Ordination consisteth in the appointing of such for the holy Ministry by persons in office Ruth Due right of Presbyteries p. 186. â— dist have first chosen will not easily be proved * It is not of the substance of the calling to bee chosen by voices of the people Dr. Fulke on Act. 14. 23. 4. Whereas you speak of Ordination commonly so called you name neither Church nor Divine who state it as you do here and I think you can name none Be it an act of Ministers or Elders after Examination and Election there must be something added to make it a definition or description In stead of the quid rei you give us only the quâ—â—dâ— If your proofs have no more strength then your expâ—â—ation hath clearnesse and fulnesse you may still conceale your â—aâ—e and that will be your best advantage In that sence Ordination is not essentiall to the Calling of Minister Ans 1. This implies there is a Scripture-sense wherein Ordination is essentiall to the Calling of a Minister or else you oppose it in all sences and then what needs those words in that sence If there be a sence wherein you with the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines do grant it why is that concealed 2. If your Thesis had been intirely expressed it would run thus Ordination as it is commonly taken for an act of Ministers or Elders after Examination and Election is not essentiall to the calling of a Minister Put then what 's the meaning of it That no act of Ministers and Elders about the calling of a Minister is essentiall thereunto or none but Examination and Election I suppose it is not your sence that Examination and Election by Ministers or Elders is essentiall to the calling of a Minister and thaâ— these together are commonly called Ordination That no act of Ministers or Elders whatsoever is essentiall to a Ministers calling will not be found to be the judgement of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines and that without limitation and restriction which Formadat esse Materia est part quid ditatis yet in your Title you pretend unto 3. The word essentiall may prove a blind to some readers being a term of art which learned ones agree not about That forme gives being and yet matter is part of the quiddity as also Quod essentiaÌ„am rei non constituit sine eo essentia rei salva esse potest Propria adjuncta non constituunt essentirei Ergo sine iis essentia rei salva esse potest â—x consequenti nâ—n debent vocari essentialia Heiz Nullus Philosophorum in â—oto orbe terrarâ—i dabit tibi Majorem Rod. Goclen ad Piscâ—â— Piscator in Thesibus p. 604. the distinction of essentiall into 1. antecedent 2. constituent and 3. consequent is common in the Schooles yet in a learned company I have heard it to be by one of them little lesse then hissed at One Heizo propounding this argument against Piscator The essence of a thing may be without that which doth not constitute it Proper adjuncts do not constitute the essence Therefore the essence may be without them and consequently they are not to be called essentiall Rodolphus Goclenius Professor at Marpurg answers for Pisc No Philosopher in all the world will grant the Major So as if Ordination were not constitutive yet if it did necessarily follow upon that act which doth as suppose Election by Ministers or Elders with the consent of the Church it might be called essentiall What think you of this Whether Ordination be not at ' * Zanc. makes Election and Ordination parts of Calling So Ames If parts then essential or integrall least an integrall part of a Ministers calling and whether some integrall parts be not essentiall to an integrall whole and Ordination such a part of Calling 4. In plain words I suppose this to be your meaning No man who desires to be a Minister needs be Ordained and if he be he is not thereby made a Minister And this you assert without any distinction of time or state of the Church or of Calling whether it be mediate or immediate ordinary extraordinary or mixt You might as well say Mariage as an act of Ministers or Magistrates after the consent of the parties is not essentiall to the calling of man and wife none need to be so married and if they be they are not thereby made man and wife Wise men would soon perceive that your word essentiall would not be a sufficient salvo against the danger of such a position families are likely to be destroyed by it notwithstanding He that sayes no act of Ministers or Elders is essentiall to a Ministers call will say as much with fairer pretence of Magistrates and then either nothing is essentiall or something to be done by the people or something immediately on Gods part what followes upon this but either Erastianisme that there is no Church-power or Order Brownisme that all power is in the body of the people or Enthusiasme that every man is to act in sacris as he is led by inspiration without respect to politie If this be your judgement yet methinks it sounds not like the judgement of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines Papists use to impose such a sence upon them and they use to disclaim it Yet I do not wonder that you are thus bold with them seeing you begin with First Second and Third c. which must be understood either of Scripture or Reason or both as if right reason and that Spirit which leadeth into all truth were fully on your side in this cause whereas I fear they are not 5. As to your position in your own terms Ordination is not essentiall to the calling of a Minister the Reader who is to judge betwixt us both must observe this mysterie Ordination is taken two wayes in the Reformed Churches among Protestant Divines 1. First and most frequâ—ntly for the rite of imposing hands which is the last act whereby a Ministers calling is consummated This because they call it a rite they do not count essentiall that is alwâ—yes and in all cases absolutely necessary especially as appropriated unto Bishops distinct from Presbyters jure divino but they hold it to be lawfull and more or lesse necessary in a setled and well-ordered Church 2. Ordination signifies that act wherein and whereby Church-governours do in the name and stead of Christ set apart one to be a Minister and by such separation make him one with Prayer Fasting and either with or without Imposition of hands Here they distinguish of the time and state of the Church and though in my observation the terme essentiall be used sparingly yet the necessity of this thing in the substance of it in a mediate calling and regular state of the Church is every where asserted * Nemo ad ordinariam in Ecclesia functionem admitti debeat nisi legitime vocatus eoque legitime electus ordinatus Zanch. in
What he sayes of the precise urging of the Ceremony is to be understood of the urging of it upon Popish grounds The foolish questions which he means are those in a Popish Canon de triplici manuum impositione una Ordinatoria altera Confirmatoria tertia Curatoria and such like 5. It 's granted that he sayes expresly that Laying on of hands is not essentialis pars ritus legitimae vocationis and that it is in rerum indifferentium numero retineri omitti potest pro more regionis in qua electus ordinatur This last is more then you have yet acknowledged And if it be to be reteined pro more regionis according to the custome of the Country it must continue in use among us for ought that you have said or can say to prove it Non-essentiall Now thus it follows And with them agrees the Church of Scotland The Engl. pop cer pag. 168 169. Church hath full liberty to use any other decent rite or to use no rite at all beside a publike declaration the Church is not not tyed to use any rite at all by the Word of God in the giving of Ordination Ans What 's the matter that you cite this book so often Are you in love with English Popish Ceremonies or do you take that Book for an Oracle Or do you think the Church of Scotland will abide by every expression to be found therein Or is there no other way to know the sense of the Church of Scotland but by that Book Are you of the same judgement with that Church or any of those Protestant Divines whom you have cited so much as in this one head of Ordination and the rite of it I feare nothing lesse The Church of Scotland is at an agreement within it self and with such eminent Divines abroad as Chemnitius and Danaeus but you and they differ if I be not mis-informed more then a little But 2. to the thing it self Liberty of devising new rites in Ordination is neither sâ—fe to be granted by way of doctrine nor to be used in practice especially in those Churches which have suffered much under pretence and by the abuse of such liberty and who in other things are strict urgers of examples as binding and that in matter of Rite 3. Those Scriptures which tye the Church to Ordination tye her also to the Rite which we are speaking of Or tell us where you find a Scripture for the one and not for the other That which follows whether intended as a fifth reason or as an excursion only I know not though it be confused yet it sufficiently discovers what you aim at viz. To make those who were Ordained by Bishops no Ministers under pretence that they were Ordained by them as a Superiour Order unto Presbyters and so you slide into another Question Whether the Person ordaining or imposing hands be of the essence of the Call I shall lay down all your own words entire and then answer Thus you pag. 16. Yea suppose it essentiall and then whereas it hath been held against the Brownists that the Ministery in the Church of England is not null though the Bishops laid on their hands who should not have had a finger in it because an extrinsecall Circumstance failing or being corrupted a thing ceases not to be yet if it be made Essentiall what shall be said Seeing both in the Bishops intention in ordaining and in the profession of the Party ordained hands were laid on him not as a Presbyter formally but as one of a superior Order to Elders and for such an Order there is no Divine institution As therefore that Baptisme must be repeated which was administred by a person not lawfully called to the ministration of it if the Person ministring be essentiall to Baptisme so must that person be Ordained again who had hands laid on by a Bishop as a Bishop if Laying on of hands be essentiall to the Ministery Whatsoever wants its Essentials is not though it seems to be Ans Let the Questions be propounded distinctly which are here involv'd and then it will be easier for any one to judge 1. What will follow concerning the Ministery in the Church of England if Laying on of hands be essentiall I answer That the Ministers of England who have Hands laid on them have that which is essentiall to their Calling Who can imagine otherwise upon the supposition 2. But seeing Ministers in England were Ordained by Bishops as a superiour Order to Elders and no such Order is of Gods appointing nor ought to be is not their Calling null in that respect Ans No iâ— is not 1. Because neither Church nor State did ever declare Bishops to be a superiour Order though some of them for they were but some made such a claim The State hath often declared against it not only by books approved by them as in the dayes of Henry the 8. but by severall acts of Parliament in King Edwards time and since 2. Because Bishops only and alone were never authorised to lay on hands excluding other Prâ—sbyters but together with them 3. Bishops were Elders first before they came to be Bishops and of Elders were made Bishops in way of accumulation not in way of privation Their error that they thought themselves a superiour Order above Presbyters could not make them no Presbyters 4. All Ordinations are counted valid which are performed in a setled Church with the consent of Magistrate Ministers and People whether the Ordainers be Bishop Superintendent or a Presbyterie This principle is maintained both by the Lutherans and Calvinists as you use to distinguish For the Lutherans I refer you to Hen. Ekhardus in opusculo de Ordine Ecclesiastico pag. 5â— and to Nicolaus Hunnius Demonst Min. Lutherani pag. 294. For others Zanchy sayes quo supra Nihil refert sive ab omnibus praesentibus Ministris sive ab uno omnium nomine imponantur manus It matters not whether hands be laid on by all the Ministers who are present or by one in the name of the rest So he And I think it might be added nor how many be present the Quorum is but of prudentiall determination Pareus speaks more largely * Comment ad Rom. 10. 15. The lawfull Calling of the Church is that which is instituted in every Church by publike authority for Orders sake unto edification Neque enim uniformis est omnium ubique quoad circumstantias externas sed libertati Ecclesiae relicta 5. To speak my own judgement When sin cleaves to the manner of Calling through the generall error or corruption of all sorts who are concerned in it though such a Calling cannot be said to be legitima or legi proxima but is displeasing to God and null in some sense as unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is counted no receiving 1 Cor. 11. 20. and sinfull fasting no fasting Zach. 7. 5. yet it is not otherwise to be invalidated here below than by doctrinall censure and
wife and yet mariage it selfe lies not principally in that nor in their mutuall consent but in their solemn taking one another and in the ratification thereof by such as are in authority to allow or disallow of such desires and purposes In generation nature begins with the preparation of the matter and after that the forme is educed or introduced and yet the essence or being arises from the union of the forme with the matter That he who is chosen to be a King must be crowned makes still more for the necessity of Ordination and if his Election gives him the right to rule yet his Coronation only doth solemnly declare to the binding of all his Subjects unto obedience that his right is acknowledged and he is actually put into the exercise of it Grant that a Minister may not have jus in re act as a Minister in things of Order and Jurisdiction till he be Ordained and our strife will cease Where you say that Ordination necessarily follows Election appears Act. 6. 3. I fear you mean it backwards that Election must necessarily go before Ordination but then Act. 6. 3. will not prove it because neither that one example nor any other hold out a full enumeration for all cases which belong unto the calling of a Minister * In hist N. Testamenti exempla habemus constitutionis miâ—iâ—â—erâ—i ejusdeâ— etiam conservationis sed noÌ„â—estaurationis ejus aut Reforâ—ationis post generalem apostasium Omnia igitur quae pertinent ad plebem fidelem in tali casu non representantur ibi certis exemplis Ames Bell. Enerv. â—â— 2. c. 2. n. 6. And if the Apostle reserves as you grant appointing to himself it thereby appears that some act of another nature distinct from Election belongs to the calling of a Deacon which is not in the peoples power for why should the Apostles reserve that unto themselves which did belong unto the people As to your Margin about this Argument if I should take no notice of it either you might think your self neglected or some Reader be so weak as to imagine there was strength in the Latine though the English prove weak and therefore I shall take that also into consideration Out of Ames you tell us * Omnes illi actus quâ— pertinent ad Electionem ut nominatio praesentatio examinatio vel ab Electione pendent ut O dinatio institutio vel immissio Ames cas consc quo supra All those acts which pertain to Calling either tend to Election as Nomination Presentation Examination or depend upon Election as Ordination Institution or Immission Ans Nomination Presentation and Examination tend equally to Ordination as to Election and some kind both of examination and election belongs properly to the Ordainers and not unto the People If Election be taken for the peoples act Ordination does not depend upon it absolutely in all cases as hath been proved already but suppose it did what hinders but that those things which depend upon Election may be as essentiall unto Calling as Election it self What think you of the act of a Minister in accepting of the work and charge unto which he hath been chosen If that be not essentiall a Minister may be compelled and made a Minister whether he will or no If you say it is essentiall you grant that something which depends upon Election is essentiall for he cannot properly accept untill he have been chosen first Sometimes there is Mission Institution Ordination or something of like nature thereunto without any Election on their part to whom Ministers are sent as in the case of particular Ordination as Junius distinguishes of it into universall and particular When Peter and John were sent unto Samaria they might preach baptize perform any act of Ministeriall order among the Samaritans respectively to their state and condition anâ— if they had any Election from the Believers there it must follow after their lawfull calling to the Ministeriall work in that place which they brought with them from Jerusalem and received not in Samaria and so was not essentiall to constitute but accumulative to corroborate their call When a Ministery is first set up in any place to convert those who are yet uncalled it comes in after this manner mediately or immediately To that of Voetius though it be more full in his own words then as you contract it * Relationes in subjecto dicuntur existere posiâ—o fundamento termâ—no Sed legitima electio est fundamentum Ministerii particularis Ecclesia ista vel illa terminus Voet. ubi sup p. 265. Consecratio est adjunctum Ministerii atque adjunctum est poâ—terius suo subjecto Id. 18 That relations are said to exist in their subject upon the position of their foundation and terme and that the lawfull election and vote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church is the foundation of the Ministery and this or that particular Church the terme as also that Consecration is but the adjunct of Ministery and the adjunct is after his subject Yet you shall do well to prefer reason before testimony and to consider that the foundation of Calling is power and authority to set one over others in the Lord for the Ministery and the terme may be indefinite or particular or both as the good and state of the Church doth require Election of the people can be nothing else but a desire that such a one may be made a Minister and their Minister in particular and may either go before or follow Ordination according to the state of the person who is desired This desire of theirs is to be subject as in some respect to the person himself so more especially unto them who are to discern judge and determine in the room of Christ The sentence of such competent Judges is the true foundation of Calling and the assignation of a particular Company to be ministred unto which when they are Saints is to be done with their consent is the terme All this is done in Ordination and in that regard Ordination rightly stated is not an adjunct of Calling it might be an adjunct and yet inseparable but the forme it self That which followes concerns those of Scotland And to this agree our Brethren of the Church of Scotland speaking of Ordination in generall though they instance it as Eng. pop cer pt 3. c. 8. p. 167 to a particular flock Neither the Patrons presentation nor the Clergies nomination examination and recommendation nor the Bishops laying on of hands and giving of institution nor all these put together can make up to a man his Calling to be a Pastor without the free election of the flock Here it might be added Nor the free election of the People without Ordination Again A man hath from his Election power to be a Pastor so far as concerns jus ad rem and Ordination only applyeth him to the actuall exercising of his Pastorall office which Ordination ought to be given to
power to choose themselves a Minister and by that act of theirs to make him one without Ordination who otherwise is none even when there is a way open for his Ordination for that must here be supposed remains yet for you to prove That Prayer alone is a separation of one to the Ministery is but your bare assertion and to cite Act. 13. 2 3. for the proof of this is bold presumption and abuse of Scripture That Deacons were separated with prayer and imposition of hands without fasting for there is no mention of that we read in Act. 6. 6. And that Paul and Barnabas were separated by prayer fasting and imposition of hands we read also Act. 13. 2 3. But what 's this to prove separation by Prayer only and that also by the people alone without Ministers and Elders Adde further Our translators of the Bible take and render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain which signifies properly to choose And where the Scripture speaks expresly of choosing they supply the text with the word Ordain Ans Our translators use the word Ordain for the English of severall words in the Greek as in the Old Testament for that one English word Idols there be many and divers words Elilim Gillu lim Teraâ—him Baalâ—m Tsirim c. in the Hebrew This liberty is necessary and almost unavoidable in many places and the more warrantable because the Holy Ghost speaking in divers places of the same thing does often vary in the manner of expressing And this is to be found not only by comparing those places which are cited out of the Hebrew in the Greek of the New Testament but also one place of the Hebrew with another as Ainsworth often observes in his Annotations That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies properly to choose in some places is granted provided that you acknowledge it may signifie sometimes as properly to ordain for it may indifferently be applied as well to Magistrates when by vote or suffrage they constitute which is by way of authority to ordain as to People when they elect or choose by way of priviledge or of power Whereas you say the Scripture speaks expresly of choosing in Act. 1. 22. and yet the Translators supply the text with the word ordain it is a great injury not only to the Translators but to the Scripture it self and to the Holy Ghost who is the author of them The 21. and 22. Verses being taken in together to make up one entire sentence tell us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One must be made witnesse with us of Christs resurrection Here the Scripture speaks expresly of making not of choosing and of one to be made not by the people but by God Among those who were present there were not people only but those who were greater then Ministers and Elders and they appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presented and nominated two that God might choose one * Non audent unum aliquem certo nomina re sed duos in medium producunt Dominâ—s sorte declaret utrum ex iis velit succedere Calv. inst l. 4. c. 3. s 13. Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here indeed the Scripture speaks of Gods choosing one and such a kind of choosing may well be called ordaining because it is a constitutive and consummating act whereby the people are bound to receive one as set over them by God But in the making of Matthias an Apostle the people had no such power as in this sense to choose him if they had why were lots used for then they might have pitched on one without using such a means of decision Hen. Stephan calls the act of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 creare magistratum the making of an Officer for it is as he sayes a new-found sense of the word to signifie laying on of hands And if the Apostle Luke should use it for laying on of hands Engl. pop cer p. 155 166. Carth. on Act. 14. 23. it was never used so before his time by any writer holy or prophane And unlesse his purpose was to write that which none should read it must needs be that as he wrote so he meant Election by voyces sayes Cartwright Ans Henry Stephan sayes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a-among other things creare magistratum the making of a Magistrate at cum accusatiâ—o personae creare Sic etiam Act. 14. citing the words of the Text and adds At vetus interpres Quum constituissent But then he tells you Sunt tamen qui ad ritum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. impositionis manum id referri putent quum alioqui novum usum huic verbo hic tribuere minimè necesse videntur Here you discover either negligence or fraud The sense of the word which he approves in that Text Act. 14 is creating or constituting others he sayes understand by it imposition of hands this he calls a new use of the word and sayes it may seem not necessary yet he does not deny but the word may beare that sense because he knew well what he had said before that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manum portendo attollo manum porrigo and that in Imposition of hands there is a lifting up and stretching out of the hands for what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he also expresses it The Text speaks of constituting and because in constituting Church-officers imposition of hands was the rite used in the Apostles times therefore it should not seem so strange a thing to hold that as the act of Paul and Barnabas in choosing Presbyters so also the consequent act of imposing hands should be comprehended under that one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the etymologie of the word agrees to the latter if the use do not Certain it is that the Greek Fathers and Councels do use the word for imposition of hands most frequently as Bilson instances at large * Of Perp. Government which they would never have done if the nature of the word would Dr. Fulk in locum sayes both election by the Church and Ordination by imposition of hands of the Apostles are comprehended under that one word not have borne such a use And it is as certain that many Greek words are used in the New Testament in such a sense as they are no where else to be found those common words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are enough to prove it And if you will needs have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie nothing but an act of choice or election by voices as you call it yet Paul and Barnabas were the choosers and this makes nothing for popular election which you would haue to be the unum and unicum necessarium in the Calling of a Minister and yet you cannot prove by this word as there used that the people chose at all and much lesse that
they only were the choosers Produce if you can but one instance out of any Author wherein the word is used in such a sense as you contend for viz. for some to choose by other mens voices Our old English translation When they had ordained them Elders by election doth plainly hold out that two distinct acts ordaining and electing yet not two distinct agents are included under that one word Beza upon the place though he sayes enough to shew that Ordination from Popish Bishops is not necessary yet endeavours not to prove that Imposition of hands is not included under the Greek word To say that Imposition of hands is there meant vi vocis by the proper signification of the word is indeed absurd but to hold it is included ex natura rei from the nature of the thing the making of Church-officers and the example of the Apostles elswhere upon like occasions is no absurdity As for Cartwright though he is a little warmer in many expressions then needed yet in the close he is exceeding wary and sayes They speak untruly which accuse us Protestants as if we so commended the Churches election as we shut out the Bishops ordination which we do not only give unto them but make them also the chief and directors in the Election understanding by Bishops only such as are mentioned in Scripture and not humane creatures All that followes might be spared but that you have a great mind to let the world know you sometimes look into a Greek Dictionary and lest some Readers be beguiled by your shew of Learning I shall therefore omit nothing especially because you earnestly call for observation Yea let it further be observed that in Election and Ordination the same word is used In Election Act. 1. 23. Act. 6. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Ordination it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word with the addition of a Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only Ans That Act. 1. 23. speaks not properly of Election in your sense is already proved Neither is Election to be understood by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 6. 6. In the 5. verse it is said of the whole multitude they chose Steven c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sixth verse sayes they set them viz. those whom they had chosen before the Apostles not over themselves by way of authority but before them that they might Ordain them I wonder at your boldnesse with the Scripture and especially at your abuse of words in the Originall language The truth is though the Apostles referred the choice of fit persons to the people yet as they took unto themselves to prescribe the qualifications and the number of the persons wherein they make themselves Judges of the election so they reserved unto themselves the constitution and ordination of them and thereby plainly declare that Election without an Ordination suffices not no not in the case of Deacons and much lesse of Ministers of the Word And in this they seem plainly to have an eye as in all things that belong to the politie of the Church to the common-wealth of Israel and to Moses his manner of making officers among the Jews whereof we read in Deuteronomy Take or give ye wise men and understanding among your tribes and I will make them * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Sept. rulers over you ch 1. 13. And ye answered me and said The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do v. 14. so I took the chief of your tribes wise men and known and made them * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads over you v. 15. This gives great light to that in the Acts if the phrases be compared But all this while we have nothing for Election alone without Ordination But something we have for Ordination by your own grant for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to Ordination You must needs intend this of the phrase in Act. 6. 3. and if there it be so understood it is the more likely to have the same sense in Tit. 1. 5. which you denyed before Yet you seem loth to grant that truth which you dare not deny and therefore having said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. 1. 23. and Act. 6. 6. is to be understood of Election and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that you mean out of Act. 6. 3. of Ordination yet you go about to prove that the simple and compound word have the same sense and signification that by this grammaticisme you may seem to gain something Thus men who are ready to sink use to catch at any thing or the shadow of a thing Hitherto we have not found an Election in any sense without an Ordination as Act. 6. or something more as an extraordinary decision by lots but it may be we shall anon And as the translators of the Bible render both words Appoint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They appointed Act. 1. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We will appoint Act. 6. 3. So the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not alter the sense specifically from the word when it is without it no not in the matter of making an Officer for it is all one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as H. Stephen observes In the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to place one and to place one with honour when the phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall set the sheep on his right hand Mat. 25. 33. it is an authoritative word as Rom. 3. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We establish the Law And the Septuagint whom Luke is observed to follow most use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Chron. 9. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These did David and Solomon appoint in their set office Ans This great shew of something comes to nothing For granting that the simple and compound word have sometimes for alwayes they have not the same signification yet it will not follow that they have the same sense in the Texts alleadged as appears by that which hath been said already The action of the hundred and twenty in appointing two out of which God was to choose one was not of the same nature with Gods appointing one because neither of the two were made Apostles by the former act but one alone by the latter And that of the Multitude in setting seven men before the Twelve was not of like nature with the Apostles in Ordaining them Whereas you say in the margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Eustath you abuse your self and the Reader because neither the simple nor the compound in his sense are to be understood as you understand them here And H. Stephan of whose words you pretend not to be ignorant and are therefore the more inexcusable hath it thus At Eustathius â—ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse pro simplici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
he reputes it but a Ceremony yet elsewhere * Declaration pag. 39. The Divinâ— beginning and institution of Christs true visible or Ministeriall Church Argum. 7. he makes it to be of the foundation necessary to salvation ordinarily and unchangeable by men Whether these latter witnesses be to be reckoned among Protestant Divines especially in your account I shall leave it to you to judge But let this suffice at present to the question of Ordination Concerning IMPOSITION OF HANDS This is your Position pag. 13. IMposition or laying on of Hands is neither essentiall to a Ministers Call nor to his Ordination Ans Before I speak to the particulars wherein you pretend to the proof of this it seems necessary to preface a little concerning the Subject in generall that the Terms belonging to the Question may be the better understood When shall we know what you mean by a Call and how it shall be discerned what is essentiall to it Or to whom the power of Calling does belong Whether one way of Calling be precisely determined Or what manner of Ordaining is to be found in Scripture besides that of Laying on of hands At your leisure resolve these Enquiries distinctly that the Reader may be fully informed Till I am convinced of the contrary by your self or some other I shall presume that a Call is alwayes necessary yea a Call from God mediate or immediate That way of Calling mediately is to be followed in succeeding times which is warranted by precepts or exampleâ— in the New Testament In the nature of the thing it self Calling for the substance of the act is more necessary than this or that manner or rite of Calling Election may possibly he either by silence as in the discipline of the French Churches it is prescribed or by lively voyce or by holding up the hand or by writing The Church at Frankford in Queen Maries dayes had a peculiar way of choosing Ministers in part blindfold by a kind of Ballattingbox * Lyturgia in Ecclesia Peregâ—inorum Frââ—ofordâ—ae p. 51. For Ordination the Papists have devised many Rites not only by perverse applying of the examples of Christ and his Apostles but also by their own presumptuous inventions The Reformed Churches suffice themselves with Prayer Fasting and Laying on of hands Some few have used manus porrectione the giving of the right hand of fellowship in stead of Laying on of hands but though there be an instance of the use of that Ceremony in token of approbation between Paul and Barnabas on the one side and some of the Apostles at Jerusalem on the other part Gal. 2. 9. yet that will conclude nothing to the question of Ordination In such things as are indeed not pretendedly left unto the Churches liberty she may use it as makes most for edifying and about many Circumstances belonging to a Ministers Call there is a liberty supposed granted and taken and in some things necessary to be determined not so much by rule or Canon as per prudentiam practice practicam by the discretion of those who are pro hic nunc imployed in Calling To this purpose some speak largely enough * Quibus ritibus Doctores ecclesiae sint vocanâ—i quâ ratione publicum hoc docendi munâ—â— eâ—â— sit delegandum ac imponendum non est expresse traditum sed liberâ—ari Ecclesiae relictum Magdeburgenses cent 1. lib. 1. cap. 4 pag. 118. lin 33. Modus electâ—niâ— nullus certus est prascriptus iâ— sacris literis Aretius probl parte 3. de Minist Vocatiâ—â—ata habenda dum vocatio Dei manet conjuncta foris aliquâ testificatione ipstuâ— quae quiâ—varia est desinire non possumus Armin. and more then I dare assent unto without due caution Yet this must be remembred that God is not sought after the due Order 1 Chron 15. 13. when any rite or manner of doing is omitted which is of his appointing And it 's safer to cleave unto warrantable examples even about circumstances then to presume too much of our freedome in devising any thing which may be called new or transferring the rite of one thing to another And many things which were in themselves and to the Apostles free and indifferent become by their example more or lesse necessary to us especially when their example is backed by the â—ptnesse or equity of the thing it self and either directly commended to us or enlivened with some insinuation that in doing as they did we shall do well The certainty of lawfulnesse is alwayes a sure point for us to center in As to the use of Laying on of hands to say nothing of that which was common to all Christians to be applied unto them upon severall occasions but of that which was used by those who were already in office in putting others into office also The Papists urging of it as a Sacrament as a meanes of conveighing the Holy Ghost as alwayes absolutely necessary and essentiall And those hands to be a Bishops as an Order or Degree superior to a Presbyteâ— gave occasion to some of the first Reformers in some parts to suspect it to judge it indifferent and to argue from the Apostles liberty in taking of it up and translating of it from â— Jewish use unto a Christian to their liberty of using or difusing it as they found expedient and the state of the Church in their times and those places where their lot fell made way For my part when I consider how uniform and accurate the Apostles were in observing it and of this rite alone in the matter of Ordination and that we have no instance or example of their Ordaining otherwise How unsafe it is to vary from their lawfull and imitable practise What advantage the Papists have to bring in other rites upon pretence of liberty And what danger might be by substituting another way of Ordaining then we have sure warrant for Of what consequence it is that Ministers should keep up a peculiar interest of acting in the name and stead of Christ by something peculiar to themselves and that this alone doth most cleerly hold it out beside the manifold uses of it which are expressed by Protestant Divines Though it be commonly called a rite and in that respect is but an adjunct so as it must needs seem harsh to call it essentiall yet I judge it sinfull for any who desire the office of a Minister to refuse it and scandalous in any Church wilfully to throw iâ— aside That it s more or lesse necessary in the judgement of Reformed Churches and their Divines cannot but be known to those who are acquainted with their writings The peace of the Church may be preserved among those who hold it lawfull and the dispute whether it be Essentiall might be spared Yet because though it were not essentiall your Proofs may fall short of that Conclusion I shall consider of them Your first Reason is Some have been made Ministers without it as the Apostles and Matthias Act. 1.
especially to be used for the lawfull Calling of ordinary Pastors Election of those who are to be called and Ordination of those who are elected But this is cleer out of the former Testimony that notwithstanding the difference of the phrases by the laying on of Pauls hands and with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie the latter cannot be so understood as to give unto the Presbyterie in his judgement a bare concurrence because then it could not be a ground of using the rite either at the Present or in former ages 3. For those expressions It s not to be used with opinion of necessity and the rest they are indeed Proviso's or rather some excerpta extracts of those things which the Author brings in by way of providing the summe whereof is 1. Laying on of hands is to continue if it be not used with opinion of necessity Nor 2. as a sacred significant Ceremony But naked testimony avails little especially when it iâ— is single or singular Therefore I answer 1. Necessity must be distinguished Simple necessity with relation to all times and cases is asserted by none but Papists Necessity secundum quid in some respect either for Orders sake or to avoyd scandall is acknowledged by those Protestants who make least account of Laying on of hands As it must be granted that all examples either of Christ or his Apostles have not the nature of a Law so must it also be maintained that some have and I think as much may be said for this in particular I mean the Apostles practise in Ordination as for any other or as much as for the gesture of sitting in receiving the Sacrament At present here 's nothing but bare Assertion and therefore the lesse need to dwell upon the particular 2. If Imposition of hands be a signe and as your Author calls it a morall signe it must in some sense be sacred because the subject of it and manner of using belong unto the first Table and as a signe it is essentiall to it to be significant That grace is given by and with the Ordination of the Ministers when Cartwright against the Them on 1 Tim 4 14. it is duly given and received we willingly yield because the words of the Scripture beare it Thus much Cartwright grants unto the Rhemists in the name of Protestants To your fourth Reason pag. 14. If laying on of hands be essentiall to a Ministers Call then are the Ministers of the Reformed Churches no Ministers For though they use Laying on of hands now as a thing indifferent yet they who used it first had it not themselves I answer The Consequence is denied 1. Because Laying on of hands contrary to what you say hath continued in most of the Reformed Churches successively to this day as in England Denmark and many parts of Germany For England in this respect the spight and envy of the Papists hath been especially set against the Ministry of it And though * Tractatu de vocatione Ministrorum Champney labours to invalid all which Mason alledges de Ministerio Anglicano to prove succession yet in his Epistle to George Abbot then Archbishop of Canterbury he confesseth he heard that the said Archbishop caused some Popish Priests to be brought before himself and some others in Commission with him that they might testifie they had seen those Publike Acts which Mason urged for his proof For Denmark and also for divers parts of Germany I refer you to Melchior Adamus in the life of Bagenhagius p. 315. 2. Because there are times wherein neither Election nor Ordination as Church-acts are essentiall unto a Ministers Calling as in part hath been cleered already and will further appear in that which follows To your large Quotation out of Beza on Act. 14. 23. in these words Some said he chuse to refer this to Laying on of hands as Quidâ—m hoc â—â—ferre 〈◊〉 ad manuuÌ„ impositionem quae ipsa siâ— proâ—sus necessaria hoc praetextâ— accepto vocationem nostram irritam esse dicunt quâ—niam Ordinarii quos vocan nobis manus non imposuerunt sive quòd no sumus in Romana ecclesia ordinati Resp ipsis canonibus quâ—s jactant irritam esse consecrationem cui non praeirit legitima elâ—ctiâ— aut quae fit Excommunicaro Ostendant autem ipsi vel unumin tota illo Hierarchia qui legitimè sit vocatus imo qui non sit centies ipso jure excommunicatus si ipsi eorum Synodis statur Not â—â—itur cur ab illis Impositionem manuuÌ„ peâ—eremus aut quâ— sure ipsi nobis eam tribuerent Habemus autem nos Dei beneficio certas nostrae vocationis notaâ— legitimo ab ecclesiis nostris vitae doctrinae testim nio per Dei gratiam ornati ab iâ—sdem electi ac demum etian invocate Dei nomine in noâ—tro Ministerio confirmati cui Dominus ut spero ejectis tum suribus tum mercenariis benedicet if it also were altogether necessary and under this pretence say Our Calling is null because the Ordinaries as they call them have not laid hands on us or because we are not Consecrated in the Church of Rome I answer by those Canons which they boast of the Consecration is null where there was not first a lawfull choice or which was done by one who is excommunicated Let them shew but one in all their Hierarchy who is lawfully chosen yea who is not by the very Law a hundred times Excommnicate if they will stand to their own Synods Why should we therefore desire hands to be laid on us by them or by what Law can they do it But we have by the blessing of God certain marks of our Calling being through the grace of God adorned with the lawfull Testimony of our Life and Doctrine from our Churches and after that by calling upon the name of God confirmed in our Ministery which God I hope will blesse and cast out both the Theeves and Hirelings Ans These few and briefe Notes may suffice for answer 1. Beza gives no reason at at all to prove why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word there spoken of should not be referred to laying on of hands or why it should imply some joint act of the Apostles and of the Churches But of this enough before 2. The whole passage is rather an apologie for want of Imposition of hands in some than to shew that it is needlesse in all 3. It s granted that in such a case as he speaks of the first comming out to Babylon it was not necessary to return back again to Popish Bishops for Ordination and to this his reasons are strong but what is that to the regular and ordinary way of Calling 4. It 's worth observing how he begins Some chuse to refer this to Laying on of hands For indeed they were not only Papists who urged the necessity of having hands laid on and it seems from this place but Protestants
also were offended with the first Reformers in France for want of succession in the way of Ordination Which gave occasion to Sadeel to write a speciall Treatise De legitima vocatione Pastorum Ecclesiae Reformatae against those who professed to differ from the rest in hoc tantùm capite in this point only That Ministers wanted a lawfull Calling for want of succession from the Apostles to the present times And therefore you must not wonder if you cannot perswade all men to be of your mind especially when your reasons are far from cogencie And Beza from whom you might expect something and make a shew of much waves the determining of that on the place which was most proper to it 5. If it be said he gives certain marks of Calling and yet reckons not Imposition of hands for one As 1. the Testimony 2. the Election of the Church for that 's in the Latine though you leave it out in the translation and 3. Confirmation by prayer I answer these suffice when the condition of the Church will not possibly afford more yea lesse then these The edisication of the Church is so necessary that it must be endeavoured as Providence makes way but when there may be Order and beauty observed its sinfull to neglect the rules and means of procuring and upholding it That which is lawfull by vertue of necessity is only so far lawfull as the necessity is reall and not pretended That which followes is in part confused And in the same case are the Lutherans who hold Laying on of hands not to be essentiall to their Calling yea that it's Popery to hold it so Bellarmine sayes Tarnovius would have laying on of hands to be absolutely necessary as the substantiall part of Ordination Yet I answer 1. In the connexion of these words either to those immediately foregoing or to the beginning of the Paragraph you make the Lutherans Theeves and Hirelings or exclude them out of the number of the Reformed Churches which is extreme uncharitable 2. Though the Lutherans do not hold Laying on of hands to be essentiall yet they need not fear a nullity in their Calling having Imposition by succession and using it still The act it self is of force though they should erre in the grounds of using it 3. To hold Laying on of hands to be absolutely necessary in all cases may well be counted Popery if we think those hands must be a Bishops and that Bishop consecrated by a power derived from the Sea of Rome as Papists do But to hold Laying on of hands such a rite as ought not to be omitted by those who have authority from the Word to use it in designing a meet person to the Ministery and in the visible declaration of that designation is no Popery 4. In this passage you deal fraudulently with your credulous Readers while you pretend to tell them the Judgement of Protestant Divines and do purposely conceale it Tarnovius in that very place which you point at in your margin propounding the question De impositionis manuum necessitate Concerning the necessity of Laying on of hands supposeth a necessity more or lesse to be granted on both sides between Papists and Lutherans and having set down Bellarmines opinion afterward gives this for his own and others of that part Nos eum speaking of this rite necessarium existimamus secundum quid nimirum quia citra scandalum omitti hodie non potest qui tot annos in Ecclesia usitatus fuit habet suos usus What need you cite Tarnovius only to let us know what Bellarmine sayes and will not let us know the judgement of Tarnovius himself if it were not upon designe to rake up all that may be said against that Rite and to hury as much as in you lies all that makes for it 5. As for the opinion of the Papists in generall and particularly of Bellarmine they are divided in this point And though he labours to prove Manus impositionem ad essentiam De Sac. Ord. lib. 1. cap. 9. Sacramenti ordinis pertinere yet he sayes Alii existimant manus impositionem esse accidentariam ita Dominicus à Soto alii quidam Whether there be not some difference between pertinere ad essentiam to belong unto the essence which is Bellarmines expression and esse substantiale as Tarnovius hath it or to be a substantiall part as you phrase it is considerable because that belongs unto the essence without which it cannot be compleat or entire and that only is a substantiall part without which it cannot be at all Among Decret Greg. lib. 1. tit 16. â— 1. the Decretals of Gregory this Case is put An permitti debeat ministrare qui sine impositione manuum fuerit ad Ordinem Subdiaconatus assumptus Whether one taken into the Order of a Subdeacon without Imposition of hands should be permitted to minister By this it appears 1. That laying on of hands was sometime omitted in some Ordinations 2. That such Ordination Impositio manuum non requâ—râ—tur in omnibus Ordinibus ecclesiasticis velut in cocolytho subdiacono ordinandis Can. subdiacon can seq dist 24. was not presently thought to be invalid and eo ipso null Which is further manifest by the Popes answer to the Case which is made a Canon in their Law In talibus non est aliquid iterandum sed cautè supplendum quod incautè fuerat praetermissum In such cases nothing is to be reiterated but that must be warily supplyed which was unwarily pretermitted Thâ—s is of great use against the Papists themselves who can find a salvo for want of Imposition of hands among themselves and yet allow none to the Paotestants And serves also to shew the vanity of your argument who from the defect of this one hing without any distinction of time or state in the Church would infer a meer nullity in the whole Thus far by occasion of that in Tarnovius Touching Chemnitius it follows Chemnitius puts the case Whether his Ministery be Null who hath not hands laid on him And having repeated their opinion who say it s not necessary so the Call be lawfull he lays the necessity of it to be in regard of others who run and are not sent not in regard of the Calling it self but that the Calling may be witnessed which the Minister hath and says Ord natio non facit vocationem Ordination makes not his Calling but declares it And further Praecipuè servatur iste ritus ut tota Ecclesia communibus ardentibus precibus c. That Imposition of hands is retained chiefly for the Prayers sake which the whole Church makes c. Yea Fatendum sane nullum extare in Scripturis mandatum Dei In 1 Tim. 5. 22. quod hâ—c ritus Ordinationis sit adhibendus There is no command of God in Scripture to Ordain by laying of hands Loc. com tom 3. 137. The answer 1. Why did you conceale from the Reader Cerâ—ò