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
distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will utterly subvert the other interpretation Yet there are three several answers each of which will take off the pretence of Timothies re-ordination 1. It is well known that several learned Divines do take that act in 1 Tim. 4.14 and that in 2 Tim. 1.6 to be one and the same ordination some say with the laying on the hands of the Presbyterie may be meant Pauls hands so Bishop Bilson Mr. Mason Calvin Gelaspy De gubern Eccâ—â— 252. and others others think that Pauls hands were not the hands of the Presbyteric yet that both Pauls hands and the Presbyters were laid on together De Min. Angâ— p 44 45. in 1 Tim. 4. Misc Qu. p. 101. and so both concur in one ordination so then if either of these were true as I confess I dare make a point of faith of neither then there is no ordination to be found here 2. It s more probable that if these Texts must be understood of two ordinations that they were to two offices the first to an inferiour the second to a superiour office and perchance first to the office of a Presbyter and afterwards to the office of an Evangelist Gelaspy seems to lean this way Misc Qu. p. 90 103. It s observable indeed that in the first Epistle Paul never gives Timothy any higher Title then Bishop or Presbyter which now at last are acknowledged to be used by the Holy Ghost promiscuously but in the second Epistle wherein Paul mentions the laying on of his own hands he stiles him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and either here must be a twofold ordination or else Timothy was ordained per saltum or else his second ordination is not recorded 3. Some think and I think it is most probable that 2 Tim. 2.1.6 is not to be understood of ordination at all but of some special gift conferred by the laying on of Pauls hands 1. As Mr. Baxter saith It may be imposition of hands in confirination or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism ordinarily used by the Apostles that is there spoken of which also seemeth probable by the Apostles annexing it to Timothies faith in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother and the following effects of the spirit of power and love and of a sound mind which are the fruits of confirming grace admonishing him that he be not ashamed of the testimony of our Lord which is also the fruit of confirmation 2. That very expression stir up the gift doth seem to imply that gift to be gratia gratum faciens for it seems too improper to say stir up thy office 3. The Apostle doth somewhat critically use a divers particle in these two Texts in the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the Question is why should Paul use different words if these were not different acts I am not ignorant that some say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to set forth Pauls act in ordination because he was the Ordainer and only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set forth the Presbyters act because they are only assistants in ordination But 1. This crotchet though ingenious yet it seems to be new 2. Altogether without proof 3. And it seems to contradict most of our Protestant Divines even Episcopal as well as others that acknowledge a power of ordination in Presbyters and that their ordination without a Diocesan is valid which they would not do had the Presbyterie no power of ordination at all 4. It supposes ordination in this Text which supposition is contrary to the two first probabilities that this gift was gratia gratum faciens and not gratia gratis data 5. In Acts 13. there is the same word used to signifie the act of the Doctors as was used to signifie the Act of the Prophets 6. This would overthrow their new interpretation of 1 Tim. 4.14 which is to put Presbyterium for the office with a Parenthesis in the Text to help the same and so make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Pauls act 7. It will overthrow that testimony of the Antients so much magnified for understanding by a Colledge of Presbyters a Colledge of Dâ—ocesans for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie their act 8. If this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie the Presbyters consent only then why should the Presbyters lay on hands any more then the people for the people were antiently to consent and to assist by their concurrence in prayer 9. If Presbyters are Ordainers with the Bishops as some confess then is it not against the nature of ordination for have not all ordainers the same causality 10. But further to speak the truth whether it make for me or against me these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often used promiscuously instances are not rare of using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for per and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cum And it is evident that the whole Church till of late for ought I yet see hath so understood the same in these Texts But to leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge whether if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference any things it be not more probable that they difference the interpretation of the holy Ghost from an ordination then an ordination from an ordination But let it go how it will with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet sure I am that it is more probable either that Paul ordained â—ot Timothy at all or that he joyned with the Presbyters in their ordination or that the Presbyters ordained Timothy to one office and Paul afterwards to another a higher then that Paul ordained him to the same office to which he was ordained before All that I observe further in Mr. H. tract is the authority of Chemnitius and Baldwin Resol 1. Methinks it is a Question whether reordination be more credited by these two authorities or more discredited in that they are but two and two not of the Antients neither And though it is to be acknowledged that these two were learned and reverend Lutheran Divines yet no doubt there may be two score easily rallied against them and it may be as learned as they I believe no Reordained will ever adventure to pole authorities and if they will not number but weigh they will get but little But if they will needs urge me with their bare authority I must needs return to such an Ipse dixit as we were wont to return to the authority of Arist at Oxford Rationem Arist expecto non authoritatem Or our reverend Brother may be answered in his own words or rather St. Hieromes Quod de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur But more particularly it is certain that Baldwin was against reordination as appears by his seventh Argument produced against it
true it cannot signifie to him either the bestowance of an extraordinary gift or the working of a miraculous cure or the conferring Ecclesiastical authority or the confirmation of baptism or popular election yet it may be used either to signifie the Bishops benediction or his approbation and allowance or his confirmation of our orders or as a separating us to this or that particular work Thus they that cannot admit the Bishops hands for one end may do it for another 7. It is lawful for the person in the Question upon his undertaking a new charge to admit a solemn separation by the Bishops and Presbyters with fasting prayer and imposition of hands unto that particular work This I take to be irrefragably argued from Paul and Barnabas Acts 13. 8. It seems lawful to admit all that is aforesaid though a man should not remove to a new place If a Minister upon this change gave up his place for lost and his people gave up him upon the dissolution of his legal title if he shall afterwards gain a legal establishment and have his liberty to proceed in his labours in that part of the Lords harvest he may for ought I know accept the solemn Good speed with the approbative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the honest Bishop By this you may see how strongly bent my soul is to peace insomuch that there is nothing that I can devise about â—eordination in the si that the right reverend Bishops can demand but it shall be yielded except only the formal investiture with ministerial power CHAP. VI. Containing certain Considerations humbly offered to those that are for the imposing of reordination to promote an accommodation 1. CAn it be imagined that Presbyterian ordination is such a groundless novelty as to be destitute of all authority I confess I wondred when I read the challenge of the late right reverend Bishop Hall and heard the like from a reverend Dean to give any solid Instance in all antiquity of a Presbyterian ordination What did they think of Pauls ordination as some call it Acts 9. by Ananias a Disciple It is well known that some would make the Bishops the successors of the Apostles of the seventy two Disciples and if so you know what follows Or what do they think of Saul and Barnabas their ordination as some call it in Acts 13. by the Teachers at Antioch Or what of Timothy's ordination by the hands of the Presbytery In Epist ad â—vag 1 Tim. 4.14 Or what of the Alexandrian Bishops consecrated by the Presbyters as St. Jerome tels us for the space of about two hundred years next after the Apostles Or what of the like history of ordinations by the Presbyters throughout Aegypt by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine Amb. In Eph. 4. August q. ex utroque Test Q. 101. Inter Ep Cyprian epist 75. or whoever they were yet to you it suffices in that they are cited by your selves for Ambrose and St. Augustine or what of Firmilians assertion that in the Church wherein all power and grace is seated there preside certain Elders which have both the power of baptizing imposing hands and ordaining But to come nearer home Bish Usher de prieccle Brit. 798 799 800. What did they think of that so famous story reported by so many great ones that the Scots from their first embracing of the Christian Faith Anno 179. till the year 430. were constantly instructed and governed only by Presbyters and Monks without Bishops Dr. Blond Apol. 314.315 Bâ—xters disp Ch. Gâ—v 97. Beda Ecc. hist l. 3. c. 35.17 21 24 25 26. l. 4 c. 4. Dr. Blond Apol. 367 368 369. Or what did they think of those so famous converters of a great part of our English Nation Segerius Aidanus Finanus Colmannus Tuda Diuna Ceollach Trumhere Cedda and others who received their ordination successively from Columbanus the Abbot Presbyter of Hy Abby who came out of Scotland at the invitation of Oswald King of Northumberland in the time of the Heptarchy About that time or somewhat after was Augustine the Monk sent from Gregory the great into the South part of England Chyâ—â—aeus in Chron. Sâ—xon l. 15 p. 456. Pryn ibid. 94. Or what did they think of M. Luther Doctor Medler and other Presbyters that ordained Amsdorfius Bishop of Newburgh Whosoever would see more Instances of Presbyterian ordination let him read Doctor Blondels Apol. Gersom Bucer de gubern Eccl. and Mr. Pryn's Vnbish Tim. Tit. 2. Can it be valid or candid to argue from the condemnation of Novatus Aerius Coluthus or Maximus to the condemnation of all Presbyters ordained by the Presbytery Certain I am that Bishop Downam and Bishop Bilson that argued from these against the regularity yet would not argue from these against the validity of Presbyterian ordination But let us consider these condemned persons severally 1. Novatus Eusâ—b hist l. 6. c. 42. who was censured in the third Century according to Eusebius He was 1. A Priest of Rome puffed up with pride against those that fell in time of persecuâ—ion through infirmity of the flesh as though there were no hope of salvation for them yea though they performed all that appertained to true conversion and right confession of faith 2. He became the Author and Ring-leader of his own hereticall Sect. 3. He was excommunicate and banished the Church by a Synod of sixty Bishops gathered at Rome with many Presbyters and Deacons 4. He wà s ordained a Priest by the favour of the Bishop though all the Clergy and many of the Laity withstood it who requested that he might be permitted to allow only this one 5 When he had presumptuously endeavoured to challenge to himself the title of a Bishop not granted him from above he chose two men of desperate condition to be partakers of his heresie whom he might send to a certain corner of Italy and there to seduce three Bishops plain simple and country men by some crafty means avouching that they must in all haste come to Rome feigning that they together with other Bishops meeting to the same purpose should appease and remove a certain Schism raised in that City these being simple men as we said before not knowing their crafty and mischievous fetches after their coming were included by such lewd persons as were suborned for that purpose and about ten of the clock in the night when they were somewhat tipsie and well cram'd with victuals were constrained to create him Bishop c. of which one of these Bishops repented and all deposed 6. He had formerly been possessed of the Devill 7. It was doubted of his baptism which at the best was on his bed in sickness 8. In persecution he denyed himself to be a Priest and forsook the Church of God 9. He caused the people at the Lords Table to swear by the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ they would never forsake him and fly to Cornelius ere he would delver them
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
where the person was satisfied of the validity of his former ordination Bald. C. C. 1039 1040 1041 1042. Examen Presb. 2. de Sacra ord p. 401. and only then for a repetition when the person himself was not satisfied which I suppose is the case this day but of a very few in England And as for Chemnitius he is so large in his discourse upon the Sacraments that I thought it not operaepretium to scan him all over but this I found by the way that in the business of ordination he refers us to their August Confession wherein he saith their Churches have explained themselves August Conf. l. 3. c. 11. f. 362 And there I am sure it is said more then once or twice that Orders are initerable The very title of the Chapter of Orders is this Ordinem sive sacram ordinationem vere though largely not as Baptism and the Lords Supper as Chemnet tels the Trent Conventicle Sacramentum isse nec posse in aliquo iterari For explication and confirmation whereof they cite several sentences of St. Augustine CHAP. V. Centaining certain Concessions on the persons part in the Question in order to an accommodation 1. VVE may lawfully accept a general confirmation of our former ordination which confirmation pleaded would work by way of Estoppel as Mr. H. after the Lawyers speaks Instances both of giving and accepting such confirmation shall hereafter be produced 2. But if this general may not be granted we proceed to particulars and say that it is lawful to submit to the tryal of our abilities faith and manners by those that shall be deputed thereto by authority This seems to be implyed in that Command 1 Pet. 3.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If to every one that ask then much more to those in authority If they ask and if of our hope then of our faith and life which are the foundation of our hope And this seems to be no more then what our Lord Jesus Peter Paul and other Saints have submitted to before us Chrysostom saith Porro is qui volentibus Ilt. 1. hortantibus gratias agentibus praeesse vult si ea lege praesumit ut consilio proprio tantum omnia faciat quasi nemini rationem rediturus tyrannice potius quam populariter hujus modi exercet officium 3. It is lawful to attend the Bishop for and to receive their approbation of our qualifications and constitutions if they please to grant it and whether their approbation be testified by word or writing alters not the case This needs no proof it flows so naturally from the former 4. I t is lawful to accept yea to seek a licence from the Bishop to exercise our ministerial gifts and authority Exod. 5. What is this more then to seek leave of any one that detains us either by right or by wrong to go about our Master his business Exod. 7. What is this more then Moses and Aaron did in seeking to Pharach to let the Israelites go to worshâ—p Nehem. 2. Or Ezra or Nehemiah did in seeking to Artaxer xes for liberty to go and build the Temple Acts 21.37 39. Or Paul in desiring Claudius Lysias to give him liberty to preach to the people 5. It is lawful to accept yea to desire the prayers and benediction of a good Bishop prayers for the increase of ministerial abiliâ—ies continuance of divine assistances and bestowance of abundant success Were this all that the Bishop would have that he might give us his benediction in solemn fasting and prayer there were no reason to refuse it but rather I think thankfully to accept it Did not the Elders of Ephesus receive Pauls benediction long after their ordination Acts 20. And did not Paul and Barnabas use the prayers of the Doctors at Antioch long after their ordination Acts 13. And are we not commanded to pray one for another Jam. 5.16 And is it not said that the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much And God forbid that I should ever think that there are not righteous men among the Prelatical or fervent effectual prayers that are Liturgical And methinks this might tend somewhat towards the satisfaction of our right reverend Bishops sith so much of ordination lyes in a solemn blessing St Augustine saith somewhere In Comment Sent. l. 4. p. 15. de Gubernat Eccle. p. 337. that Ordinatio est oratio super hominem cui imponuntur manus And learned Estius cals it Benedictionis Sacramentum And Bucer queries thus Manus impositio quid est aliud juxta Canonem uisi oratio super hominem Hanc verâ— orationem Presbyteris illucitam fuisse credibile cuipiam videatur 6. It seems lawful to admit the imposition of the Bishops hands on the person in the Question this rises high but from bottom to top I will give you a survey of my thoughts 1. Imposition of hands was of frequent use in the antient Church Gen. 48.14 15. Numb 27.18 23. Levit. 24.14 Deut. 17.7 2. It is not abolished in the Gospel but continued Acts 6.6.13.2 3. 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 3. That the use of imposiâ—ion of hands was various 1. Sometimes to signifie the bestowance of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost Acts 8.17 18 19.5.6 2. To signifie the working of some extraordinary cure Mark 6.5 3. The conferring of Ecclesiastical power 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 4. The bestowance or desire to bestow some spiritual blessing Gen 48.14 15. Mark 10.16 5. As a sign of consent or approbation Levit. 24.14 Deut. 13.9.17.7 Numb 8.9 10 11. This imposition of hands by the Israelites might signifie their consent to their consecration but not their consecration by themselves 1. Because the Israelites had no power to consecrate the Levites to an office to which they were not consecrated themselves 2. Because the Levites are said to be an offering to the Lord and the people were restrained from a personal offering 3. It is expresly said that Aaron should offer the Levites 4. It seems to be here as in the case of the bullock Levit. 4.15 6. Imposition of hands may be used as a sign of confirmation as many both of Ancients and Modernes do conceive and accordingly interpret that Heb. 6.2.7 This hath been used as a sign of a separation to a particular work Acts 13.2 3.8 This hath been used as a sign in popular election say many great transmarine Divines and some not Dwarss at home 4. By this various use you may see that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iterable as in confirmation and ordination afterwards or as in Paul and Barnabas and the giving of the holy Ghost and a separating to the Apostolick work among the Gentiles or as in Timothies ordination and a donation of a special gift 5. Likewise from the various use of this â—â—te you may see that it is lawful for the person in the Question to admit imposition of hands for though it is