THis Objection looks somewhat plausibly at first, and had it any thing of real Weight in it, would be much more pertinent than the so often alledg'd and baffled Romance of the Nags-head Ordina­tion; but if duly considered, has nothing of Solidity in it: For

1. It takes for granted what we deny, and what those of the Roman Church upon their own Principles can never prove, viz. That Orders are a Sacrament: Three things, says Merbesius, a late and well approv'd Writer of that Communion, ought to concur to the Being of a true Sacra­ment; Tria ad veri Sacramenti essentiam con­currere debent, 1. Nempe Promissio Gratiae ex eo derivandae. 2. Signum a­liquod sensibile cum praescriptâ verbo­rum formâ, quod veluti Medium seu Organum ad applicandum Promissionem adhibeatur. 3. Denique Divinum Man­datum, quo Christus hujusmodi Sacra­mentum, fidelibus vel omnibus vel ali­quibus administrari jusserit. Ben. Mer­hes. Sum. Christ. p. 3. q. 4. First, a Promise of Grace to be deriv'd from it: Secondly, some sensible Sign, with a prescrib'd form of Words, which should be made use of as a Mean or Instrument whereby to apply the Promise; and Thirdly, some Divine Command, by which Christ has enjoyn'd the administrati­on of such a Sacrament, either to the whole Body, or some particular member of the Faithful. Now it will be ex­tream difficult to discover all these Circumstances in that which they call the Sacrament of Orders: For should we grant, that by them Grace is deriv'd to the Person Ordain'd, or should we own a Command of Christ for the Collation of Orders, yet where's that set Form of words appointed by Christ himself for the Administration of this Sacrament. In Baptism we have the words of Institution indeed, and those retain'd throughout the Universal Church, without any considerable Variati­on; [Page 3] In the Eucharist we have the same general Agree­ment: But here we have a vast unaccountable diffe­rence between the Greeks and those of the Roman Church, and again between the Ancient and Modern Church of Rome: Where yet we may reasonably sup­pose, they could not have differ'd so much, had our Saviour left any particular form of words for that Solemnity: If there were no form of words pre­scrib'd, then, according to the Rule before-cited, Or­ders can be no Sacrament, and the Church of England is as much at liberty to depart from the present Exam­ple of the Roman Church, as that was to quit its own Ancient Rituals, or to vary from the Eastern, or any other Christian Churches.

Besides, That Indelible Character, which is said to be given in Orders, is a principal proof of their being a Sacrament; but it would be a very hard task to re­concile that Decree of Gregory the Seventh Bishop of Rome of that name, with this notion of an Indelible Character. We following the steps of the holy Fathers, Ordinationes iliorum qui ab Excom­municatis sunt ordinati, Sanctorum Pa­trum sequentes vestigia, irritas fieri cen­semus. Conc. Rom. 4. A. 1078. Lab. & Coss. T. 10. p. 370. declare the Or­ders of those who are ordain'd by Excommunicate Persons to be void and of no effect. For if the Cha­racter of Orders be indelible, Excommunication can­not obliterate it, nor make Orders conferr'd by the Excommunicate invalid. Nor will that fore-menti­on'd Character agree very well with that Rule of Pope Coelestine the First, given to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne; Let no meer Lay-man, no Man that has been twice Married, Nullus ex Laicis, nullus Bigamus, nul­lus qui sit viduae maritus aut fuerit, ordi­netur; & siquae factae sint ordinationes illicitae, removeantur, quonium stare non possunt. Concil. gen. T. 2. p. 1621. none who is or has been the Husband of a Widdow be put into holy Orders; or if any such unlaw­ful Ordinations have been made, let [Page 4] them be taken away as such which cannot stand good. Here again it's plain enough, That if the Character be as, suppos'd, Marrying twice, or marrying a Widdow, which can scarcely be proved Sins, cannot possibly expunge it; to which I might add the Answer of Leo the First to the Enquiries of Rusticus Bishop of Nar­bonne, concerning such as only pretended to be Bishops, and those ordain'd by them: Only this I conclude, That if the Judgment of a Bishop of Rome be so August and Sacred as some would perswade us, Orders imprint no Indelible Character upon the Soul, and consequently are no Sacrament. Signa, quum ad res divinas pertinent, Sa­cramenta ap­pellantur. Aug. Ep. 138. ad Marcellinum 2. Edit. Par. 1679. For should the Assertors of this Sacra­ment fly to that trite Saying of St. Augustine, That Signs, when they are apply'd to Sacred Rites, are called Sacraments; that would weaken, not secure their Cause. But if Orders must be a Sacrament in the strictest sense, I desire that passage of Aquinas may be remembred, That since the Matter of Sacraments, in the sensible parts or outward signs of Sacraments are determined, Cúm determinata sit Sacramentorum materia, determinatae scilicet sensibiles res, multó magis determinata esse debet verborum in Sacramentis forma. Aquin. Sum. p. 3. q. 60. a. 7. Si mutatio materiae aut Formae Essenti­alis seu Substantialis sit, nullum efficitur Sacramentum. Suar. p. 3. T. 3. D. 2. s. 4. much more ought the Form of words in Sa­craments to be determin'd: And that of Suarez, If there be any change of the Matter, or of the Es­sential and Substantial Form, there is really no Sacrament. Which Passages, how they'll agree to those things hereafter to be mentioned, may be left to every ordinary Considerer.

2. It cannot be imagin'd reasonable, that those Per­sons who dispute so much among themselves concern­ing the Essence of Orders, should Cavil against our Church, as wanting any thing Essential in them; for common Sense teaches those, who will engage in Con­troversie with others, first to agree among themselves [Page 5] what the Subject of the Controversie shall be. Now it's to be consider'd, That whereas the Ancient Ordi­nals of the Church of Rome, requir'd only Imposition of the hands of Bishops and Presbyters in Ordination; later years have added the Ceremony of exposing the Chalice with Wine, and the Patten with an Host upon is, to the touch of him who is consecrated Priest, with these words, Receive thou Power to offer Sacrifices to God, and to celebrate Masses both for the living and the dead, Accipe Potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, & Missas celebrare tam pro vivis quám pro mortuis, in nomine Domini, Amen. in the name of God, Amen. And this last has almost justled the more ancient Ceremony out of doors; being grown into so great a Reputation, that Aquinas plainly concludes, That since the principal Action of the Priest is to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, Cum Principalis Actus Sacerdotis sit Corpus & Sanguinem Christi consecrare, rectè in ipsâ Calicis datione sub certa verborum Formâ imprimitur Sacerdota­lis character. Aq. Suppl. q. 37. a. 5. the Sacerdotal Character is truly imprinted in the delivery of the Chalice with a particular form of words: Which Conclusion of his he proves by this Argument,Ejusdem est Formam ali­quam indu­cere, & Ma­teriam de pro­ximo praepa­rare ad For­mam; unde E­piscopus in Collatione Ordinum duo facit, Praeparat enim Ordinandos ad Ordinis sus­ceptionem, & Ordinis potestatem tradit; Praeparat quidem in instruendo eos de proprio officio, & aliquid circa eos operando, ut idonei sint ad potestatem accipiendam: quae qui­dem praeparatio in tribus consistit, scilicet Benedictione, manus Impositione & Unctione; per Benedictionem Divinis obsequiis mancipantur, & ideo benedictio omnibus datur; sed per manus Impositionem datur plenitudo gratiae, per quam ad magna officia sunt idonei, & ideo solis Diaconibus & Sacerdotibus fit manus Impositio, quia eis competit Dispensa­tio Sacramentorum, quamvis uni sicut principali, & alteri sicut Ministro; sed Unctione ad aliquod Sacramentum tractandum consecrantur, & ideo Unctio solis Sacerdotibus fit, qui propriis manibus Corpus Christi tangunt; sicut etiam calix inungitur qui continet Sanguinem & Patena quae continet Corpus, sed potestatis collatio fit per hoc, quod da­tur eis aliquid quod ad proprium actum pertinet: Ibid. That it belongs to the same Person to in­duce the Form, and to prepare the Matter immediately for that Form. Whence in conferring Orders the Bishop does two things; for he first prepares those to be ordain'd for the susception of Orders, and in the next place gives the [Page 6] Power belonging to the Order: He prepares them, both by instructing them concerning their proper offices, and by doing somewhat about them, whereby they may be fitted for the Reception of Power; which Preparation consists in three things, viz. In the Benediction, in Imposition of hands, and in Ʋnction: By the Benediction they are obliged to Divine Obedience, and therefore that is given to those of all Orders; by Imposition of hands is given the fulness of Grace, by which they are fitted for great Offices, and therefore only Deacons and Priests have hands impos'd upon them, (He might have added Bishops; but here our Dissenters agree with the Parasites of Rome, that Bishops are neither a distinct Order, nor of Divine Right) because to them belongs the Dispensa­tion of Sacraments, tho to Priests as Principal, to the other but as Ministers; but by Ʋnction they are Conse­crated to handling the Sacrament, and therefore it's gi­ven only to Priests, who touch the Body of Christ with their own hands, and both the Chalice which contains the Blood, and the Patten which holds the Body, are Anoint­ed; but the Collation of their Power and Authority, con­sists in delivering something to them which belongs to their proper work. And whereas it's his second Argu­ment or Objection against this Conclusion, That our Lord gave his Disciples the Sacerdotal Power when he said, Dominus dedit Discipulis Po­testatem Sacer­dotalem quan­do dixit, Ac­cipite Spiri­tum Sanctum, quorum remi­seritis peccata, &c. Joan. 20. Sed Spiritus Sanctus datur per Manûs Impositionem, ergo & in ipsâ Manus Impositione imprimitur Character Ordinis—Respondit, Dominus Discipulis dedit Sacerdotalem potestatem, quantum ad Principalem actum, ante passionem in Coenâ, quando dixit, Accipite & Manducate, unde subjunxit, Hoc facite in meam Com­memorationem, sed post Resurrectionem dedit eis Potestatem Sacerdotalem, quantum ad actum secundarium, qui est ligare & solvere. Ibid. Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose Sins ye remit they are remitted, &c. John 20. and the Holy Ghost is given by laying on of hands, that therefore the Character of Orders is impress'd by that Imposition of hands: He [Page 7] endeavours to answer it, but with absurdity enough, That our Lord gave his Disciples Sacerdotal Power; as to its Principal Act, before his Passion in his Supper, when he said, Take and Eat; and therefore he subjoin'd, Do this in Remembrance of me: But after his Resurrecti­on, he bestow'd upon them Priestly power, only as to its Secondary or inferiour Act, i. e. as to the Power of bind­ing and loosing, which was given, (as alledg'd in the Objection,) by Imposition of hands. In which answer he perverts the sense of our Saviours words, Take and Eat, by restraining them to the Apostles alone, whereas they were intended to all Believers: And he mistakes the Evangelical story; For tho St. John tells us of that Power of binding and loosing, as given af­ter the Resurrection, in the Chapter by him cited, v. 22, 23. Yet he might have found the same Com­mission given to all the Apostles, even before the Insti­tution of that Supper, Matth. 18.18.

But to pass by such ordinary mistakes; The Deter­mination of Pope Eugenius the Fourth, in that fa­mous Council of Florence, is very positive in the case; for enumerating the Sacraments receiv'd by the Roman Church, and giving some account of their Nature, for the Instruction of Armenians, he tells them, That the sixth Sacrament is that of Orders, whose Matter that is, by the touching of which the Order is conferr'd; Sextum Sacramentum est Ordinis, cu­jus Materia est illud per cujus traditio­nem confertur Ordo; sicut Presbytera­tus traditur per Calicis cum vino & pa­tenae cum pane porrectionem; Forma Sacerdotii talis est, accipe potestatem offerendi, &c. Concil. g. T. 13. p. 538. as the Order of Priesthood is given by of­fering the Chalice with Wine, and the Patten with Bread, to be touch'd by the person ordain'd; and the Form of Priesthood is that, Receive thou Power to offer Sacrifice, &c. To which Passage the formerly-cited Merbesius gives a very trifling An­swer, [Page 8] That the Council of Florence (forsooth) did not determine this Conciliariter, or as a Matter of Faith and Dogmatically, but only at the rate of Common dis­course, without telling whether the Patten or Chalice were the Essential, or only the Accidental matter of Orders; which is wholly Impertinent, and no way reconcileable to what follows in the Conclusion of that Decree, viz. These things being thus explicated, the Armenian Orators, in their own name, His omnibus explicatis Armenorum O­ratores nomine suo & sui Patriarchae & omnium Armenorum hoc saluberrimum Synodale Decretum, cum omnibus suis Capitulis, declarationibus, definitioni­bus, traditionibus, praeceptis & statutis, omnem que Doctrinam in ipsâ descri­ptam; nec non quicquid tenet & docet Sancta sedes Apostolica & Romana Ec­clesi, cum omnia devotione & obedi­entiâ acceptant, suscipiunt & amplectun­tur. P. 540. and in the name of their Pa­triarch, and of all the Armenians, do with all Devotion and Obedience, submit to, and embrace this most wholesome Synodical Decree, with all its Canons, Declarations, De­finitions, Traditions, Precepts and Appointments, with all that Doctrine laid down in it; and whatsoever else that holy Apostolick See, and the Ro­man Church maintains and teaches. And to the same purpose, and almost in the same words speaks Car­dinal Pool, Concil. T. 14. p. 1740. our Country-man, in his Decree con­cerning the Reduction of England to the Roman Com­munion. But notwithstanding the Expressiveness of three such very considerable Authorities, others of the same Communion have presum'd to think otherwise, and to fix the Essence of Ordinati­on only in Laying on of hands, without regard to any Form of Words whatsoever; declaring Lay­ing on of hands and Prayer to be the only An­tient and Catholick Ceremonies, in the conferring of Holy Orders: So Durandus, giving an account of what constitutes a Priest, assures us, That, according to Canonical Tradition, when a Priest is [Page 9] ordain'd, the Bishop giving him his Blessing, Secundúm Canonicam traditionem, Presbyter cum Ordinatur, Episcopo cum benedicente & manum benedictori­am supra caput ejus tenente, & omnes Presbyteri qui adsunt, manus suas juxta manus Episcopi teneant, supra Caput illius Spiritum Sanctum invocantes, quae Manus impositio operum Sancti Spiritus exercitationem significat. Du­rand. Rational. l. 2. c. 10. and holding that hand with which he gave the Blessing up­on his head; all those Priests who are present, lay their hands upon his head too, by the hands of the Bishop, invoking the influences of the Holy Ghost upon him; which Imposition of hands signifies the power of exerci­sing the gifts of the Holy Ghost. In which words, since he agrees so exactly with, as to transcribe the third Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, I need not re­peat that again: It's true, he mentions afterwards the Ceremony of touching the Chalice and Patten, but of that only as additional or accidental, not Essen­tial. And Casalius in his Book concerning Ancient Christian Rites, tho he plainly determine Orders to be one of the seven Sacraments of the new Law, yet never mentions the touching the Vessels, but only Imposition of hands; which,Ordo est Signaculum quoddam Eccle­siae, quo Spiritualis potestas traditur Ordinato—Impositio autem manuum confert gratiam & cum effectu consistit. Casal. de vet. Christ. Rit. c. 26. as he proves from Scripture, con­fers Grace, and has its due effects; and yet he gives us Aquinas his Definition of that pretended Sacra­ment. The first Council held at Cologne in the year 1536. asserts the same Doctrine, That the Episcopal Office consists chiefly in two things, the first of which is the laying on of hands, Episcopi munus in ducibus po [...]ssimum consistit, 1. In Imposi [...]i [...]ne manuum quae est Ordinum Ecclesiasti corum col­latio, & Institutio Ministrorum—Postea vero—Impositio manuum est Ost [...]um per quod Intrant, qui Ecclesiarum gu­bernaculis admoventur. Conc. T. 14. p. [...]. 3. which is the Collation of Ec­clesiastical Orders, and the Insti­tution of Ministers. And after­wards, Imposition of hands is that Door by which those are admitted, who are rais'd to the Government of the Church. So the [Page 10] Council at Mentz, Anno 1549. Let the Parish Priests teach their People, In collatione Ordinum quae cum Impo­sitione manuum velut visibili signo tra­ditur, doceant Parochi, ritè ordinatis gratiam divinitùs conferri, quâ ad Ec­clesiastica munera, ritè & utiliter ex­ercenda, apti & idonei efficiantur, & quà rata sint & efficacia, quae à ritè ordinatis in Ecclesiâ, juxta Christi & Ecclesiae Institutionem geruntur. Hanc vero gratiam esse Ordinis & Muneris, non Hominum aut personarum, nec ad cujusquam privatam, sed ad Com­munem totius Ecclesiae utilitatem acco­modari. Ideoque in ritè ordinatis, sive boni sive mali sint, efficacem esse, atque ita inter dispares Ministros Domini no­stri dona semper aequalia semper bona & sacra permanere. Concil. T. 14. p. 679. That in the Collation of Or­ders, which are given by the Impo­sition of hands, as the visible sign, That Grace is conferr'd by Heaven upon those who are regularly ordain'd, by which they are made apt and fit to exercise Offices in the Church du­ly and profitably, and by virtue of which those Church Matters, which are managed by Men ordain'd accord­ing to the Institution of Christ and his Church, are rarified and made efficacious: That this Grace belongs not to the Person, but to the Office, and is accommodated, not to any Mans private, but to the publique benefit of the Church, and therefore is effectual in those rightly or­dain'd, be they good or bad; and therefore the gifts of our Lord, tho given to Ministers very differently quali­fied, are still the same, always good and always holy. Which Doctrine perhaps even in some other particu­lars, is not very agreeable to those opinions espous'd by divers of the Roman Communion. I need not add here the Sentiments of Habertus and Goar, the learn­ed Editors of the Greek Pontifical and Euchology, in­tending to take notice of them afterwards: But I cannot well pass by the Judgment of Bonus Merbesius in the Case, who tho he take a great deal of pains to appear Neuter in it, yet apparently enough inclines to this, That the Essence of Orders consists in this Im­position of hands, for which he refers us to several Texts of Scripture, several determinations of Councils and sayings of the Greek Fathers; but there's nothing [Page 11] more remarkable than what he alledges out of that learned Jesuite Maldonate, who plainly, and without any hesitancy determines, That in conferring Orders, Imposition of hands is not to be look'd on as an unnecessary Ceremony, Impositio manuum non est habenda tan­quam Caeremonia non necessaria, sed tanquam pars essentialis Sacramenti, idque tenendum videtur fide Catholica. 1. Quia in Scripturâ ubicunque fit mentio de ordinatione, declaratur per manuum Impositionem, & videtur mi­hi esse temerarium Scripturam deserere & consectari Chimaeias, i. e. rationes naturales. 2. Quia veterem Ecclesiam nunquam ordinasse sine Impositione manuum, ex omnibus Authoribus antiquis perspi­cuum est, de Traditione autem Calicis, & Hostiae nulla est apud eos mentio. 3. Quia videtur nimis durum esse, Caeremoniam, quam nobis perspicuè tradent Apostoli, excludere à naturâ Sa­cramenti, & inducere illam de quâ nul­la mentio fit in Scripturâ. 4. Quia hoc est labefacere totum Sa­cramentum & victoriam concedere Hae­reticis; nam si Impositio manuum non est essentialis Caeremonia; per quam hoc Sacramentum exhiberi debeat, non po­test probari ex Scripturis Ordinem esse Sacramentum. Merb. Sum. Christ. de Sa­cram. Ord. Disp. 6. but as an Essential part of that Sacra­ment, and that to him this seems a necessary point of the Catholick Faith; for which he gives these Reasons,

1. Because whereever Scripture mentions Ordination, it expresses it by Laying on of Hands, and it seem'd to him a Rash thing to Desert Scripture, and pursue Chimera's, i. e. meer Natural Reasons.

2. Because it's evident by all Ancient Writers, that the Primi­tive Church Ordained none but by Imposition of Hands; but there is no mention at all made by any of them of touching the Chalice and Patten.

3. Because it seems very absurd, to exclude that Ceremony which was unquestionably deliver'd down to us by the Apostles from the Essence of the Sacrament, and to introduce another never so much as mention'd in Scripture.

4. Because this were to ruine the whole Sacrament, and to give up the Victory to Hereticks; for if Imposi­tion of Hands be not the Essential Ceremony whereby this Sacrament is to be exhibited, Orders can never be prov'd a Sacrament by Scripture: For whereas he seems to take it for granted, That the matter of every Sacra­ment ought to be determin'd in Scripture; He urges it [Page 12] well enough, That the Chalice and Patten not being ta­ken notice of there, that Ordinance, to which such unscrip­tural Circumstances are Essential, can be no Sacrament.

And this Merbesius takes to be more Ancient and Catholick, though he acknowledges the other at pre­sent to be the more Common and Prevailing Opinion. Habertus makes Dominicus a Soto, a Spaniard, Con­fessor to Charles the 5th. and present at the Council of Trent, to be the first Inventer of it, but without Rea­son, since, as I have proved before, both Aquinas and the Florentine Council espous'd the same Absurdity long before: Against it Merbesius urges this Argument, If the Sacerdotal Grace be given by Imposition of Hands, Si per manuum Impositionem, datur gratia Sacerdotalis, illa ipsa Manuum Impositio Presbyteratus essentiam pro­culdubio constituit; Atqui per manuum Impositionem datur; Ergo. then certain­ly that Imposition of Hands must constitute the Essence of the Sacerdo­tal Order; but the first is true, therefore the last. This he proves from that of the Apostle to Timothy, Ep. 2. c. 1. v. 6. and from the discourses of Moring to that purpose; from the gene­ral silence of all Ancient Ritualists, and from the particular silence of some of latter date, who indeed mention that Adjectitious Ceremony, but yet only as Accidental, and not Essential to Ordination: Nay, he draws in the Council of Trent it self as an Abet­tour of his Opinion, by that passage concerning Ex­treme Ʋnction, where they tell us, That Bishops or Priests Regularly Ordain'd by them, with the Imposition of the Hands of the Presbytery, Legitimi istius Sacramenti Ministri sunt, aut Episcopi, aut Sacerdotes ab ipsis rite ordinati per Impositionem Ma­nuum Presbyterii. Sess. 14. c. 3. are the only lawful Ministers of that Sacrament. Thus we see the Division of those of the Roman Church among themselves concerning this Matter; by which, according to their own Writers, [Page 13] they reduce themselves to this Dilemma, Either to de­termine the touch of the Vessels to be the Essence of Or­ders, and consequently Orders no Sacrament, or else to allow it's Essence to be Imposition of Hands; which Im­position of Hands the Church of England, according to the Custom of the Ancient Ʋniversal Church, has ever us'd since the Reformation, though not believing Holy Orders so conferr'd to be a Sacrament.

I might here take notice of that Conceipt of some of their Parasitical Canonists, That the Bishop of Rome has that Plerophory of Power in himself, that his bare word can make a compleat Priest or Bishop without any Ceremony at all; which is fairly expos'd by the learned Arch-Bishop of Spalato, as which,Spalat. de Re­publ. Eccles. l. 2. c. 4. s. 19. among other things sufficiently proves Orders no Sacrament, unless we can have a Sacrament without either Matter or Form. To proceed then,

3. Seeing our Ordination is thus far Regular, we are to consider, Whether those words made use of in our eldest Reform'd Rituals are not significant enough; Or, Whether that Form of conferring Orders, was not sufficient to impart Sacerdotal Power to the Per­sons Ordain'd: Now, that it may not be left unde­termin'd by the Ordainers, what particular Offices any Persons are Ordain'd to, the Arch-Deacon, as in the case of Deacons, so in that of Priests, speaks thus openly to the Bishop, Reverend Father in God, I pre­sent to You these Persons to be admitted to the Order of Priesthood; After several Intercurrent Questions, the Bishop declares to the People, Good People, these be they whom we purpose, God willing, to receive this day to the Holy Office of Priesthood, &c. After which words, methinks there needs no plainer a designati­on to any Ecclesiastical Employ; Publick notice is given likewise in the Ordination of a Bishop, that all [Page 14] there present may know what Character he is to bear. After these things and some particular Questions pro­pos'd to the Parties, and some Prayers put up to God; For a Priest, the Bishop with the Priests then pre­sent, lay their hands upon every particular Mans Head, The Bishop using these words, Receive thou the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained, & be thou a Faithful Dispencer 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. As for a Bishop, the words whereby Matthew Parker in particular was ordain'd,Vide Regi­strum Cantuar ad calcem ope­rum Bramhal­li Ep. Armach. ex Autogra­pho publica­tum. were these; 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 us the Spirit of Fear, but of Power, and Love, and Soberness. If now an Imitation of the Apostles be valid, nothing can come nearer, to what Scripture tell us of them, than those words in the Consecration of a Bishop: Nor any thing more agreeable to the Pattern of our Lord, in the Commission he gave his Disciples, than those us'd in the Consecration of a Priest. And where so publick an Advertisement is given to the Congrega­tion, of what Office those Consecrated are appointed to, tho words to the same purpose may be repeated again, as in our later Books of Ordination, tho they may serve to illustrate the matter in hand more fully, yet there can be no such necessity of them, as that the want of them should invalidate the whole Ordi­nance: And as we have no Account in Antiquity, of any particular form of words appointed by our Saviour for the conferring of Orders; so we are assur'd that according to the most Antient Methods and Ordinals of the Church of Rome it self, it's not the Words but the Imposition of hands that's essential to Ordination.

[Page 15]Besides, If the Church of Rome, in the Collation of Orders according to their latest Pontificals, do no more than we do, it must seem very unreasonable to condemn us as Defective. What they do then in the Ordination of Priests, which I shall only Instance in at present is this, The Arch-deacon presents those to be Ordain'd to the Bishop with these words, Most Reve­rend Father, our Holy Mother the Catholick Church, re­quires that You ordain these Deacons, here present, to the Burthen of Priesthood, Archdiaconus praesentat Ordinandos Pontifici, dicens—Reverendissime Pater, postulat sancta mater Ecclesia Catholi­ca, ut hos praesentes Diaconos ad onus Presbyterii ordinetis—Quorum meritis Archdiacono testimonium exhibento, Pontifex annunciat Clero & populo dicens—Quoniam fratres Charissimi, &c.—& postea—Horum siquidem Di­aconorum in Presbyteros ordinandorum auxiliante Domino, &c. Post haec surgunt omnes, & ordinan­dis coram Pontifice binis & binis succes­sive genu flectionibus, Pontifex stans ante Faldistorium suum cum Mitra & nullâ oratione, nulloque cantu premissis, imponit simul utramque manum super caput cujuslibet ordinandi successivè, ni­hil dicens, idemque faciunt post eum omnes Sacerdotes qui adsunt. Quo facto tam Pontifex quàm Sacer­dotes tenent manus dexteras extensas super illos, & Pontifex stans dicit, Oremus fratres Charissimi, &c.— & postea precatur Exaudi nos quaesumus Domine Deus noster, &c.— Ut super hos famulos suos quos ad Presbyterii manus elegit coelestia dona multiplicet, &c. Tum Pontifex claudit & inungit manus cuilibet successive, quas sic consecratas aliquis Ministrorum Pontificis albo panniculo lineo simul, viz. dextram super sinistram alligat. Omnium manibus unctis & consecratis Pontifex, tradit cuilibet successive calicem cum vino & aquá & Patenam superpositam cum Hostiá & ipsi illam accipiunt inter indices & medios Digitos & Cappam Calicis & patenam simul tangunt, Pontifice singulis dicen­te, Accipe Potestatem, &c. Quo finito Pontifex cum Mitrâ sedens super Faldistorium ante medium altaris, impo­nit ambas manus super capita singulorum coram eo genu flectentium, dicens cuilibet, Ac­cipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remiseris peccata remittuntur & quorum retinueris re­tenta sunt. Pontif. Rom. in Ordin. Presb. after the Arch-deacons attestation to their Merits, the Bishop at large declares to the People his design to promote those Deacons so presented, to the Office of Priesthood, requiring their testimony to their Conversation, &c. Then having given an Exhortation to the Persons to be Ordain'd, when it's done, all stand up, and those de­sign'd for Ordination kneel down suc­cessively by two and two, before the Bishop. The Bishop standing before his Faldstool with his Mitre on, without any Prayer or Anthem pre­mised, puts, both his hands succes­sively [Page 16] upon the head of every one, not speaking a word: After him all the Priests who are present do the same; which being done, the Bishop and Priests together lay hands on them; and the Bishop standing, exhorts the people to pray to God to send his manifold gifts upon those whom he has now call'd to the Priestly Office, (which very expression intimates the Sacerdotal Character already imprinted) and the Prayer to that purpose follows. After several other Ceremonies and Prayers, the Bishop having anointed their hands, and one of his Attendants having ty'd them together with a Linnen Fillet, he reaches out to them the Chalice with some Wine and Wa­ter in it, and the Patten with an Hoast upon it, which they take between their fore and middle fingers, touching the Bolle of the Chalice and Patten at the same time, when the Bishop uses those words, Receive thou power, &c. And here Mass being celebrated, the Ordain'd Communicate, but only in one kind, and standing before the Altar, make a Confession of their Faith in the words of the Apostles Creed; which when they have done, the Bishop sitting upon his Faldstool, with his Mitre on, be­fore the middle of the Altar, and they kneeling down before him, he puts his hands upon every one of their heads, saying to every one distinctly, Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins, &c. These are the most considerable Cir­cumstances in ordaining a Priest of the Church of Rome, in all which if Imposition of Hands only Im­press the Sacerdotal Character, and the touching of the Vessels be only Novel and Adventitious, then it plainly follows, That the Bishops of that Church in giving Holy Orders, do no more declare what parti­cular Office that Imposition of hands relates to, than the Church of England in her eldest Rituals since the Reformation.

[Page 17]But if we examine things farther, we shall find them much more defective; for whereas by the Roman Rubrick, the Bishop lays hands on the Or­dain'd three several times, and the first time uses no words at all; it's the conclusion of the formerly-cited Merbesius (and he pretends to good company in it) that That first Imposition of Hands that's in silence, con­fers the Priestly Character; which he proves by 1 Tim. 4.14. Stir up the Gift which is in thee, and which was given thee by Prophesie, and by the Laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; where the Apostle resolves Orders into that particular Action. Then telling us how general his Opinion is, he concludes, Therefore it's the first Imposition of Hands, by which they are made Priests; Ista igitur prima Manuum Impositio, ea est per quam Sacerdotes efficiuntur, cum neque per secundam Manuum Imposi­tionem fiant Presbyteri ut vidimus, nec per tertiam cum illa in fine ordinationis factitari solet. Merb. de Sacr. Ord. D. 6. g. 52. since it's certain, they are neither made so by the second laying on of Hands (the Exhortation annex'd to which, as I observ'd before, supposes the Priestly power already given) nor yet by the third, which is only us'd in the Conclusion of Ordination. From all which it seems very probable, That let our Ordi­nation be never so Imperfect, since we really use some Words at the instant of Imposition of hands, and those very pertinent and authentick, that Ordi­nance is at least more compleat in our Church than in theirs, who lay on hands indeed, but declare nothing at all, either of their Reason for it, or their Meaning in it.

4. The greatest Bigots of the Roman Communion never charge the Greeks (tho they account them Schismaticks for the most part) with want of a law­ful Priesthood; yet their Rituals are certainly, by Ro­man rules, as defective as ours can be imagin'd. In [Page 18] that Church, He who was a Deacon before, and now to be ordained Priest, being brought ac­cording to prescription before the Bishop or Patriarch, [...], &c. Pontific. Gr. de Consecr. Presbyt. the Patriarch makes the sign of the Cross three times upon his Head, when he fix­ing his eyes upon the Holy Table, and kneeling on both knees on the step, the Chancellor calls aloud, Silence. Then the Patriarch holding his right hand upon his Head, speaks aloud, so that all may hear, The Divine Grace which always makes sound those things that are weak, and compleats what's imperfect, promotes N. N. the most reverend Deacon to be a Priest: Let us therefore pray for him, that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit may descend upon him. Then again sign­ing him three times, and laying his hand upon his head; when the Dea­con has said, Let us pray, the Pa­triarch repeats that Prayer softly, O God who art without beginning and without end &c. After this follow the general Intercessions, which when they are ended, or while they are repeating, the Patri­arch laying his hand again upon his head as before, Prays to God to fill him with the gifts of his Holy Spirit, that He may be capable of doing all things belonging to his Function. I need not insist upon other Ceremo­nies, the Person ordain'd having receiv'd his Cha­racter before: Where it's observable, that as the Greek Church assigns the Office no otherwise but as the Church of England does, viz. by giving notice to the [Page 19] People, what Order the Person is Consecrated to; so the Greek Church differs much from that of R [...]me, in the form of the Words used, which argues their opinion of the no necessity of such a set Form, and consequently that Orders are no Sacrament, as that word Sacrament is understood in the strictest Sense by Ecclesiastical Writers: Yet Habertus is so far from supposing any deficiency in the Greek Church, that in Effect He charges the Church of Rome with Innovation; for he tells us,Traditionis potius quam Scriptorum Authoritate constat. Pont. Gr. obs. Hab. 1. That the words us'd upon touching the Vessels, are rather built upon Oral Tradition, than upon the Authority of any good Writers. He refers us to several Testimonies of the Greek Fathers, of greatest Reputation, given to this Form, Originally us'd in their Church. He observes, that the Church of Rome objected nothing to the Greek Rituals in the Florentine Council: He shews, that Ordination and Laying on of hands, when apply'd to Men, set apart for the Ser­vice of the Church, are the same thing: That there­fore in their Ecclesiastical Writers, [...], and [...], all signifying Laying on of hands, are all indifferently us'd for Ordination. He alledges that of the Writer De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, That the Imposition of the Bishops hands, [...]. c. 5. gives both the Character and Authority of a Priest; and gives us withal such an Instance of the In­dulgence of the Roman See to those of the Greek Communion in Italy, as must either prove their full satisfaction with the Grecian Priesthood, or else that the Roman Bishops have very little care of their good. It's the Decree of Ʋrban the Eighth, Let the Protector of the Greek Nation provide, that some Eastern Bishop, consecrated after [Page 20] the Greek manner, reside at Rome to perform Divine Offices, Caret Protector, ut Graecus aliquis ex Oriente ritu Graeco consecratus Epis­copus Romae sit, ad Divina Officia at­que Ordinationes ritu Graeco peragen­das, qui quae ad Caeremonias & ritus Orientalis Ecclesiae faciunt, docere alumnos possit, & ipse per omnia fer­vet; Jurent queque Italo Graeci sta­tum Ecclesiasticum ac sacros Ordines usque ad Presbyteratum ritu Graeco suscepturos, quandoque & ubi Supe­rioribus visum fuerit. Ibid. and to Or­dain according to the Graecian Rites, who may be able to teach Novices those things which belong to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Eastern Church, and may observe them ex­actly himself; and let the Greeks living in Italy, give Oath to take the Ecclesiastical Life, and Holy as Orders upon them, according to the manner of the Greeks, as far as the Order of Priesthood, when and where their Superiours shall think fit: Which is not only a fair attestation to the validi­ty of the Grecian Orders, but seems to imply the Greeks dissatisfaction with the Roman Hierarchy, and a strange kind of Condescension in the Universal Bishop, to recede from his own Rights, and to give leave to a suppos'd Schismatical Clergy, to increase and thrive within his Jurisdiction. And Romanists have sufficient reason to acquiesce in this Liberty of theirs, if what Father Goar, in his Notes upon the Euchology informs us be true, That Imposition of Hands is not only an Adjunct of Holy Or­ders, Neque enim Comes est solùm & ad­ventitia, non Integrans tantum & ex decentia requisita, sed intrinseca omni­no necessaria & essentialis Materia; quâ adhibitâ sicut olim Apostoli, prout in eorum Actis & Scriptis legimus Dia­conos Presbyteros & Episcopos creâ­runt, abs (que) illâ pariter nullum in subli­miores Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae gra­dus successores Episcopi possunt evehe­re. Goar. in Euch. p. 256. or meerly adventitious, not only an Integral part, or a thing requir'd for Decencies sake; but that it's wholly the Intrinsical necessary and Essential Matter of them; by which as the Apostles of old created Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops, as appears by their Writings, and the History of their Acts; so without that, the Bishops who succeed them, can raise no Man to Superior Orders [Page 21] in the Sacred Hierarchy. And as he tells us after­wards, If we examine the Euchology never so strictly, we shall find no other matter of Or­ders so much as once mention'd, Cum in Universâ Ecclesiâ unam Sa­cramentorum administrandorum ra­tionem essentialem (materiam nimirum & formam) statuere necesse est, nec in Graeca illius portione, alia quam ma­nus Impositio queat assignari; Indubie sequitur, in Latinâ eandem quoque es­sentialem esse reputandam. ibid. but Imposition of Hands; and his Infe­rence from all is very remarkable, and much against the now prevail­ing Tenet of the Roman Church, That since it's necessary there should be some one Essential Rule or Method of dispensing Ho­ly Orders in the Ʋniversal Church, and that there can be no other Matter of Orders assign'd in the Eastern parts of that Church, but only Imposition of Hands; it must follow without Dispute, that even in the Latine Church, the same exclusive of all other Ceremonies, is Essential to them: And to this Opinion of his, me­thinks that of St. Chrysostome agrees very well, who tells us in plain terms, This is Ordination, The Hand is laid upon the Man, but God Ope­rates the whole, [...]. Chrys. in Act. Ap. Hom: 14. and it's Gods Hand which touches the Head of the Per­son Ordained, if he be Ordained Re­gularly. If then all this be true, if we have indeed the concurrence of so large a part of the Catholick Church as the Greek is, and that the Form of words us'd by them, is no more Demonstrative of the Order to be conferr'd, than ours in the Church of England was at the beginning of the Reformation; we can be no more deny'd, to have a Regular Succession of Church Officers than they. And we may suppose, such Considerations mov'd St. Clara, P. Walsh, and others of the Roman Communion, to al­low our Orders as full and valid to all intents and purposes: But that we want a Power to offer other Sa­crifices, [Page 22] than those of Praise and Thanksgiving, is a Want no more intolerable in our Priests or Presbyters, than it was in the Apostles themselves. And I have not yet heard of any Catholick Tradition, that either our Saviour us'd those words, Receive thou Power to offer Sacrifices, &c. to any Apostle; or that the Apo­stles us'd it to any of those whom they afterwards Commission'd to Preach the Gospel.

5. Our Orders then being valid, as to to their Essen­tials, notwithstanding that great Pretended defect; it will follow, that all that Charge laid upon our Church of Heresy and Schism, can no way render them imper­fect or ineffectual: And if the Roman Doctrine of the Indelible Character be true, those who assert that must for their own sake defend our Church, especi­ally since it's apprehended by some, as we observ'd be­fore, that a denial of the Indelible Character would irrecoverably ruine the Sacrament. And such indeed was the Doctrine of the Ancient Church, in which the Hereticks and Schismaticks are with all Severity prohi­bited to ordain any, or to Administer Sacraments; yet if they would still without fear of Ecclesiastical Censure presume to do such things, their Actions were good, and in full force; Antiquity so concurring with that Common Law Maxime, Quod fieri non debet factum valet; That which of it self, or so and so circumstatiated, ought not to be done; yet when it is once done, stands good and irreversible. I wonder not indeed that Baptism, tho given by Hereticks, should be approv'd in the Church of Rome, since they allow Lay-men, Women, Persons unbaptiz'd, nay, Jews or Turks to baptize in cases of necessity: But in so doing, they seem much to forget a standing Rule of their own, That none can give that to another, which he never had himself: For, as I remem­ber, [Page 23] they tell us, That Baptism is one of those Sacra­ments which imprint an indelible Character. Yet such is the Doctrine of their great Aquinas. They deny indeed, that any can give Holy Orders, except Bishops; but He who is once made a Bishop, must continue so to his lifes end; nor can the Irregularity of his Con­versation, nor any Schism created by him in the Church, nor any Heresy invested or propagated by him, take away that Episcopal Power personally invest­ed in him, howsoever the Exercise of that Power, may be restrain'd by Civil or Ecclesiastical Constitutions; and consequently those capable of Orders, who are con­secrated by such Bishops, are really Deacons, Priests, or Bishops, according to the particular Character im­press'd on them: So we may find Arrian Bishops Or­daining others of equally Heretical Sentiments with themselves; which Persons so Ordain'd, if at any time they abjur'd their Heretical Pravity, were re­ceiv'd into the Orthodox Church, and admitted to ex­ercise the same Offices, they were formerly assign'd to, without Re-ordination: To this purpose we read in the Answers to the Orthodox, publish'd among the works of Justin Martyr, That the Crime of an Heretick re­turning to the true Faith, if it had been only some false Opinion, [...]. Resp. ad Orthod. 14. was to be rectified by a change of Judgment, if it were an Error in Baptism, by Confirmation, if in Orders, by lay­ing on of Hands; which laying on of Hands was no Reordination, but only a particular Ceremony, where­by the laps'd in time of Persecution, as well as those who had fallen into Heresie, Laymen as well as Clergy Men, were readmitted into Catholick Communion: So [Page 24] Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, tells us, That it was an Ancient Custom, [...]. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 2. that such should be receiv'd into the Church by Prayer, with laying on of hands; and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, deter­mining concerning the Schisma­tical Dotanists, orders, That seeing it was not lawful to iterate that, which was to be given but once, [...]. Conc. gen. T. 2. p. 1083. if they heartily renounced that Error, they may be receiv'd into that one Church, the Mother of all Christians, by laying on of hands: And the same care is taken in the Eighth Canon of the first Council of Nice, which is plain it self, and so interpreted by Balsamon, Zonaras and Aristenus, and farther illustra­ted by our Learned Beverege. The same is attested on the part of the Latin Church,August. cont. Epist. Par. l. 2. c. 13. Anastasii 2. E­pistola ad Anast. Imp. de Acacio & Acacianis. Conc. gen. T. 4. c. 7. 8. by St. Austin, in his answer to the Epistle of Parmenian the Donatist, and by Anastasius, the Second of that Name, Bishop of Rome, in an Epistle to Anastasius, Emperour of Constantinople. The care taken was only this; That the persons should be qualified according to the Canons of the Church, in that case provided, and that the Persons ordaining should be really Bishops; which things being secured, the Ordain'd upon Readmission to Catholick Communion, retain'd their Offices and Powers still.

To conclude this then, If Orders be no Sacrament in a strict sense; if the Essence of them consist only in Imposition of the hands of Bishops; if the Greek and Antient Latin Church, and the most learned persons of the Latin Communion, now agree in that Doctrine; if the Church of England in her first reform'd Rituals, gave as clear an Assignation to his particular Office [Page 25] to the Person ordain'd, as either the Greek or Roman Church do at present; and finally, if real Heresy or Schism, cannot annihilate Episcopal Sacerdotal power: The consequence of all must be, That our Orders are still good and valid, and the Establish'd Church of England, so far at least a true and sound Member of the Catholick Church of Christ.

And now it were no difficult Matter, to retort the Objection against our Adversaries, and prove the in­validity of their Orders, upon the Principles and Practices of their own Church. For,

1. They tell us, That it's the Intention of the Priest, not the Form or Matter of Institution, that makes the Sacra­ment: So that tho a Man be ordain'd a Priest or a Bishop with all the Ceremonies of the Pontifical, and by a Bishop with those very words now made use of in the Exhibition of the Vessels; yet if the Bishop minds not what he's about, or intend not to do what the Church intends, the Ordain'd remains still without either Character or Power, by which means if one Bishop has but once fail'd in the Collation of Orders, they run down, for ought they know, in infinitum, without any due Consecration; and since humane Frailties are so many, and the Artifices of Hell so incessant and prevailing, as we must needs have a great many Doubts naturally grow upon us, concerning the Intentions of those whole lives we see Extravagant and Impious; so from thence we necessarily deduce an Infinity of Uncertaintys. If this Conceipt were only the Caprice of some wild Head, it were the less considerable: But it's the determination of their oraculous Council of Trent, Si quis dixe­rit, in Mini­stris, dum Sa­cramenta conficiunt & conferunt, non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ec­clesia, Anathema sit. Sessio. 7. Can. 11. that If any shall say there is not required in Ministers, [Page 26] while they Consecrate and dispence the Sacraments, an Intention at least of doing what the Church does, Let that Person so saying be accurs'd: And the Annotators up­on the Plantin Edition of that Council, refers us to the Decrees of Eugenius the 4th. in the Florentine Council, where we are taught, That the Sacraments are perfected by three things; By outward Signs, Omnia Sacramenta tribus persiciuntur, videlicet, Rebus tanquam Materia, Ver­bis tanquam Forma, & Persona Mi­nistri conferentis Sacramentum, cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia; quorum si aliquod desit, non perficit Sa­cramentum. Instruct. ad Armenos. Conc. gen. T. 13. p. 535. as the Matter, by Words, as the Form; and by the Per­son of the Minister dispensing the Sacrament, with an intention of do­ing that which the Church does; of which three things, if any one be wanting, there can be no Sacrament. It were an easie work to confute this Opinion, as be­ing both Unscriptural and Irra­tional;Sacramenta ministrari possunt à bonis & à malis, à fidelibus & infidelibus, in­fra Ecclesiam & extra; quia si dispensa­ri possint tantum à bonis, nullus esset certus de susceptione Sacramenti, cum nullus fit certus de bonitate Ministri, sicut nec de propria, & ita oporteret semper iterari, & malitia unius praeju­dicaret alienae saluti. Lindwood. Constit. prov. l. 1. tit. 7. gl. pro quibus citat B. Thom. Edit. Oxon. 1679. Intra Catholicam Ecclesiam, in Mysterio Corporis & Sanguinis Domini, nihil à bono ma­jus, nihil à malo minus perficitur Sa­cerdote, quia non in merito Consecra­tis, sed in verbo perficitur Creatoris & virtute Spiritus Sancti. Decreti p. 2. c. 1. Qu. 1. citat. ex Augustino contra Epist. Parmen. l. 2. and how it thwarts the Doctrine of some great Men of your own, may be seen by those Passages in the Margin; but as they assert it, it is Argumentum ad Ho­mines; the consequence of which we know well enough, the Truth we shall leave them to make good as well as they can. But, if we look upon Consecration to Church Offices only as an Holy Ordinance, but no Sacrament: We may then challenge the Church of Rome as introducing a Nullity in their Or­ders, by so notorious a deviation from the Examples of Christ and his Apostles, from the Methods of the Ancient Ʋniversal Church, and from their own Au­thentick Constitutions; to prove which Crime of theirs, [Page 27] we may recur to those Authorities before insisted on: From which we learn, That Imposition of Hands was the only Essence of Orders; that their modern Cere­monies are meer Innovations, and, as by them us'd, shameful Corruptions of the first Institution: For tho' we allow that Power to the Governors of every true Christian Church, to add some significant Ceremonies to a Divine Ordinance (provided they are neither Indecent, Superstitious nor Troublesome, and therefore might pass by that addition of touching the Consecrated Vessels among other little Fooleries of that Church;) Yet since they have fixt the Essence of that Ordinance, in that touching of those Vessels, and have made Im­position of Hands, rather an impertinent Formality, than a matter of Necessity, as may appear from that of Gregory the Ninth, In fragmentis Decretalium; we cannot but conclude, that they have gone beyond all bounds of Just Ecclesiastical Authority. For in that Decree. as it's plain, that Imposition of Hands is made a meer non-essential Circumstance; so it infers a Power in persons Ordain'd, to exe­cute their Functions in all parts,Presbyter & Diaconus cum ordinantur Manus impositionem tactu corporali, [...]i­tu ab Apostolis introducto, recipiunt; Quod si omissum fuerit, non est aliqua­tenus iterandum, sed statuto tempore ad hujusmodi Ordines conferendos, cau­tè supplendum quod per errorem exti­tit praetermissum. Concil. general. T. 11. p. 384. c. 52. Epist. ad Archiepiesc. Lond. In margine vero decretalium melius legitur, Lugdunensem. as occasion requires, without it; for it lays no prohibition on them, and yet orders the supplying of all defects only at Canonical times, the Interstices of which, are long enough to admit various exerti­ons of Diaconal or Sacerdotal Pow­er. Nor does the Gloss upon this part of the Canon Law help the matter at all, though it be clog'd with a Superfaetation of Notes: For tho' the first be, That a Deacon and Presbyter ought to be Ordain'd by Imposition of Hands; the second, that [Page 28] that manner of Ordination is deduc'd from Apostolical example; Nota 1. Quòd Presbyter & Diaconus per manus Impositionem debet Ordina­ri. Item Nota. Quòd Ordinatio Sa­cerdotis & Diaconi, introducta est ex­emplo Apostolorum. Item nota, quòd idem est in parte quod in toto. Item, Quòd duo imperfecta faciunt unum per­fectum. Decretal. Greg. l. 1. Tit. 16. c. 3. gl. p. 282. Edit. Lugd. 1671. yet sure it's concluded, that there's the same virtue in a Semi-Ordination, as in our Compleated, and that two Im­perfects makes one Perfect. We cannot deduce any thing from the whole, but That an Ordinance un­questionably sacred, and of Divine Original, is so far perverted by those of the Roman Church, as to have lost its Nature; which conclusion we may be the more confirm'd in, if we observe that Assertion of some Modern Casuists, That where by any Mistake it has so happen'd, that the Person to be Ordain'd, did not touch both the Patten and Chalice with that exactness re­quir'd by the Roman Rubrick; Bonacina. D. 8. q. 2. puncto 3. or where it is rationally doubted, whether they did touch them or not, there they ought to be Ordain'd again, the former Ceremonies being wholly Insignificant: Which strange Sleight of Apostolical Practice, and weight laid upon this new Invention, I can no way reconcile to that Position of Alexander Alensis, Those things which are order'd by Men, may be alter'd by Men; but those which are instituted by God, Quae ab homine Ordinata sunt, ab ho­mine possunt mutari, quae autem à Deo instituta sunt, non nisi dictante Deo de­bent mutari. Alonsis Sum. p. 4. q. 9. Memb. 1. & 2. art. 2. may not be chang­ed but by the Command of the same God. Besides, as to Sacraments they tell us, They must be admini­stred In Forma Ecclesiae,Decret. p. 2. c. 1. q. 1. c. 51. Hi qui c. 52. Si quis. or that otherwise they are in­effectual. What Church then must that be, according to whose Form Orders must be conferr'd? Must it be the Ancient or Modern Church of Rome? The Question is Reasonable, since they have varied from themselves so much; for we can find no Western Ritu­al mentioning the Touch of the Vessels, for the first [Page 29] Nine hundred years after Christ: If at last the Ordina­tion of Pastors in the Church of God, be instituted by Christ and his Apostles; and if the manner how those first Church-Governors collated Holy Orders, be ex­press'd on Sacred Writ: Then those who have varied so much from their Prescriptions, and yet pretend to confer the same Divine Grace still, have to the ut­most of their Power evacuated both the Diaconal and Sacerdotal Offices within their own Church; and if urged severely with their own Principles, must ap­pear at best but an Embryo, an unshaped and incompleat Church, their Priesthood, Sacraments and Government, falling at once to the ground.

2. It's obvious to any to object to them, That Laying on of hands, without using any Words at all, whereby the meaning of that action should be guest at, is a Ceremony of no Consequence at all: Yet the very Essence of Orders, according to their Schoolmen before cited, consists in such a mute Imposition of hands; by which it appears, That the Sacrament of Orders, as they call it, is of a very different Nature from all the rest: For should the Priest Anoint a Man with Oyl, tho in a Dying State, and say nothing; who would call it Extreme Ʋnction? Who would dream that the Priest Baptiz'd every Man whom he should Sprinkle Water on, unless he us'd the words of Institution? And we conclude, That those of the Roman Communion, would scarce believe the Bread and Wine Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, by the bare Contact of the Priests Hand, without those powerful Words Hoc enim est Corpus meum; the words being as Essential to the Sacrament, as the Elements, or the particular action of the Priest. Now if a Bishop lay his hand upon my Head, and say nothing, who knows whether it be to give me his [Page 30] Blessing, to confirm me after Baptism, to Consecrate me to some sacred Employ; or whether it were not an action purely accidental, or a mark of some per­sonal kindness to me? For a Bishop, as a Bishop, may intend by such an action any one of these things, as well as Ordination: It's true, they have some cir­cumstantials and appendages in their present Rituals de­monstrative enough, but those may be omitted, and a perfectly mute Imposition of hands be made use of a­lone, as being only Essential to the thing design'd; for if the Essentials of an Ordinance be us'd, the Circum­stances can add nothing to its Perfection or Imperfection: So the Roman Church allows Baptism of Infants a com­pleat Sacrament, when administred by such persons who have no Authority to Consecrate the Elements, or by Priests in such streights of time, as render their Consecration impracticable. If we should grant what some would fain perswade us, That Imposition of hands, and touching the Vessels, are both Essential to Ordinati­on: Notwithstanding this, As when they allow Bread and Wine both as Essentials to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, yet they esteem it enough, to admini­ster that Sacrament in one kind to all Communicants; so it may upon the same grounds be determin'd suffi­cient, to give Orders only by one Mean, the virtue of the other Essential being suppos'd to be in that one by Concomitancy: But a Ceremony wholly silent, is so very unintelligible to the vulgar, that though they could be brought to apprehend its general mean­ing, yet unless there were so many different Modes of laying on of Hands, it were impossible for them to distinguish between Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to the great trouble and dissatisfaction of those, who among a thousand Doubts and Uncertainties, must [Page 31] partake of the Ordinances of God by their hands: And this defect themselves are so sensible of, that though Imposition of hands be only a dumb Circum­stance, yet when the Vessels are exhibited, in which Action they now generally fix the Essence of Orders, the Bishop ordaining uses a particular Form expressive of the Office then conferr'd. But it is

3. Such a Form, as if well examin'd, would leave us more at a loss for the validity of their Priesthood, than all their precedent silence, Take thou Power, &c. where it would give us very great satisfaction, if they would inform us, what kind of Sacrifices their Priests offer, Whether Typical, and so Carnal and Sensible, Or else Spiritual: If Spiritual, we know of none such relating to their publick Duties, but Prayers and Praises, in their largest extent Spiritual Sacrifices in­deed, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ: 1 Pet. 2.5. We know of none concerning them in private, but such as all Christians may offer as well as Priests, Presenting their Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, Rom. 12.1. which is their reasonable Service. If their Sacrifices are Typical, by whom were they Instituted? Or what are they Types of? If of the Messiah to come, their Priesthood must be either Judaic or Pagan, whose va­rious Sacrifices, either more expresly, as command­ed by God, or more darkly, as taken up from Argu­ments of Gratitude, or from Imitation, were their great expressions of their Hope of a Messiah to come, or of some extraordinary Provisions of Immense Good­ness, for the Worlds Redemption from that prodigi­ous Corruption it was immerst in: If their Priesthood be such, they must no more pretend to be an Evan­gelical, much less the one Holy Catholick Church. If their Sacrifices be Types of the Messiah already come, [Page 32] they are the Prophesies of things long since past, and just as good Sense. If they instance in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, we believe that to be in Eucharisti­cal Commemorative Sacrifice, of which as oft as we par­take worthily, we present a just Offering of Thankful­ness to God for the infinitely meritorious Death and Passion of our Saviour; and this Sacrifice is still pure­ly Spiritual. But if they would perswade us, That in that Eucharist, the real, natural and substantial Body of the incarnate Son of God is broken as upon the Cross: that the same Blood which then ran in his veins, is actually shed as by the Nails and Spear: That every Priest as oft as He consecrates the Elements, does so break his Body and shed his Blood, and then offer them in Sacrifice to God the Father: We believe no such Sacrifice can be now offered. The Jewish Sacrifices grew needless, when Christ had offer'd himself, not as they had been useless before, but as they had relation to him: As their Sacrifices were no longer requir'd, so no Priests were needful to attend them: And this is the Argu­ment us'd by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when having asserted the Imperfection of Judaic Sa­crifices, the impossibility that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin; he shows us how Jesus Christ (to whom he applies those words of David, Sacrifices and Burnt Offerings thou wouldst not, &c.) takes away the use of those Sacrifices, that he may evidence the absolute necessity and validity of his own, by which be satisfy'd and accomplish'd the will of God. By which will we are Sanctified, through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all: Heb. 10.10, 12, 14, 18. Again, This Man after He had offer'd one Sacrifice for Sins, He sate down for ever on the Right Hand of God. And, By one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sancti­fied. [Page 33] Now Christians generally relieve, T [...]t Christ by this one offering of himself, obtain'd remission of sins for all them that Believe; and then the Apostles con­sequence is very natural, Where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin, if no more offering for sins, then none at all, and then no need of such sacrificing Priests. Nor has Estius at all prov'd the necessity of the Continuance of such propitiatory Sacrifices, not­withstanding that great one of our Saviour upon the Cross, who indeed was the only acceptable High Priest, who had power to offer so perfect a Sacrifice. It might be added, That the [...], the Incru­entum Sacrificium of the Antients agrees very ill with this Transubstantiated Corporeal Sacrifice, but well enough with the notion of a Commemorative and Spi­ritual one. We might urge that of the learned Oughtram, concerning the Essential difference between that of Aaron and the Evangelical Priesthood. That Aarons office as a Sacrificing Priest, was to manage the affairs of Men with God, according to that of the Author to the Hebrews, Every High Priest taken from among Men is ordain'd for Men in things appertaining to God, Heb. 5.1. that he may offer both gifts and Sacrifices for men: Whereas the business of the Apostles and their Suc­cessors in the Ministry of the Gospel, is to manage the business of God with Men, according to that of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5.20. ‘We are Ambassadors of Christ, as tho God did beseech you by us, we pray in Christs stead that you would be reconciled unto God: St. Paul speaks of himself as a real Sacri­ficing Priest, upon account of his offering up the Gen­tiles to God, who were acceptable because Sanctified by the Holy Ghost; Rom. 15.16, 17. but in the same place he calls himself not the Minister of the Gentiles to Christ, [Page 34] but the Minister of Christ to the Gentiles; and therefore it's observable, That Evangelical Ministers are no where in Scripture call'd [...] or [...],Oughtram. de Sacris. l. 1. c. 19. with relation to any such Corporeal Sacrifices as the Jews offer'd, it not being the Ministry of the Apostles, but the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, that succeeded in the room of Aarons.’ But the prosecution of these things would carry us too far beyond the bounds of the present Controversie; only from the whole it will follow, That the Sacri­ficing Priests of the Roman Church, by deserting the Commission given by Christ to his Apostles, are indeed relaps'd into Judaism, or worse: By which means their boasted Succession is quite broken off, to the ruine of their Churches Catholicism; if, as they tell us, a Succession of Christian Priests and Bishops be one necessary mark of such a Church.

And now we have reason to admire the Goodness of Almighty God, who, as He made the Jews the bit­terest Enemies of our Saviour, the preservers of those Sacred Oracles which confirm'd his Messiahship, and by them, as Instruments, deliver'd down those Holy writings to us Gentiles, to our Conviction, tho they had no such effects upon that Obdurate People; so he has made the Church of Rome, the Conveyancer of a Truly Apostolical Hierarchy down to us, tho they have almost lost it among themselves: They continue still the Imposition of Hands, though only as a Collateral and non-essential Ceremony, which we hope may have other Effect upon them, than what's agreeable to their own Mistaken Prin­ciples: But since their abuse or contempt of it, cannot alter the Nature of the thing it self, We, deducing that Practice of Imposition of Hands from [Page 35] them, as they from the Apostles, and laying its due weight upon that Apostolical Institution, with­out Additions or Alterations: We enjoy that Ordinance full and compleat among our selves, and enjoy that Succession really, which they have so long Impertinently boasted and valued themselves upon.