13. by the Holy Ghost and laying on of hands unto that farther work they are called to in Selâ—uâ—ia and Cyprus How is it like that so famous a Minister as Barnabas should be wholly without Ordination before unless Ordination be not so necessary a thing to the Ministry as we make it And for the other instance of Paul there is more in it I will not draw out the strength of it till I come to the chief knot By the way only It is a conceit I must confess is got in me from this Text that if a Minister have a call with a good conscience to a new place or new work though it be not necessary it is lawful for him to have a particular Ordination to the same and I think that the hands of a grave Bishop and good men laid on him afresh with their Fasting and Solemn Prayers for Gods blessing upon him in it were like to do him no harm But to come to the bottom To judge aright of Re-ordination we must first consider what is Ordination Ordinatio say Protestant Divines is vocationis confirmatio The Leyden Divines drop this definition Ordinandi potestas seu in Ministerio confirmandi c. Disp 42. Thes 37. Ordinatio sayes Amesius nihil aliud est quam solennis declaratio ut coronatio Regis aut inauguratio Magistratûs De consc l. 4. c. 25. Some of our eminent Divines being consulted do say I am told Ordination is nothing but Approbation a publick approving a man as fit to be a Minister I would express it thus A solemn allowance of his Call I take these apprehensions in effect to be the same If they differ I rather choose the first both as most comprehensive of the other and also as most received insomuch as Wollebius going about to define Ordination gives it no other name Confirmatio sayes he est personae electae introductio in quâ publicis precibus praemissis Ecclesiae comendatur eique vocatio impositis manibus confirmatur From which hint I will recall that place which is to be more then once made use of as the clearest Text we have about this solemnity to wit the instance of Paul and Barnabas who being at Antioch and called by the Holy Ghost to their work St. Luke tells us Certain Teachers who were there prayed and fasted and layed their hands on them that is ordained them and sent them away and then in the two next Chapters going on and declaring their journeys and acts when they had done thus says he they returned to Antioch from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled in which words he does plainly seem to describe that matter in the former narration Ordination then is out of doubt whatsoever it be besides a solemn recommending the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditi or committing of a person to the grace of God for the work unto which he is called Unto this let me yet add the fore-cited Doctor Ames again more at large Vocationis essentia est in electione Ecclesiae acceptatione electi Adjunctum consequens consummans est Ordinatio quae nihil aliud est quam solennis quaedam introductio Ministri jam electi in ipsius functionis liberam functionem Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 39. One thing only I must not let pass as some light in the way here and to our business that when such Divines as these do say that Ordination is nothing else but a Declaration Approbation or Confirmation of our Calling Do you understand it not directly of our call by man where lyes alone I think the shortness of their sight but of our call by God and then it is exceeding well You will somewhere when I shall speak of this farther after see the clearness and consequence hereof Now those men who have imbibed such a notion only of Ordination as thus defined will I suppose soon conclude that a double Approbation Declaration or Confirmation of the same Ministry is no such matter but the lawfulnesse of it may be resolved when but once the Expedience is cleer I deny not but there is more in Ordination then this which creates the difficulty to wit that it it gives the ministeriall function yet will I not concede it but suppose it and go on though we have a cleer instance flat against it in Paul when again we come to it upon that supposition It suffices us if in re-ordination there be no more and so much for it is about that our question lyes And I know it is the generall sentiments of mens spirits must tast the thing at last and determine it for us whether good or bad which will therefore be proper for a Convocation some receiving it in their first conceptions as a second baptism others only as another marrying when the first is good before in the sight of God but questionable in Law and made sure And so I remember a worthy Doctor I spoke with occasionally about it did expresse it by Usury which in the common opinion is evill as to those that require it but not unlawfull as to those that upon their necessity do give it In adiaphoris saies Gerson superioris judicio maxime credendum quoniam ille vice Dei tibi dicet quid expedit et quid decet De. Relig. perf part 3. SECT II. HAving in my first paper made these scatter'd efforts already I shall now more roundly and freely lay you down my opinion with a larger compasse upon the whole matter in five or six propositions For the doing whereof waving in the way that touchy objection of the Covenant which for my oaths sake at my Degrees in the university I never took and if it were to do again could not take I need not any elaborate disquisition which neither the nature of a letter or my time or my present stock can allow but I shall set my thoughts down faithfully as they fall into my pen travailing only with words as already I have done to deliver my mind and not with the licking of the expression 1. I doubt not of Presbyterial ordination but that those men who have been ordained without a Bishop have done and do well but according to their office and duty in administring the word and sacraments as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God I can as well doubt whether my people before me are men or living creatures and not wheels or some things moved only by weights and engines as I can doubt of this The judgment of Bishop Usher Downam Carleton Archdeacon Mason Field of the Church Lib. 3. c. 39. and the practise of the Reformed Churches is known in the case 2. It appears in the time of the Apostles that a Presbyter and a Bishop was all one by these Texts Tit. 1.5 with 7. Acts 20.17 with 28. Phil. 1.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2. This Doctor Hammond thought safest to own The Bishops succeeded the Apostles and
consequently while there was Apostles there was no Bishops I speak here but after the excellent judgment of our late King The Churches then had recourse unto them as might be prooved by their sending still to Paul about their affairs in many places which makes and answers I think for Episcopacy They had then no Bishops indeed because the Apostles and Evangelists filled up the use of them Whether the ministers at first were all Presbyters and for avoyding of schism and faction they chose out one to be Bishop as Jerome Or whether at first they were all Bishops and as their Territories encreased and the people came in they ordained Presbyters under them I leave to the severall palates of the judicious This I take to be certain while the work was not divided they must needs be both but the same office unto which either name was common but when the work was divided then they distinguished the names and kept them up accordingly See the Right Honourable Sir William Morice his most candid cleer and impartiall judgment upon the whole matter of Presbytery and Episcopacy and both compared in his excellently learned book the second Edition in Folio from p. 146 to 169. 3. Whensoever the distinction arose I believe that a Bishop and a Presbyter are not different orders of the Ministry as a Priest and a Deacon is but only the one is the same office with the other in a different degree of eminency See the 42 quest in Bishop Davenants determinations The Apostle in his first Epistle saies Timothy was ordained with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery In the second by the laying on of his hands You may gather from hence that Paul must needs be then one of the Presbytery and ordained as one of them the agent must act quá tale to the production of the effect I speak this ad hominem and consequently that Presbyterial ordination and Episcopal is the same So that the old rule alone Magis minus non variant speciem does satisfie me here though I forget not if I could believe the Apostle indeed to be so criticall an acute annotation of my own grave and learned Bishop in his discourse with mee upon the two Prepositions that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place imports authority and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assistance only in the other And yet what if there be here it self some double kind of Ordination which for ought any one can be sure of was so though you and I put not our beliefe to it 4. Whereas a most Reverend late and moderate Prelate is noted to have stated the matter thus that Presbyterial Ordination is valid but Schismatical Let it be understood only where the Episcopal government is in force If a man should now Episcopacy is up go to be ordained only by Presbyters no doubt but this in every true Episcopal Judgment is Schism but when the Bishops were down here and in the reformed Churches where there are no Bishops it is rather questionable to my thinking whether it were not tumultuousnesse of spirit not to be contented with the Ordination which is going and present necessity puts upon him Si Orthodoxi Presbyteri ne pereat Ecclesia alios Presbyteros cogantur Ordinare Ego non ausim hujusmodi Ordinationes pronunciare irritas sayes Davenant before quoted See the second part of Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici where Ordination by Presbyters is justified at large and more large than I need here mention 5. I will distinguish then between what Ordination is required to the setting a part a man to the Office of a Minister in the sight of God and what is requisite to the making him received as a Minister among men and give him authority or full repute to execute that Office in the Church or place where he shall be called I believe as before that Ordination by the Presbytery only sufficing but a little while ago to both suffices still to the former supposing Ordination goes so far But we all begin to know also that Ordination now by a Bishop is necessary to the latter and consequently though I have been ordained before by the Presbytery this hinders not but I may be ordained again by the Bishop because I seek not to be ordained by him to make me a Minister again which I am in foro Dei already but to have Authority as to men to use my Ministery and be received as such which I cannot else in foro Ecclesiae Anglicanae And this me thinks I am a little justified in that when I was ordained by the Presbytery the very words used at the point to my best memory were Whom by the laying on of hands we set a part for the Office of the Ministry and in the Ordination by the Bishop they are Take authority to Preach the Word and Minister the Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed that is in thy place Not but those words do confer both of these supposing what is supposed to the unordained before yet does not that hinder but rather argue If they do confer both to others they may doubtless and actually do confer one and can but the one only to such as are in my case In short there is my Ministry and the use of my Ministery in the English Church My first Ordination as we suppose hath given me the one yet is the latter not superfluous because it conduces and that legally or regularly to the other I mean clearly as to authority freedom at least and reception in the same 6. Whereas the Scripture is clear about subjection to Superiours Civil and Ecclesiastical Obey those that are over you in the Lord. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for conscience sake I do question whether every man that yields to Episcopacy in his judgement if but only as not repugnant to the Word of God and humane Institution is not obliged hereunto if it may be had on this account without reclaiming or prejudice to his former Ministry I say not barely that it appears a thing lawful while we see how it may done but being stood upon a due to be done and if any thing be amiss it is in them that exact it and not in us that cannot help it For what is Re-ordination in this case but a submission to the order of that Church-Polity which is again set over us And what evil is there more in it then a second marrying as before or confirming with a new my former title to my living If it be required of me Why may I not be ordained twice as well as once and thrice as well as twice if there be still reason sufficient for it May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated and yet Gods Name not be taken in vain by it Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful because we have in one Service the Lords Prayer twice over I confess I read indeed of one Baptism
pastoralis the other Sapientiae maturitatem as Henderson out of Bede This office is to rule and preach Ruling and preaching are the inseparable parts of the same 1 Thes 5.12 13. Heb. 13.7 I speak quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever it be sometimes quoad exercitium Now there are some more able for one part of their office and some more able for the other Those that are eminent in either the Apostle would have to be encouraged or rewarded accordingly Let them have double honor that is Not as some do fondly gloss it two things Reverence and Maintenance for the next verse to this tells us what honor he certainly means such as when otherwhere he says Honor widows that is Maintenance or provision for them and double honor is more maintenance then others The Emphasis then for the Interpretation does lye on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to be construed barely bené but pulchrè egregiè eminentèr that is the genuine signification of the word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this being put in the beginning emphatically to the first branch will appear easily to him that ponders the Greek Text that it must be understood again in the latter to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scilicet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also Here then plainly is the meaning Those Ministers that are more eminent then others are to have more encouragement honor or maintenance above others that is double honor whether they are eminent in one part of their Office or in the other in ruling or in preaching but especially if they are eminent in preaching The other note I must add in the behalf of Episcopacy for if I know any thing by my own heart it does love integrity which is the speaking as nothing but what I find in it so the whole I find there When I have said above that the identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter in Scripture does shake Episcopacy if it be held Jure divino strictly I must confess also if it be held so only at large there does some impressions ever since my deliberate reading of the Conference at the Isle of Wight remain upon me for it By a Jus divinum I understand vulgarly justum jussum in the Word of God It is true there is no superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyter in Scripture because they were all one then two words for the same thing but yet there is a superiority and inferiority in the Scripture among the Ministers in the Church The Bishops superiority is not jure divin◠but I say Superiority is jure divino The twelve Apostles were above the Seventy God hath set some in his Church first secondarily thirdly c. 1 Cor. 10.28 Now while the Church had her extraordinary Officers it did suffice that this superiority and inferiority was terminated or lodged in those divers orders but when that which was extraordinary was done away and there remained only one Order the Pastor and Teacher of the four Ephes 4.11 there was in the Church before then must the superiority inferiority of the preaching Ministry or Priest quite fall or else the Authority of the Church must interpose and make a difference of degree in identity of order and so the names of Bishop and Presbyter being sit for the turn were prudently distinguished by pious antiquity and mad use of for it For man to create a new officer or another order in his Lords house which himself hath not set there 1 Cor. 12.28 cannot I doubt be taken well by him But to put a difference only of degree or to double the dignity as well as maintenance 1 Tim. 5.17 to some above others in the same office is not like to be at all against his will Now then if you ask me Is Episcopacy jure divino or no I answer If you take this largely it is because superiority and inferiority in the Preaching Ministry of the Church is of Christ and the Scripture If you take it strictly it is not because the distinction of a Bishop and Presbyter is not of Scripture but this disparity of degree in the same order is assumed by man as consonant to the will of God in general and necessary to government To be more short Inequality for orders sake in the Ministry is of divine the mode or fashion thereof in Episcopacy is of Ecclesiastical institution It appears in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus that Paul writes to them after such a rate that does signifie very plainly an authority in them over the Elders and Deacons in their Churches How does he tell Timothy of his abiding at Ephesus to charge some that they teach no other doctrine Why does he lay down qualifications of the Pastor and Deacon what they ought to be and do What are the duties of other men to him but upon this account Wherefore does he bid him Rebuke an Elder And how shall he receive an accusation against him by witness if he had not an inspection and power of Jurisdiction over them And these things I write says he that thou might'st know how thou oughtest to behave thy self in the Church of God Again Do nothing by partiality Who does not see here Episcopus pastorum as well as gregis Who will not confess a preheminence of Authority in Timothy at Ephesus and Titus in Crete over the Ministers there that is not compatible with every common Presbyter You may believe it the rather because our Divines at the Conference mentioned never denyed it That which is answered is this That Timothy and Titus were Evangelists But in the mean time the thing it self and matter contended for is found in Scripture and granted to be practised by these two men And what if they had lived and dyed where Paul left them in the exercise of this Authority Had the continuance thereof changed the nature and made it evil Was it lawful for them to exercise such a power and jurisdiction for a year and had it been unlawful if they had exercised it ten or for their lives If it had not there is the whole thing which is disputed for in a fixed Bishop Here then I take up and distinguish There is the matter it self of Episcopacy and the form or mode of it The matter appears to have its warrant in Gods Word The form which is the breaking a single order to wit the order of the Pastor into two degrees in that order and upon the ceasing of the Evangelist an higher order the placing his work so far as it is ordinary and continues necessary to the Churches welfare upon the superior degree of the Pastor so divided is indeed of mans authority and contrivance Let then the Bishop remember that as he is Pastor the Ministers also are Pastors by God whose office as to their own flock is to rule and to teach as well as his Let him beware for his life he does not un-pastor the lower degree but think
it must be meant does not only doe this for it necessarily does the first whether it does the last or not I will suppose then it does no lesse It makes a man a Minister I say I suppose this not grant it and also signifies him to be such before men It gives the office and also it makes a man to be received as such in the Church where he is sent which is a matter of great weight and open importance as I shall say more about it Now I am fixed here Though we that are Ministers already cannot be ordained to the one end which is supposed the most common our case being peculiar yet are we may we and for any thing I know if required ought we to be ordained again for the other The common and generall end of Baptism was for remission of sins yet was Jesus Christ baptized who was not capable of that end but some others The common end of Ordination is for the office as is supposed yet if the Bishop shall say here Why comest thou to be ordained Thou hast no need that art a Minister already I will answer him humbly in my Saviours words Suffer it so to be now for it becommeth us to fulfill all righteousness It becometh us to conform to the peace unity and government of the Church as well as State so far as we can in the Nation St Paul is made a Minister by Christ himself Mark the words well for they are beyond dispute I have appeared to thee for this purpose to make thee a Minister And now I send thee to the Gentiles to open their blind eys c. Act. 26.16 17 18. And yet is he ordained after by the hands of men Act. 13.3 Will any man say that the imposition of hands did make him a Minister or confer his office That were not only against that text but such a manifest wrong he will never put up who in expresse termes stands upon it that he was an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Christ Gal. 1.1 which is the truth 'T is plain then that a man who is a Minister already may be ordained or that it is not necessary to be ordained only to this end to have the office conferred on him And now then my Friend that art in my case doe thou tell the Bishop thou art a Minister already Be sure thou doest not renounce thy former ordination and consequently as much as in thee lyes all thy ministeriall acts past together with thy consent to the Reformed Churches for any thing If he shall thereupon ask thee wherefore then wilt thou be ordained Say To this end this very end St. Paul here was ordained let it be what it will it is that alone I come for which indeed in effect is nothing else but the canonicall stamp of allowance or Establishment of thy former vocation and as for the bare Ceremonies it self twice using which alone is left to be excepted at value it not Who does not know that imposition of hands with prayer is used for Confirmation as well as Ordination I will advance here on further The reason of a precept is to be look't on as the precept To perform a precept against the reason of it is to break it To do according to the reason though not according to the precept is to keep it We have no precept in Scripture for Re-ordination but we have here in this instance the reason of it Let any one tell me the reason of this imposition of hands upon Paul by Lucius and Niger who could not be made a Minister by man seeing Christ had appeared to him as is said for that purpose before I will presume to give the same or the like for our re-ordination by the Bishop If you say Here was a command of the Holy Ghost It is true but that takes not away the reason of the rite the thing must have it's due end and reason but the rather for that What then is the reason indeed hereof Is it for to give the ministerial office and nothing else Surely if it does that at all which one may think God alone does by the warrant of his word upon his enabling gift and the mans Consent Yet is not this the reason altogether for certain because here is an instance to the contrary let any man cavill at it what he can What is the reason then Why really I think it is this This solemn rite does give the currant repute or valuation to a man of a Minister so that he who was truly called of God before is now received as such by all as to the exercise of his function with freedome and acceptation And this is that authority alone I count the Bishop gives at least as to us in those words Take thou authority c. To wit an authority of esteem in regard of men who many will not and many perhaps out of conscience mislead cannot hold me for a true or legall Minister otherwise And hereupon you see upon what ground it is we go in Re-ordination and that is no other then the very reason it self of Ordination which believe it is not a little matter even no lesse then that of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely the very course and glorifying of our Gospell which ought to be I think one of the greatest Concernments to us in the world To be short then for we are now at the bottome Forasmuch as our former ordination by the Presbytery though it be good according to God and consequently such as ought to give us this reputation or outward authority as Ministers which is the reason of ordaining yet does not do it and reach it's end in our Church by reason of the times and perhaps according to the ancient Laws as they are now changed and like to stand I argue where the reason of the precept is repeated who can deny nay who dare refuse the repetition of the duty And here the prime knot of the whole difficulty is also loosed which is this We on one hand dare not but own out former Ordination as valid for our ministeriall acts past On the other hand if we owne the first as valid what room can there be for a second There must be some sense therefore wherein it is to be conceived not valid null or rather as the case truly is nullified as to some considerable intents or else a second ordination does nothing but what is done which is absurd I answer therefore directly The validity of our former Ordination accipitur dupliciter This is what is cleer and so may seem easy to you found but cost mee many thoughts to frame and find This validity I say is to be taken either in regard of what it ought to do or in regard of what it does do as I have said It would be fuller if I could say In regard of what it ought to doe according to the Law of God and in regard of what
neighbour for his edification And here I may propose ex abundanti this farther Whether an irrefragable argument may not be drawn from the Apostles use of Circumcision upon any after the Resurrection of Christ to prove that an Ordinance may be used without breach of the third Commandment or other sin even then when it cannot be directed to its principal no not its proper end so long as it will but attain one higher then all to wit The promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus I will therefore now call the Reubenites instance again to mind craving leave to make so much use thereof in the cloze as humbly likewise after this to declare our case There are many of us who have been some years fellow Souldiers with our Brethren we cannot find it in our hearts to be lawful to give our selves a discharge in this war which were so pleasing to the flesh upon a pretence that will not hold with the Lord and hereupon we have been content to be farther engaged and submit in this thing Now the Lord God the Lord God of Gods knows we have not done this to erect an Altar against an Altar one Ordination against another we have not done it in rebellion or renuntiation thereunto but rather for fear of this thing that in time to come or that now is they should say What have you to do with the Lord God of Israel or with his Ministry that are not ordained according to the fashion of the Land and so they shall make us cease from our service of him Therefore said we that it shall be when they should say so to us that we may say again Behold the pattern of your own orders for a witness between us and you that we have our part also in the Lord and how much we desire accommodation And now I hope that Phineas himself the High-Priest and all our pious and tender Brethren when they have heard these words will be pleased and let us pass with that blessing This day we perceive that God is among us because you have not committed this trespass against the Lord. For the second part of the Objection It hath pleased God by his Providence to call us universally to change and it is not the interest now of good men to be stiffe and dividing but to be finding out the most conscionable grounds of complyance as far as ever they can with one another It would have been ingenuous I think for the case of Bancroft and the Scotch Presbyters is known if Episcopacy would by some general act of Confirmation have waved Ordination past but if she deal me thinks against her nature Pedantically not generously not Catholiquely herein it will become us yet who are the parties thus ordained and properly concerned to be fair We know what is her chief flower something must be yielded to her if we would have her part with any thing again and so long as we may declare our own sense and escape the sin we are to comprimize the matter for our selves by bringing our conscience toward God and submission to her unto composition If a second Ordination did necessarily in the fact imply a renunciation of the first what a hainous thing had it been for Paul to be ordained after by men that was made a Minister immediately by Christ Assure your self therefore most firmly from the former Paper about that matter For my part I will confess although I am one that cannot be lookt on as engaged to the Presbytery any more then to have been ordained by them yet am I so held under the conviction of the power and life of godliness in some of that sort of men above many others that I cannot let Naomi go easily and much less part with her with any indignity When these good men or party were high I could not fall in with them Now they are down my spirit like Ruth is more ready to cleave to them Nevertheless as for their way and particular government I cannot choose but retain my freedom and be apt to understand with those that give us the greatest latitude unto agreement and concord in the Nation To which end that tenent of Whitgift Def. Ad. p. 78 83 98. to my thinking does conduce It is true that nothing ought to be tolerated in the Church as necessary to Salvation or as an Article of Faith except it be contained in the Word of God It is true also That nothing in Ceremonies Order Discipline or Government in the Church is to be suffered being against the Word But that no Ceremony Order Discipline or kind of Government may be in the Church except the same be expressed in the Word of God is an absurdity and breedeth many inconveniences For we know sayes Calvin that every Church hath liberty to ordain and appoint such a Form of Government as is apt and profitable for it because the Lord hath therein preseribed no certainty upon 1 Cor. 11.2 as he quotes him To proceed on this subject I have in my second Paper and second Proposition set down certain Texts which according to St. Jerome at large on the first of Titus do plead the identity of a Presbyter and a Bishop and from him made use of by others Now I will take a Note or two thereon which will come in fitly here as the farthest way perhaps about but the neerest way home of saying something to purpose in this business The one Note is this that As those places on one hand do shake Episcopacy if pressed strictly Jure Divino So do they on the other hand go farther and take the Lay-Elder clean away which while some have pressed as strictly in Presbytery it would not pass A Presbyter or Elder is all one with a Bishop in Scripture But there was never heard of a Lay-Bishop a Lay-Pastor and consequently no Lay-Elder I mean as to ruling Ecclesiastically in Ecclesiastical affairs for if there were any as to deciding of quarrels to prevent the Brethrens going to Law according to 1 Cor. 6. that I suspect was all When there are no qualifications layed down by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. where he directs about the making Church officers but only of the Bishops and Deacons as it cuts off the Bishop from being a distinct Order from the Presbyter so does it quite cut away the Lay-Elder For that controverted place therefore 1 Tim. 5.17 which as it is urged in the Divine right of Church government did hold me under conviction until this light of the Presbyter being one with the Bishop was clearer than it I will give you my interpretation And the rather because neither of the many which Erastus Field Bilson Downam Mead Sutliffe or others have invented to wave that Text against Presbytery could satisfie me as perhaps this of mine may not likewise satisfie others Such as it is however you shall have it The Bishop and Elder I have said are one office the one name only signifying Industriam curae
an obscure diligence I must confess I am tyred for once in digging the mettal whatsoever of it shall pass the fire when it is tryed may be put into a new mould with less labour to him that shall have use of it There is one thing only I would propose now at last as hugely convenient in my slender opinion at this season in regard of the multitudes involved in our case as also for such as may come over at any time to us from other Churches that for the removing of offence and scruple altogether unto the forms of ordering of Deacons and Priests there were a new added for the Confirmation by the Bishop of such of them who have yet been ordained by Presbyters only which should be made to run in such a strain that we may say of it as Suarez does of the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas Haec manuum Impositio nobis tantum deprecatoria non etiam consecratoria videtur Let all things sayes the Apostle be done in decency and order Now it seems a thing not agreeable to order that he which is a Priest already should be forced back and made a Deacon You may say If this be a breach of order how could I submit to it I answer if I askt how it can be required it were more to the purpose Non oportet ut qui majores ordines susceperunt minores priùs habuerint quanquam sic ordinatè ordines conferri statuerit Ecclesia ut priùs minores deinde majores suscipiantur Aq. Sup. q. 35.50 It is no question but a Priest may be a Deacon because our Church of a Deacon makes a Priest and I was not ordained a Deacon before But that which I have to speak hereto and that satisfiedly is Matters of order I hope must give place to matters of greater moment If the Church does stand upon it it is pro formâ only and I do but observe order in breaking it As for us let our Rulers look to this we do but vail our heads to Obedience to Uniformity to Peace to Necessity What if my Ordinary be of the judgement that I am no Minister if ordained only by the Presbytery as hath been intimated before which by the way if he is I am convinced do what I can for all that it is an error for it is one thing to hold Ordination ought to be by a Bishop and another that no Ordination is good and valid otherwise Quod fieri non debet it self factum valet Yet does sober Davenant quote Athanasius telling us that when some in his time were ordained only by Presbyters they judged them in Laicos redire when yet he has his Ego non ausim before in the same determination And what if accordingly many of my people will not own me but clamour They will not receive the Sacraments from me I am no Minister and ought not to preach Nay what if my self do question whether I am a Minister of England though a Minister of Christ or rather though verè a Minister whether I am yet legalitèr so according to our Church And what then if they will make me Church-warden or Constable Yea to speak more gravely What if they do thus as before mentioned some out of Conscience and others pretend it Who does not see here that the stopping the mouths of gain-sayers the cutting off occasion from those that seek it the satisfying the sober and letting my Ministry have its free course is a matter of more consequence then this whole business that we should scruple so much at it The Lord still keep in me a tender frame and serious spirit but deliver me from a scanty soul and too scrupulously-superstitious conscience And here methinks my heart is enlarged towards many of my pious Brethren that need relief and who I am perswaded If they did know as Christs speaks but what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice would not haply condemn the guiltless that is themselves that for the continuance or the establishing their Ministry do submit to this thing Re-ordination Provided still they may crave remedy if it be clogg'd with any circumstance against their conscience which at present may be attained I presume according to his Majesties Declaration Then Mattathias and his friends said one to another If we shall all do as our Brethren have done and not defend our selves upon the Sabbath then will they come upon us and take our place then shall others possess the Sanctuary and incontinently upon our scruple rid us from the same Deo Gloria mihi Condonatio Feb. 1660. Your unworthy Fellow-servant in the Ministry J. H. Neh. 13.21 Remember me O my God concerning this also and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy FINIS