the being of the Ministry but that Orders are not of absolute necessity necessitate medii ad esse ministerii it is proved by that author cap. 3. beyond answer as by Voâ—tius and others The truth is there is no Protestant Divine I know but grant in Ecclesiâ constituendâ or in a case of necessity a man may be a Minister without Orders and if there were but one instance in the world where a mans ministry is valid unordained the power is proved thereby to be immediately from Christ and the esse ministerii not to depend upon ordination I shall content my self with one instance and that is of Barnabas of whom we read in Acts 11.19 that he was sent forth by the Church of Jerusalem and then is ordained after with Paul at Antioch Acts 13 2. Now I demand was Barnabas ordained before or no If he was not then is not the Ministerial power given by nor the being of the Ministry depend upon Ordination If he was then have we here plain text and example for Re-ordination 7. To understand this clearly and more fully though before touched The Ministerial power must be considered as I have intimated Coram Deo or Coram Hominibus when a man hath Gods gifts and a heart to devote them to the use of the Church it is Christs will he should be his Minister and as his will makes it his duty it must give him right and power now when the man hath this it is his will moreover that these gifts be approved and power declared by the Church that he may be received as his Minister or Embassador by men and those particularly unto whom he is sent This is done by this Solemnity this is one end and proper nature of it and so the authority he had before Coram Deo is made current Coram Ecclesia and he reputed and passed streight by all amongst the Order as we call it of the Clergy Understand me I pray here The authority of the Ministry Coram Deo and Coram Hominibus I count not two authorities but the same one Spiritual authority which being derived to a man from the standing act of Christs will in his institution immediately upon his inward call in the Court of Heaven and his own Conscience does not yet passe in the Court of the Church till this call be approved and confirmed by her Pastors which she requires for Orders sake and calls Ordination And here now is a firm and true foundation laid against that Objection which is apt to rise upon us that if the Ministerial power flows immediately from Christs charter and call then may any man pretend hereunto and take upon him to be a Minister without Orders which were to open the door to Fanaticism and Confusion But God forbid we should not be able to put a bar upon such which we can clearly maintain It is this to wit that whatsoever a mans call is in the sight of God the Church is to take no cognizance of it untill by some of her chief appointed Pastors to that purpose it be approved testified and declared by this Solemnity If a man hath indeed abilities and a heart for Christs service then iâ— he bound to submit them to tryal and get them allowed if he does not he sins and the Church is to take no notice of him till then 1 Tim. 5.22 1 Tim. 3.10 so that you may see how the actual exercise of a mans Ministry does depend even altogether hereupon though the power does not and that Text made good How can they preach except they be sent in this sense of the words they are ordinary used whether truly or no I here say not Let a David be excommunicate for Adultery he shall be held Coram Ecclesia out of the Church as well as an Ahaz let a man be truly called while his calling is not approved by the Church which is by Orders we shall not account him a Minister any more then he that is not called and if a man be not called yet if he be ordained his Ministrations are not to be doubted of as valid to the Church while he is to repent of his bad Conscience before God To give more life to this As what hath been said may appear from its own light so will it appear more fully from the case of necessity wherein the validity of the Ministry without Orders is agreed to by all If the Ministerial power did not come to a man Coram Deo so that he is a Minister in Gods sight before Orders then could not necessity dispence with them because necessity falls not upon God There is no impossible with him But when the authority orders give is only this authority Coram Hominibus that is the reception or acceptation thereof with men the value or esteem of us as Ministers at the Churches bar in their sight or account what we are in Gods before let a man plead impossibility whether natural as suppose him among the Indies that he cannot be ordained or moral suppose him among the papists that he cannot without sâ—nne against his conscience this plea Nemo tenetur ad impossibile is good at mans barr for upon man necessity does come and he is to be dispensed with and his ministry therefore to passe which else in Ecclesia rectè constitutâ were to be quite refused for orders sake I cannot omit here one simile to the same point which is laid down strongly by Grotius De Imp. p. 270. Potestas maritalis est a Deo applicatio ejus potestatis ad certam personam ex consensu vonit quo tamen ipsum Jus non datur Nam si ex consensu daretur posset consensu etiam dissolvi matrimonium For my part I cannot but conceive thus A man and a woman consents in their hearts and privately give the same to one another This contract between themselves makes them husband and wife before God and his standing Law conveigheth to the man his power and obligeth both to their duties yet are they not to live together before marriage if it were only for the shame or sake of the world besides that it is their duty hereupon as matter of publick order to seek the matrimonial investiture which is valid according to the Land So is it here when a man having Gods gifts does consent seriously between him and his Soul to dedicate them to his service the same standing law or will of his in his word or institution about this matter does make it his duty and give him power yet is he not to have the exercise of it before this investiture of Orders not only because of the bastardy of the Ministry that will else follow when men shall be received without tryal and approbation Nor only because God commands this as his duty so that he sinnes if it may be had to neglect it but because the Church or People are not to receive or account such as Ministers as they will not a couple
yet cannot passe without confession and crave the Readers ingenuity I have observed what a little escape sometime as another would think Augustine takes notice of himself in his Retractations For passing my judgement on Re-ordination I laid down as first two distinctions There are some things I said that are indifferent in their nature so as in some case they may be done and yet are by Divines indefinitely counted evil And there is evil which is notional only or moral evil That which my Opponent sayes to this is only that he quotes Dr. Saunderson ingenuously intimating from whence I took my first distinction and not disallowing my second differs only in his verdict that he accounts not this thing in the number of such indifferents to wit indifferentia ad unum but a thing unlawfull and not an imaginary but morall evil He does not give us any reason here pro or con only passes to the next but I desire my Reader to note I do not leave the businesse so but when I have given in my opinion otherwise I proceed in my discourse to lay down the nature of Orders which I humbly offer as the free and open account for that my judgement I have been therefore so large upon this before as I must continue and seeing this Author opposes nothing but runs upon the common by as to the contrary to wit that Orders do give the Ministerial Authority and Office which is not I take it well understood of those themselves that receive it I shall seasonably take here into remembrance those Arguments which the London Divines do offer for this assertion and if they be answered my Brethren I suppose will not be seeking to find out any more likely or solid from others Their first Argument is this If Election does not give the essentials of the Ministerial Office then Ordination doth I answer As for those many eminent and learned Divines besides the Ministers of New England that do hold Election gives the Ministerial Office and these worthy judicious Divines of London that hold Ordination doth it may I think both fairly part stakes When the former do say and prove that Ordination is but the confirmation of a man in his Office not the giving the Office I like well the liberty of their judgements but when they have will taken from Orders this which is too high for man to assume and give it to Election and the people I understand not with them It is Mr. Perkins I Judge clearly in the right here who hath told us Our calling is of God and the Churches Authority is a Ministry to approve and confirm that call This I do assent to in opposition to both of these Learned parties to wit that Ordination does not give the power or Office but is only the confirmation of our call against the one and that that call is of our inward call by God and not so low as the outward only of Election by the people Ordinationis ritus est talis publica testification quâ vocatis in conspectu Dei ipsius nomine doclaretur esse legitima divine sayes Chemnetius Unto which I will adde one signal testimony and that is out of the Confession of the famous Churches of Helvetia speaking that the Ministerial charge it to be committed to such only as are found skillfull in the Law of God of a blamelesse life and to bear a singular affection to the Name of Christ the three things our Perkins before acurately hath it follows which seeing it is the true Election of God is tightly allowed by the consem of the Church and by the laying on of the hands of the Priest Harm Confess printed Anglicae Cambridge 1586. Their second Argument is from Tit. 1.5 Ordination does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they presse the word Act. 6.3 I answer this Text Tit. 1.5 is paralell with Act. 14.23 see Fulk in locum and in both the word ordained though the Greek differ is taken comprehensively as it includes election and so in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom we may appoint the plurall we includes I think those whom the Apostles speak to as well as themselves and makes for us for is follows then Ordination does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituere or make a Minister as election does and election as ordination that is they do both go to the designation of the person as in the making Magistrates in Corporate Towns but the power does flow immediately from the Charter from Christs institution The third Argument is from Ro. 10 15. this sending say they is missio potestativa a sending with authority I answer it is true compare Jer. 23.21 with it but this Authoritive mission is not Ordination This appears irrefragably by the climax in the Text themselves have noted Without calling upon the name of the Lord no salvation without faith no calling upon him without hearing no faith without preaching no hearing and without being sent no preaching consequently if by being sent is meant Ordination it must follow without Ordination no Salvation which God forbid seeing Histories are not wanting to tell us not only of some persons but people as I remember have been converted by private Christians and scattered Disciples which have not been in orders see Theodorat lib. c. 14. et c. 23 24. Peter Martyr disproving the opinion of those that hold Ordination so necessary Vt citra eam non posset esse Ministerium in ecclesia does quote John the Baptist who preacht and baptized and no doubt converted many and Paul before the 13. of the Acts and Moses who consecrated Aaron and his sons and offered varia sacraficiorum genera saies he and had no consecration Loc Com. De Ec. p. 849. The fourth Argument is from 1 Tim. 4.14 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they say here is Docendi officium for which they quote those two Texts Eph. 4.8 Rom. 12.6 Answ I must confesse I my self have been bended to this same conceit upon the score of the last Text but when I have more narrowly consulted the same I find that I and they have been quite out The question is whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be inâ—er reted Office And if the Apostle does use it in that sense otherwhere we shall be apt to believe it so here if he does not this belief will sink of its own accord Now then if we look the first of these quoted Texts we shall find the word there to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so is a plain mistake that concerns not our search For the other Text then let us look into it and we find the Apostle does distinguish de industria between the two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gifts and Grace and the one of them according to the sense there must signifie authority and office and the other endowments or abilities for the same Now which of the two words is it that signifies the former
dedicate himself to this service before him as an Outward and solemn by Ordination which whether it be Presbyterial of Episcopal it is all alike as to what the word requires but is not accepted alike in our present Church which stands upon her proper form and mode of Government I will enlarge a little here There is a Fundamental right as Presbyterians say and I believe in every Minister to Ordain others according to that rule which is dignified by a great Pen Ordinis est conferre ordines Nevertheless when the Church came to see it good for the avoiding of faction and keeping peace to give a preheminence to the Bishop above the Presbyter there is no reason but the Presbyter upon consent might as to the actual exercise hereof de jure suo cedere so as to Ordain none without the Bishop which comming more and more into debate it is no wonder if you begin at the second Canon of the Apostles and goe over all the Councils and Fathers and find this still the allowed prerogative of the Bishop to have the power of Ordination according to that which is so well known of Cassander Convenit inter omnes on Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nullum discrimen fuisse sed postmodum Schismatis evitandi causâ Episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum cut chirotonia id est ordinandi potestas concessa est Now forasmuch as the authority of Councils or Fathers is received or not received of particular Churches according to their proper concernments and complexion As Presbytery hath served her self of the Scripture to the neglect hereof It cannot be expected but Episcopacy should serve her turn likewise of Antiquity which being added to present power must needs discountenance other Orders and if they come once not to be received and owned the ground is laid for their refreshment or iteration I remember in the Council of Nâ—ce we have this Canon Can. 17. Si quis ausus fuerit aliquem qui ad alterum pertinet ordinare in sua ecclesia cum non habeat consensum Episcopi ipsius à quo recessit Clericus irrita erit hujusmodiordinatio Let me ask here any Divine Presbyterian or Episcopal Suppose a man ordained by another Bishop than his own and without his leave is that man truly ordained or no There are none in our dayes will deny it and yet according to these Canons such a mans Ordination was null and consequently if he would enjoy the use of his Ministry under his Bishop he must be re-ordained Now let any learned man tell me how such Ministers in this case could submit to that Canon in those dayes which no doubt but most did submit to seeing that Council was so authentique in the word and then will our case be also opened and justified to my hands In short it is sufficient for the Church to receive a man as a Minister that is Ordained only by the Presbytery as of old by any Bishop as their own according to Scripture which knows no difference between Bishop and Bishop or Bishop and Presbyter in this case but it would and will not serve according to Ecclesiastical constitution Let us now see what my Opposer sayes here and it is the same only he hath every where If the Presbyterial ordination leave a man not capable of having any thing conferr'd on him but only the free use of his Ministry in the English Church why will he submit to such a form as was purposely instituted to conferr the very Ministry it self why are such prayers put up to God as suppose him to be no Minister This is answered already and we see the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same still There is no form to be conceived such as to confer the Ministry it self unto any or to put up Prayers that a man may be made a Minister as he conjectures and speaks p. 68. I doe therefore produce him the very words of this form to serve my turn Take thou authority to preach the Word and minister the Sacraments where thou shalt be appointed which are so apt as if they wâ—re studied to ordain a man not to the Office but to the Work only of his place Hereunto he candidly gainsays nothing only tells us there are more words used than these to wit Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins yee remit c. unto which words in particular and the form in general I have spoken at large at first What I must say over again to answer him as I go along is Our Ordainers must not be look'd upon according to this Author as Creators of the Ministerial power which is given alone by Jesus Christ but as the signifiers and approvers of his Will and Grant There is indeed one grand Warrant I must say Commission or Charter from Christ in general empowring them who are qualified as his word describes to be his Ministers The Ordainers now are to enquire whether a person have these qualifications that is as it were whether he be in the Commission and then if he be found there what they doe besides is but the declaring this by the solemnity The Commission then or Ministry it self is from our Lord and Orders doe but give the same its free passage in the Church where a man is Now this passage is hindred by the change of the times and therefore the Right Reverend as he speaks is troubled to remove this hindrance and so not to doe only what is already done He is troublâ—d not to make a man again a Minister of Christ but a Canonical Minister if you will of our Church that is to make him passe for such according to their Lawes and Canons when else he cannot pass and therefore is this also done by that form so prescribed the words whereof which stick we are to conceive with all forms of Orders else must be interpreted only as I have said to be declarative not operative of our power by way of investiture possession or solemnization Even as it is in the inauguration of Princes which as I have but now instanced in David above and Solomon before may be valid at first and yet done over again to establish them more formally or legally amongst their people I will take a little liberty here of more words Ordination I count is the confirmation declaration and solemn allowance of a mans Ministry by our chief Pastors and Rulers that may give us the value and recepâ—ion as Ministers to all intents in the Church particularly for the execution of our charge where we are Now there being none according to the form of our English Church and Nation of authority to doe this but the Bishops though our former Orders have been sufficient hitherto and are yet good as to our Right yet growing insufficient through this change or enervate as to the effect the renewal of them according to the present Polity unless there be some mysterious danger in submitting at all hereto does become
is with the most Learned only reputed reckoned acknowledged amongst the Apostles The other instance is in Num. 27. where we have a Civil Ordination if I may so say of Joshua to the Government as of us to the Ministry Now the Lord there v. 18. commands Moses to take him and set him before the Congregation and lay his hands upon him Here is this same Symbolical Rite from whence it is supposed by some to be taken up in the New Testament And wherefore must be do this I pray read on v. 20. And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him that all the Congregation of the Children of Israel may be obedient Loâ— here the very genuine natural reason of such Solemnities The meaning is I take it as much as to say Commend him in publick as appointed of God Hoc ritu denotat eum saies one legitime a deo electum esse and meet for the Office that hâ— may thereby have a value repute honour or authority before the people as may qualifie him like thy Successor for the execution of his charge and acceptation with them I will close it up with hemnitius Application Impones Josuae manus dabis ei pâ—rcem gloriae tuae hoe est authoritatem quâtis hactenus ornatus fussti dabis successori tuo Ita quoque publice authoritas coram ecclesia tribuitur ei cui manus sunt impositae I must add lest this be mistaken There is I count the jus and faculty coram deo and this Authority coram ecclesia It is the last flowes from Orders the other only from Christ And here there be some I suppose of my Episcopal Fathers may act upon such an account as this The Presbyterians have thought it good in their Orders to have no such Form of Words as are actually conferring of power the true reason by the way though they have not all known one anothers minds being indeed lest we should think the spiritual power it self to be conferred hereby which is but the outward investiture only and hereupon they are apt to think such no Ministers or without power and so ordain them again But though I take this to be the very best plea that such who go so high can have yet must I needs judge it a conception both injurious and fond to believe that a man who is set apart to the Office of a Minister by all other solemnity that is needful shall yet have no Authority given him by God for that Office only for the defect of a Formality That there are not such words used as are in the Episcopal Orders is a conceit never like to lodge with me Such men as these I judge have not yet learned what Mr. Hooker hath taught them that neither Spirit nor spiritual Authority proceedeth from man Or what others have added more perspicatiously that it is derived to us as that of elected Magistrates in Câ—â—â—es immediately from our Charter which they have from the King and we from Christ Jesus But now Sirs if you wiâ—l distinguish here betwixt our Authority Spiritual and our authority only before men and account that those words Take thou Authority are necessary if you will for the giving only the last that is that unless our Orders be these which are according to our Church they will not suffice now to the putting that estimation upon us as Ministers that we may have the fâ—ee use of our Ministry thereby and thereupon re-ordination only be urged and used I must sit down here and driâ—e the nâ—iâ— along with you There is one thing only remains to be vindicated in this Section and that is that other instance I have produced for me on this subject to wit of the Apostles themselves who are sent out by Christ with Authority to preach the Gospel Mat. 10.7 in his life and yet after he is risen he renews their Authority Jo. 20.21 As my Father sent me so send I you There is a second mission and yet is not this all for if we mark the Text we find that this was the same day at evening v. 19. when he rose while his Disciples are in a house at Jerusalem and Thomas expresly not with them v. 24. There must be another time therefore wherein this Commission is again delivered unless Thomas had not the same Power or Commission with the rest and that we have expresly on a Mountain in Galilee where Christ had appointed them to meet him Mat. 28.16 And there is their grand Commission finally repeated and established Go Preach and Baptize I am with you to the end of the world Now let the question say I in my sheets be put then to the highest whether an Authority or Commission to an Office or Work may be renewed even supposing Orders did give the Ministerial Authority and it is here exemplyfied and proved in the most signal President we can have in the earth Who can think that to be unlawful which Christ did to his Apostles himself But I will not let this go thus I have before somewhere distinguish'd from Hooker between the spiritual power or commission it self and the delivery of iâ— I will choose to say here if I may that the Commission it self and Authority Christ gave the twelve to be his Apostles might be but one and the same and given at first which besides that we cannot but think Christ gave them the Office when he gave them the Name of the Office Thomas absence mentioned at the time the power of binding and loosing was particularly given may be pâ—rhâ—ps a medium o prove yet the dâ—livery of it by way of châ—rge was often as he saw it gooâ— for the fulâ—er enforcement thereof or establishment of them in the same And this is no new Doctrine but as a person worthy of all credit in a matter of this nature as being most throughly read in the Fathers does tell us that the powers Matth. 16.19 Jo. 20.23 Mat 18.18 are tâ—ken to be one and the same powers by the Doctors of the Primitive Church which they do unanimously acknowledge to be given unto the Apostles both in right and possession as to the essential parts of the powers before Christ's death Chryâ—ost de sacerdoâ—io 3. Ambros l. 1. de paenit c. 1. 6. Hier. ad Heliod de vita so it Athanas Scâ—m in iâ—lud perfecti in pagum Cypr. de simplicit Praelat The learned Author proceeds and having considered and compared their sayings with themselves and the Scriptures gives us two assertions First They do not deny saies he the said powers to have been given as to their essentials unto the Apostles when he called them to the Apostleship and gave them the name of Apostles Secondâ—y They agree that all the Apostles received those powers when our Saviour breâ—thed on them and that this was a solemn Ordination of them giving them more grace to accompany their Ministry than they had in their first call and less solemn Ordination Chrysoft
sends forth labourers into the harvest and though those Elders it is likely at Ephesus Acts 20. were ordained yet as for their power it is expresse the holy Ghost made them Overseers We receive our commission and authority from them whose embassadors we are but we are not the embassadors of men but the Stewards of God 1 Cor. 4.1 and embassadors of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 5.20 VVho then is that faithfull Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler of his houshold Luke 12.42 It is the will I gather and appointment of the Lord which gives the formal being of a ruler to this steward and at for the servants they might indeed deliver him the keyes and so bee said if you will to make him steward which is to be known also by the way of investiture and external possession The London Divines who are to be much regarded in such works of theirs In Jus. Div. Min. Evan c. 11. after they have told us that the contrary is maintained by many Reverend Divines which by the way may dash some who think this Opinion of mine to be singular and are laying down arguments to prove that Orders do give the Ministerial Office which arguments I shaal answer in due place they check themselves in their course and tell us they mean it only as to the essence of the outward call and if that indeed be all let us take their meaning thus that it gives the Office before men so that a man is and is to be taken for a Minister thereupon which in the Court of the Church he was not before and that does hit the truth I think and bottom of this matter I do not doubt but we may say as we do ordinarily that Ordination makes us Ministers nay that it makes us so as we were not before but then we must understand this aright There is therefore this distinction which is clear in its own light to be received here unless we will remain still in the dark and that is this The Ministerial power which a man hath by vertue of that grand warrant Go and Teach all Nations must be considered as good In foro Dei or In foro Ecclesiae There are many worthy Persons who devoting themselves to this service have preached a good space as Origen of old before they have taken orders when perhaps they have forborn the Sacraments and we may not doubt but some of them have converted souls Now where there is conversion there is Faith and where there is that preaching as begets Faith the Preacher must be sent which is expresse Ro. 10.15 and consequently such a man then must have his Commission in the Court of God when he hath none yet in the court of man and is not a Minister yet indeed as to the Church before Orders Ordination then does make a man a Minister as Baptism makes a Christian when he hath saving grace before The Orders of the Church does give the Ministry as the absolution of the Church does forgive sinnes that is where a man hath true faith and repentance and so is forgiven in heaven It is the prerogative of God to forgive sinnes and yet doeth the Church forgive them in her court that is declares and pronounces to the penitent remission as our Liturgy hath it It is the prerogative royal of Jesus Christ to appoint his own officers in his Church and yet does the Church make a man a Minister in her court that is declares pronounces him to be such approves and confirms his call from the Lord by this solemnity There is no man taketh to himself this honour but he that is called of God Heb. 5. This calling then of God is that which gives the honour and office in his sight and the call of man whereof Orders is the consummation does give it him before men by solemnization If it must be first given of God before a man may take it to himself I gather à fortiori it must be first given of God before another can apply it to him by the ceremonie thereof And Abraham received circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith which he had whiles he was uncircumcised As for the outward call those Divines speak of it must bee opposed to the inward The inward call is this call of God as distinguished from mans Herein I have conceived three things 1. The Institution which is Gods appointing such an office to bee and that those who have such gifts shall bee such officers 2. The Gift which is Gods endownents of a person adapting him for this office and that peculiarly above others which I put in because the abilities of a person are warily to bee considered according to mens severall capacities dispositions condition and those circumstances of providence and otherwise which render several men of the same parts serviceable to their generation under several employments 3. Consent which is the resigning a mans self hereunto and does lye in those holy and sincere desires and ends that the spirit of God alone can stirre up and a man ought to have that does devote his life to so sacred a function to wit that his great aim in the prevailing Interest of his heart be nothing else but the glory of his Redeemer and Salvation of mens souls When God now hath given the second of these to wit the gift the first alone does necessarily conveigh to him the Power and makes the third his duty Vnto every one of us is given Grace according to the measure of the Gifts of Christ Eph. 4.7 By grace is meant there I suppose Authority or Office as we shall see more somwhere and then it followes where there are Christs gifts this Authority to use them is given with them So 1 Cor. 12.7 The Manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall The Gifts alone do infer a power to edifie the Church by them Hence in that place before Eph. 4. if we compare vers 8. with v. 11. while Christ is giving gifts in the one he gives the office in the other And the reason is good because the power does slow upon the gifts from the Institution A power let me say again but in Gods sight for it is not for every man to pretend gifts and straight be a Minister which I shall meet with well enough if you will attend a little till its due place When the Lord in the parable gave the man his talent that alone impower'd him and obliged him to traffique with it There was no need more in a Prophet then to be inspired with a Prophecy to be sent of the Lord. No more can there be likewise required in a Minister to give him his Office before God then this call of God And as for the farther call of man which is yet required to a Minister before men that was not to a prophet when there are already the three things mentioned what can there be more herein distinguished there from besides the
receive the power and then put him solemnly into possession This is what is clear and well but there is a little more needfull to make it full Although in this businesse of the Magistrate which is Civil where the authority is of man and the officers officers of men it is enough to look no further then men and an outward court onely yet in the businesse of the Ministry where the authority is spiritual and the officers appointed the officers immediately of Jesus Christ and not of man we are to look further unto God and his inward court also and account that a man hath and must have his authority first in his sight before he hath it in mans and consequently what is done in mans court is by the way of Ministry signifying his will for the declaration or confirmation thereof with us to wit The right faculty authority or commission which a man hath coram Deo and the court of his own conscience as being truly called of God is allowed or approved by this publick testimony of the Church so that he is received reckoned or numbred as it is said of Matthias amongst the Ministers of Christ which is the very direct and proper effect of this external act of investiture and solemnization I will take an eminent passage from Mr Hooker who must be forced to understand here with us The cause why we breath not as Christ did on them unto whom he imparted power is for that neither spirit nor spiritual authority may be thought to proceed from us which are but delegates or assigns to give men possession of his graces Ec. Pol. p. 431. And here then I shall humbly call in my Episcopal fathers and brethren who have been apt to wonder at me in my first sheets that I should hold that Orders does not give the Ministerial power when they may rather wonder at themselves that they should think it wheras such a person as this who was as like as any by the rest of his discourse to maintain it if he durst does disclaim it as the doctrine of the Papists by their practise who do breath on the person whom they ordain as Christ did and not as the belief of our Church And as for the delegation and assignment he speaks of his meaning is expresse enough to be no other then as when a Lord does give or grant an estate to a person he sends his servant to use those Ceremonies which are to signifie that grant of his by way of delivery upon which he is received as the owner and possessor thereof I will expresse it fully for him with a concluding passage from the aforesaid bright author Ordination is one means conjunct with others for designation of right qualified persons described in the Law of Christ for the reception and exercise of the Ministerial office and the ends of it besides taking care the office fail not are To judge in all ordinary cases of the fitness of persons and To solemnize their admittance by such an investiture as when possession of a house is given by a ministerial delivery of a key or of land by a turf or as a souldier is listed a King crowned Marriage solemnized after consent and title in order to a more solemn obligation and plenary possession Such is Ordination Mr. Baxter p. 149. When the King sends over a Lord Lieutenant into Ireland he hath a power by vertue of that high dignity of making a Knight now while he uses the Ceremonies of dubbing he uses them not as the signification of his Princes will but of his own He acts not here as an Assigne but does it as an act of his own grace We are not to conceive that God hath given such a power to the dignity of a bishop that he may so make Ministers No no their authority as the solid and learned Mr. Perkins before is but a Ministry wherein therefore they must act from God onely as the approvers signifiers or publishers of his will and all those ceremonyes they use are the same externall signification thereof that such a one upon their examination is constituted by him according to his word and Charter to be one of his Ministers and that the Church is to receive him accordingly Now then there must be this will first before the signification of it and the will creates the power immediately The giving the power is one thing with Mr. Hooker most right and the external investiture or delivery is another But you will say When an Estate or office is given by a person and the delivery made also how can this be done againe I answer the office cannot be again given but the signification that it is given may be again The Lords will is one and the same but the signification of it by outward ceremonies may be various or multiplied The ceremonies of the same consecration Lev. 8.33 are repeated seven dayes together Besides there is a difference in the point of Delivery There is a delivery of possession in the thing it self As if I give one a book and deliver it and there is a delivery by a ceremony only as the token of that possession Here now there may arise controversie whether such a delivery were legal and sufficient or the like and what course then can be best taken to put all out of doubt but to have a new delivery which will be without exception The case is so with us just There is question whether Presbyters be Ordainers and it may be question'd haply more to others purpose whether in their Orders there was not a defect of some words of formall delivery as Take thou authority and if a quiet man then shall take the way to make all sure there is no need that he should understand by those words of the Bishop and the imposition of his hands that he does give him the power and office of a Minister which he hath already but rather that this is not given at all by mortal men but only is indeed a a second time declared or signified before the face of the church as given of God by these external rites of investiture delivery or possession I am sorry to see what a thin vail of words only can cloud mans understanding If I should say that Orders is the solemn delivery of the Ministerial authority to a person by the Bishop as a delegate of Jesus Christ it may be it would be received and yet when I say it is the confirmation of Christs call it is all one but understood with more safety which if it shall appear once in its light to my orthodox Adversary I shall not need to say any thing else in comparison to his satisfaction The whole force of his arguing against me in this thing hee knowes full well does lye in this supposal that Ordination does give the ministerial power and office and is to be taken only to that end Now if the ground does fall from under him here there is
nothing left him hardly to stand upon in the controversie Before I passe let me here humbly lay down a caution I would not have any offer to think that I and the forementioned author do go about to make light of Orders as if when a man hath parts he may streight goe and be a Preacher of his own head There are none I know that hold Qualification a call coram ecclesia I am not a man of that complexion I am so much for a solemn allowance of the Church that I contend it should be twice done rather then not bee done to purpose God is a God of Order and hath provided against confusion and intrusion into his Church I am ready then with that eminent person to account not only that it is a great sin to neglect Ordination where it may be had and that the Church is to disown such and that it is required by Christ and so necessary necessitate praecepti medii too ad ordinem bene esse but I am willing to go so far that he requires it in his Charter to every Church which is constituted as a part of the condition which untill it be put the Authority coram hominibus is suspended And yet so long as being put it operates only to the power as a condition doing but its own part this hinders not but the same may be put and put again so long as it is not omni modo to the same effect and the nature thereof or part it does will bear it What is that you will say and In what regard possible can the effect be any other and not altogether the same An Answer to these two Questions will unloose the knot here of Re-ordination For the former There are three things goes to a Minister 1. The testimony of their Conscience of their sincere desire not of lucre or honour but to edifie the Church 2. A faculty to do that to which they have a desire and will 3. The Ordination of the Church which approves and gives testimony of their will and ability So Mr. Perkins in whose judgement methinks I rejoyce to see how fully he agrees with me in his Notion of Orders which yet I must confesse I took not from him or any other Book but from its own light in my first sheets Now whether this testification or approbation of the Church is such a thing or no I leave to this fair Adversary himself to judge and I hope he will see as those abilities and desires the chief part of the condition Christs Charter requires may and are to be renewed still or encreased so may the approbation of the same ad bene esse be renewed also and our Ministry be the better not as all the worse for it For the latter When I allow thus much to Orders to be a condition that is causa sine qua non of our Office-power I understand it you must note it well to be so truly and only in the Court of the Church A condition is such a thing you may say as cannot be repeated for it being put the effect follows and when the effect is obtained the thing can have no longer the nature of a condition I answer then The Court of the Church wherein alone I affirm that Orders is this condition is varied and doubled and hence it is that the condition it self also is doubled and the effect flowing from the same varied likewise While the court of the Church was Presbyterian any Orders if Scriptural onely was the condition but nâ—w it is Episcopal no Orders but Canonical also is the condition In both courts then or either of them unlesse a person be ordained he is no Minister and so the condition requisite to our authority coram Ecclesia is the same in both to wit Orders but as these Orders which are the condition are diversified and Episcopal Ordination distinguished from Presbyterian so the condition I hope is not the same In like manner the effect which flowes from the condition being put in either or both these courts is this Church-authority as I speak or the receiving us as Ministers in the court of the Church and so is the same but as these courts wherein we are so received and are the termini relationis are varied and not the same in that regard the effect also must be diversified or multiplyed and so not the same though the same which ends the difficulty Having laid this caution there followes an Objection which as to the main hath sometimes been a stop upon my mind I doe conceive that the Ordainers do act from God to the people and the approving or declaring a mans Ministry more then once drawes happily the ampler reception and no absurdity in it but I may be mistaken perhaps and the Ordainers act from the Church or people to God in presenting him a servant from amongst them to his house Even as when the Levites were separate to God Num. 8. it is said Aaron shall offer them before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel v. 11. And hence are the children of Israel themselves to lay their hands upon them v. 10. whereby there might be signified happily their parting with their right in them which to do again were a kind of owning their right still and look like sacraledge in it But this conceit I guesse is some of that close superstition which is still apt to exercise my thoughts in this matter It is manifest that when God saved the first-born of the Israelites in Egypt he challenged them to himself the first-born of the cattel were to be offer'd in sacrafice to him and for the first-born of their Sons he accepts the Levites and hence it is they were the offering of the people and that they laid their hands on them in offering them because I say it was in lieu of their first-born which is all plain in the Text vers 16 17 18. Now as for us under the Gospel when Jesus Christ the only true first-both is offered there is up such propriety and discrimination and consequently no offering of the Ministry in lieu thereof Besides though the Levites whose office was but a service only to help Aaron and his Sons vers 19. were an offering of the Children of Israel the Priests which was not a bare Service but a Dignity were no offering of the people but taken by God into that honour and office of himself The Subjects of a Prince may present him with slaves to do his work but they present him not with Embassadors as we are to be entrusted with the affairs of his Kingdom It may be yet said it is true he that hath this honour must have Gods calling and consequently the Ordainers act from God in ordaining him but there may be a middle way to wit that they act not from God to the Church or people nor from the Church to God but from God to God and so their whole act be terminated
the Bishop may take his if we may but have ours there will be no prejudice at all in them By the Holy Ghost as Christ used the words at first Jo. 20 I am perswaded is meant clearly the promise of the Spirit he had told them of and what that was is declared fully Act. 2. at the day of Pentecost I know it is said that the manner of delivery Receive does inferre something else then that at present conferr'd but is meerly a handsome glosse which yet some answer sic datus fuit Apostolis spiritus hoc loco ut aspersi duntaxat fuerint nondum plena ejus virtute imbuti This I will say if we may but be so bold to think that the Holy Ghost is not given by the Bishop here as it was given by Christ by his Disciples then must we have the liberty of our own sence in the thing and what then if by the Holy Ghost we understand nothing else but what is most genuine to any indifferent person to wit his more special presence for support and assistance of us in our Ministry who does not see the words to be inoffensibly competible to our case as others Neque dubitari potest sayes Arch-deacon Mason quin singulari quodam modo praesto illis fuerit ipse Spiritus sanctus ad illos dirigendos sustinendos assistendos juxta Christi promissionem Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad finem seculi Huc spectat egregium illud S. Leouis dictum Qui mihi oneris est author ipse fiet administrationis adjutor De Min. Ang. l. 5. c. 10. 3. To deal faithfully let us consider what â—hat sense of these words is which is or hath been most currant with our Bishops and Church themselves The holy Ghost essentially we know is every where and so not to be given There must then I count be necessarily here a Metonomy efficientis pro effectu The effects of the holy Ghost are various The effect they would have is such as they may hold de praesenti alwayes and certainly conferred hereby to make the rite significant to purpose The ordinary effects now for which the Spirit in Scripture is taken are his graces or gifts For his grace they will not say they do conferr that I take Grace strictly for else any thing from Gods good will may be called grace For Gifts they are more wise too then to tye them hereto any more then Grace There is some effect else therefore must be found out and that is power Receive the holy Ghost with them then is a power from the holy Ghost and this power specified by the next words Whose sinnes you forgive c. that is a power to forgive sins So Hooker p. 412. and Mr. Mason those two like famous sons of our Church Spiritus sanctus hoc in loco potestatem spiritualem denotat quâ peccata remittuntur And so Bellarmine might be added and more ancient authours And this I hope will help my adversary to his full weight if he can but really understand with such and believe that this sense is not strained and forc'd To this then I have distinguished for the purpose between the part of the Bishop and Minister These words we know are delivered by the Bishop and as they belong to his part let them be put upon his account and he will justifie them in this sense He beleeves our former ordination to be null and so pronounces them to us as if we had none of this spiritual power derived to us before and as if he did now give it us hereby And this we may suppose too he speaks truly according to his very conscience Now if there was required any answer here again on our parts directly and clearly acknowledging the same this were a scruple indeed to me invincible but when there is nothing of this nature to be said by us but the hearing only given to what he sayes and the interpretation left free Let us make the best of it and lay not upon our selves what belongs not to our charge And here that the faith of the Bishop may be strengthened while it will stand us in stead if he can beleeve such a thing indeed as will justifie him in his own sense the using these words to wit that our former Ordination is null there is one plea I think of more moment for him then that only which is ordinarily urged and this author hath confuted to wit meerly that it was not done by a Bishop and that is this It is not only the Bishops but the Presbyterians who are against Re-ordaining do hold that the Ministerial authority is conferred by Orders Now in our Orders by Presbyters there was no words at all actually to conveigh this power as these in the Episcopal Orders according to them do and consequently they being destitute of their end even that my Author also himself accounts the end and only end therof they may if they can think them null on that account And I do remember I have noted one or two learned Authors somewhere pointing at this as a defect and telling us that the Jewes in the imposing their hands on their Elders from whence the apostles it is thought took the rite up did use some words still particularly to express the authority they did conveigh intimating as if else it were scarce an ordination 4. To follow this wheras my Opposer does not only suppose but seems to believe and argue upon it even altogether that the Ministerial power is indeed conveighed hereby as our Bishops think themselves I will ask him whether he thinks if these words were not used that power which they impart were given without them Yea or No If he thinks No then must his Ordination I say by Presbytery be null where no such words of giving authority was used at all and he be re-ordained upon that score If he thinks Yea yet holds as he does that Orders give it Why should a rite so material and significant be omitted before and the defect not be supplied by a new solemnity and so that at least in Gregories Decretals take place In talibus non est aliquid iterandum sed cautè supplendum quod incautè fuerat praetermissum 6. But to set us upon our right bottom when some Episcopal Divine do plead Ordination by Presbyters to be null upon that maxim Nemo dat quod in se non habet Mr. Baxter answers p. 234. It is the first error of the adversary to hold that this power is given by men as first having it themselves So p. 147. This falsly supposeth that the Ordainers are the givers of power the master error in their frame Christ hath it and Christ giveth it Men give it not though some of them have it for they have it only to use not to give Let me say the same here to my present adversary and I need say no more If the Ministerial power be given by Orders then are Orders of necessity to
aime at Gods glory in their commands Nay why is it not enough to follow prudence what we judge most expedient to study peace to further our own and our neighbours good Are not these honest and justifiable ends It is true indeed if a thing have evil in it a good end will not justifie it unlesse that evil does cease to be so in the comparison but I cannot lightly see evil in that thing which is neither against the light of nature or positive institution Let me adde more particularly In things which are at our Liberty a man is not to walk only after his own conscience but to have respect also to the conscience of those with whom he is Conscience I say not thy own but of the others 1 Cor. 10.29 Thou art free for thy own part as to the use of thy Ministry upon thy former Orders but some persons perhaps thy Friends perhaps of chief note in the Parish perhaps such as live up according to their knowledge and indeed fear God do think in their consciences that you are not such a Minister as you should be unlesse you have Orders from the Bishop and whilst their consciences are such they scruple really and so haply cannot act in Faith to joyn with you in some Ordinances as the Sicrament and the like Here are they distressed They may not neglect their duty and yet if they do it while they doubt it unlawfull to partake from you they sin because it is not in Faith Now if by thy yielding to this matter thou canst bring satisfaction to their consciences and so gain them herein why is not this end such as is warrantable for thy submission Nay if thou wilt not doe it why may they not say Now walkest thou not charitably that seekest only thy own and not thy peoples satisfaction Even as I sayes the apostle please all men in all things not seeking my own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved 7. An Ordinance which is taken the second time for the same end it was taken rightly at first is not taken for no end or for no such end as God hath appointed it unto for it is taken to the end he hath appointed it But such is our case in Re-ordination It is taken for a solemn allowance or approbation of our Ministry the recommending us to Gods grace for our work the free passage of the Gospell And where the ends are repetible as in preaching praying administring the Sacrament and made necessary to be repeated the means must be repetible and repeated also I do therefore deny his argument which is founded still on that only that the ministerial power is conferred by orders and that that is the the only proper end thereof which is but a supposition VVhereas then he askes his friend whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle speaks of was conveighed to him in his first Orders and tells us thereupon this is ludere cum sacris to have the Bishop and his Chaplains pray that he may now receive that gift this I take it is a passage too low for this author for let him seriously but remind the thing and it is not like our Church should passe such an escape as to compile a standing prayer for necessary effects or accounted such she may say in her ordering modo imperativo Take Receive the Ministerial power but she does not pray modo optativo that it may be given by the same 8. As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then he mentions which is spoken of Timothy there is no man can certainly tell what that Gift is It may be the miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost given in those times or some extraordinary talent at least not given to others It is not unlikely methinks that Timothy might be so carefull and attentive upon the ordinary work of his proper charge that the Apostle is fain to put him in mind that he wholly neglect not this It may be likewise some further degrees onely or the encrease of the abilities he had and so Calvin hath it Deum cumulasse cum novis donis vel priora duplicasse Now if either of these be the sense as is most obvious it is nothing for my adversary It may be also to serve my Opposer docendi of ficium as our London Divines or the Ministerial function as hee supposes it Let us suppose this then with him at least till wee come to see it more unlikely yet so long as it is said directly of Timothy to be in him or given him by prophesy that is so full and expresse a signification of Gods will which I have touched in my first sheets as by Revelation As the will of the Lord doubtlesse and that alone must be the fountain of his officers power and that being sufficiently signified must be enough to make a man his Minister the imposition of hands that is mentioned besides can conduce after this no otherwise indoed but by way of solemnization And so Mr. Perkins sayes of the like case Acts 13. This imposition was rather a confirmation then a calling 9. I remember amongst more impertinent things that sometimes burdened my thoughts against Re-ordination there was that text Deut. 12.32 VVhat thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not adde thereto nor diminish from it Unto which though I had these many reasonings That this text speaks of those precepts which were exactly commanded by God but our matter is a rite taken up by the apostles probably of themselves as is noted at first That God in Moses Law stood more punctually we may think upon the exterual performance then under the Gospel That the thing we do meerly as it is making no more nor lesse of it only we use it over again and repetition is not addition in the sense here at least where it is opposed to diminishing That the Text forbids doing any other thing then the same God hath commanded as not to follow the Heathen in their Rites in the verses before but it forbids not the doing the same upon occasion yet did not all this give full contentment to my mind being weak untill that instance came into it 2 Chron. 30.31 where we have a speciall Ordinance of God the Feast of unleavened bread which was expressely commanded to be kept seven dayes and it is said the whole assembly took counsect and kept other seven dayes also Now unless we shall think that the whole assembly understood not the meaning of that Text or else did wilfully break it here is repetition exactly proved no addition to Gods Commandement This Instance therefore I will humbly advance in this place to the farther lighs and satisfaction of our case Here is we see an appointment of God one of their three most solemn Feasts They had no precept nor president to repeat is yet does the whole Assembly consult and approve it and though they did it of their own heads and meer
expedient to us and obliging and obliging without some other greater reason because expedient to us for the sake of the Gospel To advance this yet farther There be some learned men do give much here to the Magistrate Grotius saies Mr. Baxter commendeth the saying of Musculus that would have no Minister question his Call that being qualified hath the Christian Magistrates Commission I observe Grotius himself does allow Confirmation of a Minister distinctly to the Magistrate and Dr. Seaman hath quoted Gerrhard to the same purpose I might I think adde someâ—hing out of Peter Martyr Chemnitius and most others Now if these great men held that Ordination made a Minister the Mâ—gistrate could have no part assigned him at all about that business but if Ordination only declares a mans Ministry If it be Christ alone gives us our Office and man only procures us an outward Authority for repute and reception as Ministers in the Church where we are called which I take it is true then as I doe not doubt but that upon supposition there were no Ministers in a place to ordain the Magistrates allowance is good So do I propose it to be considered whether the Magistrates appointing who shall be Ordainers Presbyters or Bishops may not still determine the validity by either in the Church where he is Sâ—preme and consequently though our Orders before were of force now the pleasure of our Law-givers is otherwise whether we may not be re-ordained upon that accourt This lâ—oâ—er because there may be some consciences perhaâ—s that can act upon such a ground as this when they cannot otherwise though I intend to lay no furâ—her stress upon it I return then to my Opposer who p. 67 68. is hunting some of my exâ—ressions but should do well to take the substance with them I am in my last Proposition there proposing such Scriptures which concern the fift Commandment Our Superiours are to be obeyed in all things 1 Pet 2.13 Col. â— 22 This thing is what they require and impose uâ—on us and that I take therefore to be a plain ground for our submission There is a late book of some tender and learned Diâ—ines concerning the interest of words in prayer who when they have told us p. 72. that what we call the Church of England is nothing else than a company of men by a Civil Power made Bishops and called to advise the State in things concerning Religion do add p. 73. We again say far be it from us to oppose Civil Authority either exercised by Lay-persons or Ecclesiastical persons We further sâ—y we are bound to obey the Civil magistrate in all things in things lawful actually in things unlawful by suffering I do note this passage as that which may do good to many and tend to healing when the rest of that book may make them but very sore to wit that though they should have received such prejudicate and hard thoughts of the Government by Bishops as if they were anti-Câ—ristian against their Covenant or the like yet may they see here how or under what notion they may obey them for all that to wit as the King is Supreme both in causes Ecclesiastical and Civil the Bishops I perceive are taken with them for Magistrates appointed under him in the one as the Judges Justices are in the other so they allow obedience to them is to other Superiours so long as they require only things lawful and that our matter in hand is such it suffices I count that it is no where forbidden in the light of Nature or Scripture directly or consequentially and therefore it is lawful for which I have quoted that known Text Where there is no Law there is no transgression In his rebus sayes Austin de qu bus nihil certi statuit Scriptura instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt That which can be supposed to be replied to this is only that it is like the Law forbids the repetition of such an Ordinance and therefore I do clear this by other instances The first was of Marriage which hath been ordinarily by the Magistrate and the Minister both in these times I mâ— seâ—f have had a comple come to me after they were long married and had a child and I made no question to marry them again for the satisfaction of their consciences The like apprehensions therefore I have perceived in me about this matter I see indeed some others are ready to question perhaps whether such who have done thus have done lawfully but why not I pray as well as contract themselves and give their mutual consent fiâ—st and be married after Such a consent de proesenti no doubt does ponâ—re fundamentum relation it so that they are Man and Wife coram Deo thereby and what does the solemnity after but declare them so coram hominibus and give them that account legally in the world Now if this testification be not sufficient but men will account them as unmarried unless it be by a Minister nay suppose the Laws of any place would not allow it otherwise who would advise but they should do it again Nay this is not enough who would advise that they rather part quite leave one another and be no more Man and Wife rather than be married again Such is the case and question of ours in hand for ought I can see and no less in this matter of Re-ordination For the form he objects I answer the impropriety of some words in sâ—ch a case as to the one will not argue and infer the same I hope altogether in the other whereof it suffices that I have spoken before already A second instance I have is of the Oaths of Alleagiance and Supremacy These are taken at our Degrees at our Orders and upon particular occasions as the Law and Magistrate requires and yet cid I never hear any plead against this that it would be taking an Ordinance in vain Holy Bradford the Martyr tells his Judges that he had taken the same Oath against the Pope six times Unto this my Opponent sayes nothing and indeed noâ—hing can be said If that only argument of his varied in words be good that a man cannot be Ordained twice because the end of Ordination is attained as one Administration then a man may not have either of these Oaths twice administred to him because the end to wit the obliging a man to the contents is attained at once and so the Laws and Magistrate that require this on sundry occasions do require the taking Gods Name in vain Let my Author come off here if he can The swearing by Gods Name we know is a solemn Ordinance part of Gods Worshi Deut. 10.20 and if this may be repeated upon the forms of Courts be order of the Law command of our Superiours let this be satisfaction likewise to us that what is in vain as to one end is not so to another that what is in vain in regard of ones self is not in
in Joh. hom c. Cyp. de simp Prael August De Civit. dei 64 Quaest exâ—vet nov Test c. 9â— He yet adds This is the more proper Ordination of the Ministers of the New Testament the full originâ—l and seminâ—l tradition of the Ministerial Powers whereby all future Ordinations of the like kind are sanctified and for these causes our Saviour iterated their Ordination to the Pastoral extraordinary and ordinary Offices and the rather lest his death might be thought to have made void their first more secret and covert Ordination Mr. Lloid of Primitive Episcopacy and Ceremonies I must confess I am not taken with the attributing that to the Text in John which is excellently proper to the last of Matthew Mat. 20.18 19 20. Seeing the mission we find in the one Jo. 20.21 with the 19. and 24. appears not to me by what hath been before touched to be indeed numerically the same as to time place and persons with the other Nevertheless we are beholding to this man enough that upon search he hath found that the re-ordaining the Apostles is not strange to the Ancients when Reordination yet in thesi is apt to be so both to them as him also Let us see now what our Author answers to this which I must needs say beforehand may very much satisfie us herein because indeed he falls so short of saying any thing to weaken our belief of it There be some judge saies he the Apostles Commission Mat. 10. was temporary and did expire at their return But besides that this is a rate conceiâ— in Divinity as if the Ministry were a Cloak to be put on and off again upon occasion and that it is nothing however to their second missiâ—n Jo. 20.21 when we find they have yet after a third Mat. 28. It appears expressely that the Disciples Baptized Jo. 4.2 and wrought Miracles Mat. 17.16 when they abode with Jesus The words of that Text then Mat. 3.14 are here worthy of consideration And he appointed twelve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might be with him and that he might send them to preach Here it seems there was some work belonging to the Office of their Apostleship which they were to peâ—â—otaâ— while they were with him as well as when they were abroad This is plain that when he sent them to Preach he gave them power to heal the Sick and do Miracles and seeing this â—ower did certainly continue with them after they were returned to him how shall we think any other power which was given with it and much less I hope the whole Office it self could cease And therefore this Opponent himself dare put no trust in this but frames another Answer that their first Commission was but partial not to all acts as to administer the Sacraments absolve Penitents and the like Unto which I shall not need to red what some say that when Christ said do this he gave his Disciples power to administer the Sacrament when he said whose sins ye remit c. Jo. 20. he gave them power of Absolution and yet after both we read of that chief Comission he finally leaves with them Mat. 28.19 Nor shall I stick in the found words of a grave Author They received with the Name of Apostles the power to Minister all the Doctrine and means to Salvation which Christ intended in due time to deliver unto them Acts 1.24.25 Act. 26.16 And therefore when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted they needed not a new Ordination but only a signification of Christs pleasure that they should use the power before given them in the administration of this Ordinance which is but an extention of the power to a new object But I reply that which is most clear and obvious and what his Answer does not touch I am sure in the least whether the instance it self urged does the root of the Scruple or noâ— he may dâ—ffer in his apprehension with me if he will The Lord Christ had given them Commission for the Pâ—eâ—ching of the Gospel and Bâ—pâ—izâ—ng that is certain before and yet does he renew here the same Authority again to them Go Preach and Baptize Mat. 28. What is it now for this Opposer to say here that their Commission granted at first was partial such as did not authorize them to all Ministerial acts as to administer the Sacrament confirm the Baptized which were not then in being when the Commission they have last or is again delivered to them is this Go preach and baptize That is Such as does authorize them to that part of their Office or those Ministerial acts they were authorized to before Is not here an Authority or Commission to the same Ministerial Acts or Work renewed or refreshâ—ds That is the point in hand This Gentleman then for ought I see might rather have borrowed an answer from me here that the Apostles were sent out at first only to the Jews and after to all Nations and therefore they had a new Commission To which I reply 1. The Lord Jesus if he pleased might at least if any will say he did not have given them their Commission so large at once as to reach Jew and Gentile and appointed the execution thereof to each according to the due season And if then he chose to do it at twice we may conceive even from thence that the renewal of a Commission hath not therefore any such appearance sure of evil in it as is fancied by my Opposer 2. Though Câ—rist did say to his Disciples Go not in the way of the Gentiles at his first sending of them he did not say Go not in the way of the Jews at his last but while he saves Go teach all Nations the Jewish Nation is one and the Chief of those Nations And while Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision and James and others did abide among the Jews the Commission was the same in effect as to them So that here is an Authority to the same persors work and place repeated yet however Did Peter and James and Jâ—hn that preached to the Jews preach by vertue of their last Commission or not If they did not their last was in vain if they diâ— then was their first and last to the same effect which is the point wonn 3. Though the renewal of the Apostles first Commission was by way of enlargement being confined to the execution at least before to the Jews only yet when Pauls Commission from Christ at first was extâ—nded to the Gentiles at large the Holy Ghost Commissions him again with confinement as to such and such particular Countries Now then if a new Commission may be given to thâ— sâ—â—â—e woâ—â— eiâ—her when iâ— is narrower or â—arger the Wit of man may have something to object but the Conscience may I hopâ— have enough to be satisfied as to the main though the work be but of equal extent as it was For in the Enlargement there is the same though with
more in the Confinement though less there iâ— only the same 4. Let this be so yet here is in generâ—l nevertheless a double Commission to the same work exemplified for they have Commission to preach to the Jews and then Commission to preach to all Nations So that Re ordination hereby is proved though not our Re-ordination You may say there is not the same reason for us as for them but this we gain hence however that there may be some reason why a Commission may be repeated and if there may be one we are put in heart there may be another and we are sure it is not unlawful altogether 5. When we see that a Commission may be renewed upon the change of the Persons to whom a man is sent why not upon the change of the Court which sends So is the Case here Ordination is the commissionating a man only in the Churches Court Now the Court of the Church is changed and that Commission will not pass upon the change that would before and therefore is renewed 6. I have made this more statedly serve our case p. 44. in my first Sheets I will conclude therfore the matter If the Lord himself whose sending his Disciples as the head of his Church could not be without the furnishing of them both with abilities and power does iterate their Commission at least as to the delivery more than once What should we stand upon Mans Ceremony which is we are sure but a formal delivery or investitive only at first when the Right and Faculty is never from him at all as Grotius speaks And as Dr. Ames in his Case Ordinatio est nihil alâ—ud quam solâ—mnis declarationt coronatio regis â—nauguratio magistratus And so it comes to no more to be iâ—crated upon need or good Cause than for me to repeat And they made Solomon King the second time that is what hath been once already signified before And Jesus said again unto him yet the third time Simon Son of Jonas lovest thou me Lord my Sheep SECTION IX IN the Fifth Section there is a Third Objection To be â—â—â—raâ—ined does seem virtually in the Act to renounce make void or offer injury to our first Oraers and that does looklike some great evil Unto which that I may speak hete something more fully I will acknowledge so far as I can judge that this conceit hath gotten into mens minds far and wide from the Ancients which makes some the Papists especially think so hainoufly of Re-ordination as if there were no less than Sacrilege in it Indeed this Author and our Brethren at this season have got a conceit that it is injurious to the Third Commandement which requires the reverend use of Gods Ordinances which may be done I hope when an Ordinance is repeated as when it is used but once But if they could then shew me in the scattered Sentence of the Fathers that this were their harmonious reason why they are against it it would do more with me for conviction than any thing else I yet know because it would make me suspect then some Moral evil perhaps to be in it when all I apprehend yet is Notional only as I said at first or but in mens imaginations The rise then or spring of this conceir I guess to flow from St. Cyprians time when Re-baptization was in the World That pious Bishop and Martyr does plead thus still in his Writings There is one Church one Faith one Baptism those that are out of the Church have not the â—rue Faith and so no Baptism And therefore they that are baptized of Here-ticks must be re-baptized Pro certo tenentes neminem for as baptizart extra ecclesiam posse cum sit baptismâ— unum intra sanctam ecclesiam constituâ—um Lab. 1. Ep. 12. Hereupon there was none we must conceive rebaptized but they supposed their former Baptism to be void this being the pleaded ground for their Re-baptization And though those Disciples Act. 19th who doubted not of the validity of the Baptism they had did not void Johns Baptism I hope in the least for their being baptized again into the Name of Jesus Yet while the Party himself here and the Church were both perswaded otherwise of theirs this act might be accounted coram ecclesia a kind of professed voidance thereof and their heresie with it And consequently when they came to think that Re-baptization did make pull their first Baptism the sâ—me thoughts from thence we may conjecture came to â—oâ—iess them about Orders But as the Fathers which succeeded Cyprian and Councils did lay aside his Rebaptization concluding the ground he went upon errâ—nions and consequently that the former Baptism of such as were re-baptized hoâ—vsoever they thought that re-baptived them was good and valid according to the Word of God So do I believe that after Ages will disprove the ground upon which Re-ordination is now by some required and our former Orders being valid or good before God or according to his Word it is not our being re-ordâ—ined can make them null or void but only they are so in the judgement of such as lye under thaâ— conception To look then more throughly if we can into this business Suppose a man a Minister already and in Orders does Re-ordination now make him no Minister or to have been none or evacuate his former Ministerial Acts the time before If that be true then should I never plead for Re-ordination sure then must I be ready to think it Sacrilege as soon as any but this certainly can nâ—ver be The Papists do hold that there is an indelible Character imprinted in Orders under iterari non posse and anathematize those that gainsay it To save their curse I deny not with our Hooker and Mason if by their Character they mean only spiritualis potestas as some of them do that there is such a thing and they quoad homines we may say impressed hereby which our Divines also do hold indelible So that the Office being once received cannot be taken away even by degradation it self though the Work may sometime be made to cease Now if it were Orders did indeed give this power as my Opposer with the most do think then must those Orders we take first stand good and valid against any other we take after if there were twenty which can neither make nor marr as to that end which is already attained thereby And here in the way may be one plain Conviction on this Gentleman that when he does plead that I make null my first Ordination and therefore my Profession will not prevail against my Fact he quite intersares with himself who still pleads all the way besides that my first Orders having given me my Ministry already it is that renders my second in vain There are two Books let me therefore here mention it come out against Re-ordination one before and this Author two Arguments it is they harp upon The former stands mainly upon this That a
second Ordination does in the fact make null the first The other insists upon this That our first Ordination if he be understood as he must does null the second to wit by rendring it in vain Now let uâ— set these two Arguments together by the ears and they must needs fall by the hands of one another for it a mans first Ordination be indeed made null then is not his second in vain and if his second be in vain then is not his first null The truth is were the supposition true which they go both upon it is the last Argument were of force and the former must be nothing Neither would it hence follow because the Character if one will call the Power or Office so is not repeated therefore the Rite which does solemnize it may not any more than because the Regal Office is but one and the same which must be still urged therefore the annointing or in estiture can be but once also If a man who is Consecrated shall desert his first Ordination and steal away himself from the Ministry into the Laity when he believes God originally called him and his labours like still to be serviceable to him not disabled not put to it by distress or force for the safety of his Conscience Sâ—uâ—s peace Gods greater glory and any will call that Sacrilege there may be I think some appositeness indeed in the tern but if the Papist will call Reordination barely so and make that the reason why a man may not be Re-ordained which he renders for the very account upon which he yields hereunto to wit because he thinks his Power or Office indeed indelible and that being entered in the Ministry he may not go back and to is constrained to it it is but giving an innocent thing ill words and as it seems to me rather in our case it is plain in the whole A cujus contrarium verum est I cannot therefore but take up a few word here if it be only to see the Genius at least of that other Opposer of Re-ordination Does not he really renounce his Ordination recede from his Office and dâ—vest hâ—mâ—â—lf of Authority who taketh up his Ministry â—â—â—d anew passâ—th under this constituting investing Ordinance Mâ— C. p. 33. wâ—ich is the chief battering Ramm of that Book But God forbid this indeed should hâ— so when Christs Disciples had their Commission Go Preach and Baptize renewed to them aâ— hath been said before was that second act indeed an actual and formal voidance of the first When the Holy Ghost does separate to him Paul for the work whereunto he calls him Act. 13. Does that mission or sending forth of the Holy Ghost make null his first Ministry and authorative mission by Jesus Christ Act. 26.16 18. When a Jew was baptized in Christ's time did that null his Cicumcision When those Disciples Act. 19. were re-baptized was that Baptism indeed a voiding of their first Or Christs Baptism really a renunciation of Johns How can any prove that Was the Ordination of Barnabat by those at Antioch a divesting him of any authority he had by being sent forth before by the Church of Jerusalem This cannot be Yet again when the men of Judah came and annonited David King in Hebron was the passing of David under this constituting investing Ceremony to speak with him really a renouncing his former annointing by Samuel and receding from that Kingly Power and Office which was given him at first by that mouth which said Arise annoint him for this is he And the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward Was Charles the seventh of France his Coronation at Rheimes after he was Crowned at Poitiers before and King by birth any thing else but a farther establishment of his title only for the satisfaction and better obedience of his people It is but so indeed here And for that the Dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice it is because the thing is established by God and God will shortly bring it to pass The bottom then of my Adversaries mistake I have already opened and cannot omit one note more from Mr. Baxter of whom I have made herein so necessary use before who gathering an Argument as solidly as learnedly from the Magistrate 10 the Minister in thiâ— case does tell us that our Divines in abundance have proved the power of Princes howsoever men may have an hand in their Election and Investiture to be immediately from God for which he mentions particularly Spalatensis Saraâ—ia and Bilson that any who will may inform themselves whereupon he hath these words p. 146. And for my part I think I shall never consent to any that will give more to men in making a Minister than in making a King All power is of God the Powers that be are ordained of God I must therefore here humbly desire these worthy Authors and others that they consider well such expressions when they use them that Orders is the taking up the Ministry a constituting Ordinance which if they conceive so as if it gave the Ministry coram deo I must invert that of the Father mentâ—m â—ene linguam corrige and say if they will keep their words they must correct their apprehension I do like well indeed to see the meaning of this Author to be so full who thinks that to be re-ordained does offer injury to our Ministry it self as if we did thereby even recede from our Office the contrary whereof is true or vacate our Ministerial Acts which might well highly provoke his quickest worth and zeal against it but when perhaps he hath let his thoughts cool a little more on the matter he may come to conceive with us that the Ministry it self is not conferred by our Orders at the first and consequently that it cannot be endamaged by being re-ordained in the least but that these Orders first and last both do operate upon or to the same only by way of declaration before men for the reception of us in the Church where we are as hath been said no otherwise than we see the like of Princes as to their Kingdoms in the instances now mentioned and scarce yet out of sight And here I cannot say but we may divide perhaps between the Ministry it self and our Orders the Ministry which is from Christ and his institution alone and Orders which are of man Let us be allured in the first place that our Ministry or Office it self receives no damage by these second Orders which a man does not indeed recede from but cleave to thereby and the great fear is over and as for our former Orders barely whether they receive any injury hereby or no it may be perhaps another matter For my part I must acknowledge that there is injury offered to the same but I will not say hereby in what we do The doing injury is one thing and the suffering injury is another we are here but sufferers It is a Christians duâ—y to bear