V. [Our form ordination to the office of They bring the very same objection against our Priestly DISCOURSE ordination ;-" The form or words whereby men are made Priests, must express authority and power to consecrate, or of Priestly make present, Christ's Body and Blood (whether with or sufficient, without Transubstantiation, is not the present controversy in regard with Protestants)." Thus far we accord, to the truth of the peculiar Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, so they leave us this the Priestlatitude for the manner of His Presence. Abate us Transub- hood.] stantiation, and those things which are consequents of their determination of the manner of Presence, and we have no difference with them in this particular. They who are ordained Priests, ought to have power to consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, to make Them present after such manner as They were present at the first institution; whether it be done by enunciation of the words of Christ, as it is observed in the Western Church, or by prayer, as it is practised in the Eastern ChurchP; or whether these two be both the same thing in effect, that is, that the forms of the Sacraments be mystical prayers, and implicit invocations. Our Church for more abundant caution useth both forms, as well in the consecration of the Sacra486 ment, as in the ordination of Priests. In the Holy Eucharist, our consecration is a repetition of that which was done by Christ, and now done by him that consecrateth in the person of Christ; otherwise the Priest could not say, "This is My body." And likewise in Episcopal consecration, "Homo imponit manus, Deus largitur gratiam, Sacerdos imponit supplicem dexteram, Deus benedicit potenti dexterá"— "Man imposeth hands, God conferreth grace, the Bishop imposeth his suppliant right hand, God blesseth with His almighty right hands." In both consecrations Christ Himself is the chief consecrater still. Then if power of consecration be nothing else but power to do that which Christ did, and ordained to be done, our Priests want not power to consecrate. They add ;-"In all forms of ordaining Priests, that ever were used in the Eastern or Western Church, is expressly set down the word Priest, or some other words expressing the proper function and authority of Priesthood," &c.; "the [See Palmer, Orig. Liturg., vol. ii. c. 4. § 19. pp. 137, 138.] [Pseudo-Ambros., De Dignit. Sacerdot., c. v. Op. tom. ii. Append. p. 363. E.] I. PART Grecians, using the word Priest or Bishop in their forms, do sufficiently express the respective power of every order; but our reformers did not put into the form of ordaining Priests any words expressing authority to make Christ's Body present." I answer, that if by forms of ordaining Priests they understand that essential form of words, which is used at the same instant of time whilst hands are imposed, I deny that in all forms of Priestly ordination the word Priest is set down either expressly or equivalently. It is set down expressly in the Eastern Church', it is not set down expressly in the Western Church $. Both the Eastern and Western forms are lawful, but the Western cometh nearer to the institution of Christ. But if by forms of ordaining they understand ordinals or rituals, or the entire form of ordaining, both our Church and their Church have not only equivalent expressions of Priestly power, but even the express word "Priest" itself, which is sufficient both to direct and to express the intention of the consecrator. Under that name the Archdeacon presenteth them;"Right Reverend Father in Christ, I present unto you these persons here present, to be admitted to the order of Priesthood." Under that name the Bishop admitteth them; "Well-beloved brethren, these are they whom we purpose by the grace of God this day to admit" (" co-optare") "into the holy office of Priesthood." Under this name the whole assembly prayeth for them ;-" Almighty God, vouchsafe, we beseech Thee, to look graciously upon these Thy servants, which this day are called to the office of Priesthood." It were to be wished, that writers of controversies would make more use of their own eyes, and trust less other men's citations. Secondly, I answer, that it is not necessary, that the essential forms of Sacraments should be always so very express and determinate, that the words are not capable of extension to any other matter. If they be as determinate and express as the example and prescription of Christ, it is sufficient. The form of Baptism is,-"I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" V. not, 'I baptize thee to regeneration,' or 'for remission of DISCOURSE sins.' There are many other kinds of baptisms or washings, besides this sacramental Baptism: yet this form is as large as the institution of Christ. And these general words are efficacious both to regeneration and remission of sins, as well as if regeneration and remission of sins had been expressly mentioned. In this form of Baptism, there is enough antecedent to direct and regulate both the actions and intentions of the minister: so there is likewise in our form of ordination. Thirdly, I answer, that in our very essential form of Priestly ordination, Priestly power and authority is sufficiently expressed. We need not seek for a needle in a bottle of hay. The words of our ordinal are clear enough. First, "Receive the Holy Ghost;"—that is, the grace of the Holy Ghost", to exercise and discharge the office of Priesthood, to which thou hast been now presented, to which thou hast been now accepted, and for which we have prayed to God, that in it thou mayest discharge thy duty faithfully and acceptably. Secondly, in these words, "Whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted;" that is, not only by Priestly absolution, but by preaching, by baptizing, by administering the Holy Eucharist, which is a means to apply the all-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sins. He who authorizeth a man to accomplish a work, doth authorize him to use all means which tend to the accomplishment thereof. That which is objected, that "laymen have power to remit sins by Baptism, 487 but no power to consecrate,"-signifieth nothing as to this point. For, first, their own doctors do acknowledge, that "a layman cannot baptize solemnly, nor . . in the presence of a Priest or a deacon; nor in their absence, except only in case of necessity-St. Austin gives the reason,”—because “ no man may invade another man's office." Laymen may and are bound to instruct others in case of necessity; yet the office of preaching and instructing others is conferred by ordination. The ordinary office of remitting sins, both by Baptism and by the Holy Eucharist, doth belong to Bishops, § 5-7; and Nichols, on Comm. Prayer, Supplem.] [To these words is added in Ordinal of 1662, as follows,-"for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands."] [See Hooker, E. P., bk. V. c. lxxvii. Bellarm., De Sacram. Bapt., lib. i. c. 7. [Op. tom. ii. p. 311. D; from August., Cont. Ep. Parmen., lib. ii. c. 13 (tom. ix. p. 44. F.).] I. PART and under them to Priests. Thirdly, this Priestly power to consecrate is contained in these words,-"Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and Sacraments ;" and afterwards, when the Bishop delivers the Holy Bible into the hands of those who are ordained Priests," Have thou authority to preach the Word of God, and administer the Sacraments." We do not deny but deacons have been admitted to distribute and minister the Sacraments by the command or permission of Priests, or as subservient unto them; but there is as much difference between a subservient distribution of the Sacrament, and the "dispensing" or " administering" of it, as there is between the office of a porter who distributeth the alms at the gate, and the office of the steward who is the proper dispenser of it. Look to it, gentlemen; if your own ordination be valid, ours is as valid, and more pure. [Our forefathers no Zuinglians.] They make the cause of these defects in our form of ordination to be, because "Zuinglianism and Puritanism did prevail in the English Church in those days."-" They believed not the Real Presence; therefore they put no word in their form expressing power to consecrate: they held Episcopacy and Priesthood to be one and the same thing; therefore they put not in one word expressing the Episcopal function." This is called leaping over the style before a man comes at it, to devise reasons of that which never was. First prove our defects, if you can; and then find out as many reasons of them as you list. But, to say the truth, the cause and the effect are well coupled together. The cause (that is, the Zuinglianism of our predecessors) never had any real existence in the nature of things, but only in these men's imaginations; so the defects of our ordinals are not real but imaginary. Herein the Fathers adventured too far, to tell us that we have nothing in our forms of ordaining to express either the Priestly or Episcopal functions; when every child that is able to read can tell them, that we have the express words of Bishops and Priests in our forms, over and over again, and maintain to all the world that "the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and deacons have been ever from the beginning in the Church of Christ." * In Præfatione, [scil. of the Ordination Service.] V. This, they say, "is the true reason, why Parker and his DISCOURSE colleagues were contented with the Nag's Head Consecration" (that is to say, one brainsick whimsy is the reason of another); " and why others recurred to extraordinary vocation in Queen Elizabeth's time." Say what others? Name one genuine son of the Church of England, if you can? Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Fulke, who are the only two men mentioned by you, are both professedly against you. Dr. Whitaker saith, we do not condemn all the order of Bishops, as he falsely slanders us, but only the false Bishops of the Church of Romey.' And Dr. Fulke,— "For order and seemly government among the clergy, there was always one principal, to whom the name of Bishop or superintendent hath been applied, which room Titus exercised in Crete, Timothy in Ephesus, others in other places;" adding, that "the ordination, or consecration, by imposition of hands, was always principally committed to him"." bishop The Fathers proceed.—" If Mr. Laud had found success in [of Archhis first attempts, it is very credible, he would in time have Laud.] reformed the form of the English ordination." That pious and learned prelate wanted not other degrees in Church and schools, which they omit. He was a great lover of peace, but too judicious to dance after their pipe, too much versed in antiquity to admit their new matter and form, or to attempt to correct the Magnificat for satisfaction of their humours. But whence had they this credible relation? We are very confident, they have neither author nor ground for it but their own imagination. And if it be so, what excuse they have for it in their case-divinity, they know best; but in ours we could not excuse it from downright calumny. They have such an eye at our order and uniformity, that they cannot let our "long cloaks and surplices" alone. We 488 never had any such animosities among us about our cloaks, as some of their religious orders have had about their gowns": both for the colour of them, whether they should be black or white or gray or the natural colour of the sheep; and for the De Eccles., Controv. II. Qu. v. c. 3. [These words do not occur in the place cited; but the doctrine contained in them is the subject partly of c. 6. (Op. tom. i. pp. 506-512, especially 509. b). By" Episcopi," however, Whitaker means simply "Pastores." In Titum, c. i. [v. 5.] [See Replic. to the Bp. of Chalcedon, c. ii. sect. 1, above in vol. ii. p. 76. note f.] |