either instituted by Christ or not If not then you are guilty of abusing and perverting Christs Ordinance if so let the end be named and the institution produced What I find said already to this purpose shall be considered hereafter in due place 3. Doth not ordination add a new being to the person ordained If not then may the person ordained be said to be no more a Minister then whilst unordained If so then after reordination whether shall we admit a consistency of two distinct beings or a nullity of the one if a nullity of the one what is that but to make a nullity of Christs Ordinance If two distinct beings then are there not two Ministers in one person Which how two moral ministerial beings can exist in one Minister seems as hard to conceive as how two natural beings can exist in one person Let it be considered whether these spiritual Parents the Ordainers can any more generate two spiritual beings of the same kind in these spiritual Children the ordained then natural Parents can by two acts generate two natural beings of the same kind in the same child Whether reordination in morality be not like regeneration in nature 4. If we cannot admit a rebaptization how shall we admit a reordination They were no babies that have argued from this Topick l. 2. Cont. Epist Parm. c. 13. Thus St. Augustine argued about twelve hundred years ago Quando ex ipsa parte saith he venientes etiam Praepâ—siti pro bone pacis correcto schismatis errore suscepti sunt etsi visum est opus esse ut eadem officia gererent quae gerebant non sunt rursus ordinandi sed sicut baptismus in iis it a mansit ordinatio integra quia in praecisione fuerat vitium quod unitatis pace est correctum non in Sacramentis quae ubicunque sunt ipsa vera sunt l. 2. Epist 32. So Gregory referente Estio Baldvino Quid dicitis ut is qui ordinatus est iterum ordinetur Valde ridiculum est absit enim a fraternitate vestra sic sapere sicut enim qui semel baptizatus est iterum baptizari non debet ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem iterum ordine non debet consecrari C. C. p. 10â—6 Yea thus Baldwin himself affirmeth Si baptismus a Pontificiis aliis hareticis substantiam bujus Sacramenti non convellentibus acceptus non est iterandus multo minus ordinatio c. Though it is readily acknowledged that ordination is in strict and proper speech no Sacrament though many things in lax discourse were formerly and are still called Sacraments nor Seal of the Covenant of Grace as Baptisme being not extended no not in potentia to all sincere Covenanters neither is there any element instituted for an outward sign c. yet may we not reckon their agreement in these As Baptisme is a solemn admission into visible Church-priviledges so is ordination into visible Church-offices and as the person baptized had a remote right before baptisme so the person ordained being duly qualified providentially called and yet as before baptisme the person could not regularly partake of the Lords Supper present an Infant to baptisme or the like so before ordination the person qualified cannot regularly baptize administer the Lords Supper or the like Now the Question is If we cannot admit a new investiture with Church priviledges by rebaptization how shall we admit a new investiture with church-Church-power by reordination What reason can be brought from the nature of an investing solemnity against rebaptization which may not be brought against reordination Yet how few in all the world have ever maintained a rebaptization of those that were validly baptized before The very Anabaptists as we call them will thus far disown Anabaptisme and say if Infants baptisme were not void they durst not baptize them again at age 5. Whether doth ordination beget a new relation in a person to the Church or not If not then are you no more a Steward a Shepherd a Ruler a Teacher afâ—er ordination then you were before for all these are termes of relation and then you must either acknowledge that there are no such Teachers or Rulers among the ordained or else that all are Teachers and Rulers among the inordained both which are sufficiently distant from truth But if you acknowledge that ordination doth beget a relation then how shall that relation be iterated Undoubtedly betwixt the Relatum Correlatum there is but one relation upon oâ—e foundation As in marriage there can be but one only relation betwixt man and wife upon that account and therefore it is utterly in vain to repeat marriage for if you repeat it a thousand times yet the relation will be but the same and not one jot the more the husband is but a husband and the wife is but a wife after ten thousand marriages and so they were after one Even so will a Ministers relation to the Church be but the same if he should be ordained a thousand times Learned Hooker argues from this Topick thus Eccles Pol. l. 5. p. 411. They which have once received this power may not think to put it off and on like a cloak as the weather serveth to take it reject it and reassume it as oft as themselves list of which prophane and impious contempt but let them know which put their hands to this plough that once consecrated unto God they are made his peculiar inheritance for ever Suspensions may stop and degradations may utterly out off the use or exercise of power before given but voluntarily it is not in the power of man to separate and pull asunder what God by his authority coupleth so that though there may be through misdesere degradation as there may be just cause of separation after matrimony yet if as sometimes it doth restitution to former dignity or reconciliation after breach doth happen neither doth the one nor the other ever iterate the first knot Concerning the iterability of the marriage solemnity I shall speak in due place 6. If ordination be an Act of Christ how then can we reordain without injury to his Majesty That ordination is Christs Act is plain in the nature of the thing for the Gospel and the Ordainers are but Instruments in the conveyance of authority but Jesus Christ himself is the original of all power and the principal Agent in the Conveyance of power by these Instruments as hath been already explained and is by moâ—â— acknowledged And if ordination be Christ Act then he put it forth in the first administration and if so then what can a reordination be but either a most unworthy denyal of Christs former Act or a presumptuous imposing upon Christ to exert a new Act without all warrant on our parts oâ— else a mocking of Christ using his Act as nâ— Act This very Argument you may finâ— used by Estius from a doubtful Cyprian thus Baptismum
that but Popish but to a Doctrinal succession for that is Protestant And here what need I say much to prove that the Right Reverend Bishops Doctors and Pastors of our Church have owned Presbyterian ordination as valid sith that incomparable Mr. Baxter hath cited Bishop Jewel Bancroft Vher Downame Disput with Everard 240. Trys 541. Davenant Alley Morton Pilkinton Prideaux Overall Bramhall Bridges Bilson and Andrews all Bishops and D. Field Saravia Powell Chillingworth Bernard Ferne Steward Mason with the Lord Digby Grotius and Chisenhall to whom may be added the Revered D. Sanderson D. Featley Dr. â—â—wnes and D. Forbess and especially leâ—â—â— the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and Clergy of England be forgotten Irenicum who in their Book entituled The institution of a Christian man subscribed with all their names and dedicated to K. H. 8. an 1537. c. of Orders Nor K. H. 8. himself who in his book stiled A necessary erudition for a Christian man set out by authority of the Stat. of 32. H. 8. c. 26. approved by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal M. Pâ—yns â—ubâ—sh Tim. Tit. p. 71 72. with the Neather House of Parliament published an 1543. in both which Tracts they resolve that Bishops and Priests by Gods Laws are one and the same and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to them both Now judge who are nearest the Church of England the rigid Prelatist or the moderate Presbyterian And that our honoured Fathers were against the reordination of the presbyterially ordained appears partly from their owning such ordinations as valid and more fully in their constant admitting such to preferment without any reordination To instance in that famous story of the three Bishops whereof B. Andrews was one that were to consecrate Bishops for Scotland and the Qu. being mov'd whether those Scotch Ministers should not be reordained Presbyters before they were consecrated Bishops and it wâ—â—arried in the Negative and so they proceeded Iremember not long since a Reverend Minister and Prebendary told my self that he having received Presbyterian ordination beyond sea who when he came over into England went to a Bishop about his ordination who refused tâ— reordain him the judgement of Wickliff Hooker Armachanus and Mason shall be given by and by But if any one would perswade me that the antient Bishops were for such a reordination I shall only entreat him to produce a Catalogue of their names with a citation of their words for seeing is believing But I confess I have arrived at such a degree of assurance that few if any at all of the late Bishops excepting A. Laud with two or three of his Proselites that ever avowed a reordination of those that were ordained by Presbyters were those old dead Bishops but alive again they would quickly I believe remove reordinations and such like altitudes Nay more yet I do not believe that A. Laud B. Mountague or Bishop Hall though the highest in England that I have read of did ever maintain that those might lawfully be reordained which were validly ordained before so then the person in the Question must be satisfied that his former ordination is void or else he departs from those three lofty Bishops but if therein he be satisfied then he departs from others in this at least much more humble Judge now by this how we can accept a second ordination and yet be faithful to the Church of England 15. Will not this submission to a re-ordination prove a confirmation of some in certain false principles an enervation of others in certain true principles and so prove a lamentable scandal to them both See the danger of scandalizing your brethren Jer. 23.14 Mat. 18.6 7. Rom. 14.14 ult 1 Cor. 10.28 29 30 31 32. 1 Cor. 8.9 10 11 12. Now consider whether these be not false principles That there is an absolute necessity of a regular succession of Bishops and Priests that Bishops are a distinct order from the Presbyters jure divino that the sole power of ordination as well as the exercise of it lies jure divino wholly in the Diocesan or that a Diocesan Bishop is ential to ordination And so where there are no Diocesans there are no Ministers no Ordinances no Churches Organical no Christians See now how naturally such a re-ordination tends to the lengthening the cords and strengthening the stakes of these principles and likewise how craftily it weakens the hands and emasculates the hearts of those in England and other Reformed Churches which maintain the contrary Little do some think how their re-ordination hath drawn tears from many an eye and sobâ— from many a spirit whom they would not have made sad and encouraged many young ones to imbibe those principles which otherwise they durst not have tasted and how it hath been a sport unto some mocking and scorning at mens fluid vertiginous humors whilst others have stood trembling to see their dangerous stumbles and how it hath filled some men with hopes that all would do so and therefore they need to abate us just nothing and others with fears that too many would do so and therefore they dare trust us with nothing and just as the unnecessary Imposers so the Weathercock-Turners do sadly promote the Brownistical separation 16. How can the person in the Question pray in faith for a blessing on the second ordination either before in or after the solemnity for what ground have we to believe that Christ will bless such an odd use or I fear abuse of his ordinance or if you will a humane injunction varnished over with specious pretences of Christs institution Whether there be any more then a pretence of Christs institution try and see 1. In Christs ordination there is a segregation of person from the world which supposes hiâ— in the world in a sense before but thaâ— supposition cannot be admitted and consequently there is no segregation in reordination 2. Is there not in Christs ordination special dedication of a person to God which supposes that he was not so dedicateâ— before now this cannot be supposed iâ— reordination 3. In Christs ordination iâ— there not an investiture with Ecclesiastical power which supposes a defect of that power before but not so in reordination Where then is the essence of the instituted ordination or the natural consequentâ— thereof to be found in this new devised transaction which must be called a legal establishment a Canonical confirmation c. Upon what foundation therefore shall we build either our faith or hope that God will own us or blesse us in such a business 17. Is it not worth while to consider whether the Reordainers themselves be canonical or not not that I intend to slander in the least any of our Right Reverend Bishops only as I may without just offence discover in thesi that Bishops have as little regular authority to ordain as the Presbyters themselves 1. What hath been thought of these Bishops which were never elected
should lose the substance And if I can but prove that ordination is thus much i. e. that which being rightly put office-power will follow and that which being denyed the conveyance of power according to the order of the Charter is suspended this will be sufficient to my purpose 1. I will argue à pari because that will lustrate as well as confirm In the constiâ—uting of a King in a Kingdom elective for â—n hereditary Kingdom the Coronation of such a King will not reach our case the Ministerial power not being hereditary â—ve consider 1. The sundamental constitution of their Kingdom which instrumenâ—ally institutes the office of a King there â—etermines his power and work describes he person capable and also impowers some persons it may be Princes Peers or People to discern elect enthronize and crown upon a vacancy a certain person to â—e their King 2. We suppose several perâ—ons that are duly qualified ready to accept â—nd consent to be made their King Yet 3. there is not one of them made King eâ—â—omine because qualified without the probation approbation and constitution of the Judges but any one of them being elected and constituted by the Electors and Judges â—s King presently Even so c. Take another Instance in the authorizing a chief Officer in one of our Corporations we suppose that the Kings Majesty is the principal Efficient subtercelestial cause of their authority likewise their Charter is the instrumental cause and qualified persons according to the directions in the Chartâ—â— are the capable Subjects of this authoriâ—â— and the Burgomasters Freemen or the liâ—â— are appointed by this their Charter to elâ—â— and constitute this their head Officer wâ—â—ther Mayor Bayliff or Warden mattâ—â— not Now notwithstanding the Kings thority derived in general their Charâ—â—â— deriving a person duly qualified ready accept the office yet notwithstanding is nâ—â— this person a Mayor Bayliff or Wardâ— except they that are appointed ordain hâ—â— to be so nor until they have ordained hâ—â— to be so but when their act is past then there authority derived from the King the Charter which invests him with thâ— office-power Or as in the University tâ—â— Statutes authorize a person so and so aâ— complished to challenge the degree of Doctor or Master yet notwithstanding tâ—â—â— person is not Doctor nor Master till he haâ— his grace in the Convocation but then 〈◊〉 is Who is so dull as to be unable to maâ—â— application By all which it appears thâ— Ordainers are necessary occasions if nâ— constituent causes viz. in genere instrâ—menti in specie called Ministerial causes this Officer qua Officer 2. I argue if ordination be but a meâ—solemnity to which the conveyance of â—â—wer to a particular person is anteceâ—â—nt then is a person qualified if consentâ—â—g made a Minister before ordination â—â—a then are all persons Ministers being â—â—alified and desiring the office and having â—â—portunity of exercising Might not such Doctrine reduced into practice occasion at Question of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 12.29 Are all Apoâ—les are all Prophets are all Teachers â—â—â—c 3. If ordination convey not the power â—en a person ordained is really no more a â—inister then he was before though he may â—em somewhat more to the world but if â—â—e should seem to be more a Minister beâ—â—re ordination then after as he might to me of the separation then to what purpose should he be ordained 4. Why would the Holy Ghost think â—ou chuse to use such expressions as do â—â—ully set forth a proper investiture if no â—uch thing were intended The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—sed for ordination Acts 6.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom we may constitute â—ver this businesse And Titus 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and ordain Elders in every City is the very â—me word that is used for the most proper investiture with office-office-power Acts 7.10 When seph was by Pharach put into his office 〈◊〉 Holy Ghost expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and likewâ—â—â— in that Parable Luke 12.44 and maâ—â— such like places 5. Why should not our Ministers loâ—â— upon their ordination as conferring the office as well as Aaron and especially 〈◊〉 Successors theirs 2 Chron. 29.11 Hebâ— 5.1 4 5. 6. It ordination be a potestative misâ—â—on then it invests but so it is generall concluded from Rom. 10.15 7. If ordination do not invest how wâ—â— the gift i. e. the office given Timothy wiâ—â—â— the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 or by the laying on 〈◊〉 Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1.6 if that plaâ—â— be understood of ordination as some woulâ— have it 8. How can ordination be said to be thâ— committing or entrusting as 2 Tim. 2.2 of faithful persons with the Gospel 〈◊〉 preach it if it convey no power Much more I perceive by the rising oâ—â— my own thoughts may be said to prove thiâ— part of the Proposition that ordination iâ—â— an investiture with power but methinks have made too low an halt at the threshold already and therefore I proceed to the Proposition Prop. 6. It is supposed that this work of ordination is committed to certain persons ordained themselves to the same office at least and that the person in the Question was ordained as you must give me leave to call it to the office of a Presbyter by the Presbytery or Presbyters validly ordained themselves and that our Question now is not about the Ordainers own ordination to be Presbyters or the Magistrates allowance of such ordinations at least a postfacte or the peoples consent to such Ministers Prop. 7. Let us suppose that the Presbyters ordaining were neither heretical schismatical nor scandalous though possibly they ordained in heretical schismatical and scandalous times but were orthodox peaceable and pious as many of them may rationally be judged to be or at least that they were not such as by their personal miscarriages to null their acts and this we may well suppose because it is known that Protestants and Papists do generally agree that ordinations made by Hereticks and Schismaticks are not to nomine null and void Prop. 8. It is supposed that the former ordination received was an ordination to the office in the Catholick Church and likewise that the latter ordination imposed is to the same office in the Catholick Church and that the Question is not now about any particular inferiour separation to a particular work or exercise of an office Prop. 9. It may be supposed that the person formerly ordained by the Presbytery either knew not in those cloudy times where to find a Diocesan or knowing durst not use him for fear of the Usurpers or desiring ordination from him he durst not grant it and so he looked upon himself as lying under a necessity to receive Presbyterial ordination Prop. 10. It is supposed that the person ordained in this case of necessity is satisfied as to the validity of such ordination though not possibly as to the
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
true it cannot signifie to him either the bestowance of an extraordinary gift or the working of a miraculous cure or the conferring Ecclesiastical authority or the confirmation of baptism or popular election yet it may be used either to signifie the Bishops benediction or his approbation and allowance or his confirmation of our orders or as a separating us to this or that particular work Thus they that cannot admit the Bishops hands for one end may do it for another 7. It is lawful for the person in the Question upon his undertaking a new charge to admit a solemn separation by the Bishops and Presbyters with fasting prayer and imposition of hands unto that particular work This I take to be irrefragably argued from Paul and Barnabas Acts 13. 8. It seems lawful to admit all that is aforesaid though a man should not remove to a new place If a Minister upon this change gave up his place for lost and his people gave up him upon the dissolution of his legal title if he shall afterwards gain a legal establishment and have his liberty to proceed in his labours in that part of the Lords harvest he may for ought I know accept the solemn Good speed with the approbative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the honest Bishop By this you may see how strongly bent my soul is to peace insomuch that there is nothing that I can devise about â—eordination in the si that the right reverend Bishops can demand but it shall be yielded except only the formal investiture with ministerial power CHAP. VI. Containing certain Considerations humbly offered to those that are for the imposing of reordination to promote an accommodation 1. CAn it be imagined that Presbyterian ordination is such a groundless novelty as to be destitute of all authority I confess I wondred when I read the challenge of the late right reverend Bishop Hall and heard the like from a reverend Dean to give any solid Instance in all antiquity of a Presbyterian ordination What did they think of Pauls ordination as some call it Acts 9. by Ananias a Disciple It is well known that some would make the Bishops the successors of the Apostles of the seventy two Disciples and if so you know what follows Or what do they think of Saul and Barnabas their ordination as some call it in Acts 13. by the Teachers at Antioch Or what of Timothy's ordination by the hands of the Presbytery In Epist ad â—vag 1 Tim. 4.14 Or what of the Alexandrian Bishops consecrated by the Presbyters as St. Jerome tels us for the space of about two hundred years next after the Apostles Or what of the like history of ordinations by the Presbyters throughout Aegypt by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine Amb. In Eph. 4. August q. ex utroque Test Q. 101. Inter Ep Cyprian epist 75. or whoever they were yet to you it suffices in that they are cited by your selves for Ambrose and St. Augustine or what of Firmilians assertion that in the Church wherein all power and grace is seated there preside certain Elders which have both the power of baptizing imposing hands and ordaining But to come nearer home Bish Usher de prieccle Brit. 798 799 800. What did they think of that so famous story reported by so many great ones that the Scots from their first embracing of the Christian Faith Anno 179. till the year 430. were constantly instructed and governed only by Presbyters and Monks without Bishops Dr. Blond Apol. 314.315 Bâ—xters disp Ch. Gâ—v 97. Beda Ecc. hist l. 3. c. 35.17 21 24 25 26. l. 4 c. 4. Dr. Blond Apol. 367 368 369. Or what did they think of those so famous converters of a great part of our English Nation Segerius Aidanus Finanus Colmannus Tuda Diuna Ceollach Trumhere Cedda and others who received their ordination successively from Columbanus the Abbot Presbyter of Hy Abby who came out of Scotland at the invitation of Oswald King of Northumberland in the time of the Heptarchy About that time or somewhat after was Augustine the Monk sent from Gregory the great into the South part of England Chyâ—â—aeus in Chron. Sâ—xon l. 15 p. 456. Pryn ibid. 94. Or what did they think of M. Luther Doctor Medler and other Presbyters that ordained Amsdorfius Bishop of Newburgh Whosoever would see more Instances of Presbyterian ordination let him read Doctor Blondels Apol. Gersom Bucer de gubern Eccl. and Mr. Pryn's Vnbish Tim. Tit. 2. Can it be valid or candid to argue from the condemnation of Novatus Aerius Coluthus or Maximus to the condemnation of all Presbyters ordained by the Presbytery Certain I am that Bishop Downam and Bishop Bilson that argued from these against the regularity yet would not argue from these against the validity of Presbyterian ordination But let us consider these condemned persons severally 1. Novatus Eusâ—b hist l. 6. c. 42. who was censured in the third Century according to Eusebius He was 1. A Priest of Rome puffed up with pride against those that fell in time of persecuâ—ion through infirmity of the flesh as though there were no hope of salvation for them yea though they performed all that appertained to true conversion and right confession of faith 2. He became the Author and Ring-leader of his own hereticall Sect. 3. He was excommunicate and banished the Church by a Synod of sixty Bishops gathered at Rome with many Presbyters and Deacons 4. He wà s ordained a Priest by the favour of the Bishop though all the Clergy and many of the Laity withstood it who requested that he might be permitted to allow only this one 5 When he had presumptuously endeavoured to challenge to himself the title of a Bishop not granted him from above he chose two men of desperate condition to be partakers of his heresie whom he might send to a certain corner of Italy and there to seduce three Bishops plain simple and country men by some crafty means avouching that they must in all haste come to Rome feigning that they together with other Bishops meeting to the same purpose should appease and remove a certain Schism raised in that City these being simple men as we said before not knowing their crafty and mischievous fetches after their coming were included by such lewd persons as were suborned for that purpose and about ten of the clock in the night when they were somewhat tipsie and well cram'd with victuals were constrained to create him Bishop c. of which one of these Bishops repented and all deposed 6. He had formerly been possessed of the Devill 7. It was doubted of his baptism which at the best was on his bed in sickness 8. In persecution he denyed himself to be a Priest and forsook the Church of God 9. He caused the people at the Lords Table to swear by the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ they would never forsake him and fly to Cornelius ere he would delver them
desirous of it not only ready to accept but ready to offer the most condiscending terms of agreement and more hot yet in the pursuit of peace shall we be when we can see the practice of prophaness suppressed and the power and practice of holiness advanced with the least considerable encouraging condescention in lower uninstituted unnecessary things But if there be no condescention no abatement but rather swellings higher and higher then would I weep and wish with Jeremiah Oh that I had in the wilderness a dwelling place Then will this old Question come in fashion again and deserve a debate Whether a Minister be bound to preach the Gospel when discharged or silenced by the Bishops I think it is not to be doubted if able pious painful Preachers should succeed us and so the Church be little or no loser but we shall be the more glad and the more at ease But if our Successors be insufficient or scandalous to the hazarding of immortal souls what shall we do then Not preach up rebellion or faction or the like there is no Question but the Question is Whether we should not preach the essential Doctrines of Christianity as that there is a God a Saviour a Heaven a Hell c. with the necessary practices of faith repentance and good works And though we cannot do it in one Church whether we should not do it in another And if we cannot in any publick place whether we should not privately from house to house The Reasons which speak at present against our ease are these 1. Is not our office for the exercise and therefore is not the office in vain if not exercised Frustra est potentia quae non reducitur in actum 2. Have we not promised before God and the Congregation when we were ordained that we would through grace continue in this work to the end notwithwithstanding the discouragements we might meet with in this world 3. Did not the true Prophets go on to prophesie and that in publick even when they were prohibited 4. Was not this Ministry instituted in times of greatest discouragement and the first Ministers sent forth as sheep among wolves with warning to provide for tribulations and yet no dispensation granted more then to fly from one City to another 5. Did not the Apostles go on to preach the Gospel though prohibited imprisoned scourged stoned and many murdered martyred It s like these knâ—w of no Quietus est from Christ Jesus in this world 6. Did not the Martyrs and Confessors in the three first Centuries preach in houses in wildernesses and caves of the earth when in danger every day of their lives 7. Are we not bound to preach the Gospel be instant in season and out of season And how can we be faithful if we neglect it 8. Is there not a Wo to us if we preach not the Gospel 9. Have we not multitudes of poor blind naked starved souls which are likely to be lost for ever if we help them not And are not these moving objects of charity unto us as well as such have been unto others 10. Would not seducers shame our silence by their boldness Our forbearance by their continuance Much more might be added but this may suffice to be propounded to provoke to further consideration I know the devil the flesh and carnal friends will stupifie many a conscience which they cannot satisfie But oh that men were wise to be quiet with nothing but what will bear them out at the dreadful day approaching when we must all account for our stewardship when we may be no longer Stewards Oh let us all be faithful to God whatever it cost us and Heaven will shortly make amends for all THE QUESTION Whether a Presbyter ordained by the Presbyterie may lawfully be reordained by a Diocesan Bishop CHAP. I. Wherein are premised certain distinctions in order to the explication of the Question 1. WE must distinguish betwixt Political Ministers or Ministers of State and Ecclesiastical Ministers 2. There are some that distinguish Ecclesiastical Ministers into Preaching Presbyters Ruling Presbyters and Deacons 3. There are that distinquish preaching Presbyters into Presbyteri primi secundarii or majores minores or Presbyters ruling over Presbyters i. e. Diocesan Bishops and subject Presbyters 4. Let us distinguish betwixt Presbyters duly qualified and unqualified Presbyters 5. Ordination may be considered either 1. As its a Magisterial Soveraign act of Christ Jesus consisting in the Institution of the office of a Presbyter determining the work and end describing the person qualifying by his holy Spirit and obliging in case of need to undertake the office as also in giving anthority to his Ministers to try mens abilities and invest the qualified with this power and to his Vicegerents the Magistrates commission to protect and encourage and to his people a liberty to chuse such to watch over their particular Congregations or 2. As its a Ministerial act 6. In the Ministerial act we distinguish betwixt 1. The act of the Magistrate allowing ordinations within his jurisdictions as also allowing commanding protecting and encouraging the faithful exercise of the Ministerial function 2. The act of the people electing such a person to be their Minister 3. And the acts of the Ordainers which are probation approbation benediction imposition of hands and investiture though these five are not all essential to ordination yet they seem to be all integral parts thereof 7. We must distinguish an ordination to the office of the Ministry in the Catholick Church and a separation to the work of the Ministry in a particular Church 8. We should distinguish the usage of the word Presbyterie either for the Colledge of Presbyters or as in some Ecclesiastical Writers for the office of a Prebyter 9. We distinguish a Colledge of truly ordained Presbyters from a Colledge of unordained pretended Presbyters 10. We distinguish betwixt heretical schismatical scandalous Presbyters and orthodox peaceable and blamelesse Presbyters 11. We distinguish betwixt Presbyters ordination in schismatical necessitous times and Presbyters schismatical ordination or betwixt Presbyters ordination in a collapsed Church and Presbyters ordination in a Church constituted and otherwise constitute by Diocesans 12. We distinguish betwixt the regularity of an ordination and the validity as also betwixt the irregularity and in validity and the same either according to Gods Laws or mans Laws which some call lawful and legal 13. We also distinguish the lawfulnesse of imposing re-ordination from the lawfulnesse of submitting thereto when imposed 14. We may distinguish the lawfulnesse of accepting in foro Dei in foro conscientiae in foro humano 15. We distinguish the lawfulnesse of accepting without any necessity and under a necessity and the kinds and degrees of necessity should be considered 16. We distinguish a proper Reordination if such a thing can be in the world from a confirmation 17. Some distinguish betwixt a Reordination absolute and a Reordination hypothetical 18. Some distinguish a
Reordination accumulative and a Reordination destructive i. e. of the former ordination 19. Some distinguish betwixt Apostolical and Apostatical Bishops 20. We must distinguish betwixt a Re-ordination wherein nothing is doubtful but the reiteration it self and a Reordination wherein the annexed concomitants may be as doubtful as the repetition of the act or betwixt Reordination in thesi in hypothesi or in actu signato actu exercito CHAP. II. Containing certain Propositions whereof many are presupposed in the Question and granted though not by all men yet mostly by the persons that are chiefly concerned in the Question Prop. 1. IT is presupposed that Jesus Christ being Lord over all hath instituted and ordained the office of a Presbyter determined his work described his qualifications impowered certain persons to set some apart to this office c. for the converting of sinners and the edifying of his body Mystical Prop. 2. It s to be understood that the Presbyter is not a meer political Minister but an Evangelical Presbyter for so you must give me leave to call him nor a meer Ruling but a Preaching Presbyter yet not one that rules over Presbyters neither is it to our purpose to enquire whether there be any such Ruling Elders or Diocesans by divine institution or not Prop. 3. It is to be presupposed that Jesus Christ by his Spirit doth qualifie certain persons and encline to undertake and enable to discharge this Ministry and that the person in the Question is such a one and that his former ordination was not vacated through the want of any necessary qualifications Prop. 4. It is presupposed that no man takes this honour to himself but that persons qualified are to be solemnly set apart or ordained to this office and that the person in the Question doth ipso facto acknowledge as much or else to what purpose doth he trouble himself about Reordination Prop. 5. It is to be understood that this Ministerial ordination is the solemn investing of a person qualified with Ministerial power after and with examination approbation benediction and imposition of hands and that the person in the Question hath received so much from the Presbyterie and that the fault lies not in the defect of any of these acts Here I confesse is something more doubtful as whether the Presbyters ordination be an ordination but this I leave to others who have spent more paper upon this Question then upon the other of Reordination as also it seems doubtful to some whether ordination be an investiture with Ministerial power This more directly lying in my way I shall endeavour to remove before I step one foot further I find some that would make Ordination but a confirmation or testification of our Ministerial Call Thus that learned Casuist Baldwin C. C. p. 1032.1033 Ordinatio nihil est aliud quam publica solennis legitimae vocation is confirmatio ut constet omnibus personam hanc non sibi ipsi rapuisse munus Ecclesiasticum c. melius est vocare ordinationem solennem ritum quo testificatur de legitima vocatione ordinandi donisque necessari is c. it s well known that Ames Hooker and several of the Congregational brethren place the essence of the Ministerial Call in election and make ordination but adjunctum consequens Now I acknowledge if ordination should suppose a man to be a Minister already and to be it self but a meer solemnity as the coronation of an hereditary Prince then there is not so much intrinsecal to that ordinance which may hinder its repetition but let us not so slight ordination before we hear what others say Sum. in supplem ad 3. part p. 41. in Sentent Comment 1.4 p. 14. De Effect sacr l. 2. c 19 De Min. Eccl. p. 182. De Min. Evan. p. 166.186 Miscel Quest p. 34. Ordo signaculum quoddam Ecclesiae est quo spiritual is potest as traditur ordinato saith P. Lombard justified herein by Aquin as So saith that other learned Schoolman Estius Ordo Sacramentum est novae legis à Christo instâ—tutum quo potest as spiritual is traditur c. So Bellarmine In sacramento ordinis adscribitur in numerum Ducum Praepositorum hujus militiae accipit potestatem distribuendi aliis bona Domini c. Gerard saith Effectus ordinationis proprius est collatio potestatis docendi sacramenta administrandi ad illum ordinatio per se dirigitur eundemque perpetno infallibiliter consequitur M. Antonius de dom l. 2. de Repub. Eccles 6.3 Sect. 24. c. cals ordination Missio potestativa which the London Ministers and Gelaspy do well approve The Confession of Wirtembergh seems to hold forth the same doctrine we cannot see say they what use there is of those kind of men in the Church which are ordained for this purpose that they may have authority to sacrifice for the quick and dead Therefore it is evident Harm of Confes p. 266. that except a Priest be ordained in the Church to the Ministery of Preaching he cannot rightly take unto him neither the name of a Priest nor the name of a Bishop Mr. Firmin citing Gerards description of ordination before mentioned adds thus much more with whom agree the stream of Divines and the practice of the Churches in New England Which story of New England I confesse I should hardly believe Schisme p. 83. did not a New England man tell it Lo here you see are two sorts of Divines and what shall we do with them We will resolve to reverence them both but pin our faith on the sleeves of neither I proceed therefore to enquire into the nature of ordination And here I grant what indeed cannot be denyed 1. That Jesus is the principal Constituent of the Ministerial power or office and he is most properly the Ordainer and his Act is most properly ordination 2. That the Gospel-Charter is the Instrument to convey this power 3. That a person qualified with essential qualifications at least is the only Recipient of this power 4. And may I not add That ordination is such an ingredient call it by what name you will that where it is rightly put there is Ministerial power conveyed and where it is not put there is not there cannot be regularly any conveyance So that you may call ordination either a solemn-publick Approbation Confirmation Testification or allowance with some or a potestative Mission solemn Investiture Collation the essence of the external Call which external and internal Call I understand much like to their external and internal Covenant with others or what else you think fit and I shall not quarrel with you about words provided it be acknowledged that it hath the force of a condition or causa sine qua non And though I might with some challenge more as due to ordination yet I choose rather to content my self with thus much least catching at a shadow with the Animal in the Fable I
Cent. 4. p. 244. Oportebat autem ut hic obiter moneamus Episcopum manuum imponentem non suspecta esse religionis sed orthodoxum sie enim Moses Saracenus raptus ad vicinum Episcopum Lucium Alexandrinum ut ordinaretur adductus manum ejus quod Arianus esses religionis hostis persecutor ferre noluit sed deduci se jussit ad exulantes in montanis orthodoxos à quibus manuum impositionem accepit Simile exemplum Theod. etiam de Antiochio recitat is enim Eusebio magnâ— illi Samosatensium Episcopo successor delectus cum inter manuum impositionem conversus vidisset Jovianum Pergensem qui brevi teâ—â—pore cum Arrianistis conjunctus fuerat manum capiti suo imponere repulit illam petiitquâ—ne interesset numero consecrantium se quod sufferre manum administram blasphemiae sacrâ—rum se posse negaret And that Reverend Doctor Field writes that which may make some mens ears tingle to read Cyprian saith he Cecilius Posic and other Bishops writing to the Clergy and people of the Churches of Spain whereof Basilides and Martialis were Bishops who fell in time of persecution denied the faith and defiled themselves with idolatry perswade them to separate themselves from those Bishops assuring them that the people being holy religious fearing God and obeying his Laws may and ought to separate themselves from impious wicked Bishops and not to communicate with them in matters of Gods service Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi The same Doctor cites Ocham thus Si Papa maxims celebres Episcopi incidanâ— in haeresin ad Catholicos devoluta est omnis potestas judicandi So then when God shall punish a people with such Bishops how Candidates can desire ordination from them judge you Though their acts when done may be valid if the substance of the Ordinance were not neglected yet that will not justifie their sinful bestowances nor other sinful receptions 18. Could you admit reordination in actu signato yet how can you admit it in actu exercito Here it is supposed that reordination in actu exercito is cloathed with many accidents which quoad nos are inseparable the particulars whereof may be seen in the book of Consecration of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons a scantling wherefrom I shall propound for consideration and leave the judicious and conscientious to make the conclusion 1. How can you perswade your selves that this second ordination is no proper ordination no new investiture with office-power When yet 1. They begin with an exhortation declaring the duty and office of such as come to be admitted Ministers 2. It is said the Archdeacon or his Deputy shall present such as shall come to the Bishop to be admitted Deacons 3. If the Archdeacon tell truth then he presents these persons present to be admitted Deacons 4. If the Bishop tell truth then the persons presented are to be ordered Deacons and to be admitted to the same 5. The Directory in that book saith And if any great crime be objected the Bishop shall surrease from ordering that person 6. It is said the Bishop commending such as are found meet to be ordered c. 7. It is afterward prayed Mercifully behold these thy servants now called to the like office and administration 8. It is further said that the Oath of the Kings Supremacy is to be administred to every of them that are to be ordered 9. It is again in the direction said every one of them that are to be ordered 10. The Bishop calls the work you come about a taking upon you this office and administration 11. Accordingly he tels you what appertaineth to the office of a Deacon 12. Afterwards the Bishop expresly saith Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon 13. It is Also all that are ordered shall tarry and receive the holy Communion the same day with the Bishop 14. Then the Bishop blesseth God for the taking of those servants into the office of Deacons in the Church of God 15. The Archdeacon shall present unto the Bishop all that shall receive the order of Priesthood that day 16. The Archdeacon saith Reverend Father in God I present unto you these persons present to be admitted to the order of Priesthood 17. The Bishop saith Good people these be they whom we purpose God willing to receive this day to the holy office of Priesthood 18. If there be any of you which knoweth any impediment or notable crime of any of them for the which he ought not to be received into this holy Ministery 19. The Bishop prayes Mercifully behold these persons now called to the office of Priesthood 20. The Bishop calls it three times The office to which ye are called or to the same purpose in his exhortation 21. In the Bishops first Question in the name of the Congregation there are these expressions called To the ministry of Priesthood 22. The Bishop blesseth God for calling those persons to the office and ministry 23. Receive the holy Ghost and take thou authority c. 24. In the Rubrick following it is said If the orders of Deacons and Priests be given both upon one day 25. Afterwards the ordering of Priests 26. The ordering of Priests again 27. The Deacons shall be ordered Besides the title of the book the form of making and consecrating c. so that above thirty times in this book is the exercise called the ordering of Priests and Deacons though not in the same words yet in others that are tantamount many whereof seem by no means applicable to a meer legal establishment or any thing lesse then a proper investiture with ministerial power and several of them being in prayers and promises wherein an equivocation and wresting of words is dangerous therefore though we should grant which yet we deny that ordination may be used to some other end then to invest with power from Christ yet we can by no means grant that it should be administred by this form which so plainly expresseth what is not intended and is wholly silent in that which is only intended But to proceed to other considerations 2. Can you chearfully sing the Letany with the Congregation when you are reordained according as it is appointed 3. Can you joyn in praying the Letany which hath in it so many stated repetitions as also stated alterations the people being one while the publick mouth another while the Minister and their parts in prayer being so disjoyned that neither the Ministers words nor the peoples words carry any full sence in themselves but depend upon supplyes from each other Yea is there not such an alteration of the speakers in the saying that most compendious concatenated form of our blessed Lords own prescribing 4. Can you pray in the Letanies general expressions for all that travel by land and by sea 5. Do you well understand the Oath of the Kings Soveraignty appointed to be administred to you
reordination to procure estimation But here I would answer this Question before I pass on to the next Objection Why may we not submit to a reordination to this end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though this end should not be found affixed to ordination either in this Acts 13. or in any other Scripture yet an end a remote a higher end undoubtedly it is for what is the end of ordination according to you but the giving of power And what is the end of that power but the free peaching of the Gospel Resol 1. Were we not tyed up to use Christs Institutions according to institution but lest to prudential rules and providential events then might something be yielded 2. Did not the end give the species in morals then might we be the more bold to affix a humane end for so this would be in esse relativo to a divine Ordinance but seeing the end being of humane institution will make the whole Ordinance in its immediate relation to that end to be but of humane institution ergo c. 3. Would not this instance drawn into example open a door to innumerable prophanations of Gods Ordinances then something might be granted but because it will ergo c. thus I argue If we may use an Ordinance of God at our pleasure for the attaining of an higher end then why not much more for the attaining of the highest end the glory of God And if so then how many wayes may men abuse Baptisme and the Lords Supper if they do but conceit as in our case is little more that their abuses will tend to Gods glory 4. Were the expressions in the book of Consecration so lax that they would admit such a construction and use of ordination only then there would be more to be said 5. Or if our reverend Bishops were so free to an accommodation as to omit or alter those as to this new end cross-grain'd expressions which will signifie nothing lesse then a new investiture then much more might be conceded Object 4. Drawn from the supposed iterability of marriage Thus Mr. H. p. 37. So is marriage an entrance into the conjugal state Suppose a couple married only by the Magistrate and as to some considerable effect their marriage is in question who would doubt but upon such or any serious cause for it they may be married again by the book of Common-Prayer And why not upon this very reason Because there is nothing else in it but that that form which is compiled in the book for the entring or which is the truth signifying the entrance of two persons into wedlock is now used to signifie these to be entred or confirming them legally in that estate which it will do as well as enter them at first who will say it is a sin or transgression to use it so A great piece of matter and misusage is it not Apply the fame here c. Resol 1. We must distinguish betwixt the formal contract and the solemnity of marriage and so I answer 1. The formal contract or marriage in its essential is uniterable as Argument 5. 2. Marriage in its essentials is but a civil contract as I suppose but ordination is a religious and therefore we may be more bold in the case of marriage then in the case of ordination 3. Though marriage in genere be Gods Ordinance yet in specie I conceive it hath no divine institution in any positive Law neither hath the solemnity and hereupon there is a latitude and upon this latitude marriage in specie is become an humane Ordinance which we may be somewhat more bold with as I said before but now ordination in specie is a divine Ordinance instituted in Gods positive Law and therefore we are incomparably tied up then if there were no such institution 4. The formal contract which gives the relation may be and often is before the solemnity in marriage but not so I conceive in ordination for though God hath said of the ministerial honour No man taketh this honour to himself yet he hath never said of conjugal honour No man taketh this honour to himself but rather the contrary And though a man might not take this office to himself if no Law of the Land should forbid him yet for ought I know a man might take a wife to himself if the Law did not forbid him So that the repetition of marriage is not the repetition of the proper formal contract but of the solemnity but not so in ordination 5. The proper end of the marriage solemnity is the satisfaction of the world and therefore if the first solemnity give not satisfaction the proper end of marriage seems to require a repetition and hence it is that there is no prophanation of the Name of God But now ordination as it is not a meer solemnity so its proper end is not the satisfaction of the world but to invest with ministerial power which end is certainly attained in the first ordination and therefore its repetition must needs be a taking Gods Name in vain 6. Suppose that such a repetition of marriage should be imposed as doth destroy your former marriage null your relation to your wife prove your children illegitimate râ—cate your title to her estate I presume you would scarcely submit unto it even so when such a repetition of ordination shall be imposed as destroys Gods Ordinance nulls our ministerial relation to the Church proves our administrations but an illegitimate brood and that our Church maintenance belonged not to us how shall we submit unto it Object 5. Drawn from the repetition of in Oath to confirm the same truth P. 21. Mr. H. May not the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be repeated and yet the Name of God not taken in vain by it And hence he would infer a repetition of orders without prophanation Resol There is not much confidence put in this Argument I presume because it is so quickly passed over and therefore as quickly will the Answer be dispatched The great end and use of an oath among men is to be for confirmation to them the end of all strife Thence it follows Heb. 6.16 if the first oath be ineffectual to attain its end that its lawful to repeat it in order to that end and all that is implied in this necessary repetition is this that the proper end of the Oath wâ—â— not attained and therefore we repeat iâ—â— Yet undoubtedly to repeat an Oath wheâ—â— strife is ended and the Question in hanâ— resolved and so the proper end attained iâ—â— no lesse then a breach of the third Commandment The Application is obvious Object P. 21. 6. Is drawn from the reptition of our prayers for the same mercies Mr. H. Is it enough to make our Liturgy unlawful because we have in one service the Lord Prayer twice over Resol 1. There are more instituteâ— ends then one of prayer and therefore wheâ— one is attained yet another may be unattained for which
a time Mat. 10.7 appears 1. Because the work that they were then impowered to was to preach that the kingdom of heaven is at hand And therefore it should seem that when the kingdom of God was come that is the gospel-Gospel-Church that their power should then cease Calvin in locum Hoc est quod dixi praeconium quo crigi populi animos voluit Christus in spem propiuquae redemptionis 2. Because the full measures of the spirit were not given till after Christs resurrection and therefore it is probable not that full power which supposed those full gifts 3. Because this former sending forth is expressly said to be for a journey Mat. 10 9 10. for which journey they should provide nothing 4. Because Christ tels them they should not be able to perform their journey Mat. 10.23 and their work before the Son of man be come 5. Because the Apostles not long after they were sent forth gathered themselves together Mar. 6.30 and return to their Master to give an account of their work 6. Doth not Christ lay such a foundation for their last Commission which seems to imply that their former commission was not full Observe our Lords words All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth Mat. 28.21 22. Go ye therefore and disciple me all Nations c. mark go ye therefore wherefore because now all power in heaven and in earth is given unto Christ Jesus it should seem by this that Christ waited for the full donation of power into his hands upon his full and actual satisfaction before he would grant full commissions to his Apostles Not unlike is that Eph. 4.8 9. Calvin saith Mathaeus vero antequam discipulis injunctum narret docendi munus Christum de sua potestate praefatum esse dicit nec absre non enim hic sufficerit mediocris authoritas non enim aeternam potentiam jactat qua praeditus fuit ante creatum mundum sed quam nunc accepit dum ordinatus fuit mundi Judex immo notandum est imperium hoc non fuisse liquido cognitum donec à mortuis refurrexit Musculus dialogues thus Quis ille mittens est Mat. ult dicit In Ioan. 20. Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo in terra quibus dictis subjungit Euntes ergo docete c. 7. When Christ gave his Apostles a perpetual commission he expresseth its perperuity Mat. 28.22 I am with you alway even unto the end of the world And when Paul mentions this commission he expresly mentions its perpetuity thus Till we all come to the unity of the faith Eph. 4.13 c. but in the former intimations of Christs commissionating his Apostles there is no mention of any perpetuity as if the Holy Ghost did purposely put this difference betwixt them So then were our former ordinations but temporary as the Apostles first commission then could we admit a second upon expiration of the first but sith ours was an ordination to a perpetual office therefore these Texis cannot warrant any reordination in our case 2. This former commission of the Apostles was but particular limited only to the Jews Mat. 10.5 6. and this limitation was not of their execution only but of their power as appears from the commission it self Go not in the way of the Gentiles c. and likewise from their latter commission Mar. 12.28 which runs thus Disciple me all nations c. preach the Gospel to every creature c. So that hence we may observe this difference betwixt these two commissions the former was limited to the Jews with an express exception against the Gentiles but the later expresly to both Jews and Gentiles So then had our former ordination been to a private place with an express limitation to go nowhither else then indeed upon our removal to the excepted place there would be need of a new Commission as well as with the Apostles but our ordination was to the whole work of a Presbyter in the universal Church without any limitation in our commission to a particular Parish County Nation or People therefore this instance neither as an instance nor from the reason of the thing can justifie our reordination And to prevent the censure of singularity in this interpretation In Mat. 10. c. observe what Calvin saith Notandam tamen est de perpetuo Apostolatu nondum haberi sermonem sed tantum de praeconio temporali Nunc ergo mittuntur ut in Judaea tempus adesse promissae instaurationis salutis nuntient Postea ordinabit eos Christus ut evangelium spargant per totum orbem hic tantum adjuros sibi eos assumit Postea docendi partes quas obierane illis resignabit atque hoc not are operae pretium est non putemus stabilem fixamque legem omnibus verbi ministris traescribi dum praeconibus suae doctrinae mandet Dominus quid eos ad breve tempus facere velit quae inscitia noultos fefellit ut sine discrimine ad hanc normam omnes verbi Ministros exigerent Paeraeus likewise speaking of the difference betwixt these Commissions saith In Mat. 10. begin Fere triennio illam praecessit illa quidem fuit universalis ad praedicandum evangelium omni creaturae Judaeis Gentibus non ipsis solum sed successoribus corum ad finem usque saeculi delegata ista vero singularis sequentibus quasi praeludium Ineptissimi sunt Scriptura Interpretes qui vel perpetuam regulam Ministris Ecclesiae servandam hic praescribi volunt I might cite Aretius to the same purpose with many others but quotations puff up too fast and therefore I forbear Object 10 From a supposed reordination of Timothy 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 M. H. p. 4. R. We will grant that 1 Tim. 4.14 is to be understood of ordination and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so is the sense of Divines and though that phrase the authority that is in thee seem harsh to vulgar ears yet if authority be a relation it is an accident or make authority what you can it will be but an accident and then it must be in a subject and that subject is the Minister or none that I know And we will suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Caetus Presbyterorum because it is never used in Scriptture saith Bucer for the office and what hands hath the office to impose and why would not the Holy Ghost if the office were intended rather use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside the stream of Divines both Antient and Modern Pryns Unb. Tim. Tit. Caâ—vâ—n in 1 Tim. 4. run this way Calvin though he gives another interpretation yet he approves this also Presbyterium qui hic nomen collectivum esse putant pro Collegio Presbyterorum positum recte sentiunt meo judicio and lastly the new coyned
distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will utterly subvert the other interpretation Yet there are three several answers each of which will take off the pretence of Timothies re-ordination 1. It is well known that several learned Divines do take that act in 1 Tim. 4.14 and that in 2 Tim. 1.6 to be one and the same ordination some say with the laying on the hands of the Presbyterie may be meant Pauls hands so Bishop Bilson Mr. Mason Calvin Gelaspy De gubern Eccâ—â— 252. and others others think that Pauls hands were not the hands of the Presbyteric yet that both Pauls hands and the Presbyters were laid on together De Min. Angâ— p 44 45. in 1 Tim. 4. Misc Qu. p. 101. and so both concur in one ordination so then if either of these were true as I confess I dare make a point of faith of neither then there is no ordination to be found here 2. It s more probable that if these Texts must be understood of two ordinations that they were to two offices the first to an inferiour the second to a superiour office and perchance first to the office of a Presbyter and afterwards to the office of an Evangelist Gelaspy seems to lean this way Misc Qu. p. 90 103. It s observable indeed that in the first Epistle Paul never gives Timothy any higher Title then Bishop or Presbyter which now at last are acknowledged to be used by the Holy Ghost promiscuously but in the second Epistle wherein Paul mentions the laying on of his own hands he stiles him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and either here must be a twofold ordination or else Timothy was ordained per saltum or else his second ordination is not recorded 3. Some think and I think it is most probable that 2 Tim. 2.1.6 is not to be understood of ordination at all but of some special gift conferred by the laying on of Pauls hands 1. As Mr. Baxter saith It may be imposition of hands in confirination or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism ordinarily used by the Apostles that is there spoken of which also seemeth probable by the Apostles annexing it to Timothies faith in which he succeeded his Mother and Grandmother and the following effects of the spirit of power and love and of a sound mind which are the fruits of confirming grace admonishing him that he be not ashamed of the testimony of our Lord which is also the fruit of confirmation 2. That very expression stir up the gift doth seem to imply that gift to be gratia gratum faciens for it seems too improper to say stir up thy office 3. The Apostle doth somewhat critically use a divers particle in these two Texts in the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now the Question is why should Paul use different words if these were not different acts I am not ignorant that some say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to set forth Pauls act in ordination because he was the Ordainer and only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set forth the Presbyters act because they are only assistants in ordination But 1. This crotchet though ingenious yet it seems to be new 2. Altogether without proof 3. And it seems to contradict most of our Protestant Divines even Episcopal as well as others that acknowledge a power of ordination in Presbyters and that their ordination without a Diocesan is valid which they would not do had the Presbyterie no power of ordination at all 4. It supposes ordination in this Text which supposition is contrary to the two first probabilities that this gift was gratia gratum faciens and not gratia gratis data 5. In Acts 13. there is the same word used to signifie the act of the Doctors as was used to signifie the Act of the Prophets 6. This would overthrow their new interpretation of 1 Tim. 4.14 which is to put Presbyterium for the office with a Parenthesis in the Text to help the same and so make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Pauls act 7. It will overthrow that testimony of the Antients so much magnified for understanding by a Colledge of Presbyters a Colledge of Dâ—ocesans for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie their act 8. If this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie the Presbyters consent only then why should the Presbyters lay on hands any more then the people for the people were antiently to consent and to assist by their concurrence in prayer 9. If Presbyters are Ordainers with the Bishops as some confess then is it not against the nature of ordination for have not all ordainers the same causality 10. But further to speak the truth whether it make for me or against me these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often used promiscuously instances are not rare of using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for per and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cum And it is evident that the whole Church till of late for ought I yet see hath so understood the same in these Texts But to leave it now to the impartial Reader to judge whether if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference any things it be not more probable that they difference the interpretation of the holy Ghost from an ordination then an ordination from an ordination But let it go how it will with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet sure I am that it is more probable either that Paul ordained â—ot Timothy at all or that he joyned with the Presbyters in their ordination or that the Presbyters ordained Timothy to one office and Paul afterwards to another a higher then that Paul ordained him to the same office to which he was ordained before All that I observe further in Mr. H. tract is the authority of Chemnitius and Baldwin Resol 1. Methinks it is a Question whether reordination be more credited by these two authorities or more discredited in that they are but two and two not of the Antients neither And though it is to be acknowledged that these two were learned and reverend Lutheran Divines yet no doubt there may be two score easily rallied against them and it may be as learned as they I believe no Reordained will ever adventure to pole authorities and if they will not number but weigh they will get but little But if they will needs urge me with their bare authority I must needs return to such an Ipse dixit as we were wont to return to the authority of Arist at Oxford Rationem Arist expecto non authoritatem Or our reverend Brother may be answered in his own words or rather St. Hieromes Quod de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur But more particularly it is certain that Baldwin was against reordination as appears by his seventh Argument produced against it
est Constant Conc. Can. 6. secundum Merlin ut neque Maximus fuisse aut esse etiam putetur Episcopus Statutum est neque hi qui ab eo ordinati sunt qualemcunque gradum Clericatus obtineant omnibus scilicet quae circa cum vel ab eo gesta sunt in irritum revocatis Now where is the word Presbyter to be found or any syllable that should intimate any Presbyterian ordination to be the reason of that censure 11. It seems that this was not the cause in that all things done by Maximus were made void as well as his ordinations Now let any candid Reader judge whether the person in the Question have common justice when such persons and actions as these shall be drawn into example against him 3. Doth it not well become these to pass over irregularities in others ordinations whose own are guilty of so many how is it possible for any one to condemn Presbyterian ordinations for irregularities and non-canonicalness and not condemn the Prelatical also for is it not an irregularity to be consecrated a Bâ—shop without the election or consent of the People and Presbyterie to ordain a man a Deacon and a Presbyter both in one day and without a publike congregation in a private chamber and without the notice or consent of the Bishop of the Dâ—ocess I might add are Drunkards canonical are swearers are cursers are gamesters are whoremongers are Non preaching Prelates and Priests and are illiterate Mechanick Readers c 4. As to the Statute-Law of our Realm is not that of capacity large enough to admit to preferment those that have imposition of hands only from the Presbyterie it seems so to be 1. From the Act of the late Parliament confirmed in this present Parliament â—egun May. 8.61 which confirmeth the â—udicial proceedings in the late interruptions â—xe cised by vertue of the authority from the late pretended powers such as were many of the ordinations by the Classes 2. From the book of consecration and the law establishing it neither of which have any clauses as is asserted by a great Lawyer that null ordinations by other forms 3. Because the Statute of 13. Eliz. c. 12. doth seem plainly to take in other ordinations then are according to our form it runs thus Be it enacted by this present Parliament that every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of institution consecration or ordering then the form set forth by Parliament or now used in the raign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady shall in the presence of the Bishop or Guardian of the spiritualities of some one Diocess where he hath or shall have Ecclesiastical living declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of religion which only concern the confessions of the Christian faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments 4. It seems further undeniably clear that the Law would allow such Ministers in that formerly presentations institutions and inductions were granted to persons Presbyterially ordained and they so invested were deemed legal Incumbents first fruits and tenths received from them and tythes paid to them yea they had the very same benefit of the law to sue for their tythes and profits and to secure their propriety as others had And certainly the law is not at all altered in this case We judge of the sense of the law by the uniform execution 5. I beseech the Reverend Prelatists to consider whether the principles and practices of the late Bishops do not oblige us to own Presbyterian ordination shall we not give occasion to some to account us apostatical if we should utterly disown such ordinations as the Church of England hath hitherto owned and moreover if our Reverend Predecessors would joyn in communion at the Sacraments either formally by their presence or virtually by their approbation with those that were Presbyterially ordained and we shall refuse do we not refuse to communicate with the Church of England or the generality of the chief Pastors and infinite numbers of the members thereof 6. What a lamentable blow would the nullifying of Presbyterian ordination give unto the Church of God especially the Reformed Churches it is well known that in the Reformed Churches their ordination is but Presbyterial no not any better in Denwark or those other countries where they have Superintendents for those Superintendents have all their authority under Christ from the Magistrate and Presbyterie without any Diocesans at all And moreover some of those Churches when they had Bishops cast them out and others when they were offered refused them yet it is to be observed in how great concord we have lived with them since the Reformation and those that do now disown them I would have them speak out that the world may know them Further if the want of Prelatical ordination will unchurch us then greater faults will unchurch a people much more and then what will become both of the Eastern and Western Churches 7. Will not the nullifying of Presbyterian ordination give support to the hypochondraick fears of melancholy persons lest some in the Clergy should too much indulge the unreformed Interest it is well known that Bellarmines great argument against the reformed Churches is hence because they have no legal Bishops and therefore no Ministers and therefore no Sacraments no Churches now if any amongst us should deny the Pope to be Antichrist and the Papists idolaters and acknowledge their Priests to be true Ministers and their administrations firm but deny all the Protestant Ministers not Prelatical to be true Ministers and their administrations valid who would think c. 8. What can be gained by creating this necessity of reordination whether Parsons or people or Parsonages not Parsons for its very observable that multitudes will never submit to reordination and of those that do submit many do it as to an unlawful thing on the Imposers part though lawful on their own part and therefore they are not gained at all and few other that I can hear of Not many of the people for its most certain that a huge number of the sober people of this nation are much saded at the loss of those faithful Ministers that submit not to reordination and no small number saded at those that submit fearing that they will prove time-servers and turn to any thing yea the more studious sort of the Gentry that read Bishop Vsher Bishop fewel c. observe the variations from the old way and are not well pleased yea many of the worst of all the people can see a difference betwixt drunkards and sober men painful Preachers and idle drones But then Parsonages and other Livings be gained there is no doubt but then where shall we find men to deserve them To engross into Pluralists hands and settle idle drunken insufficient persons that will be content with little more then they deserve to the