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
end we continue our prayers but what is this to the repetition of that ordination whose one end is attained and no other end unattained 2. One great end of our prayers is the supply of our wants and if those wants arâ— not supplyed at our first requests our blessed Lord hath taught us to repeat them whose example Matth. 26.39 42 44. as well as our own necessity in order to the end unattained do clearly shew such repetitions to be no vanities Yet undoubtedly that man which shall repeat his requests for the bestowance of that numerical mercy which he obtained upon his first request and possesseth let that repetition be to what end it will he shall be guilty of a vain repetition as well as he that after a formal Popish manner repeats his bead-rows as if he should be heard for his much speaking And forasmuch as the Lords Prayer is summa petendorum therefore to use that Prayer after our Prayers may be thought no vain repetition because when we have prayed fulliest yet there may be something wanting to be supplyed by that comprehensive Prayer yet the use of the Lords Prayer twice or thrice in the same service wherein the latter can supply no defect in the former whether it be not too like a vain repetition let the more spiritual and judicious judge But now in ordination the end being certainly attained how can there be room for a repetition without prophanation Object 7. Is drawn from Christs personal baptisme by John Baptist P. 30. Mr. H. The common and general end of baptisme was for remission of sins yet was Jesus Christ baptized who was not capable of that end but of some others Resol 1. Suppose you should hold that remission of sin was the sole end of Johns baptisme which our sinless Saviour received yet there is a Jesuitical slick-stone to smooth over the business Cornel. A Lap. discovers it thus Christus in se peccata nostra susceperat Mat. 3.13 ergo quasi reus paenitens Joanni se sistit ut abâ— eo baptizatus in se quasi luat abluat peccata nostra 2. But I suppose you will grant that the great end of baptisme was and is to be the solemn admission of members into the visible Church and this end I hope our Lord Jesus was capable of attaining And methinks here I have a fair opportunity to lay open the very sinews of Christs own Argument produced to justifie his desire of baptisme Mat. 3.13 14 15. It behoveth us to fulfil all righteousness Righteousness being a conformity to the Law and the Law requiring this solemn admission of members into the visible Church otherwise Johns baptisme was a lawless thing and Christ being made under the Law did not the Law of God bind him to baptisme now as well as to circumcision in his infancy So then Christs baptisme being the solemn inauguration of a principal member even the head of the Church was therefore neither in vain having no end nor yet monstrous having no usual end St. Hierome gives the same reason thus Triplicem ob causam Salvator à Joanne accepit baptismum Mat. 3.13 1. Vt quia homo natus erat omnem justitiam humilitatem legis impleret 2. Vt baptismate suo Joannis baptisma comprobaret 3. Vt Jordanis aquas sanctificans per descentionem columbae Spiritus sancti in lavacro credentium monstraret adventum Chrysostom or whoever was the Author of the imperfect work on Matthew I suppose aims at the very same reason in these words Mat. 3.15 Justitia siquidem est omnium mandatorum impletio quia ergo inquit Christus cuncta mandata perfecimus hoc autem solummodo est reliquum id quoque ipsum oportet adjungi Cornel. à Lap. gives this as his eighth reason for Christs baptisme Vt Christus qui novam Christianorum rempublicam condere decreverat in quam non nisi baptizati adscriberentur esset in se Princeps baptizatus ut sic per omnia fratribus assimiletur absque peccato Pareus thus brings our sweet Saviour speaking Mat. 3.15 Non enim jam adsum tanquam Dominus sed tanquam servus Domini Ecclesiae novae atque officio inaugurandus So then Christ being baptized for one of the special ends of baptisme what can this make for a reordination to no instituted end Again if Christ being made man lay under a law to be baptized what is this to justifie those that lie under no Law of God to be reordained 3. But if neither of these ends should hold good yet Cornel. à Lap. for fear of failing hath added seven or eight more with the first and third whereof Calvin himself agrees and with the third Pareus following Hilarius 4. Who knows what special command the Lord Jesus had received from the Father to come to Johns baptisme There are great Divines that put such a Question but it is beyond all question that we have no special command for reordination 5. Or why might not Christ being Legislator in his Church affix his baptisme to what end he pleased Which we cannot do by ordination 6. How can we imagine that John would use any such words in the baptisme of Christ Acts 9. begin as should either intimate a belief in the Messiah to come as ordinarily it may be he did or the remission of sin through his blood by repentance as Matth. 3. sith John knew full well who Christ was when he came unto him as appears Matth. 3.13 14. John 1.29 30 31. A learned person saith thus Verisimile quoque est Joannem in ipso baptismo Christum populo demonstrasse cum enim forma baptismi Joannis fuit haec aut similis baptizo te in nomine e uâ— qui venturus est vel Crede in Messiam jamjam venturum ut colligitur Acts 19 4. Videtur quod Christo veniente baptismum recipiente dixerit Hic est Mâ—ssias quem venturum dixi The same Writer affirms in his Comment on Acts 19 4. Hinc colligunt S. Hieron D. Thom. Mr. Sentent Bonavent Palacius alii hanc fuisse formam baptismi Joannis Ego te baptize in eum qui venturus est ut credas hoc est in Jesum Christum quem vobis mox ostendam Christum vero baptizans dixit Ego te baptizo in nomine tuo qui venturus es ait Palacius c. But in this for ought I yet see Bellarmine said true Valde probabile est Joannem nulla omnino forma uti consuevisse l. 1. de Bap. c. 20. So then if John used no form in baptisme this Ordinance might the more easily be accommodated to this end and not to that But this is not our case we have no such liberty in reordination Or if John did use a form it is certain that John was so faithful that we would accommodate the same to the end of Christs receiving baptisme but if unfaithful no doubt Christ would
have commanded him so to have done But alass this is far from our state for if we come for reordination we must use such forms as are altogether accommodated to an end which by us must not at all be intended and altogether unaccommodated to the end chiefly yea only by uâ—prosecuted Object 8. Drawn from a supposed rebaptization P. 85 86 87 88. Mr. H. Let us turn then to Acts 19. and we shall find there certain Disciples at Ephesus who were baptized into Johns baptisme It is like that Apoâ—los living there a diligent Teacher and knowing only the baptisme of John Acts 18.24.25 had baptized them Now we are to know that this baptisme having the same Author Mat. 2.25 Matter John 1.26 Form John 1.32 33 34. Ends Luke 3 3. and consigning the same Gospel Mark 1.3 4. was but one with Christs baptisme Ephes 4.5 Paul therefore catechizing them therein thus instructs them John verily baptized with the baptisme of repentance laying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is sayes he on Christ Jesus It follows When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Now the Question arises here Who are meant by they in the Text the people unto whom John spake or the persons the twelve men to whom Paul speaks Not the first certainly then must these words that is on Christ Jesus be Johns interpretation when it is plain he did not know Christ by his name when he baptized untill Christ came to him John 1.30 31. Who are they then Why the last no doubt for John and his Disciples did baptize into one which should come as it is said here but it was the Apostles and Christs Disciples that baptized expresly in the name of Christ Jesus c. Resol Though I observe a greater variety of opinions about the interpretation of this Text then almost of any other through the whole Bible yet this I observe also that they all agree in this whatever else they differ in to explode a repetition of the same valid baptisme which is the only pillar of our reverend Brothers Argument Yea moreover it is very observable that the very reason of this so great diversity was their detestation of rebaptization I find these ten several interpretations none of which allow a repetition of every way the same baptisme which therefore cannot support the repetition of the same ordination 1. Some think in that Text baptisme is alwayes to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine of baptisme that the sence may run thus those twelve Disciples which were only instructed in the doctrine of John were afterwards instructed in the Doctrine of Christ 2. Others say that baptisme may be taken alwayes Metaphorically in that Texâ— but in the first place for the Doctrine in the second for the gifts of the Spirit bestowed by imposition of hands 3. Others suppose that the baptisme of John is to be taken Metaphorically for the doctrine and the baptisme of Christ properly and so that these twelve were but once baptized and that not by John but Paul 4. O hers take the baptisme of John properly and the baptisme of Paul Metaphorically for the Doctrine and so make but one baptisme and that by John not by Paul 5. Some take the baptisme of John properly and the baptisme of Paul improperly for the gifts of the holy Ghost 6. Others take baptisme properly in both but yet observe that both these expressions relate to Johns baptisme and of this opinion are many of our Moderns 7. Others take baptisme properly in both and acknowledge a rebaptization but it was because those Disciples wanted the true baptisme of John and had only a corrupt administration from some of Johns Disciples wanting the true form being not in the name of the Holy Ghost 8. Others acknowledge a rebaptization but it was through this accidental corruption in the administration of Johns baptism the baptized being not instructed in the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christs baptism with the Spirit 9. Others acknowledge a rebaptization but erroneously administred by some of Pauls Disciples before Paul came to them 10. That Paul did indeed rebaptize whom John had baptized but it was because Christs baptism and Johns were not the same And this way goes the Council at Trent Bellarmine Estius à Lap. and I think I may safely say the Romanists generally and if I should add the Ancients also I should not be much overtasked to prove it and this way Diodat himself seems to go And now I infer If any of these interpretations may be allowed or if the uniform consent and practice of the Catholick Church may be admitted then is our reverend Brother mistaken in his interpretation And oh how strong and subtile was that temptation that trapan'd so learned a person into the justification of one novelty by another reordination by rebaptization And what cause have I and such as I to pour out our souls in that petition Lead us not into temptation But hold I must not sit down as yet there is another job of work behind and that is to saw asunder the Argument for this singular opinion and which is more difficult to resolve amongst all these Divines whose hand-saw to use to use them all at once is needless if not impossible to reject any out of our shop is prodigal if not scandalous and therefore I will only make use of one and let the rest lye by until I have more need of them I shall not now deny Christs baptism and Johns to be the same but shall rather conject ure that Johns baptism was never iterated and therefore I must proceed to answer the Argument for the contrary 1. It is certain that the whole history Acts 19. was written by Luke as the Historian 2. It is certain that the Question ver 2. Have ye received the holy Ghost since ye believed which probably is to be understood of the extraordinary gifts as Calvin Beza Annot. c. because it was to be received since they believed and the ordinary gift before or in believing was from Paul 3. It is certain also that that Answer We have not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost which is probably to be understood sutably to the Question of the extraordinary gifts for John did tell his Disciples of the person of the holy Ghost was the answer of Johns Disciples 4. It is certain also that that Question was Pauls Vnto what then were ye baptized 5. And the Answer following was the Disciples Vnto Johns baptisme 6. It is certain also that the explanatory reply ver 4. was from Paul 7. Neither do I see any evidence necessitating a denyal of the next words When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus to be attributed to the people that heard John saying that he baptized with the baptism of repentance and that they should believe in him that should
come after him But it is laid that those words that is on Christ Jesus could not be John interpretation because John knew not Christs name till afterwards Resol 1. I see no necessity that those words that is on Christ Jesus should be taken for Johns interpretation but for Pauls Paul tels them that John said that they should believe in him that should come after him which Periphrasis of Christ Paul explains by those words That is on Christ Jesus which Paul having done he adds When they i e. Johns hearers heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus that is interpretatively In the name of the Lord Jesus but literally In the name of him that should come after him 2. I see no convincing evidence that John was ignorant of the name of Christ till Christ came to him to be baptized all that is proved by John 1.33 is only that John knew not the person of Christ before though the name Christ he might know before and it seems probable that he did so for it is certain that Herod knew the Messiah which was to come by the name Christ Matth. 2.4 so did the Pharisees John 1. 24 25. yea the people of the Jews generally Luke 22.67 yea the woman of Samaria John 4.25 And can we think that all these knew the Messiah's name and that John did not Again is it not probable that the Jews had sent to John to know whether be were not the Christ which John denyed before Christ came to be baptized John 1.19 20.3.28 And doth not the name Messiah signifie Christ John 1.41 And can we think that John understood it not Again the Angel having told Joseph and Mary that their blessed Babes name should be Jesus Matth. 1.21 Luke 1.31 And the b'essed Virgin being Couzen to Elizabeth Johns Mother and going to visit her and continuing with her three moneths and conferring with her with the greatest mutual joy concerning the holy feed is it probable that all this while the blessed Mary did not tell her Couzen of her Childs name And if Mary told Elizabeth how is it probable that Elizabeth so good a Mother would not tell her son John Moreover it being about thirty years space as is conjectured betwixt the giving the name Jesus unto Christ and the preaching of John is it probable that all this while John did never hear Christs name Jesus Especially being his Kinsman and his singular fore-runner By this I suppose it is probable that John did know the names Christ Jesus and so the Exegesis might be his but if it were not it will not infer that the persons spoken of were not Johns hearers Thus having enervated the Argument for rebaptization give me leave to add a few considerations to evince the contrary 1. If Paul repeated the same baptism how doth he say There is one baptism Eph. 4.8 2. If the same baptism may be repeated how shall we gain-say the Anabaptists 3. If baptism may be repeated then may the thing signified by baptism viz. the new birth or entrance into the Church be repeated but that is impossible 4. Calvin argues thus Quod si priorem baptismum ignorantia vitiat ut sit altero baptismo corrigendus primi omnium rebaptizandi erant Apostoli quitoto post baptismum suum triennio vix modicam syncerioris doctrinae particulam degustaverant c. This Argument will hold good upon a more general accouns as well as upon this special 5. Our English Annotators on this Text argue from the oneness of circumcision to the oneness of baptism and so doth learned Wallaeus de baptismo 6. The end of Pauls action was the giving of the Holy Ghost which was done by imposition of hands but by baptisme where shall we find it Calvin and Beza both hint at this Argument 7. Beza on this Text gives this reason Particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae in graecis omnibus codicibus summo consensu legitur particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessario respondet nullo mode nullo inquam modo patitur ut hujus orationis seriem discerpamus quasi part Paulo posteriori sit ipsi Lucae Scriptori tribuenda ergo haec quoque Pauli verba sunt tum doctrinam à Joanne quidem annuntiatam ab ipsis fide apprehensam ut vere Evangelicam tum etiam baptismum illis collatum ut vere Christianum approbantis quibus postea manus imponens subsecutis iis demum donis quae Spiritus sancti nomine prius significarat de quibus fuerat â—os percontatus This same reason is given by Wallaeus from Calvin as himself acknowledgeth 8. We have the universal Church against rebaptization not only in thesi but for ought I see in hypothesi also Enchir. in fol. c. de Bapt. p. 85. Respondeo baptismum semel legitime collatum iterari non debere tota Ecclesia Christiana hactenus dedefendit saith Wallaeus So that hence I conceive this Text holds forth no rebaptization and therefoee can be no warrant for reordination But what if Johns baptism which was extraordinary as Diod. cals it were seconded with an ordinary by Paul how can that justifie the seconding of an ordinary ordination with an ordinary or what if Johns non-conformal baptism as Diod. implies were followed with a formal baptism in the name of Christ yet how can that justifie the repeating of a Scripturally formal ordination Object p. 48 49. 1. Is drawn from the supposed reordination of the Apostle Mr. H. The Apostles have one authoritative mission Mat. 10.7 And they have another also Mat. 28.19 John 20.21 They are doubly ordained then and both ordinations extraordinary R. The acts of Christ in order to the plenary perpetual Apostleship of these twelve were various 1. Christ cals them to be his Disciples and declares to some of them his purpose to make them Ministers Mat. 4.18 19 20 21 22. Mar. 1.16 17 18 19 20. Luke 5.10 2. These being discipled Christ cals twelve of them to him and points them out to be Apostles but doth not as yet I conceive impower them Mar. 3.10.11 Luke 6.13 3. These twelve being chosen out to be his Apostles he gives them a particular temporary commission to preach and work wonders Mat. 10.1 7. Mar. 6.7 Luke 9.1 4. Christ declares upon occasion what full power he will afterwards give unto them Mat. 16.19 5. He gives them their full Commission at last to preach both to Jews and Gentiles i. e. to all the world and to continue by themselves and successors to the end of the world and perfection of his Church Mat. 28.22 Mar. 16.15 Joh. 20.21 22 23. Ephess 4.8.13 So then here I fix That it seems most probable that the Apostles had not their plenary perpetual commission till after Christs resurrection and that what they had before was both temporary and particular limited only to the Jews And this I shall endeavour to confirm 1. This Commission Mat. 10.7 was to last but for