answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 22. this being the last act of Paul and Barnabas when they had confirmed and exhorted the Disciples in v. 22. Ordained them Elders in v. 23. they commended them all Pastors and people to God I see Calvin Piscator Cor. a Lap. agree with me making no question of this Interpretation for they pass it over as granted And Musculus speaks my mind clearly Ergo jejunantes orantes quod in coetu fidelium fieri solebat ordinarunt Presbyteros a fidelibus electos observe he puts a difference between election and ordination in this verse post eam ordinationem commendaverunt ecclesiam Domino discesserunt 3. That Text in Acts 20.32 confutes this notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text to the 2. Aor voc med and we shall find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 14.23 Now the Apostle did not ordain these he calls them Elders and Bishops before and so they were but now taking his leave of them he commended them to God and so he did in Acts 14. departing from the Churches he commended them to God in whom they had believed 4. I cannot yet be convinced but that ordination is an act of authoritative power but commending of a person to God in prayer is no act of such power 5. The Scripture gives us another definition of Ordination as I shall shew afterwards ergo this is not the true definition Thus then I have made it clear that gifts and popular election are not sufficient to constitute a Minister if the Scripture may be judge we may make use of other civil officers to illustrate it more Keck pol. The Athenian Senators were sworn though the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So are our Magistrates take a Constable though the Town hath chosen him to that office yet if he shall act as a Constable before he be sworn he is a trespassor and a man may have an Action against him for his so doing There is much reason why the popular election should give the essence here but there is no such reason why it should to a Minister yet here we find in civil officers more then election before they can act I pray let us have order in the Church as well This being dispatched now it will necessarily follow that Ordination is necessary to the constitution of a Minister though I should say no more it is but little I intend to say or need to say for the reason I gave before Arg. 1. First Conformity to the rules of God's house in things pertaining to his house is necessary Ordination of Ministers Stewards pertaining to the house is conformity to the rules of the house of God ergo Ordination of Ministers is necessary The major if any deny they must take away the authority of the Scriptures leave men to their own phantasies which no holy man ever dare say so that I doubt not but that will stand The minor if any deny it must be upon one of these two grounds 1. Either denying that we have any positive rules because we have none but examples which shews how Ministers came in to office But if those examples of Apostles commissioned by Christ to order his house having such a promise of his presence with them be not rules to us then we have no rules at all left for officers coming into his house which were strange defect of wisedom to impute to Christ that he should have a house and no order in it and contrary to the old Church which had rules exactly for their officers coming in Nor must popular election be ever more pleaded for Or 2. They must deny it because officers were made without any ordination which is the thing I desire to see proved from Scripture If we observe the practise of the Apostles after they had received the promise of the Spirit and were now fitted and sent forth to act with that Spirit guiding them we find that thus they did set Deacons in the house of God Acts 6.6 Obj. But it is objected That here was no ordination to any office at all there were persons before who did this work that we suppose the Deacons should these men were appointed only for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessity in v. 3. that is to end that difference which arose in v. 1. 1. A. It is true there were some who did distribute the goods of the Church to the poor c. who those were I think Chap. 4. v. ult will tell us They laid the money at the Apostles feet Whence it is clear to me that the Apostles had this burden upon them also compare the verse with chap. 6.2 and this they found a great hinderance to them in their preaching work so that both they could not tend whence by the Spirit they were guided to Institute the Deacon Upon search I find other men of my mind a Inst l. 4. c. 3.9 Calvin b Exam. Con. Trid. p. 217. Chemnitius c In 4. praec p. 766. Zanch. with more whom I could mention 2. The Apostles do not say v. 2. to leave the word of God decide differences but serve Tables which they saw hindered them and one they saw they must neglect or perform not well as we see complaint made whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 3. must answer to that which the Apostles could not attend to in v. 2. which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. As the Church-Members consist of bodies as well as souls which bodies must be provided for by others if they have not of their own to uphold them and since God hath given in charge that collections should be made for the poor Since also there are divers things which belong to the worship of God and things about the Church which must have money to buy them and to answer for them hence it stands with right reason that an Officer be chosen and authorized to be the Church-Treasurer to take in these collections and moneys and by these to serve the poors Table the Lord's Table I conceive they had their Love-feasts at that time also and why they should not attend upon the Minister at the Administration of the Lord's Supper I know not In N. England the Deacons also bring in to the Elders Table they are not troubled as we are here to send to every bodies house in particular for our due 4. It is clear by 1 Tim. 3. and Phil. 1.1 there was such an Officer as a Deacon and that distinct from the Bishop I wonder what was the work of this Deacon being an Officer not the Bishops I am sure then he should not have been distinguish'd from the Bishop neither are the same qualifications in every point required of him that are of the Bishop When or where had this Officer his original I think in this
a man to his work I am sure there is more reason for this and Scripture will more look to us in it then there is for that magisterial power which congregational Ministers not Christ that we can find in Scripture give to the people to keep men as they please from being admitted into the Church and hence against their Pastors qualified men are kept out For the Objections which are made against this Text for Ordination I find these Obj. 1. Some conceive there is no ordination here because he doth not say to the office but for the work whereunto I have called them v. 2. A. By the same reason you may say there was no ordination in Acts 6. because the Apostles in v. 3. do not use the word office but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I am confident those Divines who use this argument do acknowledge there was Ordination 2. If a person be separated to the work of an officer I think he is separated to the office which that work belongs to Q. But what office was it to which they were now separated A. To be Apostles to the Gentiles this I conceive was the business and if we follow them in this and the next Chapters we shall find what was the office I think verse 15. of Chapter 9. is now fulfilled the Lord told Ananias that Paul was a chosen vessel to bear his name amongst the Gentiles and now is Paul ordained to it and not before This was a great worke indeed to have the Gentiles brought into the Church there was need of some solemn act to prove their commission Observe verse 46. of this Chapter Paul says to the Jews Lo we turn to the Gentiles Thus Chrysostom twice it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I think signifies Munus Apostolicum And thus most Divines I meet with affirm Obj. 2. Paul was made an Apostle before Acts 9. A. Prove that the Text holdeth forth no such thing Aretius saith that in Acts 9. Paul was not sent to the Gentiles but to Ananias a quo disceret discenda And Mr. Noyes denieth that Paul was an Apostle in this Chapter 13. but thinks he was an Evangelist 2. Paul was a Preacher before and so had his authoritative mission I doubt not Our Divines in their Comments upon the 1. v. reckon up five eminent persons amongst those Prophets and Teachers mentioned and this runs most smoothly Saul must be one of those or else five will not be found Had Saul been then an Apostle then it should have been there were in the Church at Antioch an Apostle Prophets and Teachers but Luke doth not mention an Apostle which sure he would since he doth inferiour officers For my part I conceive Paul was a Prophet partly because he was filled with the Holy Ghost Acts 9.17 Paul had there an authoritative mission to preach as I conceive the Prophets mentioned were extraordinary persons and their gifts such for ought any thing I could ever see to the contrary as yet partly because I find Prophets did go from one Church to another according as there was cause being men so extraordinarily fitted for service Thus Judas and Silas chap. 15.32 being Prophets were sent c. thus Chap. 11.27 Prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch Thus we find Paul and Barnabas joyned and sent together Chapter 11.30 and 12.25 and these two abode together a whole year at Antioch Chap. 11.26 But that he was an Apostle before now I see nothing to force it Paul then being one of these and now called to an higher office this doth not prove Re-ordination to the same office any person in office and called to a higher office ought to be ordained to it though he was ordained to an inferiour office before Re-ordination to the same office I know no warrant for 3. After Christs Ascension Apostles were not chosen in such a private way as that Acts 9. would hold out We find Matthias Acts 1. chosen in a publick and solemn manner God declaring his choise So here in Acts 13. in a publick meeting Paul is called and separated in a solemn manner Obj. 3. If Paul were ordained an Apostle then the greater was blessed of the lesser his Apostolical power and order was given by them who themselves had not Apostolical power being but Prophets and Teachers A. 1. They were not commanded to bless but separate Ordination and blessing differ very much we might as well say Why should the less separate the greater so we find it here and it is in vain to dispute against it if God will have it so but this was extraordinary 2. Paul's Apostolical power he received from him who commanded him to be separated that is the Holy Ghost yet he is pleased to command these to separate him to it and surely such persons who ordain others by vertue of an immediate command and revelation from God though their office be inferiour to the persons ordained yet this immediate command and revelation will countervail the act of others who are equal in office They acted all by an immediate and extraordinary revelation whence Paul might well say it was by the will of God not of man that he was an Apostle hence the Text saith v. 4. they were sent forth by the Holy Ghost The call was from the Holy Ghost the command to separate them was from the Holy Ghost 3. That Barnabas was made an Apostle now I think will not be denied that he was an Apostle Chap. 14. v. 14. tells us which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul c. Thus Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. p. 373 375. mentioning some of the writings of Barnabas calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice Thus Hierom Catal. Script Eccles saith of him Barnabas was ordained Apostle of the Gentales with Paul Others I. could quote who call him the Apostle Barnabas But that Barnabas was an Apostle before now I think none will say for the Text is clear against him Why then Paul should not now be made an Apostle also I see no reason as well as Barnabas Hierom saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. If Paul were separated before to the office of an Apostle what need he be separated now again I know no instance in Scripture where men were twice separated to the same office Corn. a Lap. upon the Text speaks thus Saulus jam ab initio suae conversionis a Deo designatus auctoratus erat Apostolus Gentium Acts 9.15 Sed in actu primo secretè hìc in actu secundo publicè designatur Apostolus Mr. Noyes who writes against impostion of hands finding it used in this place saith Paul was indeed called out of course and therefore God may by this sign with many other commend Paul to the Church as an Apostle of Christ Yet but an Evangelist as yet with him See Waltherus Harmon p. 490. Also Aretius upon the Text. Arg. 2. If Christ hath committed power to Ministers to ordain Ministers then Ordination is
officers known but by their actions To say That though the brethren doe the same things yet they doe them not as their Officers is to say nothing How shall we know that If any man may make a warrant and that warrant is as valid as the Justices how shall a man know who is Justice the name may differ but not the power Ergo not the office 2. We finde divers promises made to the Church of Gods giving Officers Jer. 3.15 23.4 Ezek. 34.25 Isa 30.20 But if every body may do the officers acts then God seems to make promises of good to his Church which are needlesse a great shew of mercy but no mercy indeed There is no need no use of the things promised what would this impute to God 3. Our Divines have maintained against the Papists that Matth. 28.19 was spoken to the Apostles and the Ministers of the word their successors and the context will force it I think if he spoke to the eleven Apostles v. 16. And though the Lords Supper is not there mentioned yet surely it was there included there is par ratio Let any man bring a proof from Scripture or antiquity that ever any but an officer did administer the Lords Supper Docete baptizate Matth. 28.19 Haec dicuntur solis Apostolis Ministris verbi certum est haec non fuisse dicta hominibus privatis Bell. ener co 3. p. 342 In Actis Apostolorum nihil omnino legitur de privatis Christianis absque speciali revelatione baptizantibus saith Learned Ames 4. The Church-officers under the Old Testament had such acts peculiar to them as none but they could doe It were strange that Christ should institute Officers under the New Testament and they should have nothing proper to them 5. If this be true then all the body is an Eye The foot may say to the eye though you are placed above and I below yet I doe the same acts you doe and it is not the place but the organ and the action which makes an eye It is not the place but the actions shew the Officer that member which seeth is the eye place it where you will if all see then all are eyes But the Apostle denieth the whole body to be an eye 1 Cor. 12. 6. Church-officers are called Stewards â—verseers Preachers Ambassadors Rulers We would think it strange men would not bear it in civil acts to have every body doe the acts which belong to these Relations as much order I hope in Gods house as in other houses or States He is every where a God of order but this was spoken in reference to his House especially I intend to add no more arguments to prove the necessity of Ordinantion I have onely two objections to answer which two eminent Divines made against me maintaining the necessity of Ordination Obj. 1. We read of no Ordination but it was performed either by extraordinary persons or at least some such were present when they died who know where they left the power The Bishop Presbyter Fraternity each of these challenge the power but who knows to whom it belongs Answ The first part of the objection cutts off Ordination wholly and that is chiefly aimed at The second part doth seem to yield it could we but finde who should Administer it To the first part I answer 1. It 's no wonder though we finde extraordinary persons in the administration of this Ordinance when they were in Being In the first beginnings these must ordain or none we have but the histories of planting of Churches in the New Testament where none were before and this was done by persons extraordinary 2. All that extraordinary persons did I hope did not die with them What is there more extraordinary in Ordination then in Preaching why must not Preaching die as well as ordination to Preaching The action is no more then may be performed by ordinary Ministers If it be said as I know it is they conveyed gifts in Ordination I shall answer this when I come to Mr. Noyes 3. How shall we prove that there were Ministers elected without the presence acting guidance and consent of extraordinary officers I think no man can prove there were any so chosen by the examples we have of the peoples choise for extraordinary persons were ever present and we finde they acted By the same reason throw away Election which this Divine would hardly doe Walaeus To. 2. p. 51. Nullum etiam occurret exemplum in toto Novo Testamento nec in primitiva Ecclesia quae Apostolorum aetatem excepit ullam ullius ordinarii Doctor is Electionem in ulla Ecclesia peractam fuisse sine consensu consilio aliquorum saltem Doctroum This pincheth 4. Were the Churches so blinde that they could not see this to be an extraordinary thing and that to die with these officers Would the extraordinary officers admit ordinary Presbyters to joyn with them in that work which was proper to them as extraordinary officers But that they did so the Epist to Timo. doth plainly carry it and was no doubt the ground of that Canon 3. in Concil Carth. 4. where Presbyters were to impose hands with the Bishop 5. Were the Epistles to Timothy and Titus writ to them as extraordinary officers I know when Timothy is called upon to do the work of an Evangelist this was proper to him as such an officer but I think laying aside that which was proper to them as Evangelists which did not consist in the administration of any Ordinance those Epistles were written to Ministers They must preach the Word be instant in season and out of season c. as well as Timothy and why not I pray commit the things 2 Tim. 2.2 c. 2 Tim. 2.2 lay hands on none suddenly as well as Timothy What extraordinary matter is in this above the other 6. Shall persons come into the Ministry untried whether they be fit or unfit sound or heretical No by no meanes this is judged a dangerous thing Men must be tried and that by those who are able to judge as now we have Commissioners But what Scripture-rule have you for this If you leave out the Epistles to Timothy and Titus 1 Tim. 3.10 I doubt you will hardly finde any in Scripture but Timothy and Titus were extraordinary persons and what have we to doe with their Epistles but if you will make use of those Epistles to mainain your trial of men it was a Commissioner that made this objection against me give us leave to make use of the same Epistles to prove our Ordination of Ministers those who are able to do the one I hope are as able to do the other For the second part of the Objection I little regard that As for the Fraternty let the people bring forth their Charter and shew us where the great Lord gave them this power Against this I have argued a little I intended but a little in my book against the Separatists p.
say if you will mould your Churches according to those in the Scripture and have divers Elders to carry on the Affaires of the Church why then may we not have one Elder among these who may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose a standing Moderator For in those Churches we find mention made of an Angel in Ephesus and the other Churches which seem to imply as much I answer If you doe not make this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Presbyter standing Moderator or what other name you will give him a distinct Scriptural Officer from other Presbyters giving to him a power distinct from and superiour to the power of other Preaching Presbyters whence he shall perform some Church-Acts which other preaching Presbyters shall not or cannot perform so that it be no distinct or superiour power but onely order which is contended for I am well content to yield it being ready to goe with others for peace and unities sake till they come to constitute Officers which Christ never did then I say Hold. But for a standing Moderator one that Durante vitâ modo bene se gesserit shall keep that place let him per me licet For 1. In the meetings of Councils there must be one who must rule and order the affairs at those times a President a Moderator must be reason leads us to it to avoid confusion and this is seen in the synodical meetings of Congregational Elders 2. He who is chosen President or Moderator this Session may be the next and the next we may choose him for one year or two years what Scripture text forbids it why may we not twenty 3. I am so far from thinking it is contrary to Scripture that I think it comes neerest to Scripture I may declare my opinion with submission to better judgements for as for the word Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the seven Churches though I cannot agree to that which that ever honoured and learned Davenant doth gather from it namely Determ 42. the superiority of the Bishop above other Presbyters because here was one in the Church of Ephesus c. which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what Isidore saith of created Angels Angelus est nomen officii non naturae semper sunt spiritus sed cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli I may apply to this if all true preaching Ministers are sent as they are Rom. 10. then they also are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think our Divines have spoken sufficiently to take off this yet with favour I conceive that Christ mentioning an Angel in the singular number and reason telling us what must be in all orderly Meetings Councils to avoid confusion there being divers Elders in one Church who had the care inspection and government of it I conceive those Elders had one who for order sake was a President Moderator though he had not power above them as may be proved by other Scriptures that ordered the transactions when they met nor can I conceive it was so for one Session or two but for his life for ought I can learn he that can let him prove the contrary in that he is taken notice of so in a special manner it should seem he was one that was so more then one or two Sessions 4. I verily conceive that error be not offended I pray if I call it so for I humbly conceive it to be so which so soon crept in of one assuming power above other Presbyters took its first rise upon occasion of this Order God's providence so ordering it to leave his own Servants to their wisedom and wills who freely acting made way at last for his Decrees for if the President or Moderator had shifted and changed every Session I cannot tell which way it was possible a Pope should have risen Obj. Therefore away with your standing Moderator you have spoken enough against it Ans Stay not too fast must I throw away every thing that may be or is abused occasio and causa differ much Diotrephes and so other Ministers may abuse their power shall then a Minister have no power over his people Tollatur abusus maneat usus Obj. But for Ministers power we have Scripture for it plainly so we have not for a constant standing Moderator Ans By Scripture Authority we make Officers who have power from Christ immediately I am not discoursing of the making of a Church-Officer and what power such an Officer should have I disclaim this power and order are two things 2. That Text which before I produced I know not what fairer Interpretation can be given of it I can exclude superiority of power by other Scriptures but why an Interpretation of Scripture which crosses no other Scripture nor sound reason and hath such fair probability from the practise of the most ancient should not be admitted especially when a fairer Interpretation cannot be given for my part I know none I know no reason The most that can be objected against me is matter of Prudence But I conceive 1. that which comes neerest to make peace in the Church and doth not cross the Scripture that is prudence 2. That which comes neerest to Scripture Interpretation having the practice of so many ancient holy Men and Martyrs though I know they went higher to give light to it this I call prudence 3. Time will discover which will have most prudence in it whether a Moderator or President changed every Session or a standing Moderator I think now we are out of danger of making a Pope if his time of ruine be so neer as some think Thus I have delivered my thoughts humbly conceiving that a Church so moulded as there may be divers elders in it and amongst these one chosen for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 president or what you will call him for order sake to abide so constantly come neerest to the plat-form of the Churches in the Scripture and in this there is something of the Congregational something of the Classical and something like the Episcopal way such a Church for the exercise of its power being independent as was the Church in Ephesus But to have one Pastor and it may be twelve men to stand alone and to exercise all Church-power when they may associate I desire to see such a Church in Scripture PART II. CHAP. I. A Plea for Ordination To. 4. Disp 9. q. 1. p. 1. I own no Church Officer which is not ordained Nemo ad ordinariam in ecclesiâ functionem sive ad Diaconatum sive ad Presbyteratum c. admitti debet nisi legitimè electus ordinatus Zanch. 4. praec p. â—77 ALthough I am far from Valentia's judgment making Ordination a Sacrament strictly so called yet in this I think he saith true when he would have the word Ordination to be taken from the effect of that Ordinance Quia per Ordinationem aliquis in gradu quodam atque Ordine certo ecclesiasticae dignitatis
well or pray for them or bless them after their manner they laid their hands on their heads and so imposition is now laid aside A. But stay a little 1. Are you certain that these prayed while they imposed hands in ordination I do not see how you will force it out of the Text nor can you force it from Acts 6.6 the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Aor 1. Whence the Syriack and Arabick Translations with which Piscator and others agree render the words and when they had prayed they laid hands plainly signifying that the prayers went before imposition nor I am sure will this Text help them for what I pray Did they impose hands all the while they fasted and prayed surely their armes were very weary to lie upon their heads a whole day whence it is more probable after that day was well spent in fasting and prayer then they imposed hands Then the Jews common custome doth not make imposition so silly a thing 2. In the consecration of the Levites and so of the Priests where we find Imposition we find no mention of prayer at all that I see much less at their Imposition if it were it was not the essence of the ordinance so far as I can learn I know divers of God's things must be esteemed as slight things if our heads must be judges But I think Tertul. spake excellently De paeniten Audaciam existimo de bono divini praecepti disputare neque enim quia bonum est idcirco auscultare debemus sed quia Deus praecepit c. 3. Ordination is the authorizing of a person to his work So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 6.3 plainly imply Both H. Stephens and Scapula agree that the word signifies * Constituo sic Constituere Regem vel Creare H. Stephens Ib. praeficio Hinc praefectus to put in authority to give rule to ordain a Ruler So these Texts Acts 7.10.27 Luc. 12.42 make it clear with other Texts H. Stephens Thes To. 1. p. 1768. quoting of these Texts Matth. c. 24. cap. 25. Acts 6. Luc. 12. where the word is used saith Quibus in locis non constituere solum sed praeficere verti potest Sur. Ch. Dis p. 3. p. 9. quidem aptiùs To this reverend Hooker agreeth The Lord Christ in his Kingly care conceived it necessary for the honour of the place and the execution of the work of a Deacon to appoint choise men and solemn Ordination to authorize them to the work c. But then how Prayer doth properly carry any thing of this nature in it I do not apprehend define prayer and see how it suits with authorizing nothing like it to beg and to authorize are not the same Unless we look on Ordination as the consecration of a man to God then a prayer may be part of the essence 4. If you ask me what is then truly I find it hard to answer it is plain to me it is not that which some cry up so and content themselves with dissenting from their brethren Imposition of hands I am sure is in the Text and must come into Ordination I find that the old Non-conformists speaking first of the election of a Minister in which the help of neighbouring Ministers must be required then add After that he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the eldership with these words pronounced by the Minister thereunto appointed According to this lawful calling agreeable to the word of God whereby thou art chosen Pastor In the name of God stand thou charged with the Pastoral charge of this people over which the Holy Ghost hath made thee Overseer to govern the flock of God which he hath purchased with his blood When I read these words it made me call to mind the manner of the ordination of two Deacons in N. England about sixteen years fince which was the last ordination I saw or can remember any thing of my memory may fail me in some circumstance but as I do remember it was very little different from this The Pastor and the Teacher Imposed hands and then said We do in the name of Christ ordain thee N.N. Mat. 10.5 Mark 3.14 Luc. 9.2 Christ called ordained sent his Disciples forth to preach with power and authority he in his own name we in his name surely Christ used words suitable naming the person Deacon of this Church c. then what duties the Scripture puts upon the Deacon they framed into a handsome form when they had so done a short prayer they made their hands being still upon the Deacons head According to the form of the Non-conformists and the Church in N. England there is something appears like authorizing of a person to his work Now if the question be whether this be lawful or not where have we warrant for this that words were thus used in the primitive times is plain enough to those who read Hierom Ambrose Austin For Scripture this is plain though some of these words be not set down in the Scripture yet if there be an authorizing appointing Acts 6.3 a separating setting apart Acts 13. Some words must be spoken that must signifie so much and what breach of rule it is to say we ordain or set apart being the person is now setting apart the thing is doing For using the name of Christ I hope it is he who hath given Pastors and Teachers to his Church and from him doth the person now ordaining receive his power immediately It was not the Kingdom of Heaven gave Peter the keys I do not say the form of Ordination lies in these words I am not willing to make that the formalis ratio of an ordinance which I have not expresse Scripture for I would not give my adversary so much advantage yet Reason tells that prayer alone or imposition of hands alone or both without words suitable cannot make an Ordination but Christ gave Peter immediately the keys of the Kingdom of heaven under his authority in his name they must act For the other words applying to the person ordaining what duties the Scriptures do charge such an office withal I hope this ought to be else it were a raw business So that by necessary consequence from Scripture I cannot well see how these things can be denied who can prove the Apostles did not use some such words though they be not set down A sending Rom. 10. Setting apart Appointing there must be and is then give us that which shew and expresse these words they were rational men and the Spirit purely rational which guided them whence we may well conceive something was spoken which answered the Scriptural expressions and so long as we hold to them I can see no harm but that rather ought to be Let others speak more rationally who oppose this and leaving out imposition of hands with these expressions shew what you do which doth carry in it the authorizing of
42. S. 41 42 50. 5. Carry the objection to our first Reformers where it should seem to have most strength what godly man is there who calls to mind Cranmer Latimer Hooper Ridly Philpot Bradford c. persons upon whom this objection would fall as to their own Ministry and their ordaining of others that would not be ashamed of himself should he null their Ministry and as some though this Divine abhors it I believe whose mouths are full of nothing but Antichristian call these Antichristian Ministers because ordained by Popish men Thou who callest these Antichristian Ministers rise up with them in the morning answer them in holiness go to the prisons with them and from thence to the stake and burn with them for the sake of Christ grant it they were ordained as the objection runs after inlightning they threw off Popery but their Ordination they held being no Popish Invention they go on still to preach baptize c. and ordain others Why not when these men were ordained by such men they had a Ministerial charge put upon them set apart to the work of the Ministry to dispense the things of Christ not of Mahomet or such like While they were in the dark they acted superstitiously afterwards more purely the corruptions they reformed the substance they kept and so our Divines now Will not the mercy of God pardon this and keep his sacrifice still in his Church I doubt not but he will The usual distinctions made 1. Between a person and his office 2. Between the substance of an ordinance and the accidental corruptions of it 3. Between what cometh through Rome being Christ's Institutions and what cometh from Rome being their own Inventions these distinctions will soon answer the objection 6. To. 2. p. 66. Learned Ames in his answer to Bellarmin urging this Ecclesia nullo modo potest esse sine Pastoribus Episcopis illi soli sunt veri Episcopi qui ab Apostolis per legitimam successionem Ordinationem descendisse ostenduntur c. speaks thus Ab Apostolis descenderunt ownes illi Pastores qui secundum canones Apostolicos in Scripturis traditos sunt in ecclesia constituti 4. Horum perpetua successio ab Apostolis Apostolicis viris non est necessariò ostendenda ex historiarum humanarum incertis testimoniis sed ex promissione illa Christi qua spospondit se per omnes aetates excitaturum operarios ad salutem electorum procurandam 5. Ordinandi potestas quoad jus cuique ecclesiae particulari est a Deo concessa Now for his last 6. Pastores hunc in modunt descendentes justo jure ordinatos habemus nos per Dei gratiam in omnibus ecclesiis ex voto nostro constitutis If any should take hold of the last words and suppose the Doctor means gathered Churches in which the people did ordain surely they wrong the Doctor much I wonder how many such Churches there were when the Doctor wrote neither had the Doctor answered Bellarmin who opposes all Ministers not ordained by the Roman power but had fallen off from Rome then the Doctor must own the ordination of the Reformed Ministers else he said nothing to the Jesuit I wish this Divine would answer Bellarmin better Doctor Ames uses to be esteemed of amongst Congregational men 7. For Rome being a true Church it is well known that Rome is more corrupt now in Doctrine then it was when our first Reformers fell off what difference there is between the former and latter School-men who knows not so that Rome is not now what it was then when our men had their Ordination from thence But may we not say as our brethren do of Parish-Congregations they will not deny the most understanding and sober of them but that in many parishes there are true Churches though they will not say the whole parish is a true Church according to the constitution So there is a true Church under the Romish jurisdiction though we do not say Rome is a true Church But what shall we say to such a people where the true God and the Trinity with the Attributes of God Jesus Christ in his divine and human nature the satisfaction and price of Christ as the meritorious cause of our justification * See Bellar de Justif l 1. c. 2. l. 2. c. 5. and pardon The Scriptures All the ordinances of God The doctrine of the Free-grace of God in opposition to mans proud free-will O excellent Bradwardin and Alvarez c. are owned defended believed where there are persons who walk according to Scripture rules in a great degree what shall we say is here no Church If our State have been rightly guided when they made the Act to Tolerate those who own One God Christ and Scriptures then a Church in Rome may be owned where these and many other truths are maintained more soundly then they will be by many of our tolerated persons yea it were well if all the members of Congregated Churches in England were as sound in those truths before mentioned and as holy in their conversations as are divers who live under Rome As for the Pope were it no more but bare government compared with the carriage of many Church-members I may say as Learned Mr. Norton of N. England in his Epistle to the General Court Is there no medium between Boniface and Morellius between Papacy and Anarchy Babylon and Babel c. both are naught the Peoples Anarchy as well as the Popes Tyranny and his Tyranny will not sooner deny a Church there as to Discipline then Anarchy doth in these members we see the effect how many men in England have turned Papists since they saw these carriages in the Churches But again What mean those Texts Come out of her my people Rev. 18.4 if there be no Church there The womans flying into the wilderness Rel. 12.6 take it as Mr. Mead or as Pareus yet it will argue a true Church to have been under Rome The witnesses prophesied 1260. days during the time of the womans being in the wilderness they were to feed her this must needs fall under the time before the Reformation begin it when you will More I could say but I think this is sufficient to prove that Ordination may and ought still to be continued notwithstanding Rome and that it is necessary to a Minister And since both these objections are made against me by Commissioners though I would hope more Disputandi gratiâ then being indeed opposite to my Thesis I say I would be glad to hope so and since this Script may possibly fall into some of their hands I wish humbly and I know I could have hundreds of godly Ministers to joyn with me they would please to take off that offence which I conceive is justly given to the most part of the godly Ministry in England when they see them let into the Ministry persons illiterate and some blame-worthy in their conversations as I am informed by godly
or chiefly Mr. Cartw. thus By Imposition of hands the Apostle meaneth no Sacrament Rhem. Test much lesse confirmation after Baptism but by Trope or borrowed speech the Ministry of the Church upon the which hands were laid which appeareth in that whosoever believeth not there ought to be a Ministry by order to teach and govern the Church overthroweth Christianity this is to the point indeed Mr. Sur. Ch. Dis p. 1. p. 7. Hooker proves that Church Discipline is a fundamental point of Religion from hence thus Laying on of hands being by a Metonymy of the Adjunct put for Ordination and Ordination one particular put for the whole of Discipline Having then these men and these no babes on my side I will see what reason there is why Ordination here must not be meant For confirmation which so many expound it of I searched amongst those Protestant Divines which I had to find a definition of it in our Protestant sense and why they call it so but I could not find one who gave me satisfaction but Chemnitius Exam. Concil Trid. de confirmat The Papists definition I knew and a pretty one it is That which Chemnitius speaks gave me great content but I could wish some body would prove this is the meaning of Imposition in this Text for then we should have one more strong ground for Infant-Baptism as we may gather by Chemnitius opening of confirmation Casting my eye on Diodati I see he thus expounds it and hence gathers Infant-Bpatism But this is not sufficient we call for proof now I know Imposition of hands was after Baptism in Scripture except Act. 9.17 and so far as we can learn from Scripture we find 1. Extraordinary gifts were ever the effect of it So Acts 8. Acts 9. Acts 19. nor do we find any other end of it these gifts being conveyed in a way above nature might very well tend to the confirming them in their faith received and so well called confirmation But in the confirmation we talk of there is no such thing nor do I see why we should call it confirmation 2. The persons who did Impose hands were either Apostles or persons extraordinarily raised We read but of one Ananias Acts 9. I do not find the Evangelists did Impose Hence the Bishops who call themselves the Apostles successors they claime this power and poore Presbyters must not do it at least without leave from them That then which truly deserves the name confirmation is ceased many hundred years since But for the thing it self which our Divines call confirmation as Chemnitius lays it down Instit l. 4. c. 19. s 4. I could heartily wish with Calvin that it were brought into practise only Imposition I think might be left out yet I would not contend with him who did use it rather so then not have the thing practised Musculus speaking of Imposition in confirmation saith The Imposition of the Apostles was of miraculous operation Loc. Com. p. 321. and ceased long since Exemplum illius retinuerunt Episcopi quo magis Apostolorum viderentur esse successores But he speaks nothing against Imposition in Ordination But to the Text let us see why Ordination must be shut out here 1. The key of Interpretation I take to be the word Foundation and principles c. as we Translate So Camerarius Sunt necessaria Dogmata Capita doctrinae Christianae quae enumerantur hoc loco So Chrysostom Now it seems strange to me that a foundation should be lost out of the Church above fifteen hundred years I thought foundations should hold so long as the building lasts take away a foundation the house must be in danger But if this be meant of Ordination then it holds for the Ministry shall hold so long as the Church holds till the body be perfected Eph. 4. But if confirmation and extraordinary gifts which were the only effect so far as we find in Scripture as before I touched then this foundation is gone long since 2. Faith Repentance and Baptism are to last to the end of the world Some of our Divines do from this Text prove against the Socinians that Water-Baptism is an ordinance still to continue because it is put amongst the foundations Chatechetical heads why then the Ministry which is Christ's great ordinance to convert to beget faith which comes by hearing c. and authorized to baptize to the end of the world should not be meant by Imposition Matth. 28.20 but a temporary thing which was to vanish presently I can see no reason 3. That Imposition alone is put for Ordination we have other Scriptures to shew 1 Tim. 5 4. as before but shew us another Text where Imposition alone is put for confirmation 4. Extraordinary gifts were conveyed without Imposition of hands as Act. 2.10 Act. 44.4 why then Imposition should only signifie the Holy Ghost which yet was given without it I am not satisfied 5. Then these Divines must prove that all who were baptized had hands Imposed and extraordinary gifts conferred else the placing after Baptism proves nothing if onely to some baptized persons and pro tempore what is this to prove it meant of confirmation for I hope all baptized ones are to be confirmed in their sense But this will be hard to prove One thing more I shall add when I come to Mr. Noyes why it should be meant of extraordinary gifts Camero gives the strongest reason But yet I hope to an indifferent Reader it doth appear by what I have said that there is no forcing reason why Ordination should be shut out but may at least be fairly implied So much for my second argument Arg. 3. That Act which the Church ever used and that regularly in ordaining of Officers ought to be used in Ordination But Imposition of hands is an Act which the Church ever used and that regularly in ordaining c. Ergo The Major seems so fair that I think no rational man will deny it The Minor is clear the Church under the Old Testament used this act Numb 8.10 Upon which verse Mr. Ainsworth thus speaketh This rite was kept at the Ordination of Officers both in the Old Testament and in the New Acts 6.6 13.3 By this sign they did put the charge and service of the Church upon them c. Then why it ought not still to be used I know not Mr. Ains was a man learned holy and far from Popery or idle Ceremonies Arg. 4. Let us suppose Prayer and Fasting to be of the essence of Ordination as say our Brethren If Prayer and Fasting without Imposition do not difference Ordination from another Ordinance then Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The reason of the Consequence is because every Ordinance hath something in it whereby it is distinguished from others so must this have something Here I lie open to two Objections Some will say Why do
not you put in those words which they call verba creantia where some put the very essence of the Ordinance To these I answer Mr. Weems saith In their Churches when they Ordain a Minister they give him the Book of God in his hand to signifie that now he hath power to preach the word as the Priests hand was filled with flesh Numb 3.3 P. 105. Although I do agree with the old non-conformists and other Churches that some such words must be used and by necessary consequence it will be forced as before I spake yet I rather use this because it is my question and that which we have plain Scripture for and so feeling Scripture at my back shall be more able to make good my ground The other party say by this I put the form of Ordination in Imposition for forms distinguish I do not at this time assert what it is but finding it in Scripture I argue against those who leave it out Walaeus we see could not tell whether to call it a Rite or an essential part I know Bellarmin and other Papists look on it as part of the essence of Ordination and if they do so I do not blame them they having Scripture for it as I blame those who leave it out Doctor Owen in his Review of the nature of S. p. 23. tells us that by Ordination of Ministers many upon a mistake understand only the Imposition of hands used therein I have not met with any of this opinion I find none of the Papists speaking thus who make as much of it as any then adds Ordination of Ministers is one thing Imposition of hands is another differing as the whole and the part Enough If a Totum then Totum universale he cannot mean but Totum Integrale then Imposition of hands stands affected to Ordination as membrum to Integrum which is Symbolum causae essentialis then not an Adjunct If it be a part and a principal part then where there is no Imposition there is no Ordination for sublatâ parte principali tollitur Integrum If it be not a principal but less principal yet Ordination is but Imperfect for sublatâ quâlibet parte tollitur perfectio Integri Then let those who are ordained as they say they are without Imposition of hands consider their Ordination and I hope they cannot be offended with me for refusing at best an imperfect ordination when I could have a more perfect Ordination One of their own Ordainers hath spoken enough for me I pray tell us how praying and fasting for a blessing upon a person elected is an Ordinance distinct We Pray and Fast for rain for fair seasons for peace for success in war for health for counsel in great affairs c. But I hope praying and fasting for these ends does not make these several and distinct Ordinances but it seems it should be so as well as praying fasting for a blessing on a person elected makes this a distinct Ordinance prayer and fasting is but one Ordinance by it self used for many ends Moreover we seldom fast and pray nay never I think at a neighbour Congregation but the Ministers use to pray for a blessing upon the Minister of that Congregation then it seems so often we Ordain him this is absurd Also good people fast and pray before election what is it then I know not how they will avoid it but they must confound Election and Ordination which I am sure is contrary to Scripture When Paul wrote to Timothy he did not charge him that he should not fast and pray suddenly but not Impose hands suddenly Words used which signifie sending setting apart appointing to the office with Imposition of hands do distinguish Ordination from other Ordinances 5. The last Argument I shall use will be ad hominem yet I think there is something in it If Satan from a wicked Imitation of God hath made use of Imposition of hands in the consecration of his Ministers then Christians from an obediential Imitation of God ought to use Imposition of hands in the Ordination of Christ's Ministers Satan in his worship hath ever loved to imitate God in his worship As Justin Martyr Apol. 2. and Tertul. Praescrip adv Haeret. both shew how this Ape hath taken example from the worship God had appointed in his house and accordingly appointed the form of his worship So in the consecration of his Priests Livy reports of Numa that hands were Imposed upon his head cum summo sacerdotio initiaretur Why should not we upon another principle stick close then to the examples in the Word since the Divel thinks there is something in it I suppose he took it from the Levites I am not ignorant that some of our Divines though they do use it yet they look upon it as indifferent So Polanus Manuum Impositio est in rerum indifferentium numero Synt. The. l. 9. c. 33. quia a Deo expresse praecepta non est Yet adds Si in aliquibus Ecclesiis Impositio manuum recepta est usitata improbari minime debet cum exemplo Apostolico nitatur Say you so then I think you had no reason to disapprove of it indeed Thus also Chemnitius Exam. Concil Trid. p. 222. his reason Nec enim necessitatem voluâ—runt Apostoli Ecclesiis imponere de quâ ipsi nullum habebant Christi mandatum The summe is we have examples indeed but no commands and therefore indifferent To which I say 1. Then make the rule general What examples soever we have in the word for which we find no commands those examples are but indifferent we may follow or not This must be a certain truth else we shall ask the reason why some examples having no commandment are to be imitated but the examples of Imposition of hands in Ordination are not to be imitated I know all examples are not imitable but I cannot lanch forth in that discourse See what follows Hence 1. Popular election of a Minister is a thing indifferent I regard not whether I be elected or not we have some examples though none such as our popular elections indeed but we find no command that the plebs should choose their Minister Chemnitius had been pleading for popular election and to prove it brings in some examples out of the New Testament when he had done he adds Haec exempla Apostolicae Historiae clarè ostendunt electionem pertinere ad universam Ecclesiam certo quodam modo ut suae in electione seu vocatione sint partes Presbyterii populi But if Chemnitius will plead for more then an indifferency in it I must bar this play to have him come in with Haec exempla I can shew him Haec exempla more clear for Ordination by Imposition c. 2. Hence the consent of the people in admissions for which I know neither example nor command and excommunications of members is but indifferent for the latter though it may be conceived we have an example yet
necessary to a Minister But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for to what end was the power committed if it need not be executed it is to accuse Christ of want of wisedom to give a needless power to officers to command them to do a thing and order them strictly in doing of it if men may come into office without it If I have a power committed to me to preach and baptize then some are bound to hear and to be baptized So in this 1. For the Antecedent 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands on no man suddenly p. 2. p. 50. In quo praecepto non solum exemplum sed mandatum continetur saith Walaeus That Ordination is here meant there is such a unanimous consent of the Church that I think there is no question of it Thus the Fathers Lutherans Calvinists Episcopal * Synod N. E. platf ch p. 11. M. Hooker Sur Ch. Disp p. 2. p. 74. Classical and Congregational yea though divers of the Papists do understand their Sacrament of Pennance yet Anselm Cajetan Cor. a Lap. Justin Salmeron understand it rather of Ordination But I must meet with this Text again and then I will prove it must be meant of Ordination 2. 2 Tim. 2.2 few Interpreters that I see touch that which I aim at i.e. How did Timothy commit or what was it for him to commit c. The things which we had heard not Traditions as the Papists hence gather for Quae Apostolus Timotheo viva voce tradidit Gerh. in loc sunt eadem cum illis quae scriptis consignavit he must commit To whom They must be faithful mon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to teaach others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostom upon this Text and Cartwright in his Comment upon the speech of Christ to Nicodemus would make us believe it is not so easie a matter to be a Minister as our vain heads in these days take it to be But still how did Timothy commit these was it by teaching or preaching to them so he did commit them to weak men and women as well as able men was it by writing these so the whole Church had them committed This is clear the men must be able before the things be committed his teaching might help them to be able but being qualified and able how doth he commit them Surely by laying on of hands i.e. ordaining of them and thus separating them to the work of the Ministry he doth indeed commit them If this Interpretation do not please give me a better After much searching I found one or two go my way Non solum fideliter eos doceas sed etiam potestatem alios docendi ipsis conferas this is Commenting in Gerh. opinion Magna cura eligendus est Doctor saith Ambrose in loc If you lay hold of eligendus pray take it in a large sense as Ambrose doth and it was Timothy's election Anselm and Bullinger incline also this way The 3 Titus 5. Titus is left in Crete to Constitute or Ordain Elders I doe not remember that Clemens uses any other word but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the same in his Epist ad Corin. when he speaks of the Apostles ordaining of Officers Doubtless saith Musculus as Paul left Titus to ordain Loc. Com. p. 198. so Titus kept the method Paul used i. e. election prayer and imposition of hands Those then that come into the Ministry in Crete they must be ordained In vain were those words to Timothy and Titus if ordination were such a needless thing Timothy and Titus also being Church-officers where is this popular election that is so much cried up to give the Essence One would think the Apostle should have given strict command to the people to look to their Election because it gave the Essence but not be so exact with Timothy and Titus who gave but an adjunct who can deny the adjunct or of what force is it when the essence is given before Timothy and Titus might well say nay Paul We are clear we must not ordain whom we will See separ exam p. 55. ad 59. but whom the people will to whom they give the essence if an unworthy fellow be chosen let the fault lie where it doth it cannot on us if we gave the essence it were true indeed whether we will ordain them or not that hinders not for they have the essence then act they may sure enough without us Arg. 3. It is necessary that he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Minister should shew true Authority by which he doth them But he who doth the Authoritative Acts of a Minister without Ordination cannot shew true Authority by which he doth them Ergo Ordination is necessary to a Minister The Major is plain it holds in all Acts of Authority else a man is an usurper By what authority dost thou these things said they to Christ the question was rational if Christ had not Authority he would not have done them Minor He who shews true Authority for his Ministerial Acts must shew Scripture-authority But he that performs Ministerial Acts without Ordination cannot shew Scripture-authority Ergo. The major is plain The minor if any deny let them produce their Scripture-authorities He who is sufficiently qualified elected supposing there is a Church already and ordained this man I am sure may shew his Authority But he that is not Ordained cannot shew it I know no Scripture to warrant it Let our question be attended I have heard it affirmed and that strongly from a person of no small abilities that the Fraternity may Preach Baptize administen the Supper as well as the Pastor the common Scriptures urged by this wilde generation and Acts 10.48 were alledged I never heard that the Papists or our Bishops would allow any private man to baptize in a Church where there were Ministers present this text would force it if these men argue right provided they can prove that these brethren were private men and Peter not extraordinarily guided which yet they have not done But a little further 1. It was granted there are Church-Officers and shall be till the body be perfected Eph. 4. If so then these Officers have some things so proper to them that they are not common to others But if all men may preach baptize administer the Supper there is nothing proper to the Officers if any thing it must be government which first is by many denied But if it be yielded why may they not take this also as well as the rest but if Church-officers have nothing proper to them how are they officers That officers have something proper to them I think none can deuy the nature of the thing will carry it in all Officers If all can make warrants c. where is the office of a Justice and thus in other offices what is common to all is proper to none how are
70 c. For the Bishop and the Presbyter it must first be proved that these are distinct officers jure divino or else the contest is vain this is not a question for me to handle in this place but I can safely say this there must be more brought from Divine writ then I see is yet brought to prove it or else I can acknowledge no such thing I suppose Bishop Davenant in his Determination upon the question hath summed up what can be brought from Scripture but that will not doe yet he there in some cases will allow Presbyters to ordain and I think our case is as weighty as any Anselm the Popish Canterburian Arch-Bishop in his Comment upon Titus 1. Though I see much of it is taken out of Jerom gave me enough to quiet my thoughts about this question such lines from his pen took much with me considering the Scriptures he brought I am sure he that made the objection did not own any such distinction I think no sober Bishop did ever yet deny the Ordinations in the French Dutch and Scottish Churches to be valid The second Objection was made by another reverend Divine when I passed the Commissioners He put this question to me Whether I judged Ordination necessary to the Constitution of a Minister I answered Yes if it could be had He asked me to which command I would refer Ordination I answered to the second To which he assenting added Cultus naturalis could not nor must be laid aside but Cultus Institutus might rather then Cultus naturalis should God will have mercy not sacrifice in such a case but if I would say Ordination was necessary and might now be had then I must own it by succession and consequently maintain the Church of Rome to be a true Church Some words then passed but time cut us off To this reverend Divine I shall now give a further answer A. The first part of the speech saith no more then we allow onely when Ordination cannot be had I think it is not then properly laid aside 2. Preaching take the word strictly as it is the act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be referred to the first Commandment I conceive but to the second nor do I see our Divines make it a part of Cultus naturalis 3. This notion will cut off popular election as well as Ordination if preaching belongs to Cultus naturalis for that must not be laid aside saith this Divine I hope popular election doth not belong to the first Commandment then election is as unnecessary and if men may preach without Election and Ordination we shall have brave work Preaching here is put for all other Ordinances where then is the essence of a Minister according to his owne notion But the last part of his speech was that where he put the most strength which yet hath been often answered that I might well spare my pains something I answered then and now will add more 1. Divers of our Congregational Divines of which this reverend Divine is one conceive and practise accordingly the Fraternity to have power of Ordination and if so then if election may be had Ordination may be had so shall it not need be laid aside nor shall we need trouble our selves about Rome that dispute rather may be laid aside I desired an Answer of him what he thought of it but he would give me none 2. But suppose his judgement be contrary According to this argument Ordination which we are sure was once an Ordinance of God and I have before proved it must be utterly lost unless with the Seekers we gape for some Apostles again For this argument of Succession may ever be urged and will be as strong to the worlds end as now But why must the Church lose an Ordinance If the argument be so strong against Ordination is it not as strong against any thing else that came through Rome Rome is no true Church ergo nothing that comes through Rome is valid What will be next Mr. Ainsw and other Separatists zealous enough against Rome would not say so of Baptism therefore admitted of no re-baptizing Nor would Mr. Johnson upon the same ground admit of re-ordination one was as valid as the other 3. If God hath so far owned the Ministry of England as to work with it to the conversion of many soundly and others visibly whence there are numbers to elect Ministers I doubt not but he will as well own the Ordination of Ministers by them though they had some accidental corruptions adhering to their own Ordination for the substance true If he hath not owned the Ministry how came our Brethren to gather Churches here some few years since those who elected them to office I believe very few of them if any in some places were converted by Ministers who were not ordained because they must have their Ordination by succession c. I pray where is there a Ministry in the world which God hath more owned 4. Let it be as this Divine saith because Cultus institutus may be laid aside Ordination may be also c. Let us see whither this will go then official preaching pardon the expression for I think all preaching properly so called is official Baptism the Lord's Supper Discipline may be all laid aside upon the same account for these belong to Cultus Institutus so the whole second Commandment lost which way shall we come to these for fear of Rome will he say that the Churches and those without Ordinances it seems may choose their Pastors suppose Wickliff Luther Zuinglius men gifted and raised extraordinarily and election giving the essence to a Ministers call these may now preach baptize c. so the second Commandment is saved else I know not which way he can save it though they be not ordained may not the same Ministers as well Ordain other Ministers Ordination belonging to the same Commandment surely no rational man can oppose it this he must yield to or else the whole instituted worship of God must be lost out of the Church as well as Ordination But if election will help then I hope most of the godly Ministry in England may ordain for they have been elected by the people men qualified and whom God hath blessed in their work more or less though they have more then election in their own esteem that hinders not they have that which you think can authorize them to preach baptize c. then to ordain as well and those who are ordained by such no doubt but may Ordain again so Rome and Succession trouble us not Ames grants that Wickliff Med. The. l. 1. c. 33. s 39. Luther Zuinglius may not unfitly be called extraordinary Ministers joyning some of our famous Martyrs with them and gives three reasons for the assertion the last is Quia ordine tum temporis perturbato collapso necesse habuerunt non nulla tentare praeter ordinem commune So Syn. Pur. The. D.