Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	signify_v	word_n	1,913	5	4.1167	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26703	Cheirothesia tou presbyteriou, or, A letter to a friend tending to prove I. that valid ordination ought not to be repeated, II. that ordination by presbyters is valid : with an appendix in which some brief animadversions are made upon a lately published discourse of M. John Humfrey, concerning re-ordination / by R.A., a lover of truth and peace.	R. A. (Richard Alleine), 1611-1681.; Humfrey, John, 1621-1719. Question of re-ordination.	1661 (1661)	Wing A984; ESTC R3821	66,750	87

nothing remaines but that we commit our cause to God and till he see meet to plead it possesse our souls in Patience There are some Objections against the validity of a Presbyterian Ordination to be removed and then I shall exercise your Patience no longer 1. The first is grounded upon the Authority of two Fathers Hierom and Chrysostom Hieroms words are in his Epistle to Evagrius Quid enim facit Episcopus excepta Ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter To answer this Testimony I might observe that they who produce it will not stick to it but are verily perswaded that there are many things besides Ordination which a Bishop may do that yet a Presbyter cannot do But I need not flee to so indirect an Answer For 1. Marsilius Patavinus in his Book which he cals Defensor Pacis takes the word Ordinatio to signifie quite another thing then the conferring of Holy Orders His words are these Ordinatio ibi non significat potestatem conferendi seu collationem sacrorum Ordinum sed Oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in Templo unde ab antiquis Legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi 2. 'T is certain that somtimes the word Ordinatio doth signifie the external Rite or Ceremony used in Ordination viz. Imposition of hands if so it be taken here as why may it not I can grant that Ordination in many places was so managed it is freely confessed by Calvin Unum puta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vices sustinentem ut plurimum omnium nomine manus imposuisse 3. Grotius saith nothing hinders but that we may so interpret the place as that it shall mean no more then that Presbyters can ordain none in contempt of the Bishops 4. I finally answer that Hierom speaks not here of any Divine Law appropriating Ordination to Bishops but only of the Ecclesiastical custom that obtained in his age 't is as if he had said what is there now adaies done by a Bishop that a Presbyter may not do without Breach of Ecclesiastical Canons except only the business of Ordination He had before said that a principio non fuit sic originally the Presbyters might and did make the very Bishop himself The place of Chrys is in his 11 Hom. on 1 Tim. the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here again I might tell you that if this Saying of Chrysostomes must determine the Controversie our Prelatists must throw open that which they account the best part of their Enclosure they must acknowledge that the Presbyters have a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they exceed the Presbyter in the Power of Order only not in the power of Jurisdiction 2. I could much weaken the Authority of Chrysostome as to the point of Ordination by acquainting you that it was one of the accusations made against that Father that he did engrosse Ordination to himself not taking in the assistance of his Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the words of his Charge in the Synod ad Quercum An. 403. But if these two Answers seem to you but shifts though why they should seem no more then shifts I wot not I reply thirdly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used by Chrysostom is ambiguous used by good authors in very different if not quite contrary significations as is noted among others by Suidas his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive case signifies to exceed or excell but with an Accusative to injure or do wrong Now if we should so render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seeing it hath an Accusative case after it Bishops must from hence be concluded not lawfull possessors but usurpers of the power of sole Ordination If yet you are not satisfied I turn you over fourthly to Gersom Bucer who page 357 358. takes notice of this authority as placed by Bishop Downham in the margin of that Sermon which he took upon him to confute one of his answers is that Bishops are here made Superiour to Presbyters only by the voluntary election of their Sym-Presbyters or Colleagues not by any Divine Right he renders the words thus Sola-enim horum subaudi Presbyterorum electione ascenderunt atque hoc tantum plus quam Presbyteri videntur habere then the plain meaning is that the Presbyters for order sake do chuse some one to be their President and this is all that the Bishop hath above the Presbyters The second objection against the validity of Ordinations by Presbyters is taken also from Ecclesiastical Writers among whom we do find Ordinations by Presbyters pronounced null and void Of this nature there are three principally insisted upon the which before we particularly examine I shall crave leave to premise this one thing viz. that it is very manifest that Councels have pronounced some Ordinations null and void which yet could not be null in natura rei I instance only in the Councels of Chalcedon and Antioch pronouncing Ordinations though made by a Bishop to be void if the person ordained were ordained either without a title or in another Bishops Diocess yet such Ordinations are not nullities many examples of this nature are brought by the learned Blondell page 168 169. Now so it might be in the case of Ordinations by Presbyters and so it is by many averred that it was but let us hear the examples One Colythus a Presbyter took upon him being but a Presbyter to ordain Ischiras this Ischiras notwithstanding this Ordination was looked upon but as a Laick I answer there are so many dissimilitudes betwixt the Ordinations of Colythus and those Ordinations made by Presbyters which we contend for that from the condemning of his Ordinations no argument can be drawn to prove that ours ought to be condemned 1. Colythus acted not as a Presbyter but pretended himself to be a Bishop so do not our Presbyters 2. He acted alone whereas our Ordinations are not by one single person 3. He was an open declared Heretick 4. He that was ordained had no title he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was not chosen by any Church but our Ordinations are not of sine-titular persons A second example is the case of Maximus who being no Bishop yet ordained Presbyters but all his Ordinations were by the Fathers assembled in Councel at Constantinople pronounced null Answ The story of Maximus is too large to be here recited see it in Blondell I say briefly that what was by the Synod determined against his Ordinations is not prejudicial to Ordinations made by Presbyters for as Blondell well if Presbyters had never so full power of Ordination yet had the Synod good reason to depose those who were ordained by Maximus because he was a Presbyter as well as a Bishop in the ayr never had he been ordained Presbyter either by Gregory or any other A third example is that of the blind Bishop who

him no further for what he brings out of the Canon of Constantinople is a huge Impertinence Let it be Schisme and Heresie which with the Fathers assembled in that Synod seem to be all one to divide from Canonical Bishops such are not they who are neither chosen by the Clergy nor by the People and to set up Conventicles contrary to theirs How will it hence follow that it is Heresie to hold that Presbytery and Episcopacy are the same Order To as little purpose or lesse is what follows out of the Council of Paris And concerning the Acephali p. 332 333. The Acephali were so called saith Isidore because the Head Chief and First of them could not be found That seems to be a mistake for Severus was the Head of them Let us therefore betake our selves to Nisephorus an Author certainly not very Reverend to see whether he can give us any better Information about them He tells lib. 18. c. 45. That these Acephali were a madder sort of Eutychians who maintained there was but one nature in Christ Never did I hear of any Presbyterian that was of that mind but it may be ther 's somthing in the Name that will touch them and all that follow Hierom. Acephali saith Nicephorus dicti sunt quod sub Episcopis non fuerint Proinde Episcopis Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis neque Baptismus juxta solennem receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratus neque oblatio aut res aliqua divinafacta Ministeriumve ecclesiasticum sicuti mos est celebratum est They would it seems have no Black-Coats as the late Phrase was What is this to them who would have Bishops willingly enough only deny that they are of a distinct superiour Order to Presbyters Object 2 The Second Objection is made from our English Church which seems to make Episcopacy and Presbytery different in Order For in the Preface of the Book Entituled The Form and Manner of Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons It is said expressely That it is evident to all men diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests Deacons It follows not long after And therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no man not being at this present Bishop Priest or Deacon shall execute any of them except he be called tried examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following In the body of the Book it self we find a Prayer in these words following Almighty God Giver of all good things who hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Answ This Objection seems to my Learned Friend Dr. Peter Heylin so very strong that he hath urged it in two several Treatises the one called Respondet Petrus p. 98 99. The other called Certamen Epistolare the particular Page I do not now remember But 1. In Dr. Hammonds Opinion it is so far from being evident to any one reading the Holy Scriptures that there were from the Apostles times these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons that he doth magno conatu endeavour to prove that from no Testimony of Scripture it can be proved that there were in the Apostles time any Priests or Presbyters in the notion in which the word Presbyter is now taken He thinks that in the Apostolical Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth constantly signifie a Bishop and that all the Churches of which any mention is made in Scripture were gouerned only by Bishops and Deacons 2. The Doctor might have remembred what he pressed against Mr. Hickman That Apices Juris nihilponunt then would he not so confidently have urged passages in the Preface 3. At least he might have done well to consider that his so much magnified Objection is a stale one and hath received its Answer from Mr. Mason in the before-commended Treatise It most unhappily falls out that I have not the Book at hand but if my Memory fail me not more then ordinarily it doth the Author of the Necessity of Reformation gives you his full sense if not his very words That Book when it speaks of the making of Bishops calls that a Consecration not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters calling one the Manner and Form of Ordering Deacons the other the Form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this word Ordering and calls it the Form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never means to make Bishops to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ and his Apostles Institution superiour to a Presbyter Indeed the Preface doth not say these three Orders but only these Orders of Ministers and in the Prayer it is not said that the Bishop is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop I had thought here to have concluded my first Argument But there is one Medium seems to me so considerable to prove that a Presbyter is of the same Order with a Bishop that I cannot omit it You know that it was required that a Bishop should be Ordained by three Bishops at least Yet Anastasius in the Life of Pope Pelagius tells us that he was Ordained An. Dom. 555. by two Bishops and one Presbyter who is by him called Andreas Ostiensis Doth it not hence manifestly appear that the Church at that time took a presbyter to be of the same Order with a Bishop and impowered in case of necessity to confer the very degree of Episcopacy At this Example the Learned Author of Episcopacy asserted is very angry and tels us p. 166. That Pelagius his taking in the Priest was but to cheat the Canon cozen himself into an impertinent Belief of a Canonical Ordination Pelagius might as well not have had three as not three Bishops and better because so they were Bishops the first Canon of the Apostles approves the Ordination if done by two But this is too slight a way of answering Antiquity We must not till we see better reason think that Pelagius and the two Bishops were so unworthy as to go about to put a cheat on the Canon or so wicked as to make use of an hand that being imposed signified no more then would the Imposition of a Lay hand Nor do I think that in those dayes it was counted an indifferent thing whether three concurred to the Ordination of a Bishop or no For the Council of Nice requires three at least and the consent of those that are absent signified by their Letter And Pope Damasus in his fifth Epistle to the Bishop of Numidia and other Orthodox Bishops hath these words quod Episcopi

administer Christs Baptisme after Johns as there was to administer Johns baptisme after Circumcision a Sacrament not specifically different from baptisme Of this the learned Vossius speaks succinctly and clearly Pro diversa fidelium aetate potuit sacramentum initiationis variare fidelium enim alii rediderunt in Christum venturum alii in eum qui veniret quasi in via esset alii in eum qui jam venisset Primis instituta fuit circumcisio alteris baptisma Johannis tertiis baptismus Christi I have done with the main body of Mr. Humfrey's Diatribe and must now consider of two or three stragling arguments which may seem to some not altogether to want weight Page 56 57. He propounds a query Whether an irrefragable argument may not be drawn from the Apostles use of Circumcision upon any after the Resurrection of Christ to prove that an Ordinance of God may be used without breach of the third Commandment or other sin even then when it cannot be directed to its principal no not its proper end so long as it will but attain one higher then all viz. the promotion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Answ Certainly no for Circumcision after the Resurrection was no Ordinance being blotted out by the death of Christ and nailed to his Cross 't was become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Had Timothy been circumcised in such a way as were the Jews before the passion of the Messiah Christ had profited him nothing Mr. Humf. should have thus propounded his question Whether from Pauls circumcising of Timothy an irrefragable argument may not be drawn to prove that in order to the propagation of the Gospel it is lawful to use the outward rite or ceremony of an abolished Jewish Ordinance had he so proposed it I should not have counted my self obliged to return any other answer but this that the question is no way pertinent to the matter in hand For 1. Ordination is not an abolished Ordinance 2. We are not called to the bare rite or ceremony of this Ordinance the question is not whether it be lawful to let the Bishop lay his hand on my head but whether it be lawful to let him lay his hand on my head with this form of words Receive thou the Holy Ghost or with any other form of words the purport whereof is to confer the Ministerial power which I already have 2. He produceth the authority of Doctor Baldwin the Professor of Witten who putting the case whether one ordained by the Papists may be again ordained by us though he maintains there 's no necessity why he should so be re-ordained yet thus determines Quod si quis existimat se tranquillius suo in nostris Ecclesiis officio perfungi posse si etiam nostris ritibus ad sacrosanctum Ministerium utatur nihil obstat quin ordinationem a nostris accipere possit non enim eadem est ratio Ordinationis quae baptismi qui iterari non potest Hoc enim Sacramentum est Ecclesiae illa autem externus tantum ritus Lib. 4. c. 6. cas 6. 1. Supposing but not granting that Baldwin is fully for him yet Gregory a more Venerable Author is against him Sicut Baptizatus semel iterum baptizari non debet ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem iterum ordine non debet consecrari Epist lib. 2. Epist 32. There is a Tract among the works of St. Cyprian entituled De operibus Cardinalibus Christi Pamelius saith it is his or some others as ancient as he Our learned James from a book he met with in All-Souls Library thinks it was made by Arnoldus Bonavillacensis who lived almost twelve hundred years after Christ if so however his authority and testimony is to be preferred before Baldwins these are his words De ablutione pedum Baptismum repeti Ecclesiasticae prohibent regulae semel sanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum consecrans praesumit accedere Nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat nemo sacro oleo lita iterum linit aut consecrat nemo impositioni manuum vel Ministerio derogat sacerdotum quia contumelia esset spiritus sancti fi evacuari posset quod ille sanctificat vel aliena sanctificatio emendaret quod ille semel statuit confirmat Edit Goular p. 513. The Councel also of Capua is against him as I find in Spondanus the Epitomator of Baronius ad annum 389. If Mr. Humfrey have a man for him he hath an Army against him But 2. I do not see that Baldwin is for him for he determines not that a man who is ordained and judgeth himself to be so may take a second Ordination but only that he who is ordained and is not satisfied in his own mind and conscience about the validity of his ordination may be re-ordained which case is heavenly wide from the case of Mr. Humfrey for he thinks that he is ordained and saith he will tell the Bishop so yea and dreadeth not to affirm that his Diocesan doth amiss in calling him to these second orders Now truly though I would not altogether baulk a way because no man did ever walk in it before me yet I must take leave to suspect such a way and consider well before I venture into it The Poet saith Illi robur aes triplex circa pectus qui fragilem c. He was a bold man that did first expose himself to the Sea in a ship and King James would say that he had a good stomack who first eat an oyster May not we also think that they who ever they are were too hardy who were the first that submitted to re-ordination which if it be no more is Ordination redundant a mishape in our apprehension page 4. Page 94. He suggests That if he should not be re-ordained many of his people will not own him but clamour they will not receive the Sacraments from him and perhaps they will make him Constable or Church-Warden Constable or Church-Warden that were pity indeed but yet better be either one or the other then do that which is so destructive to communion of Churches as re-ordination upon examination will appear to be 'T is not unlike some peevish people before this turn might say that Mr. Humf. was no Minister because not ordained by a Bishop but he did not then judge it any part of his duty to be re-ordained that he might stop their mouths how comes he now to be so tender of them And I doubt some of the better sort of our hearers should they understand that we are so light as to take a non-significant ordination in so solemn a way as we must do if we come under the Bishops hands would be so scandalized as scarce to account our Ministry worth attending on Upon the whole I see not but that they who refuse Re-ordination may be reckoned among men of a tender frame and serious spirit and not among such as are of a scanty soul and too scrupulously superstitious conscience The Lord lead you by his Spirit into all truth and after you have suffered for a while make you perfect FINIS