But _Morinus_ is to set this question at rest. “His authority must, you suppose, be considered conclusive on this point.” {60c} But to what does it amount? His collected MS. forms of Ordination take you back to about the middle of the eighth century; and these you adduce as conclusive evidence of the practice of the _primitive_ Church. Now admitting, as in candour we must, that his earliest authority is a proof of still earlier usage,—still, as to any evidence of the _practice_ of the _primitive_ Church, he leaves you with a yawning and somewhat unmanageable _hiatus_ upon your hands. Could no written summary of the Christian faith, or any traces of such summary be discovered, anterior to the date of that of Nice; you would hardly argue that for the three preceding centuries the Church had always used the _Nicene Creed_:—the inference would be that no human explication of the “word of faith,” had been found necessary:—and in like manner, the absence of any proof to the contrary, affords a strong presumption, that the _primitive_ Church had adhered to the use of the words of the _primitive_ commission. At all events, before you undertake to inform us what form was _not_ used in the ordinations of the primitive Church; it is incumbent on you to show what form it _did_ use.—“But,” says _Bingham_, whom you quote thus far,—“the solemnity in giving superior orders, was always performed by the Imposition of Hands and prayer.” This has never been disputed, but he also observes—“It is not to be imagined that one and the same form was used in all Churches, for every Bishop having liberty to frame his own Liturgy, as there were different Liturgies in different Churches, so it is reasonable to suppose the Primates or Metropolitans had different forms of consecration, though there are now no remains of them in being, to give us any further information.” {61a} Throwing you in two centuries and a half beyond your earliest authority, I dare not attempt with _Bishop Burnet_ and yourself to jump the remaining hiatus, with any hope of reaching your conclusion,—“that if we ask of the antient time what is best, and of the latter time what is fittest, some alteration of the form of ordination is both proper and expedient.” {61b} Our compilers thought it both “best and fittest” to adhere to the words of the primitive commission, nor attempt to define the mystery, or enquire “how can these things be:”—and they would probably have replied to the modern cavils in the spirit of _Hooker’s_ observation—“Seeing therefore that the same power is now given, why should the same form of words expressing it, be thought foolish?” {62a} To this form of words the Clergy do _literally_ and _ex animo_ subscribe, and notwithstanding your objections, I trust without impeachment either of their _truth_ or _honesty_.