nr Numb. IL 'ITTENDIX things are impofed by them , under the terrible Pennalry of Anathematizing, which Rome itfat. dotti take unlawful to be obfèrved, there are nor perfe& Ìdicer of the Mind of Chrift or the univerfal Church. Read Baranioa him!è'f, Ton. 3. what abundance of Errors in Hiflory he chargeth upon Epipbaniue and others. I fuppofe you to have read Daslle, and the Lord Ugby on this; yet think not that i would detra& from the dueEltimationof theFa the;s, or Councils, or front thene- cefüty of Tradition to the ufe which I have expreffed in the Preface to the Second part of my Book of Refl. But 1 know not well in the matter of Nor -kneeling and Not.fafting on the Lord's Day, Notteading the Books of Heathens, &s. how a Man lhould obey both the former Councils, and the pretènr Church of Rome it felf; yea, or how in matter of giving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to In- fants, and other things the prefent Church and the former do agree. And I would know, whether it was not the Pra&ice of that which you call the univerfal Church then, which the following Ages did alter and contradibt. But all this part of the Anfwer is hut occafional as to your Amplifications, and not to the matter under de- bate. I further anfwer you therefore, that the univerfal Pra&ice of the Church cloth prove no more but that it was done, and therefore by them judged a Duty to be done, and fò not to be omitted while they could LIE: it ; all which I grant . you. I am not one that would have Ordinationufed without Impoftion, but in cafe of neceffty : But it follows not front all this, that it is effenrial. to Ordination; fuppofe a Church infliaxe a new Ceremony, that every Bifhop ordained Ihail have a Helmet on, to fignify that he mufffight valiantly as a Captain under Chrift, and the Ordainer muff lay his Hands on this : If I can prove that it bath beep univerfal Pradice of theChurch in matins apertam caput manor imponere, dothit fol- low that this is efîential,and the contrary null ?Ifyou ask,what neceffiry there can b of Ordination fine ma'am Impofitione ? I anfwer, very great and ordinary : viz. as abfmtes ordinentnr ; for want of which the Church bath toffred, and mayLifer ve- rymuch. When a Man is in remote Partsof the World, and perhaps too f rupei- ousof playing the Bilhop without Ordination, ifhe mutt travel over Land and Sea for Ordination, his Life may be gone, or molt of it (pent, while he is feeking Au- thority to ufe it for his Mailer. If a few only of the Ordainers were left in a Country, or in many Nations, and thole imprifoned or forced to hide themfelves, they might by an Inflrument tm'er their Hands Ordain, when they could not at all, or to one of a hundred by Impofaion of Hands. But yet all this is but the Daft neceffary part of my Anfwer to your Argument. To your Confequence therefore, I anfwer by denying it : If the Succeffion be interrupted, what neceffrty is there that the next mull come in without Intpofìtion of I-Iands,what thew of fhch a Confequence ? May not the illegitimate Ordainer imponere manta ? Or may henot himíèlfenter by I.npofsrionof Hands, and yet be illegitimate, and his Calling Mill? If you think not only ImpoGtion to be effential, but elfo thannothing elfe is effen- tial, or that all are true Miniíters that are ordained by a lawful Bithop per manum impofrtionem, then do you egrioufy tibi ipft imponere. Suppofe a lawful Bilhop lhould ordain a Man into an unlawful Office, as to be the univerfàl Bilhop ; or lhould or- daina known I-leathen tobe a Bilhop by ImpoGtion ofHands ; were not this null? Yea, and many a lower cafe (as in cafe of Symony, bc.) if Councils be of any Authority. Here then the Succeffon is}nrerrupted, and yet this Man mayOrdain others by ImpoGtion of Hands : Suppose its the cafe of Pope gone, the Succeflioo interrupted for want of a capable Sex, and yet Else might Ordain by ImpoGrionof Hands. Lafíny, I anfwer, This Argument can pretend to prove no more than the former, That Ordination is effential to the Call of the Miniftry : Ergo, So far as that is difproved, fò far is this. And indeed, is had been fronger arguing a Ne- cetateOrdinationia ad necstatem impofitionis manuum,than e contra ; becaufe all Argu- ing lhould be a Nurture : But fore the Neceflity of Impofhtionof Hands is resinur ese- tum, then the necellity ofOrdination: Many a Thouland will yield that Ordinati- on is effential (I believe) that will not yield is of that ImpoGtion. Having done with all that i find in this Paper, I add this trots Argument for the enervatingof all (or if you will of your Second, which is all). If your Argu- ments do tend as well to prove the abfoluteNecelfity of an uninterruptedSucceflion gent motions, as to every Mode and Circumlfance in Ordination, which the Apo. files have required as due, without exprels Difpenfation for Omillion, as of legi- timate Eccieliaftical Ordination it Pelf; then they are unfound. At verum prim r Ergo, The Antecedent is proved thus : The full Strength of all your Arguments is here. Clhrill or hisApoftles (or the Church Gnce) have mentioned no other way of Conveying Minifterial Power, but by Ordination and ImpoGtion of Hands : Ergo, 3i i j!
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=