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
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-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
minus 10. What is that office not in name but in deed that the person in the Question must be ordained unto before he be reordained a Presbyter either it is the office of a Deacon or not if you say it is then 1. Where hath the Scripture made a Deaconry a step to Presbyterie 2. Where hath Christ given the power of baptizing unto Deacons See the book of Consecrat of Bishops c. 3. Where hath Christ separated the power of preaching and the power of baptizing 4. If our Deacons have a power to preach as some say then who hath power to suspend them constantly from the exercise 5. Or who can acquit them from the guilt of the constant neglect of their work 6. But where hath Christ conveyed the power of preaching unto Deacons 7. Where shall we place the boundaries betwixt our Deaconries and Presbyteries especially where shall we find such boundaries in the Scripture 8. How shall the re-ordained Presbyter execute the real office of a Deacon one part of whose work is certainly to serve tables Acts 6. beg for is not that work incompatible with the work of a Presbyter especially in great places and was it not judged so by the Apostles 9. How shall the Presbyter promise to continue in the office of a Deacon only as a probationer for the Presbyterie 10 How can he believe that a Deaconry is a step to Presbyterie when yet he is forced himself to step from Presbyterie to Deaconry if the motions of our speculations ascend from a Deaconry to Presbyterie how then shall the motions of our practicals descend from a Presbyterie to a Deacontie what cross-graind creatures would this make us and what contradictory motions would this produce in us would not such a procedure fit the person in the Question for this Motto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if you say this is not the real office of a Deacon then 1. What office is it 2. By what authority instituted 3. Why is it called the office of a Deacon 4. Why are men ordained into it as the Deacons office 5. Why are men engaged to execute it as the Deacons office c. Let these things be considered for consideration is the end of their offer not a positive present determination by the Author 11. How many ordinations to the same office may a man submit unto Take a person that is now re-ordained he was 1. Ordained by the Presbyterie to be a Presbyter 2. He was ordained by the Bishop to be a Deacon 3. To be a Presbyter So then there is two if not three ordinations to the same office passed already And if a man may submit to two ordinations then why not to twenty and if to twenty why not to two hundred if any supposed necessity shall require it as once in a discourse a Gentleman of the passive conformable way being asked what if the Magistrate should impose as many ceremonies in the worship of God as ever the Jews had though not the very same must we submit to them all Yes said be Suppose he should add as many more as ever the Heathens had must we submit to them all yes also And therefore what think you will it not be worth while to consider a little where we shall stop or stay if once we leave Christs institutions Christs boundaries 12. Whether by a reordination we shall not create innumerable scruples in the hearts of the people about the validity of our former consecrations of Sacraments and therefore if for the satisfaction of a scrupulous Clergy we accept an hypothetical reordination how shall we avoid the giving an hypothetical rebaptization for the satisfaction of a scrupulous Laity 13. Will not this reordination prove the greatest scandal to the Reformed Churches will they not sook upon it as disowning their Ordinations their Ministry their Sacraments their Churches their all for 1. Were not their Ministers ordained by the Presbyterie as well as ours 2. Had not many of them as much liberty if not more of attaining Episcopal ordination then ours 3. Did not some of them cast off their Bishops which is the worst that can be said by the Prelatists against ours and against but a very few of them neither 4. Have not several of them declared in their Harmony of Confessions their dislike of Diocesan Bishops and Lord-Bishops which is more then many of ours ever did 5. Have not several of their Chieftains written so voluminously and learnedly against Diocesans as few of ours were ever guilty of how can it therefore be denied but this reordination will sadly wound them through our sides and shall we make a small matter of so sad a business as 1. To cast such a reflexion upon such famous and numerous Ministers and Churches 2. To make such a wide breach betwixt our selves and them sometimes the Dearest friends 3. And to make it by backsliding from our former prefessions of liking and loving them 4. And hereby weaken the Protestant Interest 5. And play the devils and the Jesuits â—ame whilst they stand laughing on 6. And provoke Protestant Princes and Pastors to set themselves against us and it may be to fight us by carnal and spiritual weapons if this be a laughing matter what is lamentable notooùs is that story how Doctor Holland when Doctor of the chair at Oxford schooled D. Laud afterward Archbishop of Canterbury yea and turned him out of the Schools in the face of the University for denying Bishops and Priests to be one order and that upon this very account because it would set us at variance with the Reformed Churches which have alwayes hitherto continued in amity 14. How shall we be faithful sons of the Church of England if we should disown that ordination which our Reverend Clergy have formerly owned or own a reordination which they have alwayes disowned How ambitious soever some of our brethren are to be admired as the constant sons of the Church of England yet let me tell them if they have nothing more to argue their constancy then their disowning an ordination which was alwayes owned and owning a re-ordination which was alwayes disowned they may be long enough ere they atrain that honour except they attain it before they deserve it likewise had they no more to prove the unfaithfulness of the Presbyterians to the Church of England then because they will not desert the Church of England in these two material points they might twist sand long enough before they make ropes And here let no man buz into my ear such a Question as this how can the Church of England be unfaithful to the Church of England for I hope none will confine the Church of England to a few of her present Doctors be they never so eminent neither will they understand by their faithfulness to the Church of England Bishop Jewel Defence of the Apol. part 2. c. 5. di 1. p. 120. a faithfulness to a personal succession of Bishops for what is
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
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-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
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
by the Presbyterie and Layity Honorius â—he Emperor as saith Bishop Jewel writing to Boniface saith Reply p. 171. if two Bishops through ambition and contention happen to be chosen we will that neither of them be allowed as Bishop but that he only continue in the Apostolical See whom out of the number of the Clergy godly discretion and the consent of the whole brotherhood shall chuse by a new election The same Jewel tels us that Greg. Presb. saith for that the election and instalment of Greg. Nazian was past before the Bishops of Egypt and Macedonia came and so made without their consent that therefore they utterly refused to allow him or admit him as Bishop there not from any dislike of the party but for that they thought themselves defrauded of their voices The Council at Paris thus decrees Con. Par. 〈◊〉 c. 8. Geâ— Bucer de guber Eccl. p. 332. quia aliquibus in rebus consuetudo prisca negligitur decreta Canonum violantur placuit ut juxta antiquam consuetudinâ—m Canonum decreta serventur nullus Civibus invitis ordinetur Episcopus nisi quem populi Clericorum electio plenissima quaesier it voluntate non Principis imperio ueque per quamlibet conditionem contra Metropolis voluntatem Episcoporumque Comprovincialium ingeratur quod si per ordinationem regiam honoris istius culâ—â— pervadere nimia temeritate aliquis praesumpsâ—rit à Comprovincialibus loci ipsius Episcopâ— recipi nullatenus mereatur quem indebiâ— assumptum agnoscunt Siquis de Comprovinciâ— libus recipere eum contra indicta praesumpserâ— sit à fratribus omnibus segregatus ipsoruâ— omnium charitate remotus The Centuriator speak forth antiquity abundantly foâ— elections to instance briefly in Cent. 3. p. 94 Vsitatum in Ecclesiis Orientalibus fuit ut aâ— electionem aut ordinationem alicujus Episcopi venirent ex vicinia plures Presbyteri 〈◊〉 Episcopi eique quem dignum eo honore coguâ—â— vissent Euseb l. 6. c. 8. manus imponerent quemadmodum 〈◊〉 Origenis ordinatione apud Cesaream factum Eundem in ordinandis Presbyteris Episcopi morem etiam Africanae Ecclesiae observarunt primum enim si alicui Ecclesiae praeficiendus ordinandus Episcopus esset Cypr. l. 2. Epist ad Com. per literas Provinciis finitimis omnibus significabatur posted ejusdem provinciae Episcopi proximi quiquâ— veniebant aut quique venire minus possent judicium suum per literas significabant deligebatur Episcopus ea plebe cujuâ— Episcopus futurus erat praesente accessâ—â— manuum impositio hunc morem Cyprianuâ— in sua Ecclesia per universas feri provincias observatum tistatur Ordinationem Episcoporum aut Ministrorum in Ecclesiis Asiaticis pracedebant suffragia ut videtur populi Magistrautus Cent. 4. C. 6. de ritibus circa ordinat p. 243. aliorum Episcoporum Presbyterorum exemplo probat Basilius Epist 58. ad Meler sine justis suffragiis ordinationem in seditionem interdum exiisse Et Constant in Epist ad Nicomedenses hortatur eos ut sub pulso Eusehio alium ordinent Episcopum eleganter inquit medicina non sera fuerit si nunc salteâ— delecto Episcopo fideli integro respexeritis in Deum quod impraesentia est potestatis vestrae jampridem debuerat judicio vestro esse perfectum in Europaeis Ecclesiis ad electionem Episcopi consensus multitudinis accedebat The Fourth Council of Carthage requires to the admission of every Clergy man civium assensum testimonium convenientiam Can. 22. Lo. Com. Tom. 6. Sect. 95 96. Gerard citeth for the peoples right of Election Ambr. Chrysâ—s Orig. Isidore twelve Popes and many antient examples This I suppose may suffice to shew that non-elected Bishops are non-canonical but if any would see more let them read D. Blondels Apol. p. 379 c. Gelaspies Miscel Qu. 8. c. 2. What if the Ordainers should at any time prove quod absit Deus lazy incontinent intemperate worldly or Symonaicâ— persons by what charter doth Christ conveâ— Episcopal power to those that are notoriously such or allow them whilst such to exercisâ— such authority and what hath the Church decreed and the learned determined concerning such The seventh Canon of thâ— Apostles as they are called determines thus Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus nâ—quaquam saeculares curas assumit sin autem dejiâ—iatur Et Can. 25. Episcopus auâ— Presbyter aut Diaconus qui in fornicationâ— aut perjurio aut furto captus est deponatur Can. 42. Episc Presb. aut Diac. aleae auâ— ebrietati deserviens aut desinat aut ceriâ— damnetur Can. 44. Epise Presb. auâ— Diac. issuras à debitoribus exigent Conoll Nicâ—n can 20. aut desinaâ— aut certe damnetur Likewise in thâ— great Counc at Nice it was determined Quicunque ex lapsis per ignorantiam suâ—â— ordinati vel contemptum corum qui eos ordinaverunt hoc non praejudicat Regulae Ecclesiasticae cum enim compertum fuerit deponantur And Can. 18. deposes those that are guilty of usury and oppression Con. Anc. Can. 210. The Counc aâ— Ancyra decreed Siquis adulterium commiserit septem annis in poenitentia completi perfectionâ— reddatur secundum pristinos gradus The fifteenth Can. of the Counc of Nice and the 21. Can. of the Counc at Antioch disables a Bishop to remove from one City to another The Centuriators say Testatur etiam August quosdam Episcopos rebus saecularibus occupari Cent. Magd. Cent. 5. c. 7. p. 409. minus studiose operam sacris literis navare eoque erroribus indulgere Idem queritur multos favore vulgi ad sacerdotia venire illum qui pecuniâ Episcopatus honorem acquirat non venire à Deo indicat Bishop Jewel that mall of the Papists saith As for the Bishop of Rome except he minister the Sacraments instruct the people warn them and teach them we say that he ought not of right once to be called a Bishop or so much as an Elder for a Bishop as saith Saint August is a name of labour and not of honour that the man that seeketh to have preheminence and not to profit may understand himself to be no Bishop S. Chrysost saith Multi sacerdotes pauci sacerdotes multi nomine pauci opâ—re Saint Ambr. saith Nisi bonum opus amplectaris Episcopus esse non potes And Wickliff Papa vel Praelatus malus praescitus est aequivoce Pastor vere fur latro Saint Chrysos Qui ab hominibus ordinatus and not by God quantum ad Deum attinet non est Sacerdos aut Diaconus Thus far that pâ—arless Jewel 3. What power have heretical schismatical or notoriously erroneons Bishops where doth Christ give authority to those that are plainly bent to destroy Christianity to seduce his people The Centuriators tell us two or three very pretty stories so much to our purpose that I shall repeat them