles that 
(a) Matth. c. 28. v. 18.  All power was given unto him in Heaven and in Earth: In the Explication of which words Maldonat the Jesuit tells us, 
(b) Com. in Mat. cap. 28. v. 18.  Loquitur hic non de qualibet potestate, sed de eà quam Apostolis dabat, i. e. de potestate Regni sui spiritualis acquirendi colligendique quam ad rem Apostolos mittebat, & ita loquitur, quasi eam potestatem ante resurrectionem non habuerit, nam tanquam de re nova, dicit data est mihi omnis potestas, i. e. He speaketh not of every power, but only of that which he gave his Apostles, that is the power of acquiring and gathering his spiritual Kingdom, for which purpose he sent his Apostles, and he speaks so as if he had not that power before his Resurrection, for he saith as of a thing newly done all power is given unto me, etc. and a little after, De eâ denique loquitur potestate de quâ apud Johannem dicit, 
(c) cap. 16. v. 33.  Confidite, ego vici mundum, hanc sibi potestatem per mortem & resurrectionem suam datam esse dicit, quia eam meruit, 
(d) Phil. cap. 2. v. 9, 10.  propter quod, inquit, exaltavit eum & dedit illi nomen quod esset super omne nomen, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur Coelestium, Terrestrium, & infernorum, hoc est, data est mihi omnis potestas in Caelo & in Terrâ, quâ potestate ad propagandos Regni sui fines Apostolos mittit, ut rectissime mihi videtur Vigilius interpretari, i. e. And finally he speaks of that power concerning which he saith in the Gospel of St. John, Be of good cheer I have overcome the world; this power he saith was given him by his Death and Resurrection because he deserved it, Wherefore he saith God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven, things on Earth, and things under the Earth; that is, there is given me all power in Heaven and in Earth, by which power he sent his Apostles to propagate his Kingdom, as Vigilius seems to me most rightly to Interpret. So far the Learned Jesuit and if you will acquiesce in his Interpretation it plainly follows from hence, that Christ did not receive the power of his spiritual Kingdom till after his Resurrection, and that by virtue of that power it was that he sent his Apostles on their Mission as his Ministers to propagate this his Kingdom, and therefore that they could not receive this Mission, or be Ordained thereto till after his Resurrection. And if we examine all the Gospels to find by what words of his he gave them this Mission after his Resurrection, and invested them with the power and Authority of it, it must be acknowledged that they could be none other but those of St. John [Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained] for every thing else which was then done or said at the speaking of them manifestly infers it. Our Saviour first says unto them [As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you]; which plainly declares his then giving them their Mission; after that [he breathed on them] for his putting of his Spirit upon them, and said, [Receive the Holy Ghost] that is, for the spiritual Office on which they were sent; (for as to those extraordinary Gifts which so wonderfully enabled them for the Execution of it, he was not given till afterwards in the day of Pentecost) and what can be more plain and clear than all this is, that our Saviour was then giving his Commission to his Holy Apostles for the Ministry to which he had chosen them? And therefore those words that follow [Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained] must be they whereby the whole power and Authority of that their Ministry was given unto them; and not a part of it only as the Romanists say, and consequently these words must be the perfectest and most authentic form whereby to Ordain others also to the same Ministry.  
III. But our Church in the first establishing of this Form for Priestly Ordination, did not only appoint these words of our Saviour whereby he Ordained his Apostles, but also out of their abundant caution as if they foresaw the Cavils our Adversaries now make, by way of Explication subjoined these other words also, [And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Sacraments] by them explicitly expressing all the Priestly power in particular which we understand in general to be implicitly contained in the other that go before, as I have already made out unto you that they are. And although this should not be the true Explication of them as our Adversaries contend, yet since the words are part of the Form, they must give all that they express, and therefore since they express the whole Priestly power, though the other should not, they must give it also to all those that are Ordained thereby, and consequently the Form must be fully sufficient even in all that which you yourself require to make it so. But to this you object that those later words give power only to Dispense the Sacraments and not to Consecrate, and therefore cannot give power to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and make present the Body and Blood of our Saviour (as you term it) which you look on as the main of the Priestly power; but only to Dispense it, that is, to distribute the Elements when Consecrated, which a Deacon only can do. To this I Answer,  
1. That the word Dispense, is here made use of as a general Term which reacheth both Word and Sacraments, and therefore cannot be limited to that particular sense of distributing the Elements only in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (as you will have it) but must comprehend whatsoever the Ministers of Christ, who as his Stewards are entrusted with his Word and Sacraments, are commanded by him to do in order to the giving out and dispensing of both, for the Salvation of those to whom they are sent.  
2. The whole Objection being concerning the signification of the word Dispense, you must not go for that to the Cavils of Adversaries, but to the intent and meaning of our Church in the use of it. For words have no otherwise their signification, than according to the appointment and acceptation of those that use them, and must always express that sense which by common consent and usage is intended by them. And therefore since you plainly acknowledge, as doth also your 
* Chap. 7.  Erastus Senior whom you follow herein, that the Church of England means and intends Consecration, as well as Distribution by the word Dispense; it necessarily follows, that that must be the signification of it in this Form. For certainly a whole National Church intending such a sense by such a word for an hundred and fifty years together, it is enough to make it signify so though that were never the sense of it before, because words not being necessary, but only Arbitrary signs of things must always so signify, as is intended by the common consent of them that use them.  
But, 3. To come to the main solution of the matter, the case is plainly thus. Our Reformers making Scripture the Principal Rule of all their Establishments, did, in the appointing of this Form, take the very words of it from thence as near as they could, and therefore as they had the former part thereof out of the 20th. Chapter of the Gospel of St. John, Verse 22, 23. so had they the latter from the 4th. Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians Verse the first; only with this difference, that whereas the former are the very words of Scripture, the latter instead of the very words [Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God] to make the thing more plain and clear is expressed by other words equivalent thereto [Dispenser's of the Word of God and of his Holy Sacraments] the Word of God and his holy Sacraments being on all hands acknowledged to be the whole of what is there intended by the Mysteries of God. And although the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is better rendered Stewards, as in our Translation than Dispenser's, yet the Gentlemen of Rome can have no reason to find fault with us, in this particular, since herein we follow their own Bible the vulgar Latin which their Council of Trent hath decreed to be the only Authentic Scripture. For at the first Reformation of our Church, the Original Languages of the Holy Scriptures being but little known, the Vulgar Latin Version was that which was then generally used among us, and therefore the expression is put in our Form according as it was found in that Version, for there it is Dispensatores Mysteriorum Dei, and accordingly the Rhemists translate it; The Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God, and therefore the whole Controversy between us must be brought to this point only, whether Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God in that place doth signify Priests or no? and if it doth, it must necessarily follow, that it signifies the same also in our Form of Ordination where it is used: And I doubt not if you will be pleased to look upon that Text of Scripture even as translated by our Adversaries themselves, it will not be possible for you to persuade yourself that when the Holy Apostle St. Paul there says of himself and the other Apostles, 
* Rhemish Testament, 1 Cor. 4. v. 1.  So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and the Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God, he means it only as Deacons. No certainly, both those phrases, Ministers of Christ, and Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God are equivalent Expressions, denoting them as invested with the whole Ministry of the Gospel committed to them. And if you will commit the decision of this Cause to Estius, an Eminent and Learned Doctor of the Church of Rome, he will plainly tell you so, for on that Text of Scripture he so explains those phrases: And on the 7th. verse of the first of Titus, he interprets Dispensatorem Dei, i. e. the Dispenser of God, to be Dei Vicarium ac Ministrum in Dispensatione Evangelii & Sacramentorum, i. e. God's Vicar and Minister in the Dispensing of his Gospel and Sacraments; and then immediately after he repeats the forementioned Text, 1 Cor. 4.1. denoting, Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God in that place, and Dispenser of God here, to be both understood in the same sense. And therefore according to him, who was as Eminent a Doctor of their Church as any they have to boast of, Dispenser's of the Mysteries of God, and Dispenser's of the Gospel (or Word of God) and the Sacraments, were the Ministers of God, or the Vicar of God; that is, such as in his stead did Administer to his People his Word and Sacraments; which are Titles that never used to be given to any under the Degree of a Priest. And if you will go unto the Schoolmen, and other Writers of the Church of Rome, nothing is more common among them than by Dispenser's of the Sacraments to mean the Priests of the Church of Christ; and by the Act of Dispensing of them, the peculiar Duty in which they Officiate: And if there were any need of it Thousands of Instances may be given hereof.  
IU. But after all their Cavils against our Form of Priestly Ordination, as if it were not sufficient to confer the whole Priestly power, they must themselves in their Ordinations of Priests confer this power by the same Form which we also use (their second Form above mentioned) or not confer it at all according to their own Doctrines in this particular.  
For first they allow no Form to do any thing of this, but what is an essential Form, but from some of their own positions it must necessarily follow that the first Form cannot be an essential Form, and therefore it must follow that the last Form only can be such in their Ordinations of Priests, and consequently that by that only as the alone Essential Form the whole Priestly power must be given in their Ordinations of Priests, or else it must not be given at all, they having no other Form besides these two which they ever say to be essential to that Sacrament (as they call it). Now that the first Form cannot be an essential Form, according to their own positions, I prove by these following Arguments.  
1. That cannot be an Essential Form which is joined with a Matter which is not Essential; but the Matter with which the first Form is joined [the delivery of the Chalice and Patten to the Person Ordained] cannot be an Essential matter, and therefore the Form of words joined therewith cannot be an Essential Form. The first proposition is that which none of the Gentlemen you converse so much with will deny, because they well know that the Matter as well as the Form both concurring to the making up of the Essence of things, the Form cannot be Essential to the Constituting of any thing, where the Matter is not Essential also. And therefore all I suppose will be required of me to make this Argument out, will be to prove the second Proposition; that the delivery of the Chalice and Patten in their Ordination of Priests cannot be an Essential Matter, and this I say must necessarily follow from their own positions. And that first because abundance of the most Learned of them, as Morinus, Habertus, Hallier and several others, do plainly grant that this Rite was never used in the Church for near a thousand years after Christ, and therefore it is impossible that it can be essential to Priestly Ordination, unless you will allow that the Order of Priesthood could for so many years together be conferred without that which is essential thereto, or else that all the Ordinations of Priests for all that time were null and void for want of it, neither of which I suppose any of our Adversaries will ever say.  
2. I also say that this must necessarily follow from their own positions, because they allow the Priestly Ordinations of the Greek Church to be good and valid, which are administered without it. For they Ordain by Imposition of hands only, without ever using the other Rite of delivering the Chalice and Patten at all, in their Ordinations, and yet the Church of Rome is so far from disallowing their Orders so conferred, that they do not only allow them to be good and valid, but also permit those Greek Bishops which have come over to their Communion, and have Churches maintained for them in Rome itself, and by the Pope's own Charge, still to Ordain after the same manner, and by Imposition of hands only, and Cardinal Lugo 
* De Sacramentis Disp. 2. Sect. 5. n. 85.  tells us that he himself saw Ordinations thus performed at Rome by Greek Bishops. And therefore if this Ordination be thus allowed by them as complete in its whole Essence which is thus administered without the delivery of the Chalice and Patten, it must necessarily follow that according to this Concession, this Rite which is the first Matter in the Roman Ordinations of Priests cannot be Essential to that Administration.  
Which two Arguments are so prevalent with the Learnedest and best of that Communion, that abundance of them in direct Terms assert Imposition of Hands to be the only Essential Matter whereby the Order of Priesthood is conferred. 
(a) Part. 3. Exercit. 7. c. 1.  Morinus directly says it in opposition to the other Matter, the delivery of the Chalice and Patten, which he excludes from being an Essential Matter for the same two Reasons I have laid down, which he says are plain Demonstrations against it. Bonaventure, Petrus Sotus, and Becanus the Jesuit who also deny this Matter to be Essential, I have already made mention of. 
(b) De Sacris Electionib●s & Ordinationibus Part 2. Sect. 2. ch●p. 2. Art 1.2.  Hallier the Learned Sorbonist I have afore cited, is very large to prove that Imposition of Hands could only be the Essential Matter of Priestly Ordination for the first 800 years after Christ, and at length concludes his Discourse concerning it with these words; 
() Ib. Art 5.  Diuturno tempore tam in Orientali quam in Occidentali Ecclesia retentum ut Hierarchici Ordines Episcoporum, scilicet Presbyterorum & Diaconorum sola manuum impositione conferrentur. i e. It was a long while retained both in the Eastern and Western Church that the Hierarchical Orders, that is, the Orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons should be conferred by Imposition of Hands only. And as low down as the year 1536. a Council then held at Cologne speaks of Imposition of Hands as the only Rite whereby Orders are administered, the words of the Council are, 
(d) Council Cologr. sub Hermanno Archiepiscopo, cap. 1.  Impositionem manuum esse ostium per quod intrant qui Ecclesiarum gubernaculis admoventur, i. e. That Imposition of Hands is the door whereby those enter that are appointed to have the Government of Churches; and if it be the door whereby men enter into the Orders of the Church it is plain enough it must be the only Rite whereby they are admitted into them, for by the door only is it that men are admitted into the house. And thirteen years after another Council held at Mentz, says as fully to the same purpose. 
(e) Concil. Mogun. sub Sebastiano Archiepiscopo, cap. 25.  Collationem ordinum cum Impositione manuum velut visibili signo tradi. i e. That the Collation of Orders is delivered by Imposition of Hands as the visible sign. By which words 
(f) In Tertiam Thomae, Disp. 239. nu. 42.  saith Vasquez, seems to be denoted that the visible sign in which this Sacrament doth consist, and by virtue of which the Power and the Grace is conferred, is in Imposition of Hands. But Arcudius is most express in this matter; For, saith he, 
(g) De Sacramento Ordinis. cap. 7. pag. 525.  Si nolumus negare Sacramentum Ordinis in Ecclesiâ Latinâ, necesse est pro materiâ hujus Sacramenti solam impositionem manuum assignare, hanc enim solam Apostoli, Concilia, & Antiqui Patres commemorant; i. e. If we will not deny the Sacrament of Orders in the Latin Church, it is necessary that we assign only Imposition of Hands for the matter of this Sacrament, for that only the Apostles and Councils and ancient Fathers make mention of. And therefore he saith in 
(h) De Sacramento Ordinis. cap. 4. pag. 510.  another place, that not only the power of Jurisdiction, but also the power of Order is conferred by Imposition of Hands, that is, not only the power of Absolving Penitents, but also the power of Consecrating and Administering the Eucharist; and he saith, that the Councils and Fathers whensoever they speak of the Order of Priesthood to be given by Imposition of Hands, mean all this power to be conferred thereby, and for proof hereof he quotes a certain Comment that goes under the name of St. Ambrose, which on the 4th. Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy hath these words, Manuum Impositionis verba sunt Mystica, quibus confirmatur ad opus Electus accipiens autoritatem teste Conscientiâ ut audeat vice Domini Sacrificia Deo offer; i.e. The words of Imposition of Hands are Mystical, by which the Elected is confirmed to the work of the Ministry receiving Authority, his Conscience bearing him witness, that he may make bold in the stead of our Lord to offer Sacrifice unto God. And from thence he remarkes, quod manuum Impositio inserviat potestati accipiendae in verum corpus Christi, i. e. That Imposition of Hands doth serve to the receiving of power over the true Body of Christ, that is, to Consecrate and administer the Eucharist where they will have the true body of Christ to be present. And therefore if the Authority of this Doctor of the Romish Church signifies any thing with you (who was 
(b) See Habertus on the Greek Pontifical ad Part. 8. Observat. 9 pag. 142.  a person of that eminent note among them for his learning that he was designed to have been a Cardinal by Gregory the 15th. Had that Pope lived to have made another promotion) this last matter of Imposition of hands with the form of words annexed must give not only the power to absolve penitents, but also the power of consecrating the Eucharist, and if they give this to them since they are both still retained in our Ordinal they must give it us also, and consequently your whole Objection against our Orders, as if this power were not conferred on us at our Ordinations, be totally removed. But here then you will perchance ask the Question if the later Matter and Form in the Roman Ordinal give the whole Priestly power, to what end then serves the former Matter and Form which they make use of? To this I Answer, to the same purpose that some other Matters and Forms do in their Ordinal which they allow only to be accidental, that is for the more solemnity of the Administration, and not at all to confer the Sacerdotal power, and as such no doubt at this time their first Matter and Form which they call essential would only have been reputed by all learned men among them, but that it had unwarily been declared otherwise in the Council of Florence; and therefore they being obliged to abide by that determination have been forced to frame the Scheme of their Divinity so in this particular, as the practice of their own Church for near a thousand years together; the practice of all other Churches in the World down to this time, the Writings of the Ancients, many of their own Doctrines, and all Reason too, (which some of them cannot conceal) do manifestly contradict.  
2. The first Form cannot be an essential Form according to their own positions, because according to them that only can be an Essential Form of any of their Sacraments which conduceth to confer the Sacramental grace. But the Sacramental grace of the Sacrament of Orders (as they call it) cannot be conferred by the first form, and therefore that can by no means according to their own positions be an Essential Form. For the Sacramental grace even according to their own Divinity can only be annexed to such Sacramental signs as Christ himself the author and institutor of all Sacraments hath appointed, now if it can no way be made out that Christ ever appointed the Rite of delivering the Chalice and Patten to be a Sacramental sign in the Ordination of the Ministers of his Church, then certainly no grace can ever be annexed thereto, or the Form of words (the first form above mentioned) made use of at the administering this Rite in Ordinations ever confer any. The Consequence I suppose no one will ever deny, because no sign with any Form of words whatever can in the least conduce to the conferring of Grace, but what the Institution of our Saviour hath made Sacramental. And therefore the whole stress of the Argument lies upon this only, that our Saviour never instituted this sign or Rite of delivering the Chalice and Patten in Ordinations or ever commanded his Holy Apostles, either by himself, while here on Earth or by the Dictates of his Holy Spirit afterwards to make use thereof. And there are but two ways possible whereby our Adversaries can ever pretend to make it out that he did. The First is by Scripture and the other by Tradition. For they will have the Institutions of our Saviour to be transmitted down unto us, not only by the written word, the Holy Scriptures, but also by the unwritten (as they call it) the Traditions of the Church, both which they will have of equal Authority for the making out of what they will have to be of divine Institution. But neither of these will serve their turn in this particular, Not Tradition, First because no other Church bears record with them herein, and Secondly because it appears by undeniable authority, and by the concession of abundance of their own Doctors, as I have above mentioned, that for near a thousand years, together after Christ there was not even in their own Church any Tradition at all of this matter, or the thing ever heard of among them till instituted by themselves about 700 years since. And as to the Scripture they themselves there give up the Cause plainly acknowledging that no proof at all of this matter can be had from thence. And therefore 
(a) De Sacramento Ordinis. cap. 9  Bellarmine, and 
(b) Part. 2. Sect. 2. cap. 2. Art 1.  Hallier, and several others of them say, that if Imposition of Hands be not the Essential Matter of Orders they can have no Argument at all out of Scripture to prove against the Heretics (as they call us of the Protestant Religion) that it is a Sacrament. And the words of Habertus are 
(c) in Pontifical. Graec. pag. 121.  Scripturae Ordinatio aut nihil est, aut manuum Impositio. i e. The Ordination of Scripture is either nothing or imposition of Hands. Becanus the Jesuit goes further and says 
(d) De Sacramento Ordinis. c. 4. n. 6.  Nec in Scriptures nec in antiquis Patribus, & Conciliis fit ulla mentio porrectionis Instrumentorum, sed tantum Impositionis manuum; i. e. Neither in the Scriptures nor in the Ancient Fathers and Councils is there made any mention of the reaching out of the Vessels (the Chalice and Patten) but of Imposition of Hands only. And in Truth all what they say either from Scripture, Ancient Councils or Fathers for their Sacrament of Orders, makes Imposition of Hands the only Sacramental Sign thereof. And all the Arguments which they bring from either of them to prove it to be a Sacrament go totally upon this, that this Rite of Imposition of Hands made use of in the conferring of the Orders, hath Grace annexed thereto, and therefore it manifestly appearing that none of those ways which our Adversaries themselves make use of to prove a Divine Institution are able to make it out unto us that the delivery of the Chalice and Patten in Ordination is such, the Consequence is plain that that Rite can never be a Sacramental Sign which hath Grace annexed thereto, and consequently the Sacramental Grace which they will have to belong to Orders cannot be given by that Rite with what Form of words soever it be administered; but if there be any such thing at all belonging to Orders as that grace which is requisite to make it a Sacrament (as our Adversaries say and we deny) it must only be annexed to Imposition of Hands, and given by no other words than that Form with which it is joined, [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins, etc.] and this even their own Council of Trent seems plainly to say, for in one of its Canons it Decrees 
(a) Sess. 23. can. 3.  Si quis dixerit per Sacram Ordinationem non dari Spiritum Sanctum ac proinde frustra Episcopos dicere Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, anathema sit; i. e. If any one shall say that the Holy Ghost is not given by Holy Orders, and therefore that the Bishop says in vain [Receive the Holy Ghost] let him be accursed. Which words manifestly annex the grace which they will have given by this their Sacrament to the latter Form only. And so Bannes an Eminent Writer of their own Church understands them. For saith he, 
(b) De Sacramento Ordinis. cap. 9  Ibi Concilium declarat tunc Ordinari Presbyteros, & tunc dari illis Spiritum Sanctum cum iis dicitur [Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, etc.] i. e. The Council there declares that then the Priests are ordained and then the Holy Ghost is given unto them, when it is said unto them, Receive the Holy Ghost.  
3. The first Form cannot be an Essential Form according to their own Positions, because from them it must necessarily follow that that Form can only be Essential by which the Character is given; but the Character of Priesthood cannot be given by the first Form. For says Vasquez, 
(c) In Tert. Thom. Disput. 239. n. 19  Gratia collata ex virtute Sacramenti & character simul dantur ut omnibus in confesso est; i. e. The grace which is conferred by virtue of the Sacrament, and the Character are given together as is acknowledged by all. And therefore if the Sacramental Grace, which they will have conferred at their Ordinations of Priests, cannot according to their own Doctrines be given by the first Form in their Ordinal, (as I have already made it appear that it cannot) neither can the Character of Priesthood be given by it. Besides, the Character as they define it, being 
(d) Concil. Trident. Session. 7. De Sacramentis in genere, can. 9  a Spiritual Sign imprinted on the Soul, and of itself indivisible, it cannot be given by halves; one part of it by the first Matter and Form, and the other part of it by the second Matter and Form, but must be imprinted all at once; and therefore if they will have two Essential Matters, and two Essential Forms joined to them in the Ordination of Priests, they must also allow two characters to be imprinted by them on the persons Ordained, (as 
(a) De Sacramento Ordinis punct. 5.  Ferdinando De Castro Palao for this reason doth) or else if they will allow but one Character only to that Order, (as is the current Doctrine of their Church) they must also allow but one Essential Matter and Form whereby it is to be imprinted: And if the Question be of the two Matters, which of them must be that, whereby this is done, whether Imposition of Hands which was first practised by the Apostles themselves, and hath ever since been used in all the Christian Churches in the World, through all Ages, and in all Places, as every one knows; or else that other Rite, the delivery of the Chalice and Patten, which was never heard of in any Church for near a thousand years after Christ, and at present is made use of only in the Roman, I hope it will be no difficult matter for you to conclude, that it can be no other but Imposition of Hands, and therefore if that be the only Matter whereby the Character is imprinted, certainly that Form of words which is joined with that Matter [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins, etc.] must be the only Form which concurs to the giving thereof, and therefore according to what they themselves require to make a Form Essential, that only can be the Essential Form of Priestly Ordination, and the other cannot at all be Essential thereto.  
Thus far therefore having made out that according to what they require to make a Form Essential, the first Form in their Ordinal of Priestly Ordination cannot be such; and since they allow no other besides this but the second Form to be an Essential Form in that Administration, it must necessarily follow that if they will have the Form of their Priestly Ordination to be Essential, and that the Priestly power cannot be conferred but by an Essential Form, this second Form only [Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins etc.] the same which we use in our Ordinal, must only be that Essential Form whereby this is done, and therefore notwithstanding all their Cavils against us, as if we did not give the whole Priestly power by this Form in our Ordinations, they must themselves in their Ordinations give it by the very same Form that we do or else not give it at all, and so their Argument retort on themselves, and invalidate their own Orders as well as ours.  
But 2dly. The same Consequence will also follow though we allow both their Forms to be essential as they will have, that is, that notwithstanding the first Form as well as the second be allowed according to them to be Essential, yet it must be still the second Form, the same which we use in our Ordinations, that must confer the whole Priestly power in their Ordinations also, or else it must not be conferred at all. For if the first Form in their Ordinal confers nothing of the Priestly power, it must be the second alone that confers it, or else it must not be conferred at all among them. Now that the first Form confers nothing of the Priestly power, I prove by your own way of arguing against our Form. That Form which expresseth nothing of the Priestly power can confer nothing of the Priestly power in Ordination, but the first Form expresseth nothing of the Priestly power, for all that it expresseth is only an imaginary power of their own invention, the power of offering their Sacrifice of the Mass, and applying the merits of it to the living and the dead, a power which Christ never instituted or can be warranted by any ancient practice, but is contrary to the whole tenor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is in as plain Terms as can be expressed by several passages therein directly contradicted. But to this perchance you will reply that the first Form doth not only give power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, but also to Celebrate Mass for the Living and the Dead, and that by this last expression is employed the performance of the whole Office, and consequently that the whole power of Consecrating and Administering the Eucharist is included therein. But against that there is this Objection, these words for the Living and the Dead, seem to limit the expression to so much only of the Mass as is Celebrated for the living and the dead; that is, the applying of the merits of the Sacrifice, which they pretend to offer at their Mass, to the living and the dead, which is a power as totally fictitious as the former. And their Council of Florence, which declared this Form to be an Essential Form of Priestly Ordination seems plainly to understand it in this sense. For it expresseth not the whole Form as it is in the Roman Ordinal, but the sum of it in these words, Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium in Ecclesiâ pro vivis & defunctis; i. e. Receive power to offer Sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead. Which plainly interprets the latter Expression in their Ordinal of Celebrating Mass for the Living and the Dead, to belong to the former, and to extend no farther than the offering their pretended Sacrifice for them, which can by no means include the Consecrating of the Eucharist, because most of them hold the Act of Consecrating to be different from the Act of Sacrificing, and therefore it cannot be included in it, for they will have the Act of Consecrating to be precedent to that of Sacrificing, because say they the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be offered up in Sacrifice, till by the words of Consecration the Bread and Wine is converted thereinto. But notwithstanding if they will needs have the power of Consecrating contained in these words, I shall not lay such stress upon this matter, as to make any great contest about it. Only this which hath already been said, may be sufficient to let you see, that if the power of Consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be contained under the words of our Form which give power to dispense the Sacraments as our Church intends, it is much more difficult to reconcile it, how this power can be contained in those words of their Form, whereby they intent to give it, theirs being much further from making any express mention of this power of Consecrating the Eucharist than possibly it can be said of ours. But be it as to this how you will have it, still your Objection remains as strong against their Forms as against ours. For say you our Form is not sufficient validly to confer the Order of Priesthood, because it doth not expressly give the whole Priestly power. But by which of theirs I beseech you is it all expressly given? Not by the first Form, for therein they pretend not to express any more than the Celebrating the Mass; not by the second, for in that they violently contend against us, nothing else can be expressed but the power of Absolving penitents. So than if this be all their Forms express, as they themselves acknowledge, where do they give the power of Administering the Sacrament of Baptism? where the power of Preaching the Word? and if Marriage and extreme Unction be Sacraments (as they will have them) to be Administered by the Priest, where do they give the power of Administering them? no where at all, they being neither expressed in particular, nor comprehended in general in any of the words of the said Forms. And therefore if the not expressing the whole Priestly power in the Forms of Ordination, must null and invalidate the Orders conferred thereby, let any of them answer how their Orders of Priesthood can be good and valid which are Administered by Forms so defective herein. How we come off of this Objection I have already shown, and hope have sufficiently convinced you that it cannot lie against us; but how they can clear themselves of it that make it, I can see only two ways possible.  
1. That they say the whole Priestly power is given by those principal Branches of it expressed in their Forms, with which their Priests being in express word Invested at their Ordinations, they do therewith receive all the rest as inseparably annexed thereto by the Institution of our Saviour; in the same manner as when in taking Livery of Seisin of an Estate, the giving any part thereof invests with the whole Fee. Or else,  
2. That they come over also to the true Interpretation of the second Form, and acknowledge with us that in that alone the whole Priestly power is comprehended in the same manner as I have above explained unto you. If they say the first, this Objection is very impertinently raised against us, since they cannot but acknowledge some branches of the Priestly power are also expressed in our Form according to their own interpretation of it, which may serve for this purpose as well as those expressed in theirs. If they say the second, than they must give the whole Priestly power by the same Form that we do, and therefore whatever is said against our manner of Ordaining Priests from the insufficiency of the Form of that Ordination, if it conduceth any thing to the nulling and invalidating of the Orders conferred among us, it must as much conduce to null and invalidate theirs also.  
And now Sir, I hope I have said sufficient to give you full satisfaction, that our Form of Priestly Ordination can have no such defect therein as you charge it with, or our Orders be liable to the least suspicion of nullity on this account. I have not spared my pains to make this out as clear to you as I can, and all now that I desire of you is impartially to consider what hath been said, and where you find reason, to hearken to it; and if you do so, I doubt not you may find sufficient to convince you in these Papers I send you. But if you are so obstinately set upon this point, that nothing shall have any force with you, which is said on this subject, (as from what I am told of your daily Discourse concerning it, I have abundant reason to fear) but that right or wrong you are resolved to condemn all the Orders of our Church as null and void, I have only this further Request to make unto you, that before you absolutely renounce our Communion on this account to go over to the Church of Rome, you would be pleased well to consider these three particulars.  
First, Whether on your going over to the Church of Rome, you can be sure to find valid Orders there.  
Secondly, Whether on supposition that you can you will any way better yourself by them. And,  
Thirdly, That supposing you do yet whether on other accounts it may not still be best for you to remain where you are.  
And First, Before you go over from us to the Church of Rome, because you think our Orders not valid, I desire you would consider whether you can be sure to find valid Orders there. For if you do not, you will lose the whole reason of your Change, and be at the same loss among them that you at present pretend to be at among us, But how you who are so scrupulous at our Orders can ever be satisfied with theirs, if you act with any Sincerity in this Matter, I cannot see possible. For there are none of those Objections which they raise against our Orders for the nulling of them, but may I assure you be urged with much more strength and reason against theirs. If they urge against us the want of due Succession, the many Schisms, Disturbances, and undue Elections of Popes which they have had afford us many instances to make it out against them with much more reason than they can object it unto us. If they urge the defect of the Forms, I have already shown you how all this Objection retorts upon themselves. If they urge the Breach of Ecclesiastical Canons about Elections and Ordinations, none have more broken them than themselves, of which I have given you some few Instances, and abundance of others might be added unto them. If they urge the want of the Pope's Confirmation at the Consecrating of our Bishops, how many ages of the Church were there in which their own Bishops, excepting only those of the Popes own Metropolitical Jurisdiction, were always Consecrated without it? If they urge Heresy or Schism, have not some of their own Popes, as they themselves acknowledge, been guilty hereof? And if Simony be Heresy, as is generally held in that Church, how few of them can be said to be free from it, since most of them ascend the Papal Throne by buying the Votes of their Electors, and to make themselves amends sell all the Ecclesiastical Benefices they dispose of afterwards, as is too notoriously known to be denied. But waving these particulars that I may not be too long I shall insist only on one thing they hold, which doth not only make it uncertain unto all men whether Orders are validly conferred on any that are Ordained in that Church, but even morally impossible that there should be now any at all among them, that is their Doctrine of the Intention, which is that none of their Sacraments can be validly administered to any when there doth not concur with the Act of administration the intention of him that administers them of doing thereby what the Church doth. And this Doctrine whenever you go over to the Church of Rome you must receive as an infallible truth, and if it be so then must necessarily follow what I say.  
First that it must be always uncertain in that Church whether Orders (which they hold a Sacrament) are validly conferred on any that are there Ordained or no, because how validly soever they may be administered as to matter and form and all other things required, which the Spectators may be certain witnesses of, yet the intention of the ordainer being that of which no man can be certain, it is impossible the wisest and most diligent inquirer can ever be certain whether any Priest under whose conduct he shall put himself be validly Ordained a Priest or no. And therefore when you go over to the Church of Rome for the sake of more valid Orders, than you think we have, after your best inquiry it may be your lot to light always on such Priests from whose hands to receive the benefits of the Priestly Ministration, as for want of the intention of the Ordainer were never truly Ordained Priests at all, and consequently be at no better pass among them, than now you think you are among us. But this is not the worst of that which follows from hence. For,  
Secondly, If the intention of him that administers the Sacraments be always necessary to make the administration good and valid, and consequently that orders (which they hold a Sacrament) cannot be validly conferred on any without the intention of the Ordainer concurring at the act of Ordination, this will make it not only uncertain who are true Priests among them and who not, but also morally speaking render it utterly impossible that they should at present have any at all among them validly ordained to that Office. For the case is plainly thus, They all hold Baptism to be absolutely necessary to the Priesthood, and the Priesthood to be absolutely necessary to the Order of Episcopacy, so that a man cannot be validly Ordained a Priest unless he be first validly Baptised, or validly Ordained a Bishop, unless he be first validly made a Priest, and that neither of these can validly be done unless there be in him that performs that administration a right intention of doing thereby what the Church doth. So then to make a man a true Priest among them there must be, First the right intention of him that Baptised him to make him capable of the Priesthood, and Secondly the right intention of the Bishop that Ordained him validly to confer the Office upon him. And then to empower the Bishop validly to Ordain he must be Baptised with right intention, Ordained Priest with a right intention, and lastly be Ordained Bishop with a right intention; and then again he that Ordained him Priest must be Baptised with a right intention, Ordained Priest with a right intention, and Ordained Bishop with a right intention, and the same must be said of him that Ordained him Bishop, and so up through all the descents that have happened in the transmission of the Priestly power from the time of our Saviour down to us, which through so long a succession of near 1700 years must make all the Acts of right intentions in the administering of Baptism and in the administering of Orders, which according to the Roman Doctrine are necessary to make their Orders at present good and valid, to amount to the number of many hundred thousands, and if of all these any one hath failed from the beginning that one alone breaks the whole chain of succession asunder, and all that comes after is made null and void thereby. And that in so vast a number there should not be such a failure yea and many of them too is that which morally speaking I say is utterly impossible. For how many have been made Priests and Bishops among them who in the administering of the Sacraments have never intended at all to do thereby what the Church doth, but at the same time they have performed the outward, Acts have inwardly in their hearts out of malice, wickedness or infidelity totally disregarded and contemned all that is meant or intended by them. For have not many of them according to their own writers been Atheists, many of them sorcerers and Magicians and many of such profligate lives and conversations as can never be supposed to have intended any thing at all of Religion in any of the Acts of their function which they have performed, but being either by the road of their education or the desire of enriching themselves by Church preferments got into those holy Offices have gone on in the common tract to do as others did for the sake of the gain while at the same time in their minds they scoffed at and derided the whole Ministration. And how many even of their Pope's according to their own Historians have been such, whom they make the fountains from which under Christ all Priestly and Ecclesiastical power is derived, and if any impartial man will read their Lives, I doubt not to say he will certainly conclude the better half of them to be of this sort. And to add one consideration more, how many since the Rigour of the Inquisition hath been set up in Portugal, Spain and Italy, that have been Jews in reality, have for fear of the barbarous Tyranny of that Tribunal so far dissembled their Religion as the better to cloak it from discovery, have taken upon them not only the outward profession of Christianity but the Orders of the Church also, and have become Priests and Bishops therein, as it is well known there have been several Instances of it in those Countries? And can you think that any of them could either in the giving of Orders or Administering of Baptism, ever have any intention of doing thereby what the Church doth? No, they ever are the greatest Enemies of our Religion and all the Institutions of it, and always Curse and abhor them whenever under this Mask they Minister in any of them. And on all these accounts it cannot be possible but that through so long a time as near 1700 years there must be in every chain of succession whereby the Orders of that Church are said to be derived down to the present times many failures of this kind, whereby totally to cut them off from all that follow after. And therefore if this Doctrine of the intention of him that Ministers the Sacraments among them be true, as it is held in that Church infallibly to be, and to which as an infallible Truth you must give up your Faith whenever you list yourself among them, it must from hence follow that it cannot be possible that they can at this time have any Orders at all among them.  
But Secondly, Supposing their Orders be good, yet before you go over to them on this Account, I desire you in the next place to consider whether you can at all better yourself by so doing. For what benefit of their Ministry is it, I beseech you, that you would go over to them for? Is it first for the sake of their Preaching of the Word? But do not they in that Church lock this up in a Language which you cannot understand? forbid Laymen to look into it that they may the better impose on them their Erroneous Doctrines and lead them whether they please? And do they not instead thereof from their Pulpits mostly teach the Traditions of men as their Doctrines of Purgatory, Pilgrimages, Worshipping of Crosses, and the Images and Relics of Saints, Masses for the Dead, overplus of Saints Merit, Pardons, Indulgences and such like, and filling their Sermons mostly with these and old Wives Tales, which they relate concerning their Saints, and the Miracles they Fabulously ascribe unto them to make room for these Fopperies, wave the Divine Truths of the Gospel, and turn Christ and his Apostles quite out of doors? Or is it secondly for the sake of their prayers and public Worship? But how can those prayers do you any good with which you cannot join, they being all in that Church in Latin, a Language which you do not understand? Or how can that Worship render you acceptable unto God, which by reason of the many Superstitions and erroneous practices with which it is performed must itself be totally unacceptable unto him? Or else is it thirdly for the sake of the Sacraments? But 1. As to the Sacrament of Baptism, the Church of Rome allowing it to be validly administered by Laymen, you cannot want that in our Church, and whenever you go over to them, they will allow you your Baptism which you received among us to be good and valid without Baptising you again. And 2. As to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, allowing their Priests to have full power to Consecrate it, yet you can never be sure in that Church that they do. As to the intention of doing what the Church doth, there required, you must ever be at a loss, and you can be no better assured of the outward Act, because the words of Consecration are always whispered in secret, and I have read of one that was burnt among them for Consecrating the Eucharist in the Name of the Devil; and as long as they do it in secret, an opportunity so proper for the deeds of Darkness, you can never be sure but that this or some other thing like it may be done again whenever you come to receive from them. But waving these particulars and supposing the Consecration to be in all things aright performed, as you would have it, yet since they of late have so miserably defaced this Sacrament, as to deny the Cup one of the Essentials of it to the Laity, I cannot see how in that Church you that are a Layman can ever have the holy Eucharist at all administered to you. For in all things the withdrawing of an Essential must necessarily cause a destruction of the whole, and therefore since our Saviour's institution makes both Elements Equally necessary and Essential to this Sacrament the withdrawing the Cup from the Laity makes it no Sacrament at all to them, and consequently none that go over unto them on this account, because they think our Priests have not sufficient Authority to Consecrate the Eucharist (which is your grand Objection) will at all better themselves thereby, but from a doubt of an invalidity with us fall into a certain nullity with them, and be totally deprived of the whole benefit of this Sacrament as long as they continue among them. For I make no difficulty at all to assert, but do here declare it unto you as my Opinion, and let him disprove me that can, that since the Church of Rome hath Sacrilegiously taken away the Cup from the Laity, they have never Administered to them the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all, but the want of this Essential hath certainly as to them made a Nullity in the whole Administration, and totally deprived them of all the benefits of it.  
And here I cannot but admire the Confidence or rather Impudence of those men, who are so forward to deny us our Orders, because at the first Reformation of the Ordinal we altered the Forms of Ordination, which from the beginning were but of Humane Institution, and of very late date too introduced among them (as I have shown) and yet make no scruple at all themselves to alter from the Institution of Christ himself in this Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and with a 
* Concil. Constan. Sess. 13.  Non obstante to his Divine Law cut off one half of that which he hath appointed, and by that appointment made as much Essential to the Sacrament as the other half they have retained. Had the Forms of Ordination been instituted and Commanded by Christ himself, as the Administering of the Cup in this Holy Sacrament was, than I confess to alter them or omit any part of them might infer a Nullity in the whole performance, and the Arguments which our Adversaries bring from hence would be unanswerable against us in this particular. But it being manifest that there is no such Institution for them, all what they urge from our altering of them for the Nulling of our Orders becomes totally insignificant. But how they will be able to Answer the same Arguments when turned against themselves to prove a Nullity in their Administration of the Eucharist without the Cup which Christ certainly instituted and commanded as a part thereof I cannot see possible.  
But Thirdly, Supposing you might certainly receive from them all the benefits of their Ministry which you propose, yet since there are in that Church so many dangerous Errors both in Faith and Practice, all which you must necessarily join with them in, whenever you go over to them, whether on this account it be not still best for you to remain as you are, is that which in the last place I desire you to consider. For can you believe that they can turn a Wafer into God, and eat him too with his Divinity when they have done? Can you believe that they can every day, and in an hundred thousand places at once offer up Christ contrary to the express words of Scripture, to be as proper, true and real a Sacrifice in their Masses, as when he died upon the Cross for us? And that they can make Expiation thereby both for the Living and the Dead? Can you believe that Saints are made Fellow-Mediators with Christ, and that by the overplus of their Merit Satisfaction can be made for sin as well as by the blood of our Redeemer? And can you believe that the Pope hath a Treasure hereof to dispose of by pardons and Indulgences? Or that Heaven can be bought with the money with which these are sold? Can you believe that Church Infallible, which evidently errs in a multitude of things every day? That its Traditions are as true as Scripture? Or that a Priest can forgive Sins? Or that the decisions of a Pope are as Infallible as the Oracles of God himself? Can you Worship a piece of Bread for your God? And adore Relics, Images and Crosses contrary to the express prohibitions of the Word of God? Can you pray unto men departed, of whom you can have no certainty whether in Heaven or in Hell? Can you Worship the Virgin Mary as the Heathens did their Goddesses, and fall down to every Stock or Stone that represents her? For all those things and many more like them must you believe and do whenever you go over unto them.  
Now the Question is whether you are convinced these things are to be believed and done or no, if you are, this conviction makes you totally theirs whither our Orders be good or no, and the dispute which you stick at concerning them is totally needless. But if you are not convinced concerning these points, as I believe you cannot, than the whole question comes to this, whether in case they have Orders, and we none we are for the sake of them only bound to go over to that Church, and join with them in all those Errors of faith and practice which they there hold. And if this be a thing which you stick at, for the solution of it I will only lay before you a plain parallel case under the Jewish Law, By that you know the Sons of Aaron were the only true Priests and none other were to serve at the Altar of the Lord but they only. Now put the Case that when the Ten Tribes revolted with Jeroboam to the worship of the Calves in Dan and Bethel all the whole house of Aaron had revolted with them, must the rest of the people for the sake of their Priesthood have gone over to them also, and forsaken the true worship of their God for ever! No certainly, you will say, but that they must either have constituted other Priests presuming on the divine approbation in this case of necessity, or else if that were not to be done rather remain without Priest or Altar then commit so great an abomination for the sake thereof. And this is plainly the case before us, For Supposing all the whole Christian Priesthood had so joined themselves to the Corruptions of the Romish Sect, that we who retain the true purity of our Religion had neither Bishops, Priests nor Deacons among us, as you would have, must we for the sake of their Priesthood also go over to them, and pollute ourselves with them in all those Errors, Superstitions and Idolatries which they give themselves up unto; No certainly, if this were our case (as I thank God it is not) we must either separate others to the Ministry of our own appointment presuming on the divine approbation in this case of necessity, or else if this be not to be done; since duties enjoined by positive institution, as these of the Ministry are, may in many cases be dispensed with, but that which is Sinful is in no case to be done, rather than do so Sinful and wicked a thing in the presence of God as to join ourselves to that corrupted Church and all the abominations of it, it is much better for us to remain without Priest, Sacrament or public Worship and serve God with our private Devotions only, which hath been the Case of many a good Christian, who, since our Traffic into the East-Indies hath begun, have on many occasions been detained in Countries totally Heathen without Sacrament or public Worship for many years together. And you cannot but say that it would be a very bad Argument in this case to persuade those Christians to put themselves under the Conduct of the Bramins and Talapoins, the Idolatrous Priests of those Countries, because they can there have no Priests of their own, and I assure you that which is now urged upon you to draw you over to the Church of Rome, because they say they have Priests and we none is very little better.  
And now Sir, Having in this Paper thus fully handled the Argument you proposed and answered all the Objections which you made, I leave it with you to work that effect on you which God shall give: And am,  
Your humble Servant, H. Prideaux. January, 27th. 1687/8.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
The Author being an Hundred Miles distance from the Press when the Books was Printed, the Reader is desired to excuse the wrong Pointing which is too frequent, and these following Errors in the words of the Book.  
PAge 2. Line 17. for never defective, read never so defective. p. 3. l. 13. f. the the cavil, r. that cavil, p. 5. l. 4. f. and to the best &c. r. And to the best, with a full point before And, and none after remembrance, p. 5. l. 12. f. resolution r. solution, p. 8. l. 13. f. Form r. former, p. 9 l. 29. f. given thee the Spirit r. given us, p. 16. l. 6. f. several successors r. several successions, p. 16. l. 39 f. adhere to her r. adhered to her, p. 19 l. 8. f. they had power r. they had no power, p. 37. l. 26. blot out thing, p. 39 l. 37. f. never will subsist r. never well subsist, p. 44. l. 21. f. received r. reviewed, p. 47. l. 5. blot out an eminent Jesuit, p. 50. l. 37. f. to be Ordaining r. to be Ordained, p. 74. l. 4. f, forget r. forgo, p. 79. l. 29. f. Meletias' r. Meletius, p. 81. l. 35. f. Odell r. Odett, p. 82. l. 2. f. Presbyters r. Presbyter, p. 82. l. 13. f. nulla tenentes r. Nullatenenses, p. 85. l. 38. f. matter r. matters, p. 92. l. 15. f. Aptungitum r. Aptungiss, p. 105. l. ult. blot out and a Jesuit, p. 111. l. 7. f. Vicar r. Vicars.   

Some Books lately Printed for Brab. Alymer.  
A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy; to which is added, A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church. By Dr. Isaac Barrow.  
A Discourse against Transubstantiation By Dr. Tillotson.  
A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host, as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome.  
A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind: In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meauxes.  
A Discourse of the Sacrifice of the Mass, in 4o.  
A Discourse against Purgatory.  
An Answer to a Book Entitled, Reason and Authority: Or, the Motives of a late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholic Church. In a Letter to a Friend. Together with a Brief Account of Austin the Monk, and Conversion of the English, in 4o.  
The Judgement of private Discretion in Matters of Religion Defended; in a Sermon on 1 Thes. v. 21. Preached at St. Paul's Covent-Garden, Feb. 26. 1686. By Richard Kidder.  
A Request to Roman Catholics to Answer the Queries upon these their following Tenets: 1. Their Divine Service in an unknown Tongue. 2. Their taking away the Cup from the People. 3. Their withholding the Scriptures from the Laics. 4. The Adoration of Images. 5. The Invocation of Saints and Angels. 6. The Doctrine of Merit. 7. Purgatory. 8. Their Seven Sacraments. 9 Their Priest's Intention in Baptism. 10. The Limbo of Vnbaptized Infants. 11. Transubstantiation. 12. The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. 13. Private Masses. 14. The Sacrament of Penance, etc.  
A Defence of the Ordinations and Ministry of the Church of England. In Answer to the Scandals raised or revived against them in several late Pamphlets, and particularly in one, Entitled, The Church of England truly Represented, etc. In 4o. price 9 d.