necessity of ordination according to that form, such persons as have formerly received "episcopal ordination," which was probably meant to include those who had formerly been ordained in these churches under a different rite and we may reasonably suppose that it was designed to include those who might receive episcopal ordination in other catholic churches. By this however was not meant any episcopal ordination, (such as that conferred by the bishops of Denmark, or of the Methodists, or Moravians, who have probably no valid orders whatever), but a valid episcopal ordination, conferred with a sufficient imposition of hands and prayer; and by a bishop whose own ordination is in no degree doubtful. It has even been the custom not to reordain priests ordained among the papists in England and Ireland, on their conversion to the church but it may be reasonably doubted whether this was intended by those who drew up the preface to our Ordinal : such a case not having then arisen. However, as I have said, the church was authorized to confirm these ordinations, though not bound to do so.

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE SUBJECTS OF ORDINATION.

Or impediments to ordination on the part of the recipient, some only render it irregular, others perhaps render it null.

I. Those who are manifestly devoid of the qualifications required by the apostles and the church in the ministers of religion, are styled irregular; and this incapacity applies to the following cases. (1) Those persons who have been guilty of some crime or offence injuring their fame, voluntary homicides, simoniacs, incendiaries of churches, diviners, public penitents, &c. For "a bishop must be blameless;" must "have a good report of them that are without." "A deacon must be blameless "." (2) Illiterate persons: for a bishop must be "apt to teach;" holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. (3) Neophytes ordained immediately after baptism, or before the canonical age, or ordained per saltum, or without examination. "Lay hands suddenly on no man." "Not a novice "." (4) Heretics, excommunicated, schismatics, and all ordained by such. (5) Those deficient in mind or body, as lunatics, demoniacs, confirmed epileptics, those mutilated

a 1 Tim. iii. 2. 7. 10.

b Ibid. 2. 9.

c Ibid. v. 22.
d Ibid. iii. 16.

by their own will, or of monstrous form, or devoid of bodily organs essential to the ministry. (6) Those under the command of others, and unable to give themselves to the ministry, as civil officers, soldiers, slaves, &c. while they remain such. (7) Those ordained by a bishop who has no right to ordain them, or by a bishop who has resigned or been deprived. (8) Those whose wives are of an evil character. There are other cases of irregularity which do not apply to our present discipline; but these are the principal impediments which prevent those who labour under them from being ordained canonically, or render them irregular.

II. We now proceed to consider the cases in which it may be disputed whether ordination is not null and void.

1. Is ordination null when conferred on a person unbaptized?

This is a question of great difficulty, and much may be alleged on both sides. It was certainly the will of our Saviour that those who believed should be baptized. It is equally obvious, that none except believers were qualified to be his ministers, and as St. Paul forbad even those newly baptized to be ordained, how much more would he have prohibited those who were not yet engrafted into the church by baptism. But on the other hand, if some person ordained in the church, is afterwards discovered by himself and others not to have been baptized, is his ordination to be accounted null and void? It is generally admitted, that in a case of necessity, a sincere wish to receive the sacraments, together with a true faith, is sufficient to produce the effect of those sacraments. And on the same prin

ciple it might seem, that one unbaptized, though ignorant of the fact, would not be less perfectly a disciple of Christ than those baptized, and therefore not less qualified for ordination, provided that he were in all other respects a christian. To this it may be added, that in the supposed case, the person unbaptized would have been admitted frequently to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist; and this might furnish another probability, that he was invested with the privileges of those initiated by the sacrament of regeneration. Dionysius of Alexandria was afraid to baptize a man who had only heretical baptism, but who had often partaken of the eucharist. It seems from this probable, I think, that such an ordination is not null. But piety would enjoin the reception of baptism privately; and if the case were publicly known and caused scandal, it would be adviseable to reordain conditionally.

2. Are ordinations conferred "per saltum," passing over the immediate orders, null ?

The practice of the church in primitive times is in favour of their validity. Even in the particular church of Rome, the bishops seem frequently to have been elected from among the deacons, and ordained per saltum. The principle on which this is justified is, that the episcopate comprises virtually all other orders in itself. Even on the supposition that the episcopate is an extension of the presbyterate, or rather a jurisdiction than a new order, still in conferring it, the presbyterate is included, because the latter is essential to the former. Such seems to be the more probable opinion, though

f Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 9.

* See Courayer, Defense de la Dissertation, liv. iv. c. x.

h

many theologians have held that the episcopate conferred per saltum is invalid. This was generally the doctrine of the schoolmen: it was maintained afterwards by Mason and Field', and by Bellarmine *, Vasquez, Gamache ", Kellison", Hallier, &c. These writers speak as if there was no doubt on the subject, and as if all theologians admitted their doctrine. No one however disputes that according to the canons, sacred orders should be conferred only gradually and with the usual intervals.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDINATION.

WE are first to consider what is the essential form or rite of ordination; secondly, how far this rite may be lawfully regarded as a sacrament.

a

I. It has been elsewhere shown from the scriptures, the councils, the doctrine of the reformation, &c. that the imposition of hands and prayer are the only essential rites of ordination. No other rites are mentioned in Scripture at the ordination of the ministers of Jesus Christ, and therefore it may be reasonably concluded that these alone are essential.

Mason, De Min. Angl. Dedicatio ad Ep. Paris.

i Field, Of the Church, book i. c. 39.

k Bellarmin. De Sacr. Ordinis, lib. i. c. 5.

1 Vasquez, in iii. part. S. Thomæ, p. 738. 771. ed. 1614. He says of this doctrine, "hoc indu

bitatum esse video apud omnes.' m Gamachæus, Summa Theologica, t. ii. p. 683.

n Kellison, Comment. in iii. part. S. Thomæ, t. ii. p. 398.

• Hallier. De Ordin. p. 392. ed. 1636.

* Part I, chapter viii.