be with my self if my labour be not in vain in the Lord unto any To his Twentieth I acknowledge the same as to the main but crave the Applications of his Thirteenth Distinction and Proposition His Fourth Chapter contains Animadverssons particularly upon my Tract which he reduces to Ten Arguments Arg. 1. From Pauls using Circumcision and the Jewish Rites to which he speaks p. 66. and 73. Ans I see noâ— well to what end he shews his reading here unless to confirm me more herein It appears by the Authorities and Particulars he recites that Paul and the Jews used those Rites after Christs death to another than their proper end And if he so industriously grant the use of those Rites which were the Ordinances of God without that end to which they were at first appointed by him Why does he make so much ado for us to use that Form which is only the Ordinance and Composure of men to another end than that to which it was framed at first by them See Ante p. 44. And loe here the Apple of that strife or paring of it about which they contend Arg. 2. From the precedent of Barnabas and Paul Act. 13. This he speaks to p. 74. ad 82. Ans The first instance of these hath methinks even non-plus'd this man Orders is with him an Authoritative Mâ—ssion Barnabas now is sent forth Authoratively by the Church at Jerusalem yet Ordained here with Paul at Antioch what sayes he to this Why this only It might be judged an occasional Embassy But how I pray could he be sent by them on this Embassy without the Office The exercise of Authority supposes the Existence sayes he somewhere himself And how could he have the Office according to him unless he was Ordained Here then is a double Ordination by men for as for any immediate Ordination of Barnabas from Christ before as of Paul we read not And this Person does hold that a men cannot be a Minister or have his Office but by Orders And yet does the fellow-instance with this take much deeper root in my Soul Paul we are sure was call'd and sent by Christ himself immediately to the Gentiles and yet Ordained after with Barnabas Now if a man may be Ordained by men who was Ordained before by Christ himself how much rather I pray may he be Ordained again that is Ordained only before by men And thus doth that which he answers to weaken this add strength to it which is A twofold Ordination one extraordinary and the other ordinary cannot justifie a twofold Ordination that is ordinary But what is this opposing words to real things It justifies it I say the rather The call to the Ministry is either Inward which lies in Gods gifting and inclining a person for the Office as he speaks or Outward This call from without we must know is either Extraordinary or Ordinary which by the way may convince this Author of a farther defect in his apprehension while he would make the Inward call in us to answer that which was Extraodinary then Well Paul is called Extraordinarily by Christ at first from without appearing to him on purpose that he might send him c. and yet called again by Orders for all that Here then is an external call we see double What can he possibly say to this Yes What can he say to the bottom of the matter The reason why Divines and he do hold the unlawfulness of Re-ordination is because they conceive a man is made a Minister already by his first Orders But heâ—e we have a Precedent for certain that one who is a Minister already may be Ordained Our foot here is upon a Rock Two thing he hath to answer 1. Some say this Ordination was to a higher Office But who saies so When Christ had made Paul his Apostle what Office I pray can be given by man after higher than this 2. We deny he adds this to be a proper Ordiâ—â—tion But though he does so I do believe there is not so much as one of the Ancients can be produced to have dreamed of such a denial and presuming that there is not 10 to 100 of all Divines else that ever interpreted this place otherwise than of Ordination I may conclude I hope that Orders is and must be that and nothing else but that which is or may be gathered of it here rather than to say with this person that that which is here is not to be accounted Ordination While therefore he endeavours to prove by several particulars that these persons were not Ordained here to their Office let us by Ordaining to the Office understand what such learned men as are of his mind do that is Ordained for the conferring of their Office Ut Episcopalem gratiam largiretur He little thinks how he is pleaâ—ing for me who do hold this certainly to be true and consequently when Ordination does no more than â—hat he allows it here to do what is the repetition of it to be so pleaded against if occasion be Let this Author therefore that admires that I do not prove this Imposition of hands to be a proper Ordination when it is generally received to be no otherwise than â—o know what is more material for him to prove if he can to wit that Ordination precisely taken as distinct from Election is any thing any where else in Scripture than it is here If he cannot do this he may put up and have done If he can yet will it serve our turn so that a twofold Ordination however will be proved to our hands And here while we are upon this Consideration and I my self with these Authors do distinguish some where between Ordaining to the Office and the Work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here I must offer these two or three things by way of Quaere 1. Whether all Ordination by man be not indeed to the Work Numb 8.22 Ex. 29.1 Act. 14.26 2. Whether the distinction accordingly where we are put to the need be not rather to be made only of the Work and so a man be said Ordained either to the Work in general of the Office or to the Work of a particular charge 3. Whereas some do distinguish between the power of Preaching and Administring the Sacraments and an outward faculty to exercise the same or â—o that purpose and do account that Orders give the one and that after a man must have a Licence from the Bishop for the other Whether the bottom truth here the notion being but lick'd aright be not indeed this That the Office and Power it self is given only of God and then that which Man does by approbation of his Call in sanctifying him by Ceremony to the Work gives him this authority or faculty before man as to his work in general and the Bishops Licence after is no more than as Claudius Lisias giving Paul leave to speak in his Province to wit the liberty of using this Faculty under his Jurisdiction
called Oratio benedictio among the antients If I were near some good Library I might perhaps turn over a score of Common places and Compends of Protestant Divinity to prove this further but I doe see half a dozen more before my eyes and brought to my hands without labour Hunnius Amesius Crocius Junius Tarnovius Voetius Lutherans and Calvinists who express Ordination accordingly Declaratio solennis Constitutionis testificatio missio solennis in possessionem manifestatio promulgatio coram Ecclesiae as Dr. Seaman hath them in his book of Ordination and tells us They are to be understood of the rite of Ordination to wit as I intend it distinguisht from election and in that sense may be admitted and so is it rightly compared he acknowledges by our Protestants to Coronation p. 16. Now then as there may be reason of State sometimes for a double inauguration of the Magistrate So may there be if I may so speak reason of Church for re-ordination of the Minister and so long as both agree in their nature the one may be I suppose a good argument for the other There is a learned but too vehement adversary I see upon this subject that does mention Olivers double investiture before a Lord Mayor and before a parliament as Protector but he might have made mention of other examples that would have relished better Our English of old did feel of what advantage it was against them to the affairs of France that Charles the 7th was crowned more then once Yet will not I rest here for we have sacred instances in Scripture even of the most famous of all the Kings of the Jewes who were annointed from the Lord by the hand of Prophets and Priests and yet inaugurated again after before the face of all Israel And if what the forequoted judicious Doctor intimates to us pag. 15. bee good that annointing to Kings amongst the Jewes was in some sense essential to their calling this one comparison alone I judge must needs strike a great stroak to the determining this matter It is true that the Papists and Schoolmen and some Antients who make Orders to be a Sacrament and a means of conferring the Holy Ghost may look on it as injurious to the Rite it self as doth appear by a sentence of Austin and Cyprian this Author quotes to repeat the same but our Protestants and especially the more learned Rabbies of them who tell us that this imposition of Hands was doubtlesse taken up from the custome of the Jews some add in their Synagogues in ordaining their Elders and not from the sacred mouth and command of Christ as Baptisme was are not and need not be so strait laced in this matter It is true also that some of our own grave Divines are willing to put as high an honour as they can on this Ordinance Mr. Hocker who strives to do so Ec. Pol. p. 410 411 412 413. hath these words What Angel in Heaven could have said to man as our Lord did to Peter Feed my sheep Preach Baptize Do this whosoever sins you retain are retained O wretched blindnesse if we admire not so great power more if we consider it aright and notwithstanding imagine any but God can bestow it The learned Grotius De Imp. Sum. Pot. circa sac c. 10. will have these two things accurately distinguished Ipsa facultas or jus praedicandi Sacramenta et claves administrandi and applicatio hujus facultatis ad certam personam the one he attributes wholly to Christ the other onely he allowes to Ordination The eminent Voetius De desp caus Pap. lib. 2. sect 2. c. 20. is proving that solemnizatio seu consecratio seu ordinatio seu investitura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant patres groeci illa externa quam nos confirmationem dicimus does not tribuere ministerium or is not ejus fundamentum I note the words in the expression as well as the position of greater concernment to us Honest Mr. Perkins upon Gal. 1.1 does speak here as truly fully and well methinks to my mind as any mortall man can I gather from hence saies he that the right to call belongs to God the Father thrusts forth Labourers into his Vineyard the Son gives Pastors and Teachers the Holy Ghost makes Overseers It may be objected that the Church hath Authority to call and ordain Ministers I answer that the Churches Authority is no more but a Ministery or service whereby it doth testify declare and approve whom God hath called Whose doctrine that is that Orders do Imprint a Character those that read the Councill of Treat may know That some of the eminent Papists do understand by this ind lible Character nothing but spiâ—itualis potestas those that reade Bellarmine and Lombards definition before may know unto what parties then consequently these two opinions on one side that Ordination does give the Spiritual power and on the other that it is the Confirmation of our Call do appertain may be known without a Monitor also There is five Disputations about Church Government of Mr. Baxters the second whereof as soon as the Book came to my hand did put me methinks out of countenance to see when I had been beating long about something with what fullnesse and perspicuity hâ— hath gone before me Let me set down a few passages The Ordainers p. 146. do not give the power as from themselves to others nor doth it passe through their hands It is the standing act of Christ in his Law that giveth the power immediately The ordinary judgement I think of Divines is that the Ministerial Authority is from Christ but mediately But this acute and known Divine sayes immediâ—tely He explains it p. 147. As in the making of Bayliffs for our Corporations either the people or the Burgesses have the power of choosing and the Steward or Recorder of swearing him and performing the Ceremonies and yet none of these conferre the power which he receives from the Prince alone by the Charter of the Cities or Towns as his Instrument So is it in the Ordaining of Ministers The People may choose and the Pastors may invest but it is God only by the Gospell Charter that conferrs the power from himself You will say though we have a Charter a man is not a Magistrate till chosen nor compleated till sworn therefore it is mediately I answer true it is mediately or through the means of the people and Steward doing that which is their part which is only designing the person but not mediately through them as deriving the power which they have not themselves that is if you will it is through them putting the condition according to the Charter for the Charter requires this that a man be chosen and sworn but the condition being put the power flowes immediately from the charter itself Why so here The power is immediately sayes he p. 234. from Christ and men do but open the door or determine of the person that shall from Christ
nothing left him hardly to stand upon in the controversie Before I passe let me here humbly lay down a caution I would not have any offer to think that I and the forementioned author do go about to make light of Orders as if when a man hath parts he may streight goe and be a Preacher of his own head There are none I know that hold Qualification a call coram ecclesia I am not a man of that complexion I am so much for a solemn allowance of the Church that I contend it should be twice done rather then not bee done to purpose God is a God of Order and hath provided against confusion and intrusion into his Church I am ready then with that eminent person to account not only that it is a great sin to neglect Ordination where it may be had and that the Church is to disown such and that it is required by Christ and so necessary necessitate praecepti medii too ad ordinem bene esse but I am willing to go so far that he requires it in his Charter to every Church which is constituted as a part of the condition which untill it be put the Authority coram hominibus is suspended And yet so long as being put it operates only to the power as a condition doing but its own part this hinders not but the same may be put and put again so long as it is not omni modo to the same effect and the nature thereof or part it does will bear it What is that you will say and In what regard possible can the effect be any other and not altogether the same An Answer to these two Questions will unloose the knot here of Re-ordination For the former There are three things goes to a Minister 1. The testimony of their Conscience of their sincere desire not of lucre or honour but to edifie the Church 2. A faculty to do that to which they have a desire and will 3. The Ordination of the Church which approves and gives testimony of their will and ability So Mr. Perkins in whose judgement methinks I rejoyce to see how fully he agrees with me in his Notion of Orders which yet I must confesse I took not from him or any other Book but from its own light in my first sheets Now whether this testification or approbation of the Church is such a thing or no I leave to this fair Adversary himself to judge and I hope he will see as those abilities and desires the chief part of the condition Christs Charter requires may and are to be renewed still or encreased so may the approbation of the same ad bene esse be renewed also and our Ministry be the better not as all the worse for it For the latter When I allow thus much to Orders to be a condition that is causa sine qua non of our Office-power I understand it you must note it well to be so truly and only in the Court of the Church A condition is such a thing you may say as cannot be repeated for it being put the effect follows and when the effect is obtained the thing can have no longer the nature of a condition I answer then The Court of the Church wherein alone I affirm that Orders is this condition is varied and doubled and hence it is that the condition it self also is doubled and the effect flowing from the same varied likewise While the court of the Church was Presbyterian any Orders if Scriptural onely was the condition but nâ—w it is Episcopal no Orders but Canonical also is the condition In both courts then or either of them unlesse a person be ordained he is no Minister and so the condition requisite to our authority coram Ecclesia is the same in both to wit Orders but as these Orders which are the condition are diversified and Episcopal Ordination distinguished from Presbyterian so the condition I hope is not the same In like manner the effect which flowes from the condition being put in either or both these courts is this Church-authority as I speak or the receiving us as Ministers in the court of the Church and so is the same but as these courts wherein we are so received and are the termini relationis are varied and not the same in that regard the effect also must be diversified or multiplyed and so not the same though the same which ends the difficulty Having laid this caution there followes an Objection which as to the main hath sometimes been a stop upon my mind I doe conceive that the Ordainers do act from God to the people and the approving or declaring a mans Ministry more then once drawes happily the ampler reception and no absurdity in it but I may be mistaken perhaps and the Ordainers act from the Church or people to God in presenting him a servant from amongst them to his house Even as when the Levites were separate to God Num. 8. it is said Aaron shall offer them before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel v. 11. And hence are the children of Israel themselves to lay their hands upon them v. 10. whereby there might be signified happily their parting with their right in them which to do again were a kind of owning their right still and look like sacraledge in it But this conceit I guesse is some of that close superstition which is still apt to exercise my thoughts in this matter It is manifest that when God saved the first-born of the Israelites in Egypt he challenged them to himself the first-born of the cattel were to be offer'd in sacrafice to him and for the first-born of their Sons he accepts the Levites and hence it is they were the offering of the people and that they laid their hands on them in offering them because I say it was in lieu of their first-born which is all plain in the Text vers 16 17 18. Now as for us under the Gospel when Jesus Christ the only true first-both is offered there is up such propriety and discrimination and consequently no offering of the Ministry in lieu thereof Besides though the Levites whose office was but a service only to help Aaron and his Sons vers 19. were an offering of the Children of Israel the Priests which was not a bare Service but a Dignity were no offering of the people but taken by God into that honour and office of himself The Subjects of a Prince may present him with slaves to do his work but they present him not with Embassadors as we are to be entrusted with the affairs of his Kingdom It may be yet said it is true he that hath this honour must have Gods calling and consequently the Ordainers act from God in ordaining him but there may be a middle way to wit that they act not from God to the Church or people nor from the Church to God but from God to God and so their whole act be terminated
receive the power and then put him solemnly into possession This is what is clear and well but there is a little more needfull to make it full Although in this businesse of the Magistrate which is Civil where the authority is of man and the officers officers of men it is enough to look no further then men and an outward court onely yet in the businesse of the Ministry where the authority is spiritual and the officers appointed the officers immediately of Jesus Christ and not of man we are to look further unto God and his inward court also and account that a man hath and must have his authority first in his sight before he hath it in mans and consequently what is done in mans court is by the way of Ministry signifying his will for the declaration or confirmation thereof with us to wit The right faculty authority or commission which a man hath coram Deo and the court of his own conscience as being truly called of God is allowed or approved by this publick testimony of the Church so that he is received reckoned or numbred as it is said of Matthias amongst the Ministers of Christ which is the very direct and proper effect of this external act of investiture and solemnization I will take an eminent passage from Mr Hooker who must be forced to understand here with us The cause why we breath not as Christ did on them unto whom he imparted power is for that neither spirit nor spiritual authority may be thought to proceed from us which are but delegates or assigns to give men possession of his graces Ec. Pol. p. 431. And here then I shall humbly call in my Episcopal fathers and brethren who have been apt to wonder at me in my first sheets that I should hold that Orders does not give the Ministerial power when they may rather wonder at themselves that they should think it wheras such a person as this who was as like as any by the rest of his discourse to maintain it if he durst does disclaim it as the doctrine of the Papists by their practise who do breath on the person whom they ordain as Christ did and not as the belief of our Church And as for the delegation and assignment he speaks of his meaning is expresse enough to be no other then as when a Lord does give or grant an estate to a person he sends his servant to use those Ceremonies which are to signifie that grant of his by way of delivery upon which he is received as the owner and possessor thereof I will expresse it fully for him with a concluding passage from the aforesaid bright author Ordination is one means conjunct with others for designation of right qualified persons described in the Law of Christ for the reception and exercise of the Ministerial office and the ends of it besides taking care the office fail not are To judge in all ordinary cases of the fitness of persons and To solemnize their admittance by such an investiture as when possession of a house is given by a ministerial delivery of a key or of land by a turf or as a souldier is listed a King crowned Marriage solemnized after consent and title in order to a more solemn obligation and plenary possession Such is Ordination Mr. Baxter p. 149. When the King sends over a Lord Lieutenant into Ireland he hath a power by vertue of that high dignity of making a Knight now while he uses the Ceremonies of dubbing he uses them not as the signification of his Princes will but of his own He acts not here as an Assigne but does it as an act of his own grace We are not to conceive that God hath given such a power to the dignity of a bishop that he may so make Ministers No no their authority as the solid and learned Mr. Perkins before is but a Ministry wherein therefore they must act from God onely as the approvers signifiers or publishers of his will and all those ceremonyes they use are the same externall signification thereof that such a one upon their examination is constituted by him according to his word and Charter to be one of his Ministers and that the Church is to receive him accordingly Now then there must be this will first before the signification of it and the will creates the power immediately The giving the power is one thing with Mr. Hooker most right and the external investiture or delivery is another But you will say When an Estate or office is given by a person and the delivery made also how can this be done againe I answer the office cannot be again given but the signification that it is given may be again The Lords will is one and the same but the signification of it by outward ceremonies may be various or multiplied The ceremonies of the same consecration Lev. 8.33 are repeated seven dayes together Besides there is a difference in the point of Delivery There is a delivery of possession in the thing it self As if I give one a book and deliver it and there is a delivery by a ceremony only as the token of that possession Here now there may arise controversie whether such a delivery were legal and sufficient or the like and what course then can be best taken to put all out of doubt but to have a new delivery which will be without exception The case is so with us just There is question whether Presbyters be Ordainers and it may be question'd haply more to others purpose whether in their Orders there was not a defect of some words of formall delivery as Take thou authority and if a quiet man then shall take the way to make all sure there is no need that he should understand by those words of the Bishop and the imposition of his hands that he does give him the power and office of a Minister which he hath already but rather that this is not given at all by mortal men but only is indeed a a second time declared or signified before the face of the church as given of God by these external rites of investiture delivery or possession I am sorry to see what a thin vail of words only can cloud mans understanding If I should say that Orders is the solemn delivery of the Ministerial authority to a person by the Bishop as a delegate of Jesus Christ it may be it would be received and yet when I say it is the confirmation of Christs call it is all one but understood with more safety which if it shall appear once in its light to my orthodox Adversary I shall not need to say any thing else in comparison to his satisfaction The whole force of his arguing against me in this thing hee knowes full well does lye in this supposal that Ordination does give the ministerial power and office and is to be taken only to that end Now if the ground does fall from under him here there is
the Bishop may take his if we may but have ours there will be no prejudice at all in them By the Holy Ghost as Christ used the words at first Jo. 20 I am perswaded is meant clearly the promise of the Spirit he had told them of and what that was is declared fully Act. 2. at the day of Pentecost I know it is said that the manner of delivery Receive does inferre something else then that at present conferr'd but is meerly a handsome glosse which yet some answer sic datus fuit Apostolis spiritus hoc loco ut aspersi duntaxat fuerint nondum plena ejus virtute imbuti This I will say if we may but be so bold to think that the Holy Ghost is not given by the Bishop here as it was given by Christ by his Disciples then must we have the liberty of our own sence in the thing and what then if by the Holy Ghost we understand nothing else but what is most genuine to any indifferent person to wit his more special presence for support and assistance of us in our Ministry who does not see the words to be inoffensibly competible to our case as others Neque dubitari potest sayes Arch-deacon Mason quin singulari quodam modo praesto illis fuerit ipse Spiritus sanctus ad illos dirigendos sustinendos assistendos juxta Christi promissionem Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad finem seculi Huc spectat egregium illud S. Leouis dictum Qui mihi oneris est author ipse fiet administrationis adjutor De Min. Ang. l. 5. c. 10. 3. To deal faithfully let us consider what â—hat sense of these words is which is or hath been most currant with our Bishops and Church themselves The holy Ghost essentially we know is every where and so not to be given There must then I count be necessarily here a Metonomy efficientis pro effectu The effects of the holy Ghost are various The effect they would have is such as they may hold de praesenti alwayes and certainly conferred hereby to make the rite significant to purpose The ordinary effects now for which the Spirit in Scripture is taken are his graces or gifts For his grace they will not say they do conferr that I take Grace strictly for else any thing from Gods good will may be called grace For Gifts they are more wise too then to tye them hereto any more then Grace There is some effect else therefore must be found out and that is power Receive the holy Ghost with them then is a power from the holy Ghost and this power specified by the next words Whose sinnes you forgive c. that is a power to forgive sins So Hooker p. 412. and Mr. Mason those two like famous sons of our Church Spiritus sanctus hoc in loco potestatem spiritualem denotat quâ peccata remittuntur And so Bellarmine might be added and more ancient authours And this I hope will help my adversary to his full weight if he can but really understand with such and believe that this sense is not strained and forc'd To this then I have distinguished for the purpose between the part of the Bishop and Minister These words we know are delivered by the Bishop and as they belong to his part let them be put upon his account and he will justifie them in this sense He beleeves our former ordination to be null and so pronounces them to us as if we had none of this spiritual power derived to us before and as if he did now give it us hereby And this we may suppose too he speaks truly according to his very conscience Now if there was required any answer here again on our parts directly and clearly acknowledging the same this were a scruple indeed to me invincible but when there is nothing of this nature to be said by us but the hearing only given to what he sayes and the interpretation left free Let us make the best of it and lay not upon our selves what belongs not to our charge And here that the faith of the Bishop may be strengthened while it will stand us in stead if he can beleeve such a thing indeed as will justifie him in his own sense the using these words to wit that our former Ordination is null there is one plea I think of more moment for him then that only which is ordinarily urged and this author hath confuted to wit meerly that it was not done by a Bishop and that is this It is not only the Bishops but the Presbyterians who are against Re-ordaining do hold that the Ministerial authority is conferred by Orders Now in our Orders by Presbyters there was no words at all actually to conveigh this power as these in the Episcopal Orders according to them do and consequently they being destitute of their end even that my Author also himself accounts the end and only end therof they may if they can think them null on that account And I do remember I have noted one or two learned Authors somewhere pointing at this as a defect and telling us that the Jewes in the imposing their hands on their Elders from whence the apostles it is thought took the rite up did use some words still particularly to express the authority they did conveigh intimating as if else it were scarce an ordination 4. To follow this wheras my Opposer does not only suppose but seems to believe and argue upon it even altogether that the Ministerial power is indeed conveighed hereby as our Bishops think themselves I will ask him whether he thinks if these words were not used that power which they impart were given without them Yea or No If he thinks No then must his Ordination I say by Presbytery be null where no such words of giving authority was used at all and he be re-ordained upon that score If he thinks Yea yet holds as he does that Orders give it Why should a rite so material and significant be omitted before and the defect not be supplied by a new solemnity and so that at least in Gregories Decretals take place In talibus non est aliquid iterandum sed cautè supplendum quod incautè fuerat praetermissum 6. But to set us upon our right bottom when some Episcopal Divine do plead Ordination by Presbyters to be null upon that maxim Nemo dat quod in se non habet Mr. Baxter answers p. 234. It is the first error of the adversary to hold that this power is given by men as first having it themselves So p. 147. This falsly supposeth that the Ordainers are the givers of power the master error in their frame Christ hath it and Christ giveth it Men give it not though some of them have it for they have it only to use not to give Let me say the same here to my present adversary and I need say no more If the Ministerial power be given by Orders then are Orders of necessity to
the being of the Ministry but that Orders are not of absolute necessity necessitate medii ad esse ministerii it is proved by that author cap. 3. beyond answer as by Voâ—tius and others The truth is there is no Protestant Divine I know but grant in Ecclesiâ constituendâ or in a case of necessity a man may be a Minister without Orders and if there were but one instance in the world where a mans ministry is valid unordained the power is proved thereby to be immediately from Christ and the esse ministerii not to depend upon ordination I shall content my self with one instance and that is of Barnabas of whom we read in Acts 11.19 that he was sent forth by the Church of Jerusalem and then is ordained after with Paul at Antioch Acts 13 2. Now I demand was Barnabas ordained before or no If he was not then is not the Ministerial power given by nor the being of the Ministry depend upon Ordination If he was then have we here plain text and example for Re-ordination 7. To understand this clearly and more fully though before touched The Ministerial power must be considered as I have intimated Coram Deo or Coram Hominibus when a man hath Gods gifts and a heart to devote them to the use of the Church it is Christs will he should be his Minister and as his will makes it his duty it must give him right and power now when the man hath this it is his will moreover that these gifts be approved and power declared by the Church that he may be received as his Minister or Embassador by men and those particularly unto whom he is sent This is done by this Solemnity this is one end and proper nature of it and so the authority he had before Coram Deo is made current Coram Ecclesia and he reputed and passed streight by all amongst the Order as we call it of the Clergy Understand me I pray here The authority of the Ministry Coram Deo and Coram Hominibus I count not two authorities but the same one Spiritual authority which being derived to a man from the standing act of Christs will in his institution immediately upon his inward call in the Court of Heaven and his own Conscience does not yet passe in the Court of the Church till this call be approved and confirmed by her Pastors which she requires for Orders sake and calls Ordination And here now is a firm and true foundation laid against that Objection which is apt to rise upon us that if the Ministerial power flows immediately from Christs charter and call then may any man pretend hereunto and take upon him to be a Minister without Orders which were to open the door to Fanaticism and Confusion But God forbid we should not be able to put a bar upon such which we can clearly maintain It is this to wit that whatsoever a mans call is in the sight of God the Church is to take no cognizance of it untill by some of her chief appointed Pastors to that purpose it be approved testified and declared by this Solemnity If a man hath indeed abilities and a heart for Christs service then iâ— he bound to submit them to tryal and get them allowed if he does not he sins and the Church is to take no notice of him till then 1 Tim. 5.22 1 Tim. 3.10 so that you may see how the actual exercise of a mans Ministry does depend even altogether hereupon though the power does not and that Text made good How can they preach except they be sent in this sense of the words they are ordinary used whether truly or no I here say not Let a David be excommunicate for Adultery he shall be held Coram Ecclesia out of the Church as well as an Ahaz let a man be truly called while his calling is not approved by the Church which is by Orders we shall not account him a Minister any more then he that is not called and if a man be not called yet if he be ordained his Ministrations are not to be doubted of as valid to the Church while he is to repent of his bad Conscience before God To give more life to this As what hath been said may appear from its own light so will it appear more fully from the case of necessity wherein the validity of the Ministry without Orders is agreed to by all If the Ministerial power did not come to a man Coram Deo so that he is a Minister in Gods sight before Orders then could not necessity dispence with them because necessity falls not upon God There is no impossible with him But when the authority orders give is only this authority Coram Hominibus that is the reception or acceptation thereof with men the value or esteem of us as Ministers at the Churches bar in their sight or account what we are in Gods before let a man plead impossibility whether natural as suppose him among the Indies that he cannot be ordained or moral suppose him among the papists that he cannot without sâ—nne against his conscience this plea Nemo tenetur ad impossibile is good at mans barr for upon man necessity does come and he is to be dispensed with and his ministry therefore to passe which else in Ecclesia rectè constitutâ were to be quite refused for orders sake I cannot omit here one simile to the same point which is laid down strongly by Grotius De Imp. p. 270. Potestas maritalis est a Deo applicatio ejus potestatis ad certam personam ex consensu vonit quo tamen ipsum Jus non datur Nam si ex consensu daretur posset consensu etiam dissolvi matrimonium For my part I cannot but conceive thus A man and a woman consents in their hearts and privately give the same to one another This contract between themselves makes them husband and wife before God and his standing Law conveigheth to the man his power and obligeth both to their duties yet are they not to live together before marriage if it were only for the shame or sake of the world besides that it is their duty hereupon as matter of publick order to seek the matrimonial investiture which is valid according to the Land So is it here when a man having Gods gifts does consent seriously between him and his Soul to dedicate them to his service the same standing law or will of his in his word or institution about this matter does make it his duty and give him power yet is he not to have the exercise of it before this investiture of Orders not only because of the bastardy of the Ministry that will else follow when men shall be received without tryal and approbation Nor only because God commands this as his duty so that he sinnes if it may be had to neglect it but because the Church or People are not to receive or account such as Ministers as they will not a couple
yet cannot passe without confession and crave the Readers ingenuity I have observed what a little escape sometime as another would think Augustine takes notice of himself in his Retractations For passing my judgement on Re-ordination I laid down as first two distinctions There are some things I said that are indifferent in their nature so as in some case they may be done and yet are by Divines indefinitely counted evil And there is evil which is notional only or moral evil That which my Opponent sayes to this is only that he quotes Dr. Saunderson ingenuously intimating from whence I took my first distinction and not disallowing my second differs only in his verdict that he accounts not this thing in the number of such indifferents to wit indifferentia ad unum but a thing unlawfull and not an imaginary but morall evil He does not give us any reason here pro or con only passes to the next but I desire my Reader to note I do not leave the businesse so but when I have given in my opinion otherwise I proceed in my discourse to lay down the nature of Orders which I humbly offer as the free and open account for that my judgement I have been therefore so large upon this before as I must continue and seeing this Author opposes nothing but runs upon the common by as to the contrary to wit that Orders do give the Ministerial Authority and Office which is not I take it well understood of those themselves that receive it I shall seasonably take here into remembrance those Arguments which the London Divines do offer for this assertion and if they be answered my Brethren I suppose will not be seeking to find out any more likely or solid from others Their first Argument is this If Election does not give the essentials of the Ministerial Office then Ordination doth I answer As for those many eminent and learned Divines besides the Ministers of New England that do hold Election gives the Ministerial Office and these worthy judicious Divines of London that hold Ordination doth it may I think both fairly part stakes When the former do say and prove that Ordination is but the confirmation of a man in his Office not the giving the Office I like well the liberty of their judgements but when they have will taken from Orders this which is too high for man to assume and give it to Election and the people I understand not with them It is Mr. Perkins I Judge clearly in the right here who hath told us Our calling is of God and the Churches Authority is a Ministry to approve and confirm that call This I do assent to in opposition to both of these Learned parties to wit that Ordination does not give the power or Office but is only the confirmation of our call against the one and that that call is of our inward call by God and not so low as the outward only of Election by the people Ordinationis ritus est talis publica testification quâ vocatis in conspectu Dei ipsius nomine doclaretur esse legitima divine sayes Chemnetius Unto which I will adde one signal testimony and that is out of the Confession of the famous Churches of Helvetia speaking that the Ministerial charge it to be committed to such only as are found skillfull in the Law of God of a blamelesse life and to bear a singular affection to the Name of Christ the three things our Perkins before acurately hath it follows which seeing it is the true Election of God is tightly allowed by the consem of the Church and by the laying on of the hands of the Priest Harm Confess printed Anglicae Cambridge 1586. Their second Argument is from Tit. 1.5 Ordination does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they presse the word Act. 6.3 I answer this Text Tit. 1.5 is paralell with Act. 14.23 see Fulk in locum and in both the word ordained though the Greek differ is taken comprehensively as it includes election and so in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom we may appoint the plurall we includes I think those whom the Apostles speak to as well as themselves and makes for us for is follows then Ordination does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituere or make a Minister as election does and election as ordination that is they do both go to the designation of the person as in the making Magistrates in Corporate Towns but the power does flow immediately from the Charter from Christs institution The third Argument is from Ro. 10 15. this sending say they is missio potestativa a sending with authority I answer it is true compare Jer. 23.21 with it but this Authoritive mission is not Ordination This appears irrefragably by the climax in the Text themselves have noted Without calling upon the name of the Lord no salvation without faith no calling upon him without hearing no faith without preaching no hearing and without being sent no preaching consequently if by being sent is meant Ordination it must follow without Ordination no Salvation which God forbid seeing Histories are not wanting to tell us not only of some persons but people as I remember have been converted by private Christians and scattered Disciples which have not been in orders see Theodorat lib. c. 14. et c. 23 24. Peter Martyr disproving the opinion of those that hold Ordination so necessary Vt citra eam non posset esse Ministerium in ecclesia does quote John the Baptist who preacht and baptized and no doubt converted many and Paul before the 13. of the Acts and Moses who consecrated Aaron and his sons and offered varia sacraficiorum genera saies he and had no consecration Loc Com. De Ec. p. 849. The fourth Argument is from 1 Tim. 4.14 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they say here is Docendi officium for which they quote those two Texts Eph. 4.8 Rom. 12.6 Answ I must confesse I my self have been bended to this same conceit upon the score of the last Text but when I have more narrowly consulted the same I find that I and they have been quite out The question is whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be inâ—er reted Office And if the Apostle does use it in that sense otherwhere we shall be apt to believe it so here if he does not this belief will sink of its own accord Now then if we look the first of these quoted Texts we shall find the word there to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so is a plain mistake that concerns not our search For the other Text then let us look into it and we find the Apostle does distinguish de industria between the two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gifts and Grace and the one of them according to the sense there must signifie authority and office and the other endowments or abilities for the same Now which of the two words is it that signifies the former
dedicate himself to this service before him as an Outward and solemn by Ordination which whether it be Presbyterial of Episcopal it is all alike as to what the word requires but is not accepted alike in our present Church which stands upon her proper form and mode of Government I will enlarge a little here There is a Fundamental right as Presbyterians say and I believe in every Minister to Ordain others according to that rule which is dignified by a great Pen Ordinis est conferre ordines Nevertheless when the Church came to see it good for the avoiding of faction and keeping peace to give a preheminence to the Bishop above the Presbyter there is no reason but the Presbyter upon consent might as to the actual exercise hereof de jure suo cedere so as to Ordain none without the Bishop which comming more and more into debate it is no wonder if you begin at the second Canon of the Apostles and goe over all the Councils and Fathers and find this still the allowed prerogative of the Bishop to have the power of Ordination according to that which is so well known of Cassander Convenit inter omnes on Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse sed postmodum Schismatis evitandi causâ Episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum cut chirotonia id est ordinandi potestas concessa est Now forasmuch as the authority of Councils or Fathers is received or not received of particular Churches according to their proper concernments and complexion As Presbytery hath served her self of the Scripture to the neglect hereof It cannot be expected but Episcopacy should serve her turn likewise of Antiquity which being added to present power must needs discountenance other Orders and if they come once not to be received and owned the ground is laid for their refreshment or iteration I remember in the Council of Nâ—ce we have this Canon Can. 17. Si quis ausus fuerit aliquem qui ad alterum pertinet ordinare in sua ecclesia cum non habeat consensum Episcopi ipsius à quo recessit Clericus irrita erit hujusmodiordinatio Let me ask here any Divine Presbyterian or Episcopal Suppose a man ordained by another Bishop than his own and without his leave is that man truly ordained or no There are none in our dayes will deny it and yet according to these Canons such a mans Ordination was null and consequently if he would enjoy the use of his Ministry under his Bishop he must be re-ordained Now let any learned man tell me how such Ministers in this case could submit to that Canon in those dayes which no doubt but most did submit to seeing that Council was so authentique in the word and then will our case be also opened and justified to my hands In short it is sufficient for the Church to receive a man as a Minister that is Ordained only by the Presbytery as of old by any Bishop as their own according to Scripture which knows no difference between Bishop and Bishop or Bishop and Presbyter in this case but it would and will not serve according to Ecclesiastical constitution Let us now see what my Opposer sayes here and it is the same only he hath every where If the Presbyterial ordination leave a man not capable of having any thing conferr'd on him but only the free use of his Ministry in the English Church why will he submit to such a form as was purposely instituted to conferr the very Ministry it self why are such prayers put up to God as suppose him to be no Minister This is answered already and we see the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same still There is no form to be conceived such as to confer the Ministry it self unto any or to put up Prayers that a man may be made a Minister as he conjectures and speaks p. 68. I doe therefore produce him the very words of this form to serve my turn Take thou authority to preach the Word and minister the Sacraments where thou shalt be appointed which are so apt as if they wâ—re studied to ordain a man not to the Office but to the Work only of his place Hereunto he candidly gainsays nothing only tells us there are more words used than these to wit Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins yee remit c. unto which words in particular and the form in general I have spoken at large at first What I must say over again to answer him as I go along is Our Ordainers must not be look'd upon according to this Author as Creators of the Ministerial power which is given alone by Jesus Christ but as the signifiers and approvers of his Will and Grant There is indeed one grand Warrant I must say Commission or Charter from Christ in general empowring them who are qualified as his word describes to be his Ministers The Ordainers now are to enquire whether a person have these qualifications that is as it were whether he be in the Commission and then if he be found there what they doe besides is but the declaring this by the solemnity The Commission then or Ministry it self is from our Lord and Orders doe but give the same its free passage in the Church where a man is Now this passage is hindred by the change of the times and therefore the Right Reverend as he speaks is troubled to remove this hindrance and so not to doe only what is already done He is troublâ—d not to make a man again a Minister of Christ but a Canonical Minister if you will of our Church that is to make him passe for such according to their Lawes and Canons when else he cannot pass and therefore is this also done by that form so prescribed the words whereof which stick we are to conceive with all forms of Orders else must be interpreted only as I have said to be declarative not operative of our power by way of investiture possession or solemnization Even as it is in the inauguration of Princes which as I have but now instanced in David above and Solomon before may be valid at first and yet done over again to establish them more formally or legally amongst their people I will take a little liberty here of more words Ordination I count is the confirmation declaration and solemn allowance of a mans Ministry by our chief Pastors and Rulers that may give us the value and recepâ—ion as Ministers to all intents in the Church particularly for the execution of our charge where we are Now there being none according to the form of our English Church and Nation of authority to doe this but the Bishops though our former Orders have been sufficient hitherto and are yet good as to our Right yet growing insufficient through this change or enervate as to the effect the renewal of them according to the present Polity unless there be some mysterious danger in submitting at all hereto does become
expedient to us and obliging and obliging without some other greater reason because expedient to us for the sake of the Gospel To advance this yet farther There be some learned men do give much here to the Magistrate Grotius saies Mr. Baxter commendeth the saying of Musculus that would have no Minister question his Call that being qualified hath the Christian Magistrates Commission I observe Grotius himself does allow Confirmation of a Minister distinctly to the Magistrate and Dr. Seaman hath quoted Gerrhard to the same purpose I might I think adde someâ—hing out of Peter Martyr Chemnitius and most others Now if these great men held that Ordination made a Minister the Mâ—gistrate could have no part assigned him at all about that business but if Ordination only declares a mans Ministry If it be Christ alone gives us our Office and man only procures us an outward Authority for repute and reception as Ministers in the Church where we are called which I take it is true then as I doe not doubt but that upon supposition there were no Ministers in a place to ordain the Magistrates allowance is good So do I propose it to be considered whether the Magistrates appointing who shall be Ordainers Presbyters or Bishops may not still determine the validity by either in the Church where he is Sâ—preme and consequently though our Orders before were of force now the pleasure of our Law-givers is otherwise whether we may not be re-ordained upon that accourt This lâ—oâ—er because there may be some consciences perhaâ—s that can act upon such a ground as this when they cannot otherwise though I intend to lay no furâ—her stress upon it I return then to my Opposer who p. 67 68. is hunting some of my exâ—ressions but should do well to take the substance with them I am in my last Proposition there proposing such Scriptures which concern the fift Commandment Our Superiours are to be obeyed in all things 1 Pet 2.13 Col. â— 22 This thing is what they require and impose uâ—on us and that I take therefore to be a plain ground for our submission There is a late book of some tender and learned Diâ—ines concerning the interest of words in prayer who when they have told us p. 72. that what we call the Church of England is nothing else than a company of men by a Civil Power made Bishops and called to advise the State in things concerning Religion do add p. 73. We again say far be it from us to oppose Civil Authority either exercised by Lay-persons or Ecclesiastical persons We further sâ—y we are bound to obey the Civil magistrate in all things in things lawful actually in things unlawful by suffering I do note this passage as that which may do good to many and tend to healing when the rest of that book may make them but very sore to wit that though they should have received such prejudicate and hard thoughts of the Government by Bishops as if they were anti-Câ—ristian against their Covenant or the like yet may they see here how or under what notion they may obey them for all that to wit as the King is Supreme both in causes Ecclesiastical and Civil the Bishops I perceive are taken with them for Magistrates appointed under him in the one as the Judges Justices are in the other so they allow obedience to them is to other Superiours so long as they require only things lawful and that our matter in hand is such it suffices I count that it is no where forbidden in the light of Nature or Scripture directly or consequentially and therefore it is lawful for which I have quoted that known Text Where there is no Law there is no transgression In his rebus sayes Austin de qu bus nihil certi statuit Scriptura instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt That which can be supposed to be replied to this is only that it is like the Law forbids the repetition of such an Ordinance and therefore I do clear this by other instances The first was of Marriage which hath been ordinarily by the Magistrate and the Minister both in these times I mâ— seâ—f have had a comple come to me after they were long married and had a child and I made no question to marry them again for the satisfaction of their consciences The like apprehensions therefore I have perceived in me about this matter I see indeed some others are ready to question perhaps whether such who have done thus have done lawfully but why not I pray as well as contract themselves and give their mutual consent fiâ—st and be married after Such a consent de proesenti no doubt does ponâ—re fundamentum relation it so that they are Man and Wife coram Deo thereby and what does the solemnity after but declare them so coram hominibus and give them that account legally in the world Now if this testification be not sufficient but men will account them as unmarried unless it be by a Minister nay suppose the Laws of any place would not allow it otherwise who would advise but they should do it again Nay this is not enough who would advise that they rather part quite leave one another and be no more Man and Wife rather than be married again Such is the case and question of ours in hand for ought I can see and no less in this matter of Re-ordination For the form he objects I answer the impropriety of some words in sâ—ch a case as to the one will not argue and infer the same I hope altogether in the other whereof it suffices that I have spoken before already A second instance I have is of the Oaths of Alleagiance and Supremacy These are taken at our Degrees at our Orders and upon particular occasions as the Law and Magistrate requires and yet cid I never hear any plead against this that it would be taking an Ordinance in vain Holy Bradford the Martyr tells his Judges that he had taken the same Oath against the Pope six times Unto this my Opponent sayes nothing and indeed noâ—hing can be said If that only argument of his varied in words be good that a man cannot be Ordained twice because the end of Ordination is attained as one Administration then a man may not have either of these Oaths twice administred to him because the end to wit the obliging a man to the contents is attained at once and so the Laws and Magistrate that require this on sundry occasions do require the taking Gods Name in vain Let my Author come off here if he can The swearing by Gods Name we know is a solemn Ordinance part of Gods Worshi Deut. 10.20 and if this may be repeated upon the forms of Courts be order of the Law command of our Superiours let this be satisfaction likewise to us that what is in vain as to one end is not so to another that what is in vain in regard of ones self is not in
For my part who am apt to believe that Christ hath given Pastors and Teachers to his Church only as Catholick Eph. 4. I know not whether it be warrantable to be Ordained a particular Pastor in this sâ—nse supposing as most do that Election or Orders gives the Office Methinks however I should not choose to be so made for the reason mentioned as also because there is reason in the mouth of those men of Dan Is it not better to be a Priest to a Tribe in Israel than to the House of one man This I take it to be Independentism But when a man is already of Minister of the Catholick Church to have a particular laying on of hands only unto the work unto which he is called in a several place I am assured in my belief that we are most fully waranted by this only instance of these Apostolical persons who were no Independents I think at least in this point in hand being certainly Catholick Ministers and yet Ordained to that particular work not to the Pasâ—orship of some Countries whereunto they were at present called And here I cannot but observe farther the gracious providence of God which for the time hitherto as it were determined our case Our present Ecclesiastical Rulers would not let a man have Institution without Episcopal Orders and there hath been an Act of Confirmation of all Ministers already in any living though ordained only by Presbyters Now then if any of my tender Brethren scrupled this businesâ— as being without precedent if they were already in a living God provided against their scruple and confirmed them If they are out of a living then God hath provided for them in his Word this instance undeniable of Paul that a man who is a Minister already may be Ordained for all that unto the particular work of that new place whereunto he shall be called And why may not this be strengthned from the Priest under the Law who though he was dedicate to God and his Office at once did consecrate himself often to some particular service upon emergent occasions There is nothing more can be objected against it but the Form which is already answered The other end of their using this Rite here I will conceive to be that which I have mentioned from that great Divine before named Et hic ritus ideo fuit adhibitus ut publica ejus vocatio declaretur lâ—giâ—ma St. Paul was called immediately to the Gospel at first by Christ and here by the Holy Ghost to this work Oâ—hers might not know this or believe it This act then of these eminent Prophets and Teachers at Antioch is as it were he publick testimony of the Church thereof There was none could question the other Apostles Authority who was known to have been with Christ in his life but as for Paul unto whom he appeared miraculously afâ—erwards though he had the same Authority and by him alone then given yet as the Disciples of the Jews â—urst not trust this until they were confirmed by Ananias so was it convenienâ— no doubt also for the Gentiles that this Diâ—ine Call of his should be approved and attested by this Ordination which must â—rom hence therefore be irrefragably defined as I have said the Confirmation only of our Vocation Two sorts there are now of my Brethren in distress about being re-ordained some that have a call to a new place and some that cannot else keep their old Though the former of these I confess have their way here most plain yet may the rest I think be kept from stumbling also who though they cannot take a fresh Imposition of hands so clear to the first end as the former for the committing them to Gods blessing upon their new charge yet may they submit here to the latter end for Confirmation of their Ministry as well as any It is a serious question I propose therefore in my Book when we see in this place for certain by this instance of Paul and Barnabas that the reason of Ordination is not for to give the Ministerial Function and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Timothy is something else What is the reason of it theâ— Why really I say I think it is this This solemn Rite does give an Outward Authority before the Church that is the current 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 freedom and acceptation I cannot express my self more fully not argue more firmly than I do upon it The Reason of a precept is to be look'd on as the Precept but the reason why we should be ordained at all does now arise upon us to be re-ordained to wit because else we cannot have this reception or enjoy this End of Ordination thus exprest in our Church and consequently so far as we have Precept or Scripâ—ure example to warrant or command the one it is and must be of force for the other And here there is but one thing since I must profess hath ever been upon my mind to give any check unto this and that is if the End I speak oâ— could be proved in Scripture then there were nothing indeed more saâ—isfying but the Scripture does not express this End of Orders and if we know not that God hath appointed this for an End thereof then will it not be a safe ground for our acting upon it I answer There are two means whereby we may know thing to be of Divine warrant or conformable to God Wiâ—â— the Scripture and Right Reason That which is evident by and coâ—foraâ—t to the true light of Nature or natural Reason is to be accountâ—d jure Divino in matters of Religion sayes the Authors of Jus Dâ—vin Reg. Ee. c. 3. Now though it be the first end mentioned only that I date say is express in the Word yet must I needs affirm that this other I stand upon is so evident in the nature it self of the Solemnity and consonant to the dictates of Reason that I am perswaded there is none of my Brethren that shall receive it in the clearness of it but will be satisfied in their Consciences that they follow no other than the mind of God in it Nevertheless I shall not be wanting through his grace to strengthen their assurance herein with an instance or two from Scripture it self to put it if possible even beyond dubitation The one is in Acts 1. Where we have a kind of Divine Ordination of Matthias into the Apostleship by lots It is said v. ult They gave forth their lots and the lot fell upon Matthias and he was rumbred with the eleven Apostles Here it is apparent that the immediate effect of this external signification of Gods Will by lot whereby Matthias is constituted one of the Apostles is this same value repute account as an Apostle or as a Minister which I stand upon He was numbred that