that ye may be able to swear in truth righteousness and judgement 6. Can you professe before a Congregation that you trust you are inwardly moved by the holy Ghost to take upon you the office and ministery of a Deacon after so long a time as you have been virtually a Deacon already 7. Can you solemnly profess that you think you are truly called to the ministery of the Church that is first to be a Deacon and afterwards a Presbyter either according to the will of Christ or the order of this Realm Where hath Christ or this Realm prescribed such a reordination 8. Can you cordially promise that you will gladly and willingly assist the Priest in divine Service in the Congregation where you are placed 9. Can you promise reverent obedience to your Ordinary who is it is like but of the same order and the same degree of that order as instituted by Christ Jesus yea it may be he is but a lay-person exercising spiritual jurisdiction and also that you will submit to his godly judgement 10. Can you receive a distinct authority to be a Deacon and a distinct authority to read the Scripture according to the two distinct acts of investiture 11. Can you receive a distinct authority to read the New Testament without any expresse delivery of power to read the old Testament or any mention of it 12. Can you comfortably receive the Lords Supper with them and according to them View the form in the Liturgy 13. Can you rationally joyn in the last prayer in the ordering of Deacons where they pray that the Deacons may so well use themselves in this inferiour office that they may be found worthy to be called which must needs imply Hereafter unto the higher Ministery in this Church How can you thus pray that you must exercise the office of a Deacon by the faithful discharge whereof you may be judged meet to be made a Presbyter and yet be ordained Deacon and Presbyter both on one day as some I hear are wherein you neither have sufficient time for tryal nor the proper judges present 14. Can you joyn in the first prayer in the ordering of Presbyters Mercifully behold these thy Servants now called to the office of Priesthood which seems to imply Not before And the like in the third prayer after the Letany 15. What is that office of Priesthood according to Scripture and the Laws of our Realm And where are the Ministers of the Gospel called Priests 16. If ever you aim at commencing Lord Bishopâ— how can you obey that exhortation wherein is this good Illation following For this self same cause ye see how ye ought to forsake and set aside as much as ye may all worldly cares and studies and that ye have clearly determined by Gods grace to give your selves wholly to this vocation whereunto it hath pleased God to call you so that as much as lies in you you apply your selves wholly to this one thing and draw all your cares and studies this way and to this end And can you promise the same 17. Can you promise to administer the discipline of Christ when yet in the words of investiture there is not any power given expresly of administring discipline Nay more are you not by certain Canons restrained from exercising the discipline of Christ or a great part of it 18. Can you promise to administer the Doctrine Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received them except you can approve the whole Hierarchy and whether then 19. Can you promise to teach the people committed to your charge to keep and observe the same that is the Doctrine and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the Commands of God 20. Doth not that expression recoive the holy Ghost seem to imply some extraordinary gift which the Ordainers can neither believingly beg nor the ordained believe that they shall receive How can that expression imply the office as some great ones would have it sith the authority is delivered expresly in the next words A. Usher in Doctor Bern. book 339. Mr. Hook Eccics pol. 412. Take thou authority to preach c. And especially how can that expression intend the office when yet it is used in the consecration of Bishops wherein no new office is bestowed or received according to the judgement of multitudes of our late Bishops themselves Look before you leap 19. Whether doth the person in the Question intend to undertake the cure of a particular Church or not If not to what purpose should he be reordained Or much trouble himself about this Question If he do then I ask whether he can perform the conditions necessary to the procurement of Institution and Induction If he cannot get Institution and Induction to what purpose is reordination If he can then whether is it by the benefit of his Majesties gracious Indulgence or by a full conformity If by the former let him consider whether he be like to keep his Benifice on the same termes that he gained it if he cannot to what purpose should he trouble himself much to gain that which if he had he could not keep But if this must be by full conformity the I only add 1. Have you well considereâ— what that Government is that is held fort in the 39. Art book of Consecration Lâ—turgy and Canons 2. Have you wâ— considered what the Oath of Canonicâ— obedience is and to whom 3. Have yoâ— throughly considered the Liturgy 4. Anâ— the book of Homilies 5. The Canons And 6. the book of Consecration Anâ— have you attained satisfaction by perusinâ— what is said thereupon Insomuch that yoâ— can with a clear conscience subscribe reaâ— and use them Have you considered thâ— natural fruits of growing principles and caâ— you rellish them c. Be not rash in youâ— vows for rash vows are too often as rashly broken as made and though the matter may admit no violation yet the rashnesâ— will exact some lamentation 20. Is not this reordination whether hypothetical or absolute a meer novelty seldome or never known in the Church oâ— God this sixteen hundred years We reaâ— indeed of great contentions in the Church anciently about ordinations but were they not generally determined either valid oâ— invalid If valid where shall we find a reordination If invalid how could there be a reordination I suppose I need to say but little more to prove this negative till some one else shall prove the affirmative Yet I shall add something towards not the proof of the negative directly but of an affirmative that will infer the negative viz. reordination decryed both by Ancients and Moderns The 67. Canon of the Apostles as they are called runs thus Si quis Episcopus out Presbyter In sermone de ablutione pedum Bellar. de sacram ordin l. 6. c. 10. Contra. Epist Parm. l. 2. c. 13. Can. 38. aut
repeti inquit Ecclesiasticae prohibent regulae Insent Com. l. 4. in dist in 1. p. 1â— semel sanctificatis nulla deinceps manus iterum consecrans praesumit accedere nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat nemo impositioni manuum vtministerio derogat sacerdotum quia contumeliaesset Spiritus Sancti si evacuari posset quod ille sanctificat alia sanctificatione emendaret quod semel ille statuit confirmat 7. Is not reordination an injury to our incomparable Charter by which is conveyed from the King of Saints this power and priviledge ministerial to rule in his spiritual Corporation It is certainly true that as Christs Church is a spiritual Corporation under himself the Head so is his Gospel the Charter thereof by which Instrument as 〈◊〉 have said the King of Kings ordains the Offices describes the persons ordaining and ordained and gives power to both to give and receive in his limited way authority to execute the same And further it is here supposed that the Officer in the Question is constitute according to this Charter in all necessaries Now to submit to another constitution by those that deny the former is it nor to desert yea to infringe and violate our Charter To exemplify this matter suppose an Officer in one of our Corporations constituted according to their Charter should be disowned for a true Officer and required to admit a new Constitution would not the Burgesses and Freemen cry out that this would be a violation of their Charter and therefore they will adventure the displeasure of great ones the trouble and vexation of tedious Law-suits the large expence of their treasure rather then thus to violate their Charter Now judge whether ours be not a parallel case 8. Either you own the latter ordination as a proper ordination or not as a proper ordination If as a proper ordination then do you not ipso facto renounce your former ordination Yea though you should in words protest your owning of your former ordination yet do not your works in reordination disown it and give your words the lye For it seems impossible for two distinct proper investitures to be upon one person as I suppose I have proved already and which I further strengthen thus how can a single person be subjectum capax of a twofold ministerial power when the most excellent person in this world is scarce subjectum capax of one The whole man is but the subject of one ministerial power what then is left in that man to be the subject of the other But it may be some wide-â—â—ared brain may fancy that there is a coallition of these two proper Ordinations and the relations flowing thence but if so I desire to know by what Law that can be It is well known that moral beings depend upon some Law and if there be any Law to unite these two beings the old man and the young man the Presbyters and the Prelatist let it be produced and I shall the gâ—ateful for such a discovery But on the other hand if you say the latter is no proper ordination which yet is a proper ordination in it self and so commonly used and esteemed are you not guilty of a mendacium in verbis Nay more shall you not whilst in words you deny the latter ordination and yet indeed receive it be guilty of a mendacium in factis May not what moderate Bâ—shop Davenant saith against a Protestants being present at the Mass which yet in words he disclaims thinking thereby to salve his conscience be fitly enoogh applied to this case Determ 7. Hans pugnam externam saith the B shop actionum cum interna mentis sententia foedissimam simulationem dico mendacium nihilo tolerabilius quam si quis expressis verbis se Missam Papisticam approbare testaretur nam ad virtutem veritatis pertinet ut quis talem se exhibeat per signa exteriora qualis revera existit At qui opponitur buic veritati cum aliquis per signa factorum contrarâ—um ejus significat quod in mente clausum habet quam simulationem mendacium in factis licet appellare uti recte Aquinas qui itaque Pap staruâ— missas examino aversatur at que retinet interim externam hanc cum illis participâ—tionem co damnabilius agit quia quod mendaciter agit sic agit tamen ut eum populus veraciter agere existimet And Baldwin how much soever any may reckon him a Patron of reordination speaks of the Popish Ordinations thus C. C. p. 1045. Hac omnia partim superstistiosa partim ridicula approbare cogitur is qui a Pontificiis ordinationem petit quis autem hoc bona cum conscientia facere potest neque excusat quod talis ordinatio cum protestationâ— suscipitur ordinandum nimirum non Papâ—sticas traditiones sed dogmata Scripturae sacrae consona nihilominus propositurum esset nam protestatio haec facto est centraria quia ipsae ordinatio Patistica est pars doctrinae Papisticae c. 9. Whether it be not ipso facto to acknowledge that the person in the Question is no Presbyter when he shall step back to the Deacons office in order to be a Presbyter Here it is to be premised that our reordained Reordainers do make Deaconry a step or degree to Presbytery and that no man may be ordained a Presbyter that is not first ordained a Deacon neither is this abated in reordination See the form of making and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons where it is declared that here it must be shewed unto the Deacon that he must continue in that office of a Deacon the space of a whole year at the least except for reasonable causes it be otherwise seen to his Ordinary to the intent he may be perfect and expert in the things appertaining to the Ecclesiastical administration in the executing whereof if he be found faithful and diligent he may be admitied by his Diocesan to the order of Priesthood The Canons made in the year 1603. inform us that the office of a Deacon Can. 28. being a step or degree to the Mâ—nistry according to the antient Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church we do ordain and appoint that hereafter no Bishop shall make any person of what quality or gifts soever a Deacon and a Priest both together on one day but that the order in that behalf prescribed in the book of making and consecrating Bishops Presbyters and Deacons be strictly observed Hence it appears that a Deaconry is a medium to Presbytery and therefore will not the use of this mean be an acknowledgement that the end is not atrained For acquisito fine cessant media Again it is certain that the office of a Deacon is less then the office of a Presbyter and will it not thence follow that he that seeks the less doth thereby acknowledge that he hath not attained the greater Because Omne majus continet in se
have commanded him so to have done But alass this is far from our state for if we come for reordination we must use such forms as are altogether accommodated to an end which by us must not at all be intended and altogether unaccommodated to the end chiefly yea only by uâ—prosecuted Object 8. Drawn from a supposed rebaptization P. 85 86 87 88. Mr. H. Let us turn then to Acts 19. and we shall find there certain Disciples at Ephesus who were baptized into Johns baptisme It is like that Apoâ—los living there a diligent Teacher and knowing only the baptisme of John Acts 18.24.25 had baptized them Now we are to know that this baptisme having the same Author Mat. 2.25 Matter John 1.26 Form John 1.32 33 34. Ends Luke 3 3. and consigning the same Gospel Mark 1.3 4. was but one with Christs baptisme Ephes 4.5 Paul therefore catechizing them therein thus instructs them John verily baptized with the baptisme of repentance laying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is sayes he on Christ Jesus It follows When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Now the Question arises here Who are meant by they in the Text the people unto whom John spake or the persons the twelve men to whom Paul speaks Not the first certainly then must these words that is on Christ Jesus be Johns interpretation when it is plain he did not know Christ by his name when he baptized untill Christ came to him John 1.30 31. Who are they then Why the last no doubt for John and his Disciples did baptize into one which should come as it is said here but it was the Apostles and Christs Disciples that baptized expresly in the name of Christ Jesus c. Resol Though I observe a greater variety of opinions about the interpretation of this Text then almost of any other through the whole Bible yet this I observe also that they all agree in this whatever else they differ in to explode a repetition of the same valid baptisme which is the only pillar of our reverend Brothers Argument Yea moreover it is very observable that the very reason of this so great diversity was their detestation of rebaptization I find these ten several interpretations none of which allow a repetition of every way the same baptisme which therefore cannot support the repetition of the same ordination 1. Some think in that Text baptisme is alwayes to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine of baptisme that the sence may run thus those twelve Disciples which were only instructed in the doctrine of John were afterwards instructed in the Doctrine of Christ 2. Others say that baptisme may be taken alwayes Metaphorically in that Texâ— but in the first place for the Doctrine in the second for the gifts of the Spirit bestowed by imposition of hands 3. Others suppose that the baptisme of John is to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine and the baptisme of Christ properly and so that these twelve were but once baptized and that not by John but Paul 4. O hers take the baptisme of John properly and the baptisme of Paul Metaphorically for the Doctrine and so make but one baptisme and that by John not by Paul 5. Some take the baptisme of John properly and the baptisme of Paul improperly for the gifts of the holy Ghost 6. Others take baptisme properly in both but yet observe that both these expressions relate to Johns baptisme and of this opinion are many of our Moderns 7. Others take baptisme properly in both and acknowledge a rebaptization but it was because those Disciples wanted the true baptisme of John and had only a corrupt administration from some of Johns Disciples wanting the true form being not in the name of the Holy Ghost 8. Others acknowledge a rebaptization but it was through this accidental corruption in the administration of Johns baptism the baptized being not instructed in the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christs baptism with the Spirit 9. Others acknowledge a rebaptization but erroneously administred by some of Pauls Disciples before Paul came to them 10. That Paul did indeed rebaptize whom John had baptized but it was because Christs baptism and Johns were not the same And this way goes the Council at Trent Bellarmine Estius à Lap. and I think I may safely say the Romanists generally and if I should add the Ancients also I should not be much overtasked to prove it and this way Diodat himself seems to go And now I infer If any of these interpretations may be allowed or if the uniform consent and practice of the Catholick Church may be admitted then is our reverend Brother mistaken in his interpretation And oh how strong and subtile was that temptation that trapan'd so learned a person into the justification of one novelty by another reordination by rebaptization And what cause have I and such as I to pour out our souls in that petition Lead us not into temptation But hold I must not sit down as yet there is another job of work behind and that is to saw asunder the Argument for this singular opinion and which is more difficult to resolve amongst all these Divines whose hand-saw to use to use them all at once is needless if not impossible to reject any out of our shop is prodigal if not scandalous and therefore I will only make use of one and let the rest lye by until I have more need of them I shall not now deny Christs baptism and Johns to be the same but shall rather conject ure that Johns baptism was never iterated and therefore I must proceed to answer the Argument for the contrary 1. It is certain that the whole history Acts 19. was written by Luke as the Historian 2. It is certain that the Question ver 2. Have ye received the holy Ghost since ye believed which probably is to be understood of the extraordinary gifts as Calvin Beza Annot. c. because it was to be received since they believed and the ordinary gift before or in believing was from Paul 3. It is certain also that that Answer We have not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost which is probably to be understood sutably to the Question of the extraordinary gifts for John did tell his Disciples of the person of the holy Ghost was the answer of Johns Disciples 4. It is certain also that that Question was Pauls Vnto what then were ye baptized 5. And the Answer following was the Disciples Vnto Johns baptisme 6. It is certain also that the explanatory reply ver 4. was from Paul 7. Neither do I see any evidence necessitating a denyal of the next words When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus to be attributed to the people that heard John saying that he baptized with the baptism of repentance and that they should believe in him that should