minus 10. What is that office not in name but in deed that the person in the Question must be ordained unto before he be reordained a Presbyter either it is the office of a Deacon or not if you say it is then 1. Where hath the Scripture made a Deaconry a step to Presbyterie 2. Where hath Christ given the power of baptizing unto Deacons See the book of Consecrat of Bishops c. 3. Where hath Christ separated the power of preaching and the power of baptizing 4. If our Deacons have a power to preach as some say then who hath power to suspend them constantly from the exercise 5. Or who can acquit them from the guilt of the constant neglect of their work 6. But where hath Christ conveyed the power of preaching unto Deacons 7. Where shall we place the boundaries betwixt our Deaconries and Presbyteries especially where shall we find such boundaries in the Scripture 8. How shall the re-ordained Presbyter execute the real office of a Deacon one part of whose work is certainly to serve tables Acts 6. beg for is not that work incompatible with the work of a Presbyter especially in great places and was it not judged so by the Apostles 9. How shall the Presbyter promise to continue in the office of a Deacon only as a probationer for the Presbyterie 10 How can he believe that a Deaconry is a step to Presbyterie when yet he is forced himself to step from Presbyterie to Deaconry if the motions of our speculations ascend from a Deaconry to Presbyterie how then shall the motions of our practicals descend from a Presbyterie to a Deacontie what cross-graind creatures would this make us and what contradictory motions would this produce in us would not such a procedure fit the person in the Question for this Motto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if you say this is not the real office of a Deacon then 1. What office is it 2. By what authority instituted 3. Why is it called the office of a Deacon 4. Why are men ordained into it as the Deacons office 5. Why are men engaged to execute it as the Deacons office c. Let these things be considered for consideration is the end of their offer not a positive present determination by the Author 11. How many ordinations to the same office may a man submit unto Take a person that is now re-ordained he was 1. Ordained by the Presbyterie to be a Presbyter 2. He was ordained by the Bishop to be a Deacon 3. To be a Presbyter So then there is two if not three ordinations to the same office passed already And if a man may submit to two ordinations then why not to twenty and if to twenty why not to two hundred if any supposed necessity shall require it as once in a discourse a Gentleman of the passive conformable way being asked what if the Magistrate should impose as many ceremonies in the worship of God as ever the Jews had though not the very same must we submit to them all Yes said be Suppose he should add as many more as ever the Heathens had must we submit to them all yes also And therefore what think you will it not be worth while to consider a little where we shall stop or stay if once we leave Christs institutions Christs boundaries 12. Whether by a reordination we shall not create innumerable scruples in the hearts of the people about the validity of our former consecrations of Sacraments and therefore if for the satisfaction of a scrupulous Clergy we accept an hypothetical reordination how shall we avoid the giving an hypothetical rebaptization for the satisfaction of a scrupulous Laity 13. Will not this reordination prove the greatest scandal to the Reformed Churches will they not sook upon it as disowning their Ordinations their Ministry their Sacraments their Churches their all for 1. Were not their Ministers ordained by the Presbyterie as well as ours 2. Had not many of them as much liberty if not more of attaining Episcopal ordination then ours 3. Did not some of them cast off their Bishops which is the worst that can be said by the Prelatists against ours and against but a very few of them neither 4. Have not several of them declared in their Harmony of Confessions their dislike of Diocesan Bishops and Lord-Bishops which is more then many of ours ever did 5. Have not several of their Chieftains written so voluminously and learnedly against Diocesans as few of ours were ever guilty of how can it therefore be denied but this reordination will sadly wound them through our sides and shall we make a small matter of so sad a business as 1. To cast such a reflexion upon such famous and numerous Ministers and Churches 2. To make such a wide breach betwixt our selves and them sometimes the Dearest friends 3. And to make it by backsliding from our former prefessions of liking and loving them 4. And hereby weaken the Protestant Interest 5. And play the devils and the Jesuits â—ame whilst they stand laughing on 6. And provoke Protestant Princes and Pastors to set themselves against us and it may be to fight us by carnal and spiritual weapons if this be a laughing matter what is lamentable notooùs is that story how Doctor Holland when Doctor of the chair at Oxford schooled D. Laud afterward Archbishop of Canterbury yea and turned him out of the Schools in the face of the University for denying Bishops and Priests to be one order and that upon this very account because it would set us at variance with the Reformed Churches which have alwayes hitherto continued in amity 14. How shall we be faithful sons of the Church of England if we should disown that ordination which our Reverend Clergy have formerly owned or own a reordination which they have alwayes disowned How ambitious soever some of our brethren are to be admired as the constant sons of the Church of England yet let me tell them if they have nothing more to argue their constancy then their disowning an ordination which was alwayes owned and owning a re-ordination which was alwayes disowned they may be long enough ere they atrain that honour except they attain it before they deserve it likewise had they no more to prove the unfaithfulness of the Presbyterians to the Church of England then because they will not desert the Church of England in these two material points they might twist sand long enough before they make ropes And here let no man buz into my ear such a Question as this how can the Church of England be unfaithful to the Church of England for I hope none will confine the Church of England to a few of her present Doctors be they never so eminent neither will they understand by their faithfulness to the Church of England Bishop Jewel Defence of the Apol. part 2. c. 5. di 1. p. 120. a faithfulness to a personal succession of Bishops for what is
Reordination accumulative and a Reordination destructive i. e. of the former ordination 19. Some distinguish betwixt Apostolical and Apostatical Bishops 20. We must distinguish betwixt a Re-ordination wherein nothing is doubtful but the reiteration it self and a Reordination wherein the annexed concomitants may be as doubtful as the repetition of the act or betwixt Reordination in thesi in hypothesi or in actu signato actu exercito CHAP. II. Containing certain Propositions whereof many are presupposed in the Question and granted though not by all men yet mostly by the persons that are chiefly concerned in the Question Prop. 1. IT is presupposed that Jesus Christ being Lord over all hath instituted and ordained the office of a Presbyter determined his work described his qualifications impowered certain persons to set some apart to this office c. for the converting of sinners and the edifying of his body Mystical Prop. 2. It s to be understood that the Presbyter is not a meer political Minister but an Evangelical Presbyter for so you must give me leave to call him nor a meer Ruling but a Preaching Presbyter yet not one that rules over Presbyters neither is it to our purpose to enquire whether there be any such Ruling Elders or Diocesans by divine institution or not Prop. 3. It is to be presupposed that Jesus Christ by his Spirit doth qualifie certain persons and encline to undertake and enable to discharge this Ministry and that the person in the Question is such a one and that his former ordination was not vacated through the want of any necessary qualifications Prop. 4. It is presupposed that no man takes this honour to himself but that persons qualified are to be solemnly set apart or ordained to this office and that the person in the Question doth ipso facto acknowledge as much or else to what purpose doth he trouble himself about Reordination Prop. 5. It is to be understood that this Ministerial ordination is the solemn investing of a person qualified with Ministerial power after and with examination approbation benediction and imposition of hands and that the person in the Question hath received so much from the Presbyterie and that the fault lies not in the defect of any of these acts Here I confesse is something more doubtful as whether the Presbyters ordination be an ordination but this I leave to others who have spent more paper upon this Question then upon the other of Reordination as also it seems doubtful to some whether ordination be an investiture with Ministerial power This more directly lying in my way I shall endeavour to remove before I step one foot further I find some that would make Ordination but a confirmation or testification of our Ministerial Call Thus that learned Casuist Baldwin C. C. p. 1032.1033 Ordinatio nihil est aliud quam publica solennis legitimae vocation is confirmatio ut constet omnibus personam hanc non sibi ipsi rapuisse munus Ecclesiasticum c. melius est vocare ordinationem solennem ritum quo testificatur de legitima vocatione ordinandi donisque necessari is c. it s well known that Ames Hooker and several of the Congregational brethren place the essence of the Ministerial Call in election and make ordination but adjunctum consequens Now I acknowledge if ordination should suppose a man to be a Minister already and to be it self but a meer solemnity as the coronation of an hereditary Prince then there is not so much intrinsecal to that ordinance which may hinder its repetition but let us not so slight ordination before we hear what others say Sum. in supplem ad 3. part p. 41. in Sentent Comment 1.4 p. 14. De Effect sacr l. 2. c 19 De Min. Eccl. p. 182. De Min. Evan. p. 166.186 Miscel Quest p. 34. Ordo signaculum quoddam Ecclesiae est quo spiritual is potest as traditur ordinato saith P. Lombard justified herein by Aquin as So saith that other learned Schoolman Estius Ordo Sacramentum est novae legis à Christo instâ—tutum quo potest as spiritual is traditur c. So Bellarmine In sacramento ordinis adscribitur in numerum Ducum Praepositorum hujus militiae accipit potestatem distribuendi aliis bona Domini c. Gerard saith Effectus ordinationis proprius est collatio potestatis docendi sacramenta administrandi ad illum ordinatio per se dirigitur eundemque perpetno infallibiliter consequitur M. Antonius de dom l. 2. de Repub. Eccles 6.3 Sect. 24. c. cals ordination Missio potestativa which the London Ministers and Gelaspy do well approve The Confession of Wirtembergh seems to hold forth the same doctrine we cannot see say they what use there is of those kind of men in the Church which are ordained for this purpose that they may have authority to sacrifice for the quick and dead Therefore it is evident Harm of Confes p. 266. that except a Priest be ordained in the Church to the Ministery of Preaching he cannot rightly take unto him neither the name of a Priest nor the name of a Bishop Mr. Firmin citing Gerards description of ordination before mentioned adds thus much more with whom agree the stream of Divines and the practice of the Churches in New England Which story of New England I confesse I should hardly believe Schisme p. 83. did not a New England man tell it Lo here you see are two sorts of Divines and what shall we do with them We will resolve to reverence them both but pin our faith on the sleeves of neither I proceed therefore to enquire into the nature of ordination And here I grant what indeed cannot be denyed 1. That Jesus is the principal Constituent of the Ministerial power or office and he is most properly the Ordainer and his Act is most properly ordination 2. That the Gospel-Charter is the Instrument to convey this power 3. That a person qualified with essential qualifications at least is the only Recipient of this power 4. And may I not add That ordination is such an ingredient call it by what name you will that where it is rightly put there is Ministerial power conveyed and where it is not put there is not there cannot be regularly any conveyance So that you may call ordination either a solemn-publick Approbation Confirmation Testification or allowance with some or a potestative Mission solemn Investiture Collation the essence of the external Call which external and internal Call I understand much like to their external and internal Covenant with others or what else you think fit and I shall not quarrel with you about words provided it be acknowledged that it hath the force of a condition or causa sine qua non And though I might with some challenge more as due to ordination yet I choose rather to content my self with thus much least catching at a shadow with the Animal in the Fable I
that but Popish but to a Doctrinal succession for that is Protestant And here what need I say much to prove that the Right Reverend Bishops Doctors and Pastors of our Church have owned Presbyterian ordination as valid sith that incomparable Mr. Baxter hath cited Bishop Jewel Bancroft Vher Downame Disput with Everard 240. Trys 541. Davenant Alley Morton Pilkinton Prideaux Overall Bramhall Bridges Bilson and Andrews all Bishops and D. Field Saravia Powell Chillingworth Bernard Ferne Steward Mason with the Lord Digby Grotius and Chisenhall to whom may be added the Revered D. Sanderson D. Featley Dr. â—â—wnes and D. Forbess and especially leâ—â—â— the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and Clergy of England be forgotten Irenicum who in their Book entituled The institution of a Christian man subscribed with all their names and dedicated to K. H. 8. an 1537. c. of Orders Nor K. H. 8. himself who in his book stiled A necessary erudition for a Christian man set out by authority of the Stat. of 32. H. 8. c. 26. approved by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal M. Pâ—yns â—ubâ—sh Tim. Tit. p. 71 72. with the Neather House of Parliament published an 1543. in both which Tracts they resolve that Bishops and Priests by Gods Laws are one and the same and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to them both Now judge who are nearest the Church of England the rigid Prelatist or the moderate Presbyterian And that our honoured Fathers were against the reordination of the presbyterially ordained appears partly from their owning such ordinations as valid and more fully in their constant admitting such to preferment without any reordination To instance in that famous story of the three Bishops whereof B. Andrews was one that were to consecrate Bishops for Scotland and the Qu. being mov'd whether those Scotch Ministers should not be reordained Presbyters before they were consecrated Bishops and it wâ—â—arried in the Negative and so they proceeded Iremember not long since a Reverend Minister and Prebendary told my self that he having received Presbyterian ordination beyond sea who when he came over into England went to a Bishop about his ordination who refused tâ— reordain him the judgement of Wickliff Hooker Armachanus and Mason shall be given by and by But if any one would perswade me that the antient Bishops were for such a reordination I shall only entreat him to produce a Catalogue of their names with a citation of their words for seeing is believing But I confess I have arrived at such a degree of assurance that few if any at all of the late Bishops excepting A. Laud with two or three of his Proselites that ever avowed a reordination of those that were ordained by Presbyters were those old dead Bishops but alive again they would quickly I believe remove reordinations and such like altitudes Nay more yet I do not believe that A. Laud B. Mountague or Bishop Hall though the highest in England that I have read of did ever maintain that those might lawfully be reordained which were validly ordained before so then the person in the Question must be satisfied that his former ordination is void or else he departs from those three lofty Bishops but if therein he be satisfied then he departs from others in this at least much more humble Judge now by this how we can accept a second ordination and yet be faithful to the Church of England 15. Will not this submission to a re-ordination prove a confirmation of some in certain false principles an enervation of others in certain true principles and so prove a lamentable scandal to them both See the danger of scandalizing your brethren Jer. 23.14 Mat. 18.6 7. Rom. 14.14 ult 1 Cor. 10.28 29 30 31 32. 1 Cor. 8.9 10 11 12. Now consider whether these be not false principles That there is an absolute necessity of a regular succession of Bishops and Priests that Bishops are a distinct order from the Presbyters jure divino that the sole power of ordination as well as the exercise of it lies jure divino wholly in the Diocesan or that a Diocesan Bishop is ential to ordination And so where there are no Diocesans there are no Ministers no Ordinances no Churches Organical no Christians See now how naturally such a re-ordination tends to the lengthening the cords and strengthening the stakes of these principles and likewise how craftily it weakens the hands and emasculates the hearts of those in England and other Reformed Churches which maintain the contrary Little do some think how their re-ordination hath drawn tears from many an eye and sobâ— from many a spirit whom they would not have made sad and encouraged many young ones to imbibe those principles which otherwise they durst not have tasted and how it hath been a sport unto some mocking and scorning at mens fluid vertiginous humors whilst others have stood trembling to see their dangerous stumbles and how it hath filled some men with hopes that all would do so and therefore they need to abate us just nothing and others with fears that too many would do so and therefore they dare trust us with nothing and just as the unnecessary Imposers so the Weathercock-Turners do sadly promote the Brownistical separation 16. How can the person in the Question pray in faith for a blessing on the second ordination either before in or after the solemnity for what ground have we to believe that Christ will bless such an odd use or I fear abuse of his ordinance or if you will a humane injunction varnished over with specious pretences of Christs institution Whether there be any more then a pretence of Christs institution try and see 1. In Christs ordination there is a segregation of person from the world which supposes hiâ— in the world in a sense before but thaâ— supposition cannot be admitted and consequently there is no segregation in reordination 2. Is there not in Christs ordination special dedication of a person to God which supposes that he was not so dedicateâ— before now this cannot be supposed iâ— reordination 3. In Christs ordination iâ— there not an investiture with Ecclesiastical power which supposes a defect of that power before but not so in reordination Where then is the essence of the instituted ordination or the natural consequentâ— thereof to be found in this new devised transaction which must be called a legal establishment a Canonical confirmation c. Upon what foundation therefore shall we build either our faith or hope that God will own us or blesse us in such a business 17. Is it not worth while to consider whether the Reordainers themselves be canonical or not not that I intend to slander in the least any of our Right Reverend Bishops only as I may without just offence discover in thesi that Bishops have as little regular authority to ordain as the Presbyters themselves 1. What hath been thought of these Bishops which were never elected
est Constant Conc. Can. 6. secundum Merlin ut neque Maximus fuisse aut esse etiam putetur Episcopus Statutum est neque hi qui ab eo ordinati sunt qualemcunque gradum Clericatus obtineant omnibus scilicet quae circa cum vel ab eo gesta sunt in irritum revocatis Now where is the word Presbyter to be found or any syllable that should intimate any Presbyterian ordination to be the reason of that censure 11. It seems that this was not the cause in that all things done by Maximus were made void as well as his ordinations Now let any candid Reader judge whether the person in the Question have common justice when such persons and actions as these shall be drawn into example against him 3. Doth it not well become these to pass over irregularities in others ordinations whose own are guilty of so many how is it possible for any one to condemn Presbyterian ordinations for irregularities and non-canonicalness and not condemn the Prelatical also for is it not an irregularity to be consecrated a Bâ—shop without the election or consent of the People and Presbyterie to ordain a man a Deacon and a Presbyter both in one day and without a publike congregation in a private chamber and without the notice or consent of the Bishop of the Dâ—ocess I might add are Drunkards canonical are swearers are cursers are gamesters are whoremongers are Non preaching Prelates and Priests and are illiterate Mechanick Readers c 4. As to the Statute-Law of our Realm is not that of capacity large enough to admit to preferment those that have imposition of hands only from the Presbyterie it seems so to be 1. From the Act of the late Parliament confirmed in this present Parliament â—egun May. 8.61 which confirmeth the â—udicial proceedings in the late interruptions â—xe cised by vertue of the authority from the late pretended powers such as were many of the ordinations by the Classes 2. From the book of consecration and the law establishing it neither of which have any clauses as is asserted by a great Lawyer that null ordinations by other forms 3. Because the Statute of 13. Eliz. c. 12. doth seem plainly to take in other ordinations then are according to our form it runs thus Be it enacted by this present Parliament that every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of institution consecration or ordering then the form set forth by Parliament or now used in the raign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady shall in the presence of the Bishop or Guardian of the spiritualities of some one Diocess where he hath or shall have Ecclesiastical living declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of religion which only concern the confessions of the Christian faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments 4. It seems further undeniably clear that the Law would allow such Ministers in that formerly presentations institutions and inductions were granted to persons Presbyterially ordained and they so invested were deemed legal Incumbents first fruits and tenths received from them and tythes paid to them yea they had the very same benefit of the law to sue for their tythes and profits and to secure their propriety as others had And certainly the law is not at all altered in this case We judge of the sense of the law by the uniform execution 5. I beseech the Reverend Prelatists to consider whether the principles and practices of the late Bishops do not oblige us to own Presbyterian ordination shall we not give occasion to some to account us apostatical if we should utterly disown such ordinations as the Church of England hath hitherto owned and moreover if our Reverend Predecessors would joyn in communion at the Sacraments either formally by their presence or virtually by their approbation with those that were Presbyterially ordained and we shall refuse do we not refuse to communicate with the Church of England or the generality of the chief Pastors and infinite numbers of the members thereof 6. What a lamentable blow would the nullifying of Presbyterian ordination give unto the Church of God especially the Reformed Churches it is well known that in the Reformed Churches their ordination is but Presbyterial no not any better in Denwark or those other countries where they have Superintendents for those Superintendents have all their authority under Christ from the Magistrate and Presbyterie without any Diocesans at all And moreover some of those Churches when they had Bishops cast them out and others when they were offered refused them yet it is to be observed in how great concord we have lived with them since the Reformation and those that do now disown them I would have them speak out that the world may know them Further if the want of Prelatical ordination will unchurch us then greater faults will unchurch a people much more and then what will become both of the Eastern and Western Churches 7. Will not the nullifying of Presbyterian ordination give support to the hypochondraick fears of melancholy persons lest some in the Clergy should too much indulge the unreformed Interest it is well known that Bellarmines great argument against the reformed Churches is hence because they have no legal Bishops and therefore no Ministers and therefore no Sacraments no Churches now if any amongst us should deny the Pope to be Antichrist and the Papists idolaters and acknowledge their Priests to be true Ministers and their administrations firm but deny all the Protestant Ministers not Prelatical to be true Ministers and their administrations valid who would think c. 8. What can be gained by creating this necessity of reordination whether Parsons or people or Parsonages not Parsons for its very observable that multitudes will never submit to reordination and of those that do submit many do it as to an unlawful thing on the Imposers part though lawful on their own part and therefore they are not gained at all and few other that I can hear of Not many of the people for its most certain that a huge number of the sober people of this nation are much saded at the loss of those faithful Ministers that submit not to reordination and no small number saded at those that submit fearing that they will prove time-servers and turn to any thing yea the more studious sort of the Gentry that read Bishop Vsher Bishop fewel c. observe the variations from the old way and are not well pleased yea many of the worst of all the people can see a difference betwixt drunkards and sober men painful Preachers and idle drones But then Parsonages and other Livings be gained there is no doubt but then where shall we find men to deserve them To engross into Pluralists hands and settle idle drunken insufficient persons that will be content with little more then they deserve to the
Council of Nice Merlin de Concil Can. 8. it was ordained that the Novatians though as it is said by some ordained by Presbyters and in a schism yet upon their return to the Catholick Church should have reconciliatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so remain in the Clergy Thus the Canon runs Si qui voluerint venire ad Ecclesiam Catholicam ex Novatianis placuit sancto Concilio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reconciliatoria manus impositioneÌ„ accepta saith Blondel Hi vero qui ab illis veniunt In Apol. P. 357. si forte Episcopus fuerit habeat sacerdotii dignitatem nisi forte placeat Episcope Catholico concedere ei etiam Episcopalis nominis honorem si vâ—ro non placuerit inveniat ei locum ut sit in parochia Coepiscopus aut in Clero Presbyâ—r in civitate una non videantur duo Episcopi esse ille omnimodò in clero â—â—r manere videatur To the same purpose â—or ought I am sure to the contrary Tom. 7. Cont. Epist Parm. l. 2. c. 13. may â—e applied that of St. August concerning â—he Dontatists Et cum expedire hoc videatur Ecclesiae ut Praepositi eorum venicentes â—â—d Catholicam societatem honores suos ibi non administrent non eis tamen ipso ordinationis sacramento detrahuntur sed manent super eos ideoque non eis in populo manus imponitur ne non homini sed ipsi sacramento fiat injuria si quando ignoranter fit nec animose defenditur factum sed corrigitur cognitum venia sacilius impetratur Deus enim noster non est dissentionis Deus sed pacis Concil Ilerden thus determines Qui contra decreta Canonum indiscrete clericos usque nunc or dinaverunt eis Dominus vel sancta Ecclesiastica charitas ignoscat amodo vero si in tali usu proruperint decretum Canonum quod ciroa corum personas statutum est id est ut nullum ordinare jam audeant observetur vel qui deinceps ordinati fuerint deponantur hi vero qui tales hactenus ordinati sunt nullo tempore promoveantur Here is rigor enough yet not exclusive of all charity Yet further I shall cite a story out of M. Mason De Min. Aug. p. 169 170. to the extreamest shame of uncharitableness He urges against the Romanists that their Bonner Bishop of London Heath Archbishop of York and Thurleby Bishop of Ely were ordained in a time when both ordainers and ordained were pronounced both Hereticks and Schismaticks by the Pope of Rome Sand. de Schism l. 2. p. 260. Unbish Tim. Tit. postc p. 35. postc p. 35. and Cardinal Pool when Queen Mary came in Pontificis Legatus cum regnum à priore schismate ac haeresi absolvisset Ecclesiae Catholicae reconciliasset Episcopos omnes qui sententia religionis erant Catholici in priore schismate factos confirmaret ita pro legitimis habiti sunt Episcopis The same story I find in that Testimonial Writer Mr. Pryn with two more The one is this That sundry English Scholars who fled beyond the seas to preserve their lives liberty and religion during her i.e. Queen Maries bloody raign where they received ordination from Presbyters in many Protestant Churches of Germany and Genevah were not only allowed and presented to benefices as lawful Ministers by our Bishops 〈◊〉 Queen Elizabeths raign upon their reâ—â— England without any reordination but one or two of them made Bishops without any previous Episcopal ordination and Archbishop Parker himself consecrated by three Bishops and a Presbyter The other story is of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury who coming from Rome an 670. confirmed Ceadda ordained before by the Presbyter Monk of Hy Abby In the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Nice we have this eminent instance of the confirmation of those that were ordained by Meletius Hist l. 8. c. 10 24. Socrates in Harm translat l. 1. c. 6. p. 225. who sacrificed to Idols in time of persecution joyned with the Arrians and was excommunicate of the Church and as Nicephorus saith took his Bishoprick to himself There remained as yet touching the contumacy of Meletius and such as he had advanced to Ecclesiastical orders to be determined of us and what the Council decreed touching him thus understand Well beloved brethren the Council being bent to deal with more clemency towards Meletius then he deserved for by just judgment he was worthy of no pardon decreed that he should remain in his proper City that he should have no authority to make Ministers no authority to advance any to the Ecclesiastical function neither to appear nor present himself in any other region or in any other city for that purpose but only to retain the bare name and title of his office and dignity They have decreed further touching such as were entred into holy orders by the laying on of his hands that they after confirmation with more mystical laying on of hands should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church with this condition that they should enjoy their dignity and degree of the Ministry They who through the grace of God and the means of your prayers were found no maintainers of schism but contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church void of all erroneous blemish let these have authority to consecrate Ministers to nominate such as shall be thought worthy of the Clergy and in fine freely to do all according to the Canon of the Church Let me add one instance more Niceph. hist l 11. c. 20. and that shall be of Amphilochius of whom it is storied that he was consecrated a Bishop by the Angels which thing being known Estius in Sentent Com. l. 4. in dist 25. p. 43. certain Bishops without any further consecration admitted him to the Episcopal function bestowing upon him only a salutation and a kiss and thus was a doubtful ordination confirmed By all which we see that good men and great men Politicians and Christians have thought such a general confirmation in the case of doubtful ordinations both lawful and needful charitable and profitable and surely it may be imagined that when God shall give us divinely qualified heads and piously peaceable hearts then shall we be ready to transcribe their presidents into our practices and draw their instanced confirmations into healing imitations FINIS
regularity and that he dare not now disown it nor his former acts done by vertue of it and therefore I may spare that great pains that some have taken for the proof of the validity of Presbyterian ordination Prop. 11. It is supposed that if the former ordination were valid in the judgement of the person in the Question then the denyal thereof and the imposing another ordination must needs seem very unlawful in his judgement Prop. 12. It is supposed that the Question about the lawfulness of Reordination is not to be measured by the laws of men but by the Laws of God Prop. 13. It is supposed that some things may be submitted to in a case of necessity which without that necessity may not and as the person in the Question would have the necessity of his quondam acceptance of Presbyterian Ordination considered by his Censors so undoubtedly that person himself should consider the necessity of others in their present submission to Prelatical reordination which necessity to speak ingenuously will excuse à tanto if not à toto Prop. 14. It is supposed that some Superiours deny the former ordination and forbid the further exercising of or at least deny encouragement to such persons as have that ordination only and this is that which gives life to this Question which might otherwise have slept in oblivion Prop. 15 It is supposed that a Confirmation of former ordination will not satisfie Superiours nor any thing else besides a proper ordination by a Diocesan this evidently appears in that the Bishop useth the same Questions Forms and Ceremonies in the reordaining of one that was ordained before as he useth in the ordaining of one never yet ordained Prop. 16. It is supposed that the imposed reordination though it may be called an hypothetical reordination yet it is absolute in the judgement of the Imposers yea and absolute in the form of administration for ought I hear by the Reordainers Prop. 17. It is supposed that though the Receivers of reordination may fancy it to be only accumulative if there can be such a thing yet it is plainly destructive of their former ordination in the judgement of the Reordainers and whether it be so in it self is hereafter to be considered Prop. 18. It is supposed that this Question is not concerning reordination by Bishops in thesi but in hypothesi not Metaphysical Bishops of our own fancying but such as are now in England be they better be they worse Prop. 19. It is supposed that in reordination there is more to be considered then the bare reiteration of Orders even many numerical Formes Expressions Injunctions and Ceremonies which if unlawful will prohibit submission though reordination in astracto should be lawful Prop. 20. It is supposed that the person in the Question lying under a double dedication unto God one in baptisme or sanctification the other in ordination as also under strong convictions of the excellency of the Churches peace and the necessity of active obedience to the lawful Magistrate in things lawful and the hottest affections to immortal souls multitudes whereof are in mortal danger of being discouraged scattered corrupted and starved when all that were presbyterially ordained are removed through blind idle scandalous or superstitious Guides succeeding will therefore do the utmost that he can lawfully to obtain his liberty and enjoy his opportunities to endeavour the salvation of poor souls the answering his own obligations the promoting the Churches peace and ultimately the glory of the Lord Redeemer And yet we may suppose that the person in the Question doth well understand that we may not do evil that good may come thereon and is likewise well resolved to suffer rather then to sin and to leave his work which he cannot do to the Almighty himself rather then to go out of his way and incur his dreadful displeasure in the pretended performance of it CHAP. III. Containing the main Proposition That it seems unlawful for a Presbyter ordained by the Presbyters to admit a reordination by Diocesan Bishops With certain Interrogations in order to a Determination 1. WHether is reordination an Ordinance of Christ or not If you say an Ordinance then I ask where hath Christ instituted reordination in his holy Gospel Either let divine institution be produced or else we can never believe it to be an Ordinance of Christ Jesus but who can find either Precept or President in the whole Bible I scarcely know any one that ever so much as pretended to it till now of late and what is now said shall hereafter Deo volente be considered But if you say that reordination is no Ordinance of Christ 1. Do you observe what everlasting blemish you put upon this solemn business in acknowledging it to be no divine institution for then it must needs be but a meer humane invention 2. And how you expose it to all that is said by the Nonconformists against superstition 3. Do you well consider that what is reordination to the person in the Question is one and the same with the ordination of others not ordained before and so denying that to be an ordinance do you not deny the other and so run your selves upon a rock that would split both Church and Ministery and expose your selves to the lash of all men except Papists and Brownists But if you say that this Act in reference to the unordained is an Ordinance being ordination in reference to the ordained is no Ordinance being reordination Oh then consider I beseech you what sad work you make with Christs Ordinance the same Act must be an Ordinance and no Ordinance at your pleasure the nature end and use must all be changed to serve your turn As if it were like the Camelion that can change its colour to sute every approaching object The latter part of this Argument from the abuse the Ordinance is used by that learned Estius Porro apud veteres saith he apertissimè de hoc Sacramento i. e. Ordinis scripsit Augustinus pluribus locis In senten Com l. 4. in distinct 24. p. 14. unus locus est l. 2. contra Epist Parm. c. 13. ubi Sacramentum ordinationis cum Sacramento baptismi ita comparat ut dicat utrumque Sacramentum esse c quadam consecratione homini dari illud cum baptizatur istud cum ordinatur adeo neutrum repetendum esse ne Sacramento fiat injuria 2. Whether is this second ordination to some end or to no end If to no end then you take an Ordinance of God if I may so call it in vain and so the Name of God in vain and so you break the third Commandement If to some end then either to convey authority or some other Not to convey authority for that is done already and so you do but actum agere which is absurd saith Mr. Humf. a vain and needlesse work say I and so you still take the Name of God in vain If to any other end then it is